Topic: [Discussion] Bitcointalk Community Awards 🏆 - page 22. (Read 19700 times)

I would advocate for using single transferable vote instead, although I know that ~90% of the forum users wouldn't read the instructions and would end up spoiling their vote.

Mr. A can prefer all he wants, I'm with Mr. D. and Miss F

For the record, I don't think it's necessary to adjust "voting power" based on anything else than "one user, one vote".

I don't understand the decimal counts so I am going to put xxx.

When I am voting for Mr. A, he receives 3.xxxx
When you are voting for Mr. A, he receives 4.xxx

Mr. A will always prefer you over me on his campaign 😉

Anyway jokes aside, I don't have better idea in mind and I don't see it's a bad idea too. The only problem last two years we had were the merit sent by users and accounts (those were voting) were taking advantages from it. This year if we can prevent it, then that will be a huge improvement.

Not really, see my examples.

It's simple math:
Log 10 = 1
Log 100 = 2
Log 1000 = 3
Log 10000 = 4
Since 50 Merit is the minimum, the voting power doesn't change much. Having to earn 9000 more Merits to go from 3 to 4 sharply reduces the power of more Merits.

It will allow monsters like Mr. Bot and others who have most of the merit market share in other words merit whales ( 😉 ), a super power to influence the voting system.
I don't know how log works 🤣

I have the earned Merit data already (although it's updated only weekly). That shouldn't be too difficult to combine with a spreadsheet with votes.

It's quite sad to see it failing that way but maybe we'll get an appropriate opportunity in the future. 

---

Very interesting idea. Taking earned Merit into consideration and adjust votes according to log earned Merit, achievements (ranks) would be taken into consideration while lower ranks could still participate.
But it would be very time consuming for icopress and GazetaBitcoin to count all votes and calculate winners, especially when many members will vote here...
Is it an option to scrape data and calculate it that way automatically? 

Maybe it's an option for next round next year. 

Using this as a base is very interesting! Instead of being the user's level, it will be the number of merits received that values more or less the weight of the vote.

It's a question of finding a balanced model, so as not to value the votes of some users too much and not create totally useless votes from other users.

I think the event is actually a really good idea, which actually promotes a lot of good habits among the community. However, I'd somewhat agree that the sponsorships have taken away from that a little bit. The event doesn't feel like it's for the community any more, and that's no dig at the organisers. It's just the competition felt quite authentic, but when there's any financial reward available it seems to be a prime target for abuse.

It's a shame to see. I do think with the correct changes you can mitigate it. The merit issue was pointed out by quite a few users, and removing a vote is actually a decent way of going about it. Since, it only really effects the nominee if they decide to merit the user that voted for them.

That does pretty much limit the merit issue we saw previously. The preventing of old winners, I think was suggested with good intentions, I just don't think personally it's the best way of going about it. I do think most of the creases will be ironed out with the merit suggestion, which should make the sponsorships not get in the way as much as they did last time.

Not that I'm overly interested in this competition, but if you want to have a somewhat fair competition make it for the competition and not the prize - in other words no prizes for the winners in terms of money. Let them be awarded a special badge or something similar - maybe a temporary title of winner of the competition that they will have until the next competition.

If you're going to adjust voting power, why not give each vote the power of the log of the earned Merits? You've earned 1096 Merits, so your voting power is 3.0398. O_e_l_e_o earned 12992 Merits, so his voting power is 4.1137. A user with the minimum of 50 earned Merits, gets voting power 1.6990. This way, the increase in voting power is only very small so votes from newer members don't become worthless.

I bow down to that, brother!
If I could, I would offer you the diploma with my hand, as you fully deserve it. It's just I am not an academician, thus I am not (yet? ) entitled to do that...

---

You may have said it in a funny way but, for sure, there will be "top tier detectives looking into suspicious" activity...


I am also thinking in a positive manner, as I wrote in the previous posts as well -- meaning to think (hope) that people will understand this event is for fun and appreciation to forum's iconic figures, thus they should be all incentivized to play fair. But again, if there will be ones more attracted to outsmart the other participants, I hope we will be vigilant enough to catch all these particular cases.

Nice to hear abusers got EXPOSED.  
Maybe I'm getting a Ph.D. in exposing abusers.  


