►
Description
Link to the vCA Resolution Process Document referenced in the video: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1uX9T-oGiiIP7e2cEqqW8VqLguaVcpqAKW_QvMgFNUPo/edit#heading=h.3ow8hkg07zxc
Additional documents reverenced are linked in this document under Nav's Petition information on the last two pages.
A
All
right
good
day,
everyone,
this
is
a
bca
resolution
process,
hearing
of
a
petition
and
for
the
sake
of
the
recording
I
will
go
over
the
resolution
process
document.
So
we
can
all
know
what
we're
here
to
expect
and
then
we'll
take
it
from
there.
So
I'll
share.
My
screen
today
is
saturday
may
7th
and
it
is
11
utc.
A
All
right
here
we
go
okay,
so
the
resolution
process,
we
have
a
link
to
it
in
the
vca
guide.
Here
I
will
put
this
document
in
the
description
of
the
video
once
it's
posted,
so
that
others
can
look
at
it
and
ultimately
I'll
just
give
you
some
context.
So
in
fund
8,
we
had
a
review
algorithm
put
into
place.
That
was
intended
to
deter
abuse
or
misuse
of
the
vca
process.
A
Right,
okay,
so
there's
the
link
to
this.
This
was
put
in
place
to
deter
abuse
or
misuse
of
the
vca
process,
random
flaggers
middle
of
the
road
approach.
It
was
not
put
in
place
to
judge
strict
pcas
who
are
entitled
to
their
opinion
and
which
is
naturally
solved
in
an
honest
consensus.
So
we
put
this
in
place
to
stop
any
misuse
of
the
system
and
related
to
that.
A
The
resolution
process
which
we
are
currently
experiencing
was
put
in
place
in
fund
8,
to
allow
bcas
to
challenge
the
review,
algorithm
results
and
raise
concerns
about
issues
with
other
bcas.
Ideally,
each
of
these
petitions
will
resolve
issues
and
the
hearing
of
these
cases
will
guide
the
vca
process,
improvements
for
the
future
funds.
So
right
now
we
are
on
this.
This
is
the
fifth
of
six
petitions
in
this
fund,
and
this
is
navid
shinji
and
here
are
the
links
to
where
we're
at
right
now.
A
So
the
session
process
will
be
as
follows:
we
will
provide
this
document,
which
was
just
done,
and
then
the
petitioner
who,
in
this
case
is
nabeed,
will
be
invited
to
present
his
case
with
any
supporting
data.
Then
we'll
have
an
invitation
to
comment
from
the
petition
supporters
as
to
why
they
are
supported.
A
Then
we'll
have
a
call
for
a
vote.
The
vote
will
be
tallied
efficiently,
officially,
so
a
little
different
from
what
this
says
here.
We're
actually
going
to
do
the
yes
and
no,
which
instead
of
the
hands
in
zoom,
which
can
be
done
in
the
same
reaction
space.
So
I'll
go
over
that
in
a
minute,
just
to
make
sure
we're
all
on
the
same
page.
But
I
will
have
a
call
for
vote
and
then
I
will
screen
grab
and
screenshot
that
scott.
A
A
It
is
a
goal
for
the
future
to
have
both
the
rewards
and
the
vca
assessment
work
affected
by
the
resolution
process
and
then
last
thing
proactively
improving
the
process.
These
are,
there
are
suggestions.
There
are
suggested
improvements
to
the
ca
and
vca
process
outlines
on
a
dwork
community
suggestions
board.
This
group
is
invited
to
engage
in
changing
the
process
by
fund
eight
by
either
voting
on
these
issues
joining
one
of
the
working
groups
for
solving
these
issues
or
joining
the
vca
discussion
channel
on
the
caavca
discord
to
get
involved.
A
A
Okay,
so
we've
had
seven
petitions
filed,
as
I
mentioned,
and
this
one
today
is
the
one
that
will
be
heard,
and
so
in
response
to
that,
I
will
post
navid's
petition
here
as
well
as
the
response
to
it
in
it's
down
here
in
the
chat,
and
I
will
turn
it
over
to
unity
that
will
give
you
screen
share
here
so
that
you
can
do
that,
and
then
I
will
turn
it
over
to
you
to
present
your
details.
As
I
link
these
documents.
C
A
Yeah,
so
what
we
decided
as
to
on
wednesday's
call
is
that
for
this
round,
although
it
will
probably
be
strict
to
vcas
in
the
future
for
this
round,
those
who
are
in
attendance
are
eligible
to
vote
and
then
yeah,
I
think
in
the
video
as
the
petitioner.
What
the
the
finding
also
was
that
the
petitioner
was
not
able
to
vote.
That
was
the
other
thing,
so
does
that
make
sense
in
this
case
too,
in
those
cases
it
was
a
petition
on
behalf
of
themselves,
whereas
you're
raising
a
case
for
someone
else.
C
E
E
B
E
E
A
A
Hand
for
I
don't
get
raised
hands
so
I'll
ask
for.
When
we
come
to
vote,
I
will
ask
for
raised
hands
in
the
yes
I'll,
tally,
those
and
then
I'll
ask
for
raised
hands
in
the
know,
and
I
will
tell
you
those
that
won't
be
quite
as
striking
for
them
for
their
recording,
so
it
would
be,
or
for
the
screenshots,
so
it'll
be
extra
important.
It's
got
that
you
tally
those,
so
we'll
take
some
good
time
for
it.
A
C
C
C
So
since
fund
six
had
a
pretty
keen
interest
in
analyzing
cas
and
bcas
a
bit
of
a
data
nerd-
and
this
is
what
this
is,
what
I
do.
Hopefully
it's
adding
a
little
bit
of
value
specifically
for
vcas
we've
seen
quite
a
few
instances
of
what
our
call
for
now
poor
work,
some
vcas
have
been
called
out
and
we've
had
a
variety
of
different
outcomes.
So
just
some
examples
to
go
through
so
in
fun,
sick
with
a
chap
called
near.
He
basically
took
a
ca.
C
C
So
he
took
chose
a
ca,
looked
a
couple
of
assessments
and
then
blanket
gave
them
excellence
or
good
based
on
just
looking
at
those
one
or
two,
and
that
was
repeated
across
his
across
his
across
his
reviews.
He
was
challenged
by
a
couple
of
eca's
myself
and
alex
he
refused
to
engage.
