Wrong challenge type I insist: Duplicate and Incorrect Submission are mutually exclusive. "This kind of challenge does not claim that the submitter is trying an attack". As ruled in 829, 830, 831, 834 (and probably in 861, 864) profiles controlled by Cryptoevangelist are an attack and should be treated as duplicates.

Challenge types matter This challenge type does not comply with the policy and makes POH vulnerable. Therefore it should be rejected so that this submission gets later challenged as a "Duplicate". See doc attached.

The jurors must vote NOT to accept this submission The submitter is not the owner of the Ethereum address and perhaps he is recently dead because he has not uploaded a proof of life in this process, as required by the registration policy. ----- Please, see attached evidence

The submitter did not yield proof of life It could not do it because it is dead or does not have access to the Ethereum address. As the registration policy says: "Submitters not able to give recent proof of life are to be considered deceased". Therefore the request to register should not be accepted.

Reject the "Incorrect Submission" challenge The voucher should be removed, because this submission belongs to a person who is already registered with other addresses. I agree: this is a duplicate, not an incorrect submission.

This is a duplicate, not an incorrect submission For the reasons mentioned in the file attached, I'm contributing to the loser's side of the appeal and I invite the entire POH community to support this action.

The submitter didn´t provide proof of life Submitter did not provide proof of life after the challenge. Submission non-compliant with the registration policy. Registration policy: "Submitters not able to give recent proof of life are to be considered deceased". This is why the request to register should not be accepted.

Proof of Willingness 2 Work 4 Change from Inside I am trying... Please look past this flawed system for your answers. My hands are tied behind my back here.

Still no second video as requested 4 days ago This is a puppet profile of Agent99 as shown by the common modus operandi, the vouch graph (Agent99 -> FarEy -> PierreDeCaz -> MexMax -> El Gato) and Agent99's own admissions. Absence of requested 2nd video indicates Agent99 couldn't find this puppet again. Details in case 833 and attachment.

Direct interaction request There seems to be a lot of cases like this one. I think to try to find out what is happening, it would be good for the individuals to provide jurors a time they are available on jitsi (https://meet.jit.si/POHDispute) to interact directly.

Submitter must provide new video evidence See attachment.

Challenge Justification ownership of the ETH address is the implicit rule in element#4 and this guy's submission go against it as well as the these other similar pic/videos taken on the streets https://app.proofofhumanity.id/profile/0x2727c97172b496b60f6e97865b49a0ca34a3f477 https://app.proofofhumanity.id/profile/0xc082fd778b21edd415641138981f0df329f5109f https://app.proofofhumanity.id/profile/0x7b62f8495cf88b4716da3f420cc75de0404aa9a7 https://proof-of-humanity.netlify.app/profile/0x5a4c3277da56c1920d176bc3a22c8e04e64cc1f7

Registration