Exactly and for the rest I'm sure we'll get some top tier detectives looking into suspicious Accounts participating in that event, all evidence of abuse will be compiled and Alt Accounts will get busted.  
Jokes aside, Bitcointalk's Community awards will be a very fair event and we should be able to detect any sort of abuse because rules are massively improved compared to the last time and since we had already several Bitcointalk Community Awards, multiple offenders like Alt Accounts only used for Bitcointalk Community Awards voting could be spotted easily if Merit requirements aren't enough.

That's not quite what I mean. A Legendary doesn't need merit to level up, so it's less influenceable - in that respect.
As an example (just an example): a Legendary vote was worth 4 votes, while a Member's vote was only worth 2. This is an example, it doesn't have to be that way.
That is, there was not so much interest in assigning "bribe" with merits users to receive votes.


PS: With these exchanges of ideas, we end up giving ideas to those who think trying to manipulate the results. 

You probably mean "the vote of an more experienced and dedicated member is worth more" here, instead. All experienced and dedicated members are legendaries (or that's where they're heading to), but not all legendaries are experienced and dedicated.

And I'll have to disagree with this thinking. Being a year here is equivalent to being a decade when it comes to judging the quality content.

How to say, I think the idea is good: whoever gives merit to a post where he received a vote, that vote doesn't count.


Another idea would be the weight of votes. In other words, the vote of a Legendary was worth more than a Member.
A bit of what happens in the voting of sports associations, that those who have been a member for the longest time are entitled to more votes than new members.
I don't know if that would discourage meritorious motivations outside the voting topic. Since votes from new users would not be as valuable as those from older users. The older ones, in turn, don't need so many merits (allegedly).

Exactly what I was thinking. Bribing isn't prevented; what's prevented is the instant conclusion that there are bribers. Disability to merit means there cannot be Bobs and Teds who will gather their voters in one place and, essentially, sell their merits effectively. Alts can only get what they want if they ask for it privately, which discourages them due to merit whoring. Bribing is, ultimately, reduced in a large scale.

Loooooooool!

My dear 1miau, you exposed things in the most rigorous and academic way possible! Chapeau to that!


Thank you for your support. We (all) know that no method is bullet-proof but, at least, we tried something. Let's see how things will develop...

---

Indeed, maybe Bob just wanted to show a sign of appreciation to all users which participated as you say. But then...


... but then another Bob appeared and observed "the benefits" of acting this way. See? So we have a Bob which had no bad intention but another one speculated this action and realized it is, in fact, an opportunity...


If you have any other solutions, always feel free to present them.

No more! It's worth noting that maybe Bob didn't do this with the idea of getting more votes, he might be giving merit to all the members who voted in the game.
But this creates a chain effect, difficult to stop and to prevent.

The measures presented really seem to be a minimally competent solution to prevent this type of situation.

I don't know if it's directly bribery what's our problem here, maybe we can call it "passive bribery".
The issue from our previous round has been somehow like that:

a) Account xy (Bob) is nominated by someone (Alice).
b) Bob notices, how Alice nominated him and sends a Merit to exactly the post from Alice, where Bob is nominated.
c) The post from Alice where Bob is nominated is now Merited by Bob
d) Other possible voters are coming over Alice's post and are drawing the conclusion that if Bob is your nominated Account, you'll receive a Merit from Bob.
e) c) repeats multiple times, resulting in more d)
f) Some opponents (Ted) of Bob will see his practice farming votes by Merit and Ted will give out Merit to everyone who voted for him as well.
g) shitposters are activating all their Alt Accounts to get free Merit from members like Bob and Ted for nominating them.

= everyone who wants to obtain a Merit will start to nominate Bob and Ted, therefore Bob and Ted are "indirectly bribing" voters and possibly, more members will act like Bob and Ted.

The motive behind it is a mixture of of shitposters looking for a cheap Merit and in our case some members (like Bob) abusing the greed / need of shitposters for Merit. Then, members like Ted join because he notices how Bob is getting more votes.  

In my opinion, all steps taken by icopress and GazetaBitcoin to prevent participants from abusing Merit is a very good solution.
Members engaging in such "passive bribery" will be punished accordingly, which should prevent abuse.