He
basically
told
us
to
get
lost.
We
had
no
authority
ended
up
escalating
to
iog.
C
He
I
don't
know
exactly
what
the
outcome
was,
but
I
believe
he
gave
up
his
rewards
and
he
hasn't
returned
as
a
vca,
which
is
not
a
good
thing.
The
second
bit
is
not
a
good
thing.
He's
not
returned
as
a
vca
one,
seven,
yet
that
the
the
one
of
many
examples
but
glory
was
the
one
who
stood
out.
I
mean
he
was
flagged
on.
This
deviation
script
that
was
run
by
the
community,
but
then,
when
you
look
at
close
inspection,
5
000
plus
of
his
9
000
reviews
are
marked
as
excellent.
C
C
They
tried
to
do
something
about
it,
but
because
of
the
the
the
hassle
we
had
in
fund
six
there's
no
way
we're
gonna
go
chasing
glory
around
the
globe
on
twitter
or
or
or
linkedin
or
facebook
or
anywhere
else.
We
could
find
it.
So
we
just
didn't,
bother
and
glory
received
his
five
or
six
thousand
dollars
whatever
he
got.
He
hasn't
returned
as
a
vca
fun
day.
We
know
the
john
amola
case,
9000
plus
good
reviews
discarded.
C
He
I
think,
put
a
petition
in
but
didn't
get
enough
support,
so
I
believe
his
he
won't
get
any
vca
rewards,
but
I
I
don't.
I
don't
really
know.
I
presume
that's.
What's
going
to
happen,
so
those
are
just
just
the
standout
examples:
there'd
be
many
many
others
yeah
10
10
to
15
in
each
fund
who
have
flown
under
the
radar.
It
takes
a
lot.
C
It
takes
a
lot
of
effort
and
a
lot
of
a
lot
of
energy,
because
we
don't
really
have
the
tools
we
have
a
bunch
of
spreadsheets
and
then
then
people's
goodwill
to
to
to
do
analysis
and
work
out,
try
and
work
out.
What's
what
but
there's
been
lots
of
lots
of
others
who've
flown
under
the
radar,
but
I
think
the
the
point,
especially
for
the
recording
of
other
people.
Looking
the
the
the
the
the
tools
are
being
built,
the
net
is
tightening,
so
we
are
getting.
C
We
are
getting
to
that
better,
better
level
of
understanding
of
how
people
are
behaving
and
and
and
how
we
can
analyze
data
in
a
lot
more
in
a
lot
more
detail,
a
lot
more
quickly
in
future
funds
for
this
particular
petition.
My
hope
is
that,
whatever
the
outcome
of
today's
called
and
I'm
not
precious
about
what,
what
what
happens,
what
what
the
which
way
the
vote
goes,
the
main
reason,
the
main
reason
I'm
here
is
to
make
sure
the
process
improves
and
as
individuals
we
improve.
C
So
it's
pretty
easy
to
put
to
pull
out
to
pull
out
the
results
and
pull
out
your
specific
details.
I'm
more
than
happy
people
want
to
reach
out
on
telegram
or
discord
one
to
one
and
and
just
just
trying
to
understand
whether
whether
whether
they
had
outliers,
where
where
they
might
have
improvements,
now
I
don't
know
I'm
not
the
authority
on
this
lots
of
people
with
much
bigger
brains
than
me,
but
I
have
the
data.
Okay,
we
have.
We
have
the
information
you
guys
with
the
big
brains
will
work
out
what
that
means.
C
I
was
getting
bored,
so
I
got
a
couple
of
quotes
from
mike
from
from
the
mahatma
and
that
will
be
oh,
no,
no
we'll
go
on,
but
but
it's
very
very,
very
very
relevant
to
everything
for
everything
we
do
right.
You
know
when
you
we
we
will.
We
all
make.
We
all
make
mistakes.
We
all
think
we
can
we'll
think
we're
the
best
thing
since
sliced
bread,
but
sometimes
sometimes
with
that
learning
cycle
it
becomes
becomes
difficult,
especially
when
you're
challenged.
C
So
now,
just
coming
down
to
the
specifics
for
g
and
there's
essentially
three
three
three
areas
I
want
to
cover
and
I'll
go
through
those
in
detail,
so
just
a
high
level
summary
so
we're
talking
about
between
the
two
vcas
15
of
the
total
reviews,
so
the
90
000
reviews
we
had
15
are
covered
by
these
two
vcs
and
therefore
15
of
the
of
the
overall
budget.
You
can
see
the
details
here
near
on
12
000
reviews
near
on
twenty
four
thousand
dollars
we're
talking
about.
C
Okay
and-
and,
as
I
said,
it's
not
about
the
it's
not
about
the
money,
it's
about
how
we,
how
we
improve
the
process
and
improve
ourselves
going
forward
and
the
key
the
key
challenge
here.
The
reason
for
petition
is
these
two
vca
stood
out
as
potentially
collaborating
with
each
other.
Therefore,
in
my
view,
gaming,
the
system,
the
guy-
clearly
says:
do
your
reviews
independently
read
the
read
the
proposal?
Read
the
assessment
market
appropriately.
C
Don't
don't
don't
share,
don't
work
with
don't
work
with
others.
Okay
at
that
detailed
level,
and
what
we
see
as
we
as
we
go
through
detail
are
too
many
coincidences,
in
my
view,
so
the
first
thing,
the
first
thing
we
noticed
just
as
a
as
a
very
high
level
there's
a
high
volume
of
review,
so
out
of
the
9000
that
was
possible
did
six
thousand
odd
and
even
a
similar
number.
C
C
So
how
is
it
possible
to
do
6000
5000
and
it's
not
necessarily
part
of
this
part
of
this
petition
specifically,
but
it
helped
to
improve
and
and
get
that
get
that
question
get
that
question
on
table
that
we
get
every
single
fund.
How
is
somebody
managed
to
do
everything?
You
know
six
thousand,
seven
thousand
eight
thousand
reviews
in
a
week
or
ten
or
even
days
or
whatever
we
have
okay,
so
that
was
just
the
high
levels
now
down
to
three
specifics.
C
Where
we
were
202
of
those
is
where
they
did
the
same
number:
okay.
So
two
and
seven,
two
seven
good
example:
there's
a
seven
two,
seven
251
each
and
this
ca
did
251
fair
enough
and
they
decided
they're
gonna
they're
gonna
mark
every
single.
