policies.v2.testnet.json

[
  {
    "name": "General Court",
    "purpose": "The General court exists as the top court in the hierarchy.\n\nAll appeals made in subcourts will make their way to the General Court.",
    "rules": "- All policies of a court also apply to all of its child subcourts.\n - Jurors should cast their vote with a suitable verification.\n - Jurors should not rule in favor of a side who have engaged in immoral activities (example: rule reject on “revenge porn” images even if they would otherwise fit into the category).\n - “Refuse to arbitrate” should be used for disputes where both sides of the dispute have engaged in activities which are immoral (ex: refuse to rule on an assassination market dispute).\n Immoral activities include: Murder, slavery, rape, violence, theft and perjury.\n - Rulings should be made based on the “state of the world” at the time a dispute was created. (Ex: in a dispute concerning membership of a smart contract on a curated list of “bug free” contracts, jurors should not take into account changes made to the contract after the dispute is raised.) In particular, jurors should base their rulings on court policies and arbitrable application primary documents as they exist at the time of the creation of the dispute, disregarding later modifications.\n - To ensure fairness to jurors who vote at different times within a voting period, jurors should disregard any evidence that is both 1) submitted after the end of the evidence period of the initial round of a dispute AND 2) cannot be reasonably considered to have been readily, publicly available to jurors. Jurors may, however, consider arguments that are submitted later that are based upon existing evidence and/or information which a juror considering the case during the evidence period of the initial round could reasonably have been expected to find themselves. (Ex: a party submits a new photo of a damaged product in an insurance case after the evidence period; this photo should not be considered by jurors. Ex: in a dispute over whether a token satisfies the criteria of a curated list of ERC20 tokens, an argument that reminds jurors of a definitional element of the ERC20 standard is submitted; this is publicly available and can be considered by jurors. Ex: in a dispute over whether a token satisfies a decentralization criterion for an exchange listing, an argument that invokes the distribution of tokens over different Ethereum addresses, as publicly available from sites such as Etherscan, can be considered by jurors.)\n - When considering an appeal of a case that has originated in a lower court, jurors should consider whether 1) evaluating the case requires specialized skills which jurors in the appellate court cannot be expected to have (ex: evaluating the quality of an English to Korean translation when knowledge of Korean is not a requirement of the appellate court) and 2) whether there is evidence that an attack was performed against this case in the lower court (ex: bribes, p+epsilon attacks, 51% attacks, etc). If there is no evidence of an attack AND appellate court jurors cannot be reasonably expected to have the required skills to independently evaluate the case, jurors should vote to uphold the lower court ruling. Evidence related to the presence of attacks on Kleros should be considered by jurors even if it would otherwise violate the above points on evidence admissibility.\n - Jurors should attempt to interpret disputes according to the “spirit of the dispute” unless the arbitrable contract or the policies of the subcourt state otherwise.\n - Jurors should interpret disputes without assuming the existence of gods, spirits or other supernatural beings unless the arbitrable contract or the policies of the subcourt state otherwise.",
    "court": 1,
    "uri": "/ipfs/QmRDYF4su41noCb447vp9iMicCYfT2a2eXg4wPC3DVR58b"
  },
  {
    "name": "Curation",
    "purpose": "In this court, jurors will solve micro-tasks related to curation or content moderation, such as for social media, when requirements for inclusion are relatively straightforward. Higher effort cases, requiring application of more nuanced rules should be placed in other courts but might arrive in this court upon appeal.",
    "rules": "",
    "requiredSkills": "No particular skills are required.",
    "court": 2,
    "uri": "/ipfs/QmPpey7rFbPi25Djcb4ppcGaxR4pojLgpGW2jhUvKxvE5q"
  },
  {
    "name": "English Language",
    "purpose": "In this court, jurors will solve disputes involving quality of written content. This includes grammar and text logic.\n\n**Example**\n\n - Contractor utilizes poor grammar in a sponsored article which doesn’t meet the standards as agreed in the contract.",
    "rules": "- If the disputed content is of significant size (> 10 000 words), parties in the dispute should point out specific parts of the content which are being disputed. Otherwise, jurors should refuse to arbitrate.\n\n- All variations of English (UK, US, Australia, etc) are to be accepted unless a target audience is specifically mentioned in the contract.",
