/PNK/Pajeet Naughty King
Other urls found in this thread:
ipfs.kleros.io
twitter.com
What's the suicide/make it
10k
100k
10k/100k
It's always been 250k/1M
Good morning my basterds do the needful
Ay anvested oll ma mahney and naow it's oll gaone!
Clement is literally about to win case 1170. Unless someone funds the appeal in the next few hours, it’s unironically over for Kleros and it will lose its credibility as a fair arbitration protocol.
honestly it seems like it could be anyones case. theres no nail in the coffin for either side thus far
5c
Fuck you all buy dpox
Yeah I'm thinking we are BACK.
> Pink boy sumer
Too late, the appeal period is over. Clement won.
wait pnk bros... what is this? is it an adventure game intended to guide jurors through 1170?
ipfs.kleros.io
Nigger detected. What you type is untrue There's been somebody typing dishonest things in kleros threads for years now. They must be seething to do such a thing for so long.
Nice effort, but you're late nigger. Reject already won, and justice lost.
Very well done user.
Reject is obviously the correct ruling.
well now, things just got interesting
i concur.
The rules are set in stone at the time the insurance is bought. UF publishing some new policy details after this time does not constitute a change in the “state of the world” any more than if the claimant arbitrarily insisted on new rules; it simply isn’t part of the agreement. The “state of the world” with regard to the rules is always the original rules that were agreed upon, regardless of any party’s attempts to unfairly install new ones.
And all that the text “coming soon” tells us is that the policy details are currently empty, and that UF plans to add some at some point in the future. There is nothing here that tells us that the new policy will retroactively apply to all past claims. The rules of an agreement are assumed to be immutable unless explicitly stated otherwise. Since this is explicitly stated nowhere, the policy details must be considered in their empty state.
Furthermore, your claim that the insurance "has no policy" isn't true because Unslashed posted other material governing the agreement, including the Primary Document and advertising material stating that bridge malfunctions are covered.
both the defendant and the challenger have participated in immoral acts though.
challengers have attempted to control the court, while the defendant has commited a form of theft
Based kike vs the evil kike. Accept will prevail and slay the evil sayers of untruthfullness
Jesusspeed user
Clement wins, better luck next time Eisen(((berg)))