Challenger is the only one polluting evidence section, and relying only on misdirection while refusing to address the actual case being made and absolute correctness of logo
Hi Challenger, why have you bothered to waste your funds appealing this on no grounds? You are presenting no case, failing to address previously discussed matters and presenting absolutely biased evidence which does not change the matter. My only regret is that this was crowdfunded while I was asleep. You are not correctly following the listing criteria, you are only arbitrarily obsessing over a single word in contradiction to criteria over correctness of logo and the absolute fact that it has been applied for non-transparent logos consistently in the past. The transparent logo rule has clearly been established as intending to prevent bad photo editting by keeping white backgrounds which are not supposed to be in the logo. No one is disputing that the token founder would be fine with having different versions of the logo listed, only that the grey background is inclusive and correct regardless. Even if you were to convince the founder to change to a rainbow or completely blank logo tomorrow, the case would still not be to your favor as it was completely correct at time of listing and has only become incorrect as a result of your manipulation, which is dishonest and fraudulent in every sense of the word, in the same way your non-neutral questioning of founder is (which you can compare to when I asked founder, which was completely neutrally stated). For the millionth time then: 1) Grey background is 100% confirmed part of logo and has been used in every representation of the token put forward by the Trendering. 2) Precedent dictates that the correct logo is submitted, even when not transparent. See huge list above and countless other cases on Kleros. 3) Challenger is manipulating and fraudulent, in changing listings, presenting faulty evidence, misdirecting and misrepresenting (see above). 4) If you have been around since old kleros forum days, you already know that submissions are intended to favor submitter. This has been stated by founders multiple times. 5) The fact that you are trying to win this case by spamming no new information but only distracting jury and failing to address what I have pointed out multiple times is pathetic. Only reasonable thing I see is that you have muliple high-stake wallets and hoping to outweigh the judgement with them. It seems all rational actors can can see that a case gone to this many rounds is worth putting the effort into and are going against you though. 6) Your dismissal of appeal funder and accusation of polluting evidence section is completely abusive given you are the one polluting the evidence section and fail to address his/her perfectly valid concerns. You realize that jury will see that over a dozen evidence discussions this is all you have done, right? Even if you just use alt accounts to do it, it is still completely transparent to anyone with a brain. 7) I once again humbly request you drop this nonsense - I don't care about the money, I am here to contribute, but this type of frivolity is awful for the Kleros ecosystem. You are literally arguing for refuse a completely valid listing, which has been proven correct, confirmed consistent with application on T2CR, actively funded and argued for, with absolutely no evidence except for the fact that there is also another logo which could be used, which has not contradicted the fact that the logo used is 100% correct. If you don't see the absolute lack of merit in this then I don't know how to plead further with you.