Every
single
assessment
of
this
particular
ca
and
that's
fair
enough,
similar
with
six
four
eight,
a
six
four
eight
hundred
and
ten,
and
they
went
for
110
each,
which
is
fair
enough.
C
C
He
did
he
or
she
did
199
assessments
and
they,
coincidentally,
decided
to
do
exactly
181
each
1193
164,
coincidentally
100
exactly
157
each
and
it
goes
on
and
on
and
on.
Okay.
So,
coincidentally,
for
50
76
of
the
cas
that
they
that
they
assessed,
even
though
the
ca
they
didn't
go
for
all
of
them,
they
decided
to
target
specific
specific
assessments
or
a
specific
volume
of
assessments
of
the
cohort.
C
Okay,
what
we
also
see
as
we
go
through
as
we
go
through
the
detail.
The
level
of
deviation
from
the
cohort
for
both
both
the
vcas
is
is
also
very
similar,
so
they
ended
up
with
not
only
with
the
same
the
same
roughly
the
same
volumes,
the
same
as
the
same
assessors,
the
same
coincidences
across
the
same
number
of
reviews,
but
also
the
results
that
the
results
that
we're
getting
out
of
it
are
very
similar.
C
C
So
that's.
The
second
part
third
part
is
around
not
reading
assessments
properly.
So
what
we?
What
we
I'm
trying
to
show
here
is
is
a
pattern
of
behavior,
so
you'll
remember
some
of
you'll
remember
from
fund
seven,
we
saw
the
the
ca
528,
the
the
internet,
repair
guy,
I'm
just
going
to
flip
back
to
this
document
that
I
produce
out
of
one
seven.
So
this
this
was
our
internet
repair
guy.
He
did
19.
C
I
was
here
99
assessments
and
saying
things
like
which
I'm
not
going
to
read
through,
but
you
can,
if
anybody
can
make
sense
of
any
of
these
you're.
More
than
welcome
to
call
me
out
and
tell
me,
I
don't
know
what
I'm
talking
about
okay,
so
the
proposal
clearly
dubs
wherein
do
facing
concoct
arrogation.
C
You're
marking
these
these
topics
are
excellent
good,
and
so
we
see
lots
of
names
here
and
again.
Nobody
was
called
out
in
in
in
fund
seven
because
we
didn't
have
a
process,
but
lots
of
people
should
have
been
and
there
would
have
been,
I
mean,
and
you
could
you
couldn't,
you
could
admit,
there's
a
people
make
mistakes
we've
seen
in
in
the
petition
process
in
fund
eight
people
have
admitted
to
I
made
a
mistake:
you
can
make
a
mistake
on
one
two.
C
You
know
10
10
reviews
but
90
odd.
When
you
look
at
this
sort
of
volume,
it's
90
odd
and
the
reason
I'm
showing
this
is
the
part
of
the
discord
discussion
over
the
last
few
days
was
around
length.
So
I
think
I
can't
remember
if
it
was
juvenile
jesus
said
we
we
we
did
it,
we
did.
We
knew
to
the
vca
processing
one
seven
and
we
did
it
based
on
length.
C
So
then
you
start
to
look
for
a
change
of
behavior
in
one
date
and
what
we
have
here
is
per
vca,
how
they
graded
how
they're
graded,
based
based
on
based
on
length.
So
let
me
just
show
you
so,
and
this
is
the
column
a
is
the
is
the
vca,
with
the
number
of
characters
in
in
across
all
across
all
three
criteria
and
so
150
to
500
characters
and
then
and
then
going
up
up
to
6
000
plus
characters.
B
C
I
don't
know
if
it
was
you
or
not.
If
other
others
could
go
on,
you,
then
we'll
work
out
whether
it's
me
or
not
great.
Thank
you.
I'll.
Just
make
this
a
bit
bigger,
so
per
vca
oops.
We
have
the
we.
We
have
the
length
in
terms
of
number
of
characters
across
all
three
criteria
and
then
how
they
mark
that,
and
we
see
that
similar
trend
to
what
was
explained
in
in
in
in
the
discord
channel.
C
So
where
we've
got,
we've
got
low,
a
a
lower
number
of
characters
filtered
out
and
then
it
slowly
moves
to
slowly
moves
to
good
and
then,
when
you
get
on
to
so
bigger,
bigger,
bigger,
biggest
beautiful
right.
So
when
you
get
when
you
get
to
the
height
the
high
volumes
and
the
the
largest
the
larger
assessments,
we
go
good
and
similar
for
similar
fuji,
and
you
see
that
you
should
you
see
the
trend
which,
in
all
honesty
for
a
number
of
different
vcas
you'll,
find
a
similar
trend.
C
When
I
start
to
look
at
some
of
the
more
experienced
people
you
you
you,
people
have
tended
to
learn
that
don't
not
just
to
look
at
the
length
of
the
assessment.
That's
not
a
good
way
to
be.
That's
not
a
good
way
to
be
going.
You
need
to
be
able
to
read
the
assessment,
so
this
comes
down
to
are
we
reading
this?
Are
we
reading
the
assessments?
C
And
I
haven't
shown
everybody,
but
you
you,
you
don't
see
you've
not
seen.
That's
that
sort
of
trend
with
a
lot
of
the
more
experience,
a
lot
of
the
more
experienced
people,
and
I
could
point
out
several
other
people,
some
of
them
who
were
named
on
the
other
sheet,
who
were
who?
Who
would
who
would
follow
that
that
similar
trend
that
we
saw
in
fund
seven
where,
where
it
just
goes
and-
and
this
is
the
this-
is
the
overall
trend.
C
So
we
take
all
the
vcas
as
a
as
a
cohort
and
we
tend
to
filter
out
and
then
we
go
with
the
middle
ground
and
then,
when
you
get
to
the
height,
which
is
say
the
same,
the
same
trend
that
we
saw
in
in
fun
in
fund
seven.
So
in
this
case,
jesus
and
achievement
are
not
going
against
the
against
the
against
the
trend.
But
when
you
start
to
dig
into
the
into
the
detail,
it's
it
there's
probably
a
wider
issue
around
around
how
people
are
assessing
and
are
we
still
are.