    "requiredSkills": "This court requires an advanced level of English. Jurors who are not native English speakers are advised to stake into this court only if they have C1+ level of English.\n\nThe following tests evaluates a C1 level: Cambridge Advanced (CAE), BEC Higher, BULATS score 75+, CLB/CELPIP 8+, CAEL 70+, IELTS level 7, TOEFL 110+, TOEIC score 880+.",
    "court": 3,
    "uri": "/ipfs/QmcMU8hG1UsgEPVykcZFTefeizBux8QPunZAXXTv7KF5B8"
  },
  {
    "name": "Corte de Disputas de Consumo y Vecindad",
    "purpose": "Esta corte está destinada a resolver una amplia variedad de disputas de complejidad baja a moderada, principalmente de carácter civil y comercial. La misma actúa como tribunal subsidiario para los casos en los que no exista otra corte más especializada o aplicable. Su alcance incluye, pero no se limita a:\n- Conflictos contractuales.\n- Reclamos por daños y perjuicios.\n- Reclamos de defensa del consumidor entre usuarios y empresas.",
    "rules": "",
    "requiredSkills": "- Familiaridad con los [derechos básicos del consumidor](https://buenosaires.gob.ar/principales-derechos-de-los-consumidores).\n- Comprensión de las prácticas comunes en entornos digitales y descentralizados.\n- Capacidad para evaluar de manera crítica y objetiva la autenticidad y relevancia de las pruebas presentadas.",
    "court": 4,
    "uri": "/ipfs/QmdfPa7UZxc7iVquQWiTmmRG3n6RSkwN16aXFeK7XyLvjr"
  },
  {
    "name": "Oracle",
    "purpose": "The Oracle Court is designed to resolve disputes related to reporting real-world events, including but not limited to those originating from prediction markets.",
    "rules": "The following rules are subsidiary and will apply only if no contrary provisions are outlined in the primary document or other rules or sources relevant to resolving the specific question. In such cases, jurors should adhere to these standard guidelines for resolution.\n### Refuse to Arbitrate\n\nThe following questions must resolve as \"Refuse to Arbitrate\":\n\n**1. Invalid answers:** Questions in which none of the answers are valid.\n\n*Refuse to Arbitrate: A Prediction Market question: \"Which movie will win the Best Picture award at the 2024 Oscars Academy Awards?\" with outcomes \"Barbie\" and \"Poor Things\" (the actual winner was \"Oppenheimer\").*\n\n**2. Multiple outcomes:** Questions in which multiple outcomes are valid, unless the question allows multiple correct answers. In a multiple choice question in which only one correct answer is allowed, the fact that multiple outcomes could be valid at the same time does not make the question invalid if only one of those outcomes occurs.\n\n*Valid:​ A Prediction Market multiple choice question that allows more than one answer: \"What team will reach the semi-finals of Copa America 2021?\" with answers \"Brazil,\" \"Argentina,\" \"Uruguay,\" and \"Colombia\" (all of them except Uruguay reached the semi-finals).*\n\n*Refuse to Arbitrate: A Prediction Market multiple choice question in which only one correct answer is allowed: \"Who will be the Time person of the year 1937?\" with answers \"Chiang Kai-shek\" and \"Soong Mei-ling\" (they got the prize jointly).*\n\n**3. Prohibited questions:** Questions that directly incentivize immoral violent actions (such as murder, rape or unjust imprisonment) which could likely be performed by any participant.\n\n*Refuse to Arbitrate: A Prediction Market question: Will Donald Trump be alive on 01/12/2024? (Anyone could bet on \"No\" and kill him for a guaranteed profit. Anyone could bet on \"Yes\" to effectively put a bounty on his head).*\n\n*Refuse to Arbitrate: A Prediction Market question: Will Hera be a victim of swatting in 2024? (Anyone could falsely call the emergency services on him in order to win the bet)*\n\nThis must not prevent questions:\n\n* Whose topics are violent events not caused by human beings.\n\n*Valid:​ A Prediction Market question: How many people will die from COVID19 in 2024? (Viruses don't use prediction markets).*\n\n* Whose main source of uncertainty is not related to a potential violent action.\n\n*Valid:​ A Prediction Market question: Will Trump win the 2020 US presidential election? (The main source of uncertainty is the vote of US citizens, not a potential murder of a presidential candidate).*\n\n* Which could give an incentive only to specific participants to commit an immoral violent action, but are in practice unlikely.\n\n*Valid:​ A Prediction Market question: Will the US be engaged in a military conflict with a UN member state in 2024? (It's unlikely for the US to declare war in order to win a bet on this market).*\n\n*Valid:​ Will Derek Chauvin go to jail for the murder of George Flyod? (It's unlikely that the jurors would collude to make a wrong verdict in order to win this market).