Dispute #770

Court Start Date Dispute Status Current Period Time remaining End Date
Non-Technical 2021-05-25 00:34 Already Ruled Execution Already Ruled 2021-06-03 00:47
Arbitrable Creator
Tokens

Unique Votes in all the rounds

Yes No Refuse to arbitrate Pending
1 0 0 2

Round 0

Yes No Refuse to arbitrate Pending
1 0 0 2
Round 0 Vote Casting Date
Pending
Yes 2021-05-30 05:15
Pending

Evidences

Evidences provided by Vagarish

Evidence #1:

A couple of pixels cannot be considered significant The submitted logo is the same one that is found on the official media pages and website of the project, no editing has been done on it before submission to the list. How does the challenger respond to the fact that the submitted logo comes from an official source? If the submitted logo is good enough for the official media pages of the project it will be good enough for the T2CR. Even with that considered, the so called imperfection would still require a good amount of zooming to be visible, as the challenger himself showed, having to provide a zoomed in version of the logo to make his point in his previous evidence submission. It would be a matter of a few missing pixels, this is the reason why the old policy was changed, it is precisely to avoid challenges like this one. Both these points should be enough for the jurors to reach a consensus on this case, in the hope of avoiding similarly wasteful challenges in the future.

Evidence #2:

The problem with this logo is not insignificant The problem with this logo is not insignificant as it has imperfections that can be detected with the naked eye as the rules requires. The list of tokens has lowered the requirements about the quality of the tokens logo compared with the old rules, but still requires a minimum quality when viewed at a 10x10 cm scale. We cannot allow a badly cut and blurred logo to enter as it would no longer be a respected curated list.

Evidence #3:

With the current T2CR policy this submission should be accepted As said in the previous piece of evidence, with the new and updated T2CR primary document (which replaced the old one five months ago) insignificant issues with the token logo are not a basis for rejection. Notice how since the implementation of the updated T2CR primary document there have been no challenges that focused on minor imperfections, which is something that regularly happened while the old T2CR policy was active. Another point to be made is that the originally submitted logo is the same one that is found on the official website and social media pages of the project. No cutting or any other form of editing has been done on the picture, as the jurors will be able to see. Even if the the old T2CR policy was still active the submission would be still be accepted, as that is the most widely used version of the logo. These are the reasons why the submission can be accepted in its current form.

Evidence #4:

Minor visual issue that needs zooming are not basis for rejection From the listing criteria: "Minor issues with token symbols that are not visible to the naked eye when the symbol is displayed at a size of 10 cm by 10 cm should not be a basis for rejection." This is clearly not a basis for rejection, this rule was specifically added to the policy to prevent those kinds of frivolous challenges about a few pixels but out. This token should be accepted

Evidence #5:

Should not be added to the list Visual evidence added in the attachments. This logo was badly cut and is missing pixels , thus not fully included like the policy requires. Spindle should be reuploaded with a proper symbol. The designer accidently cut off the logo, which is even visible in the T2CR UI without zooming in

Evidence #6:

Proof? Two points to be made here: 1. The challenger is not showing how and where the image is badly cut, is there any evidence to back that claim? 2. As per the T2CR Primary Document: "Minor issues with token symbols that are not visible to the naked eye when the symbol is displayed at a size of 10 cm by 10 cm should not be a basis for rejection." There are no visible issues at said size on the submitted logo, I will be waiting for more evidence from the challenger in case I missed something.

Evidence #7:

Token challenge badly cut image
Check this Case on Kleros Resolve