C
C
Okay,
so
I
think
that's
that's
everything
I
wanted
to
go
through
so
those
and
for
me,
just
in
summary,
similar
reviews,
direct
matching
feedback
and
not
necessarily
reading
assessments
properly
is,
is
the
three
areas
that
showing
too
many
coincidences
too
much
similarity
of
work
and
more
than
likely,
in
my
view,
sharing
your
files
and
sharing
sharing
of
work.
Whether
one
person
did
the
work
and
handed
it
off
to
somebody
else
or
the
other
way
around
and
made
a
few
made
a
few
adjustments.
C
A
B
C
F
B
A
Yeah
for
exact
details,
you
posted
it
in
the
beat
on
april
29th,
which
was
like
the
third
day
of
the
five
day
window,
maybe
the
fourth
and
since
then
the
conversation
has
been
underway
and
then
the
summary
document
that
you
just
presented
with
a
compilation
of
that
were
already
in
that
document.
Yes,.
G
I've
been
a
vca
since
the
beginning,
and
I
don't
know
when
was
the
beginning.
It
wasn't
fun
to
three
or
four
one,
four,
no
we
just
mentioned,
but
I
just
keep
mixing
the
funds
up.
I
think
naveed's
analysis
is
first
of
all.
Very
I
don't
know,
I
don't
know
what
we
would
do
with
that
without
it
not
just
in
this
case,
but
in
general,
because
it
seems
like
we're
like
geese
and
in
a
fog.
G
We
we
doubt
that
without
the
data
we
don't
really
know,
we
don't
have
a
bird's-eye
view
of
the
entire
process,
so
I
would
like,
first
of
all,
to
commend
navid
on
doing
this.
I
appreciate
the
time
he
set
aside,
not
just
to
make
the
excel
comparison,
but
to
analyze
it,
which,
which
also
requires
even
more
time
and
thoughtfulness,
not
to
make
a
mistake
so,
and
I
would
before
I
go
into
the
petition
I
would.
I
would
ask
him
just
to
continue
doing
that,
if
possible.
G
Of
course
this
attracts
attention
and
I
think
it's
it's
good
to
to
focus
attention
on
this
or
the
spotlight
anything
any
process
that
that
is
any
outlier
in
a
process.
Even
if
it's
people
who
do
very
few
assessments
and
then
they
don't
get
paid
for
it
because
were
under
the
limit,
maybe
we
didn't
promote
it
enough,
so
they
didn't
know
there
was
a
200
vca
assessment
limit.
So
this
is
also
an
outlier
that
naveed
found
and
I
think
not
looking
at
it
is
a
mistake.
G
G
One
thing
that
I
noticed
was
that
jeevan
jish
both
mentioned
that
they
went
through
the
same
method
of
going
through
assessments,
which
is
that
they
started
assessor
by
assessor,
which
is
okay.
It's
a
it's
a
choice
you
can
make.
I
never
made
that
choice
directly,
because
if
I,
if
I
look
at
the
most
productive,
assessor,
let's
say
251
proposals
he
assessed.
G
G
G
G
G
G
So
what
is
interesting
to
me
here
is
also:
why
do
they
both
choose?
A
method
that,
especially
for
beginners,
is
not
a
productive
way
of
working
because
they
work
separately
so
that
that
is
that
is
interesting
to
me
as
a
vca,
I
found
that
type
of
work
very
close,
and
for
that
reason,
in
addition
to
what
naveed
said,
I
found
the
performance
incredible.
D
Yeah,
I
can
add
a
little
bit
to
that,
so
I
totally
agree
with
a
lot
of
you
and
I
totally
agree
with
naveed's
document.
I
think
it's.
I
appreciate
all
the
work
that
you've
done
to
me,
because
it's
actually
really
helpful
for
us
to
see
into
a
little
deeper
into
the
process
and
things
that
you
wouldn't
see
by
just
looking
at,
like
the
normal
spreadsheet
that
they
publish.
D
I
think
the
thing
that
really
like
for
me
that
stands
out
is,
I
think,
was
the
first
point
you
made
naveed
about
how
g
shinji,
if
they
stopped
at
the
exact
same
number
of
I
guess,
assessments
for
a
specific
ca
and
they
did
that
multiple
times.
So,
for
example,
like
I
don't
know,
if
the
ca
did
a
hundred
reviews,
they
would
both
stop
at
90.
D
and
like
for
me.
I
guess
if
you
were
to
put
it
like
this
is
not
the
best
reference
but
like
if
you
were
to
put
it
into
mathematical
terms,
like
you
could
like
there's
two
options
for
each
like
proposal.
You
do.
You
could
either
continue
to
review
that
that
person's
that
ca
or
you
could
stop,
and
so
like
there's
like
there's
two
options,
one
out
of
two
and
so
like
for
each
subsequent
review
of
that
ca.
D
B
Yeah,
sorry,
my
la
I
guess
I'll
add
on
to.
Basically
what
vlad
spencer
just
said
is
is
the
time
I
I
I
broke
out
to
do
like.
I
just
did
a
quick
analysis
of
of
iog's
assumption
that
it
would
take
10
to
30
minutes
for
each
assessment
for
each
review
that
a
vca
did
and
that
turned
out.
If
you
took
the
low
part,
which
is
10
minutes,
is
what
they
that's
reading.
B
That's
straight
24
hours
a
day
and
that's
for
9
000!
That's
why
I
asked
naveed
for
the
for
the
filtered
out
and
I
wasn't
able
to
do
the
calculation
right
now,
but
even
if
you
put
it
at
30
seconds
per
assessment
and
there's
no
way,
they
could
do
that
if
they're
going
by
they're
going
by
assessor,
like
if
they're
going
each
assessor
first,
that
means
you
gotta.
Like
vlad
said
you
gotta,
read
those
proposals
and
then
you
gotta
come
back
to
the
next
assessor
that
you
did
and
read
those
proposals
again.
B
You're
not
gonna,
remember
that
after
you've
gone
through
everybody's
after
you've
gone
through
one
proposers
or
one
ca's
assessments,
you're
not
going
to
be
able
to
remember
those
proposals
that
are
associated
after
that
period
of
time.
So
I
kind
of
questioned
the
amount
of
time
that
was
spent
apologies.
B
That
was
that
that
comment
was
a
little
scattered
and
broken,
but
I
think
I
don't
think
that
I
think
there
was
enough
time
for
them
to
to
be
truly
following
the
guidelines
for
the
for
the
assessments
as
it's
laid
out
by
iog
and
how
it
was
written
off
for
the
vcas.
