Dispute #554

Court Start Date Dispute Status Current Period Time remaining End Date
Humanity Court 2021-03-19 05:54 Already Ruled Execution Already Ruled 2021-04-12 22:06
Arbitrable Creator
Proof of Humanity

Unique Votes in all the rounds

Yes No Refuse to arbitrate Pending
7 6 0 0

Round 0

Yes No Refuse to arbitrate Pending
2 1 0 0
Round 0 Vote Casting Date
Yes 2021-03-30 19:45
No 2021-03-26 03:14
Yes 2021-03-26 09:54

Round 1

Yes No Refuse to arbitrate Pending
6 1 0 0
Round 1 Vote Casting Date
No 2021-04-01 07:43
Yes 2021-04-01 07:45
Yes 2021-04-01 00:52
Yes 2021-04-01 05:56
Yes 2021-04-01 05:56
Yes 2021-04-02 13:44
Yes 2021-04-02 04:43

Round 2

Yes No Refuse to arbitrate Pending
2 13 0 0
Round 2 Vote Casting Date
No 2021-04-09 11:23
No 2021-04-09 11:23
No 2021-04-07 23:10
No 2021-04-05 16:25
Yes 2021-04-05 18:20
No 2021-04-09 12:54
No 2021-04-09 12:54
No 2021-04-08 14:13
No 2021-04-08 14:13
No 2021-04-05 20:29
No 2021-04-09 00:48
No 2021-04-05 16:42
No 2021-04-05 16:42
No 2021-04-05 16:42
Yes 2021-04-06 22:51


Evidences provided by Vagarish

Evidence #1:

definition of front-facing is most important per https://dictionary.reverso.net/english-definition/front+facing (no1 result on google) the definition of 'front facing' is "that part or side that is forward, prominent, or most often seen or used". in the photo, owocki's front of his face is facing the front. thus the photo should be accepted.

Evidence #2:

summary of problems with 60 minute video. 1. experiment was not double blind. 2. interviewer does not count answers they do not like (eg at 48 minutes answer not counted). 3. definition of 'front facing' not seeded with interviewees in video. 4. no proof that video was not doctored submitted or interviewees were not coached or pre-seeded.

Evidence #3:

Rebuttal to #11 0x00de...5fc3 in Favor of "No" Addressing your claim of bias, the whole reason for the video being uploaded was for transparency of how the data was collected. You're welcome to perform your own independent count, but you'll find that your picture is still not considered as a "face facing the camera"...(continued in attachment)

Evidence #4:

Bias was displayed at 48 minutes into the video. To 0xE86e...3156 : The bias was displayed at 48min, where interviewer excluded an answer from the data (she had answered "all of them", but it was conveniently "not recorded" by the interviewer) Given this bias, we need to have proof the video was not edited to only include "Yes" answers.

Evidence #5:

Justification for my No vote My justification seems to have not been processed properly so I'm attaching it here.

Evidence #6:

photo is front facing, identifies owocki an unbiased citizen ran this analysis showing that the photo is front facing enough to identify owocki https://twitter.com/clublandgrace/status/1378682311433187333

Evidence #7:

Biased data by the NO votes The video recently created by the NO votes was biased (not double blind, creators of video disregarded evidence they didnt agree with)

Evidence #8:

Proof That Voting NO Is the Only Unbiased Option Attached in this evidence section is a PDF containing a brief of the case, explanation of the justifications behind a "no" vote, and a research study on the common English meaning of guideline #2. Video proof of the study in the PDF being conducted: https://youtu.be/A65BVdJJPMk IFPS link in PDF

Evidence #9:

Rebuttals to Previous 'Yes' Vote Justifications See attached pdf. Please note that the third appeal from now will bring this case into general court and there is support for appealing at least up to that point. (continued: https://gateway.pinata.cloud/ipfs/Qme6dUU5cocUtFtfPbeza6z4PH9ojdHZHZASDZS7Jw81Kb (300char limit))

Evidence #10:

Reject This Submission for the Future of PoH (see attachment for argument) Will we allow the submitter and developers to use their social capital to bend the rules, or will we uphold the standards of PoH to ensure the safety and security of the system against future attacks? https://twitter.com/santisiri/status/1377264006713516034

Evidence #11:

Evidence and Arguments for Guideline #2 Violation Jurors, Please see attached picture for the arguments on why this is a clear violation of Guideline #2 We are not arguing about the existence of this person but rather if the submission is in violation of submission Guideline #2, which it clearly is. Please consider the evidence and vote "no"

Evidence #12:

The submission follows the rules Definition of front-facing: "that part or side that is forward, prominent, or most often seen or used" I am front-facing the camera and my facial features are visible in the pic. The rules don’t specify a specific angle or say I must face the camera straight on. I am following the rules

Evidence #13:

The subject in the image is not facing the camera This submission violates point 2 of the guidelines: "The picture should include the face of the submitter facing the camera and [...]" The subject in the picture is not facing the camera.

Evidence #14:

Check this Case on Kleros Resolve