Topic: [Discussion] Bitcointalk Community Awards 🏆 - page 22. (Read 20111 times)

The idea is good, but that means that the three choices that a user makes, have no order of preference and are all worth the same, is that it? In other words, everyone gets one vote.

But now I ask, isn't that what is already done?
What is the advantage of the OP asking for 3 choices for each category, if later it would only count with the first name?

Now you're assuming not many people had theymos as their second choice, while the other candidates had many "second place votes". It would be nice if someone does the math on last year's results, it would be interesting to see if anything changes.

Makes sense, maybe it's an option for our next round one year later because I can't judge how much more work it would be to do it like that in the end and after all, the benefit should outweigh the additional work because I believe managing and counting all votes from all participants for each category will be quite time consuming for icopress and GazetaBitcoin.
But still, log earned Merit votes are an interesting idea of course. 

Actually, I misspoke. Since there is only going to be a single winner in each category, you don't need to use single transferable vote. Instant runoff voting is easier. The process from the voters' point of view is actually the same in each system.

Everyone could still be allowed three votes in each category, or could be allowed as many votes are they like, but instead of just picking x number of users you would rank them first choice, second choice, third choice, and so on. This is the limit of what individual users need to do.

To calculate the winner, you simply tally all the votes by their first choice. Then, look for the user or users with the fewest number of first choice votes, and they are eliminated. All their ballots are then redistributed to the next highest choice candidate. Repeat this process over and over until only one candidate remains, and they are the winner.

It is a much more fair system than simply using first past the post. Let's say, for example, theymos got 20 votes, you got 18, and I got 16. With first past the post, theymos wins. With first past the past, theymos wins with 20 votes, but 34 votes end up getting a choice they didn't want at all. But what if of the 16 people who voted for me, 14 wouldn't want theymos to win at all and would prefer you to win? With instant run off voting, you would win with 32 people getting either their first or second choice, and only 22 people getting a choice they didn't want at all.

But as I said, I can guarantee the majority of users would not read the instructions or would misunderstand them, so although it is an all round better system, probably best not to use it.

I tried to quickly find out what a single transferable vote is, but couldn't figure it out without spending more than a few minutes. I think that puts me with the ~90%, which makes me think it's not a good idea. Voting should be easy, so dumb people can vote too (after all, dumb people can also get elected).

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.