So
my
that's
my
concern
is
the
question
and
also
again
goes
back
to
navid
as
far
as
him,
stating
that
the
proposals
most
likely
were
not
read
or
were
not
read
thoroughly.
G
Vladimir
yep,
I
just
wanted
to
add
one
more
thing
related
to
naveed's
analysis.
I
also
did
a
little
bit
of
analysis
just
to
check
just
for
gish
and
given
sec
to
see.
I
posted
a
link
to
the
document
in
in
the
chat
I
was
trying
to
see.
Okay,
maybe
yes,
they
did
review
181
assessment
teach
for
assessor
57,
but
maybe
five
other
people
did
so
too
or
maybe
for
assessor
1193.
G
Maybe
other
people
did
so
too.
So
in
that
case,
if
we
singled
them
out,
you
might
not
be
looking
at
the
full
picture,
so
I
was
looking
okay,
maybe
it's
not
just
them,
which
would
make
the
case
stronger
for
non-collaboration,
but
I
was
also
struck
by
the
fact
that
for
many
of
these
57
1193
ca
1146,
they
reviewed
exactly
the
same
number,
but
they
were
the
maximum
number
reviewed
by
other
vcas
was
often
larger,
a
lot
larger,
a
little
larger,
smaller,
but
not
the
exact
number.
G
So
these
coincidences
weren't
just
happening
between
them,
but
it
was.
I
mean
what
I
wanted
to
say
is
that
mostly
they
were
happening
just
between
them.
It
wasn't
an
underlying
current
trend
that
moved
most
vcas
to
do
that.
Same
number
of
assessments
like
let's
say
that
jishin
and
jeevan
were
proposers
in
one
fund
and
they
were
in
one
challenge
and
they
weren't
be
able
to
rent
all
proposals
in
two
challenges.
G
A
E
Hello,
thank
you
nadia.
I'm
am
I
audible,
yeah,
yes,
okay!
Yes,
thank
you.
So
I
was
able
to
prepare
like
updated
this
thing
for
all
the
questions
which
I
had
asked
by
vladimir
and
john,
which
I've
added
below,
which
I
will
go
on
later
on.
So
hopefully
you
guys
are
able
to
understand
what
I'm
saying,
because
I
wasn't
able
to
correctly
like
I
understand
what
you,
because,
due
to
accident
difference,
accent
is
different
in
india
and
us
so
anyway.
So
let
me
go
through
the
documents
which
I
have
created.
E
E
E
Hello
yeah,
so
the
about
the
similar
reviews,
as
you
can
see
like
I
have
already
given
the
document
about
already
documents
like
when,
like
large
number
of
assessments
are
done,
there
are
possibility
that
they're,
like
similar
assessment
are
on
is
more,
and
on
top
of
that,
like
we
have
already
also
followed
the
same
method
to
that.
That
is
go
assessor
by
assessor.
E
The
reason
why
I
opted
to
I
followed
and
suggested
to
go
that
method.
I
have
explained
later
so
yeah,
so
so,
due
to
this
method
of
going
assessment
assessment,
I
feel
I
I
believe
there
are
more
similar
reviews
and
also
regarding
similarity.
I
have
already
done
this
thing.
Google
sheet,
where
I
was
able
to
compare
other
vcs
work
with
if
other
vcs
has
had
followed
our
same
method
of
going
as
a
server
processor,
then
this
this
would
have
been
the
result.
E
E
E
E
A
A
E
E
A
E
Yeah,
so
I
guess
you
guys
followed
through
all
the
similar
reviews,
I
about
the
same
reviews
so
yeah.
So
what
I
did
is
I
took
other
like
top
10
vcs.
If
they
had
followed
the
same
method,
then
what
the
simulator
rate
would
have
been
so,
according
to
this
mine
and
g1,
would
have
been
84
and
with
jude
it
is
51,
but
with
other
visas
it's
with
gagan,
which
so
you
can
see,
there
is
84
and
another
83
with
same
one
and
with
alexander
it's
95
percent.
E
E
That
is
the
main
goal
here,
and
so
in
some
instances,
both
catalyst
and
professor
alexia
and
proposal
will
be
right
and
has
I
have
already
told
you
guys?
I
am.
This
is
my
second
vc
round
and
in
the
past
I
had
a
terrible
job
already.
I
had
showed
in
a
front
seven,
so
if
I'm
not
sure
hundred
percent,
so
I
would
I
would
not
review
it.
I
would
let
it
because
this
would
affect
the
final
result.
If
I
simply
feel
like
it
is
good.
E
E
Then
I
would
have
given
it
excellent
if
the
ca
had
just
followed
the
guidelines
but
hasn't
brought
anything
which
it
will
be
held
for
the
voters,
then
I
would
have
given
good
that's
it.
If
the
ca
hasn't
followed
guidelines,
then
I
would
straight
away
filter
it
out,
because
in
fund
7,
while
loading,
I
saw
that
few
of
the
reviews-
weren't
good
still,
they
had
made
it
to
the
final
waters.
E
Yeah
there
are
in
some
cases
there
will
be
cs
who
are
given
three
four
star
and
wouldn't
explain
and
would
have
written
everything
positive
about
the
proposal
and
they
wouldn't
explain
why
they
have
deducted
a
star
or
anything
like
that.
In
some
cases
the
proposer
have
flagged
it
and
pointed
that
out
in
some
cases
I
was
able
to
find
I
filtered
it
out
because
I
feel
they
have
to
according
to
see
they
have
to
explain
why
they
have
deducted
it
and,
of
course,
so
why
this
excellent,
good
or
good
filtered
pattern.
E
So
if,
if
a
ca
can
get
excellent,
that
means
he
has
followed
a
guidelines
and
he
has
also
given
some
good
insights.
That's
why
I
I
gave
an
excellent
if
had
followed
guidelines,
then
I
would
have
given
him
good,
but
why
that
filter
or
good
pattern
comes
out.
Usually,
if
this
here
see
it
doesn't
like
knowingly,
it
doesn't
follow
seagull,
and
so
they
were
unaware
that
they're
not
following
the
guidelines,
so
they
tend
to
follow
the
same
pattern
of
not
following
the.
E
See
a
guidelines,
so
that's
why
it
will
be
filtered
out.