*\n\n### Default assumptions\n\nUnless stated otherwise, the following assumptions must be made:\n\n**4. Entities:** Entities are assumed to reference the most obvious entity with that name, taking the context of the question into account.\n\n*Example: A Prediction Market question: \"Will Michael Jordan receive the 2021 Turing award?\" refers to the computer scientist Michael I. Jordan whereas \"How many points will Michael Jordan score in the FIBA Americas Championship?\" refers to Michael J. Jordan, the basketball player.*\n\n**5. Units:** In case units are omitted, they are assumed to be the units which are the most often used in this particular situation.\n\n*Example: A Prediction Market question: \"Will a NFT be sold for more than one million in 2021?\" will be interpreted as \"Will a NFT be sold for more than 1,000,000 USD in 2021?\".*\n\n**6. Rounding rule:** If no specific rounding method is given, values are to be rounded to the nearest proposed value, unit or range. Unless otherwise stated, roundings are done middle toward 0. If no proposed rule, value, or unit is provided, the value shall default to the most commonly used standard in the specific context.\n\n*Example: In a Prediction Market question with outcomes -100, 0 and 100. 77->100, 50->0, -50 -> 0.*\n\n*Example: In a Prediction Market question with outcomes A: 0-2, B: 3-5 and C: 6+. 1->A, 8->C, 5.5->B.*\n\n*Example: In the Prediction Market question \"What percentage of the popular vote will Joe Biden receive in the 2020 United States Presidential Election?\". If Biden received 51.305859559% of the vote, the correct answer is 51% (rounding to the nearest whole percent).*\n\n*Example: In the Prediction Market question \"What percentage of the popular vote will Joe Biden receive in the 2020 United States Presidential Election? (2 decimals)\". If Biden received 51.305859559% of the vote, the correct answer is 51.31%.*\n\n### Resolving unclear questions\n\nIn general, if the question does not break a rule of the Refuse to Arbitrate section, reasonable efforts should be made to determine its outcome even if the question is not 100% technically perfect, and the following rules must be applied:\n\n**7. Objective interpretation:** Questions must be interpreted according to their context, as any average reasonable person would.\n\n*Example: \"Will there be more than ten thousand deaths caused by Coronavirus in the United States in 2024?\" should be interpreted as referring to COVID-19, and not other types of Coronavirus.*\n\n**8. Sources of truth:** If the question doesn't mention a specific source, the most credible outcome must be reported. In order to determine the credibility of an outcome, the quantity of sources and their credibility are to be taken into account. Credibility of sources and of outcomes must be assessed according to facts, not unproven beliefs.\n\n*Example: \"Will extraterrestrial lifeforms visit planet earth?\" will resolve to No, unless a number of credible sources announce it, despite some people reporting having experienced such encounters.*\n\n*Example: \"How many people will die of COVID-19 in 2024?\" should be answered according to numbers reported by renowned health organisations and not according to some public figures claiming COVID-19 to be a hoax.*\n\n**9. Equal interpretations:** If a question can have different interpretations, but all those interpretations lead to the same outcome, this outcome must be reported. If no interpretation is clearly more reasonable than the others, jurors must vote Refuse to Arbitrate.\n\n*Example: A Prediction Market question: \"Which party will win the October 2012 Czeck elections?\" Should be reported as \"Czech Social Democratic Party\". Even if there were both senatorial and regional elections at the same date and the election the question refers to is ambiguous, the \"Czech Social Democratic Party\" won both of them.*\n\n*Example: In a Prediction Market question: \"Which party will win the October 2015 Czech elections?\" jurors should vote Refuse to Arbitrate because \"Christian and Democratic Union – Czechoslovak People's Party\" won the senatorial election but \"ANO 2011\" won the regional ones.*\n\n**10. Precision in numerical values:** When the answer to a question is a numerical value and the exact value is uncertain, the first reported value that is reasonable based on common approximations must be accepted.\n\n*Example: If in a Prediction Market question, \"What will be the global potato production in tons for the year 2024?\", the first answer is 374,000,000, this answer should be accepted if the estimates provided range between 374 million and 375 million tons.*",
    "requiredSkills": "Jurors in the Oracle Court should possess:\n- **Analytical Skills**: Ability to objectively assess a wide range of real-world event data, statistics, and sources, with precision and critical thinking.\n- **Understanding of Prediction Markets**: Familiarity with how prediction markets function.",
    "court": 5,
    "uri": "/ipfs/QmT8DAjUbzzEo2e9oPpJSDH2QzswfNeWAsxoDH3zsGrtkH"
  }
]