Sometimes
even
the
proposal
won't
be
good,
like
dummy
proposal
and
all
and
ca
would
have
been
like
they
have
given
nothing,
and
then,
in
that
case
I
would
have
given
good
and
the
limited
cases
of
excellent
good
filter
out.
This
is
because,
if
this
I
had
already
explained
here
that,
if
the,
if
I
am
not
sure
whether
to
filter
out
the
flag
review
or
no,
I
would
just
let
it
let
the
experience
we
say
go
for
it.
E
Flag,
the
review,
so
that
is
the
time
when
this
excellent
could
then
filter
out.
Both
pattern
will
be
followed,
but
only
good
and
excellent
was
followed
because
I
didn't
go
through
the
flag.
I
I
already
gave
you
the
reason
why
I
didn't
go
to
flag
once
and
that's
it
and
our
identical
feedback.
I'm
like
I'm.
I'm
still
don't
know
why
that
happened,
and
I
know
it.
I
can't
even
justify
how
that
happened.
So
what
I
what
what
may
be
possible
because
me
and
g
one
has
already
given
the
document
and
where
did
I
get?
E
What
I
felt
is:
where
did
I
get
this
follow
cigarette?
So,
while
going
through
proposals,
some
proposals
has
my
own
son
flagged
the
proposal.
In
my
said
the
ca
hasn't
followed,
say
guidelines
and
I
was
able
to
find
the
same
on
these
menus
assessment.
One
zero,
two,
nine
and
one
one,
eight
four
and
one
three
one,
one:
nine
where
they
had
used
follow
ca
guidelines.
So
unconsciously,
I
may
have
used
it
and
may
have
used
in.
I
had
written
in
the
feedback
asking
a
ca
to
follow
the
guidelines.
E
So
that
is
the
only
explanation
I
could
give,
because
that's
really,
even
until
now,
I
don't
know
how
that
happens
like
seriously,
but
in
the
google
sheet
which
I
have
provided,
you
can
see,
I
have
given
20
22
reviews
and
g1
has
given
around
11,
so
the
we
have
given
feedback
for
different
ss
ids,
and
only
one
this
follows
your
guidelines
has
been,
is
similar
it
being
this.
Generic
and
ca
guidelines
is
commonly
used
and
I'm
really
not
sure
how
this
thing
happened.
E
But
but
what
I
want
to
say
is
just
because
of
this
one,
you,
I
don't
want
you
to
remove
all
my
hard
work
that
I
have
put
into
review
all
these
things
so
about
the
document
had
about
not
reading
the
assessment
properly
in
front
seven.
So,
as
is
already
admitted
in
the
discord
that
in
front
seven,
we
were
new.
This
is
that
was
my
first
piece
as
a
vca
and
we
did
a
assessment
based
on
length,
and
so
that
is
why
we,
I
guess
we.
E
E
But
after
going
to
the
chat
and
what
everyone
is
talking,
I
usually
follow
people
like
what
people
will
be
talking
on
telegram
and
discard,
like
all
radmir
and
all,
and
I
try
to
learn
about
vca
and
even
I
try
to
follow
guidelines
so
so
because
of
that
humiliation
in
front
seven.
I
put
in
a
lot
of
time
in
fun
date,
and
I
I
did
a
I
really
like.
E
I
took
a
seven
day
off
from
my
work
to
do
this
vca
thing,
because
this
time
I
wanted
to
make
a
good
job
because
of
that
fund,
7,
humiliation
of
course,
and
so
yeah
and
as
you
can
in
the
final
visit,
as
you
can
see,
even
my
deviation
is
lower.
So
I
believe
I
did
a
better
job
than
fund
seven
based
on
that
and
about
this
fact.
Vladimir.
E
Had
to
raise
the
issue
about
how,
like
I
had
a
reassure,
how
exactly
same
number
of
like,
for
example,
accessor
57
had
given
199
reviews,
but
how
did
exactly
end
up
at
181
yeah?
I
I
will
so
why
this
has
happened
because,
as
I
said
earlier,
we
did
not
review
the
flagged
ones.
So
you
can
see
here
in
in
access
of
57.
The
total
reverse
is
1.99
with
not
flagged
this
thing.
What
you
say
filter
it
is
181.
E
E
G
E
E
E
There
are
in
few
reviews
I
hadn't,
like
all
reviewed
all
263,
because
I
wasn't
sure
if
the
if
the
review
I
was
gonna
give
was
correct,
so
I
just
withheld
from
viewing
it.
So
there
are
few
difference,
so
this
kind
of
I'm
trying
to
spring
like
bring
in
front
of
you
guys
that
yeah
that
we
haven't
copy
pasted.
Otherwise,
even
this
thing.
E
Of
course,
by
this
there
will
be
exception,
like
dummy
proposal
and
unfinished
proposals
in
cases
usually
mentioned
in
in
the
reviews.
They'll
be
mentioned
that
the
purpose
isn't
complete
and
all
so
yeah
about
this
is
about
assessor
by
assessor
this
thing
and
another.
Another
reason
why
we
went
by
this
method
is,
as.
E
One
528
used
bot
to
write
all
the
1999
reviews,
so
what
I
thought
was
again
someone
would
pull
the
same
trick
by
going
pulling
same
trick
to
review
by
a
boy
assessor
on
this
bot.
So
we
thought
by
going
by
accessor,
you
can
find
them
and
all
the
reviews
easily,
and
I
do
agree
that
this
message
isn't
the
fastest.
But
it's
not
even
the
slowest,
because
the
the
the
one-way
pattern
follows
like
the
filtering
form
there.
E
E
Assessor
then,
this
would
have
happened
so
what
I
did
so
getting
had
done
almost
here,
so
you
can
see.
I
take
example
from
written,
so
here
you
can
see.
Total
number
of
views
done
by
both
g
and
git
is
34,
42,
39
34,
so
with
git.
So
you
can
see
here.
The
mirroring
effect
is
happening.
The
same
leg
here
and
I
also
did
comparison
with
git
and
me
and
see
again,
the
mirroring
is
happening
so
now
why
I
compared
my
data
with
git
tony,
because
she
had
access
she
had
access.
E
She
had
a
same
number
of
review
reviews
for
four
assessor,
so
so
we
all
three
had
same
number
of
assessment
done
for
same
assessment
id.
So
that
is
why
the
mirroring
this
thing
I
already
provided
a
link
for
the
same.
You
can
go
through
it
and
also
the
thing
you
have
to
notice
is
that,
as
you
can
see,
the
total
percentage
like
here,
the
g1
is
focused
more
on
filtering
out
on
other
hand,
I
had
you
I
had
like
focused
more
on
good
percentage
of
is
good.
E
If
I
had
copy
pasted,
this
wouldn't
have
happened,
and
also,
I
guess
I
have.
I
have
tried
to
justify
all
the
questions
raised
before
this
by
nia,
vladimir
and
john.
So
that's
it
and
I
want
also
I
don't
also
want
to
add.
One
thing
is
that
I
had
spent
a
lot
of
time
go
reviewing
because
as
more
that
you
should
do,
there
are
chances
of
increasing
in
deviation,
but
my
d,
as
you
can
see
in
the
final
session.
My
deviation
is
less
because
I
had
put
in
a
lot
of
time
into
it.
E
So
that's
it
so
I
I
believe
I
had
answered
all
the
questions
raised
by
you
admitted
and
all
and
about
the
ca
length
this
that
already
now
has
told
that
the
that
things
is
common
for
all
the
vco
in
general.
Only
experience
have
that
in
different
and
for
yeah,
that's
it
and
yeah.
How
come
they
are
able
to
do
6k,
yeah,
so
in
front
7.
E
There
are
many
vcs
who
had
done
9
and
9
000
and
all,
and-
and
I
guess
they
have
also
put
in
a
lot
of
time
in
27
in
this
fund
I
had
put
in
lot
of
time.
That's
why
I
was
able
to
do
six
thousand.
The
only
one
which
I
wasn't
able
to
answer
was
that
I
identical
feedback.
I
already
I
seriously
don't
know.
First
of
all,
I
have
given
a
justification
why
this
has
happened
or,
and
the
thing
is
the
only
mistake
we
have
done
is
we
had
followed
the
same
method?
E
A
B
H
F
F
F
With
respect
to
numbers
and
these
assessment
numbers,
like
whatever
the
pattern
vr
for
length,
is
a
result
of
that,
and
as
and
I
showed
you
in
the
vcfi
like
since
we
like
both
of
us
are
not
testing
the
flat
ones
and
like
as
we
were
on
touch
on
a
daily
basis.
Regarding
how
many
assessment
has
he
completed
or
whether
he
has
followed
a
particular
assessor
or.
F
I'm
not
following
the
same
thing
and
assessing
is
it
as
good,
and
this
is
happening
in
the
public
channels
also
like
on
discord,
where
people
are
certain
numbers
and
correspondingly
it's
either
filtered
out
or
an
excellent
performance,
just
like
assessor
57,
where
people
are
agreeing
and
discussing
regarding
this,
so
we,
what
we
have
done
is
like
just
discuss
the
process
like
of
how
we
are
doing.
We
were
sharing
those
things
that
was
the
only
collaboration
part
and
ultimately
like,
as
we
say,
guideline
directs
assessment
was
done
independently.
B
F
F
Big
statement
that
I
would
like
to
call
out
and
as
navid
mentioned,
the
caps
on
the
statement
follows
your
guidelines
is,
very
you
know
generic
part
of
our
community
channel.
So
that's
how
that
ended
up
in
the
places.
That
is
what
I
would
like
to
see
and
yeah.
Next
is
the
good
filter
and
excellent
portion.
B
F
Yeah,
so
this
is
the
vcm
master
tool
so
like
what
we
did
like
when
what
we
mean
when
like
when
we
went
accessory,
like
as
pointed
at
accessor,
57
or
ssl
271,
and
there
was
seven
three
two.
I
I'm
not
like
very
sure
on
which
of
these
but
yeah
like
vladimir
assy
pointed
this
might
be
the
slowest
processing
couple
of
things.
But
we
have
seen
couple
of
assessors
like
who
have.
F
Hello,
yeah
yeah
is
my
audio
clear
now,
yes,
yeah
so
like
as
though
you
can
definitely
cross
the.
We
see
a
masterful,
it's
the
main
master
file.
So
if
we
just
sort
it
in
a
descending
order,
say
like
reviewed
highest
by
some
person
so
like
when
I
say,
review
one
two:
seven,
if
you
can
verify
it,
r732
someone
among
the
like
top
five
or
six.
They
have
given
this
like
one
line
assessment
or
two
line
assessment
which
definitely
tends
to
not
allow
we
say
guidance
and
this
supposed
to
be
filtered
out.
F
F
We
don't
have
to
actually
go
to
the
proposal
like
because
definitely
they
are
not
following
these
guidelines.
The
reason
is
that,
if
there
is
nothing
in
the
proposal,
that's
a
different
thing,
but
if
it
is
a
bad
proposal
and
if
it
is
missing
something
we
say
I
should
mention
like
what
is
missing
in.
F
F
A
particular
way
it
has
led
to
dds
and
they
have
lost
their
rewards.
The
reason
is
that
the
deviation
depends
on
how
the
whole
community
is
following,
so
the
community
accesses
it
based
on
whatever
we
say,
guidelines
are
given
and
that's
what
we
offer
and
yeah,
but
I
also
would
like
to
like
apologize
like
for
the
treaty
for
our
assessment
in
seven
yeah
agreed,
and
we
have
put
the
public
message
on
discord
also
because
we
were
new
and
yes,
we
were
excited
on
on
the.
F
F
A
I
have
to
interrupt
you
because
we
we're
gonna
run
out
of
time
here.
There's
a
second
petition
here
coming
up,
and
I
think
you
raised
many
points
in
response.
I
think
it's
also
important
that
we
just
keep
our
to
keep
our
comments
specific
to
what
has
been
raised
here,
which
I
think
I
think
that
you
have
both
done
specifically.
A
F
Sure,
just
a
closing
statement
from
mine,
so
yeah
like
we,
we
actually
assume
that
this
is
going
to
be
a
voting
on
like
whole
whole
discord
thread
like
nonetheless,
I
feel
that
the
approach
for
this
petition
saying
that
15
percentage
of
the
fund
want,
is
going
to
a
particular
two
people.
That
statement
is
a
bit
manipulative
and
obviously
it
is
not
a
disparate
channel
and
you
guys
have
heard
our
assessments.
F
Date
and
yeah,
obviously,
don't
I
I
don't
say,
do
not
consider
our
funds
and
performance
yeah
like
we
did
bad
and
we
have
agreed
to
it,
but
we
have
it
in
a
lot
of
effort
and
like
to
finally
have
improved,
and
you
can
see
the
results
with
respect
to
deviation
or
number
of
assessments
and
how
it
is
aligned
with
the
community's
idea
of
good
assessments.
Yeah
thank.
A
You
thank
you
for
the
time
very
good.
I
will
I
commend
this
group.
I
think
this
is
an
excellent
use
of
the
of
the
process
here
and
that
there's
been
a
lot
presented
in
both
cases,
and
I
appreciate
your
sentiment
in
the
beginning
naveed
that
we
want
to
maintain
people
who
are
working
hard
within
the
community
and
that
also
we
want
to
make
sure
that
we
keep
this
system
as
as
high
functioning
as
possible.
Scott
go
ahead,
real
fast.
A
C
B
B
In
my
opinion,
it
seems
like
there
was
some
work
done
by
each
person
and
I
don't
know
how
much
of
that
work
was
shared,
and
this
is
just
my
perspective
from
what
was
given
based
on
the
rebuttal
and
your
evidence
as
well
I'll,
be
that
there
was
some
originality
working
there.
So
I
don't
know
if,
like
I
don't
know,
if
I'm
comfortable
with
like
a
100
slash,
but
I
might
be
comfortable
with
a
percentage
or
larger
percentage
of
slash
of
rewards
versus
a
100,
just
you're,
not
getting
anything.
B
G
G
It's
the
issue
whether
the
work
was
coordinated
and
whether
there
was
vca
work,
possibly
shared,
to
boost
the
results
of
both
vcas
so
which
would
be
against
the
rules,
because
vcas
are
supposed
to
work
independently
and
g.
Shinji
have
stated
that
they
have
worked
independently,
but
coincidence
says,
have
a
reason,
because
they
use
completely
identical
method
and
they
know
each
other.
Not
that's
not
a
reason,
but
that
that's
a
fact.
So
one
thing
that
I
have
that
I
notice
here
is
that
they
both
mention
when
they
speak.
They
say
we
are
doing
this.
G
We
have
done
that.
I
would
like
I
mean
if
this
is
a
case
of
independent
vca
work
and
if
it's
a
case
where
we
have
which
could
have
happened
to
me
and
naveed,
our
results
could
have
strangely
coincided,
but
I
wouldn't
speak.
We
we
have
done
this.
We
have
done
that.
Okay,
but
let's
say
that
these
coincidences
are
appearing
because
of
an
identical
approach,
but
I
would
take
just
one
issue
with
and
I'll
finish
with.
G
The
assessor
by
assessor
approach
did
mention
that
some
assessors
failed
to
follow
ca
guidelines,
so
it
can
be
easy
to
filter
them
down,
which
is
true,
but
that's
only
filtered
out.
Many
c
assessments
are
good
or
excellent.
In
fact,
most
so
choosing
assessors
57
is
a
strange
choice
for
me
for
someone,
because
both
of
them
did
181
reviews
of
assessor
57
it
it's
not
it's
not.
I
mean
the
explanation
that
I
got
was
that
some
assessors
fail
to
follow
ca
guidelines,
so
it
can
be
easy
to
filter
them
out.
G
It
doesn't
hold
in
this
case.
Assassin's
57
does
not
do
that.
He,
it
very
verbose,
is
very
involved
and
both
of
them.
One
of
them,
is
a
beginner
chose
the
hard
route,
and
there
are
other
assessors
that
weren't
filtered
out
that
were
excellent
and
good
and
productive.
So
my
I
stand
by
my
claim.
That's
it.
A
I
wish
that
we
could
continue
this
for
another
half
hour,
but
unfortunately
I
want
to
respect
the
coming
petition
as
well,
so
what
we,
what
we
will
do
here
is
take
this
to
a
vote
and
what
the
vote
is
is
that
first,
we'll
do
a
yes
and
then
a
no
vote
and
eligible
to
vote
within
this
call
alino
and
tianka.
Here
I
noticed
that
you
have
joined.
However,
you
have
not
been
here
the
whole
time,
so
that
will
make
you
not
eligible
to
vote
and
then
so.
A
The
only
ones
and
also
the
petitioners
are
not
eligible
to
vote,
and
I
myself
have
been
abstaining
from
voting
as
the
facilitator,
so
that
would
leave
vlad
scott
and
spencer
to
vote
here.
So
the
vote
yes
will
mean
that
naveed's
petition
will
pass
and
then
we'll
have
to
determine
that
does
not
determine
the
outcome.
It
simply
determines
that
the
case
was
heard
and
support
for
what
was
raised
is.
Is
there
and
no
will
be
the
opposite,
so
it's
50
or
more?
We
have
three.
A
A
A
A
A
This
is
my
opinion
that
it'll
be
very
helpful
if
we
really
come
up
with
something
that
respects
this
whole
process
and
everyone
involved
and
can
can
be
the
best
outcome
for
for
those
who
have
contributed
here
today
and
helps
us
to
retain
people
doing
good
work
within
the
system,
but
prevents
things
that
are
detrimental
to
the
overall
process,
because
of
course
the
vca
is
really
one
of
the
roles
where
proposers
and
cas
are
affected
most
deeply,
and
so
it's
one.
We
really
have
to
pay
good
attention
to
maintaining
its
quality.
A
Okay.
So
what
we
will
do
from
here
is,
I
will
take
these
results
back
to
to
iog
and
we'll
have
a
good
beginning
conversation
about.
What's
what's
feasible,
we'll
try
to
involve
a
broad
discussion
and
we
will
get
this
figured
out
in
the
next
few
days
and
I
will
keep
this
whole
group
in
the
loop
so
that
we
can
make
sure
that
we
are
all
informed
and
all
have
both
best
interests
and
intended
outcomes
in
heart.
A
Okay.
Normally
at
this
point
I
would
ask
for
closing
comments,
but
as
we
were
10
minutes
late
for
the
next
one,
I
won't
do
that
and
I
welcome
those
responses
in
the
chat
if
you
are
available.
Thank
you.
Everyone
for
participating
really
a
fantastic
session,
a
great
use
of
this
process
and
again
I
want
to
commend
everyone
for
your
involvement
and
for
taking
your
time
today
on
this
saturday.