Topic: [Discussion] Bitcointalk Community Awards 🏆 - page 24. (Read 20111 times)

So is posting (or logging in) in 2022 enough? Or is there a minimum number of posts required?


See this list: 2924 users received 50 Merits, 5632 users received 20 Merits. And for some of those "received" doesn't mean they "earned" it.

Thanks for sharing this information.

But this happens, not only in Romania, it is in almost all championships where there is some illegality on the part of the clubs. Now, the penalty is not because they won or dropped, but because they didn't pay players or committed some fraud.

And that's what I'm talking about, penalizing for having won doesn't make sense. 

I will suggest last post the made.

For example last post made before November 2021, receive any vote, will not be counted. Also after the launch of the award pool if the same criteria of the user makes any post then that will not include them as whitelisted too. I think this will prevent them to abuse the rule.

That happens in other leagues too, but always as a part of punishment and not just because team won the championship (like it would be in this case) as it would be quite unfair.

I addressed that part here. So by active users we understand users which were and / or are active during current year (and, of course, made notable contributions during this year).


Thank you for your feedback.


Have I ever said something to make you think the opposite? Hihi!

---

Thank you for your feedback.

---

Thank you for your feedback.

---

You know, actually, this does happen At least in Romania (I did not have time to search for the subject if it happened in other countries too). But in Romania, during past years, multiple teams demoted to second league started with a negative number of points. This happened for same reason: during the previous year, the teams did not pay their players. They made complaints to the Football League and the committee which judged these cases always gave same decision: the club has a given amount of time to pay the player(s), otherwise a number of points will be deducted from the points the team earned. At first offense they took, usually 3 points from the team's earned points. Then, if the team still did not pay after the given amount of time, they applied a second penalty -- maybe 3 points again or maybe more. And so on. This article describes the case of Astra Giurgiu, ex-championship winner of Romanian League, which, after being demoted in League 2, started the new year from -6 points.

Gaz Metan Medias, another case of Romanian championship, was sanctioned last year with 50 points, reaching a score of -27 points.

Articles are in Romanian, but this is less important. The idea is that it may happen


Thank you for your feedback.


Glad to hear that

---

We are really hoping so too! As I wrote with multiple occasions in the past, it's important to learn from what happened at previous events and try to make things better


Thank you for your feedback.

Even though we are talking about a community event and there will be a lot of users that will have no right to vote, I think the changes will make it more fair than last year and thus more enjoyable for everyone!

I'd personally go for a "minimum of 20 posts during the last year" sort of rule instead of a maximum inactivity time but that's a rather personal opinion.

I understand the idea, but that would be addicting the game right from the start. Because users did not start at the same level, some would have more advantages than others. This would be the same as a football championship, starting with the previous year's winner with negative points. Something that doesn't make sense and doesn't happen.

It will be to let the vote roll and see which users stood out for the community. We will certainly have repeaters, because it's almost inevitable and eventually we'll have rookies.


EDIT:
The idea for the merits looks good to me!

This is just a short note and I will return later to reply to earlier posts.

Sorry, but I thought this was clear from my post To be more precise, this part:


I am sorry if the way I wrote it created confusion. By active users I meant users which were (or are) active during this year.

---

This would mean that he, actually, is active during current year, right? And the contest addresses users with huge contributions made for this year. So, for example, if an old user wakes up this year, he can be voted, but he should also merit to be voted for something amazing done during this year. If he just wakes up but has no contribution -- as he just woke up -- he would not deserve to me nominated, right?

Anyway, these are very specific situations, which are also unlikely to happen, but even if they appear, we will treat each case based on its particularities.

I think 1 year of inactivity will be enough 

Tbh I see no reason to make things more complicated and to introduce sort of handicap for the last year's winners for the sake of more different people winning the award each year. I say keep it as it was the previous years and let the best members win, no matter how many times before they won the award.

This should be quantified ahead of time. No posts in 3 months, 6 months, 1 year? Inactive as of the start of the competition? Or what if an inactive account wakes up during the competition?

This feels too restrictive to me. I would have opted for a lower number, say 20 earned merits, but that's just me.

I appreciate I am heavily biased here given I have previously won the same category twice, but I wouldn't take this approach. You could easily end up in the situation where someone is deemed to have won, but someone else would have won the "popular vote", by getting more votes which were each worth less. I can already picture the arguments which could arise, particularly if there will be prizes involved. It is also disincentivizes people from voting for the previous winner, since their vote will be less valuable than if they voted for someone else. I would either go down the route of excluding previous winners or doing nothing at all.

It will be even better if you give a date/month for their latest post to be accepted them for the votes.

My opinion is not to limit it. Let others to beat him and be better than him. Limiting means you are going to reward someone who might done less than him but still receiving the honour that was supposed to not for him.

Are you telling me I am genius? 😉

Ladies and gentlemen,

For this year's event we decided to take into account the feedback received from various users, at the previous two similar events, and apply some fine-tuning to the existent rules. Additionally there will also be some new rules. All these will -- we hope -- bring even more accurate results!

Therefore, the following changes will apply for Bitcointalk Community Awards event 2022 edition:

1. Votes for inactive users will not be taken into consideration anymore. The event is related to the activity made by users during current year and not for the past. As a consequence, votes for users like Satoshi, Lauda etc. (with all due respect for all good things they did in the past) will not be counted. Of course, this does not mean that a user's vote will be entirely not counted, if he nominates an inactive user. Only the vote for the inactive user is not counted.

As a sum-up: if a user makes nominations of both active users and inactive ones, only the mentions of inactive ones will be not counted (in the contest's final results there will be no Satoshi, no Lauda etc.).

2. No merit sending is allowed from nominees to users which nominated them. This should improve dramatically the accuracy of results and offenders will have to support a penalty. For each merit sent, 1 vote is deducted. So for example, if in the voting topic Alice sent 5 merits to those who nominated her in any category, then we will not count these votes (but the rest of the votes that are addressed to other nominees will be taken into account). In addition, if a user voted for Alice in two categories, then the votes for each of the categories will be unaccounted for.

3. Eligibility-wise, the earlier rule


will be changed to

You must have 50 earned merits to vote ➥ Note.

Remember, the contest is about having fun, not a duel for seeing who's da baws Therefore, we are encouraging you all to act honest -- in the end, this is what brings the joy of participation, right?

Cheers to all

---

We were also curious about how users feel about implementing a rule which would give chances to more people to win. What we were thinking about is the following: to arrange things thus the winner of a category cannot be the same person from previous contests. Or he can be, as this does not mean a ban -- but he can be with more efforts. To be more precise, all previous winners could start with a coefficient of 0.8. Attention! -- this happens only regarding the previously won category!

For example: Alice won last year in the ScamBuster category.

- For other categories, her vote strength is 1.
- For the ScamBuster category, the power of the votes given for it is 0.8.

If even with this 0.8 vote strength Alice is still this year's winner of ScamBuster category, then she will be declared winner again, no matter what.

This rule, if it'll be adopted, may add some variety. Please let us know your opinions.

---

You guessed well


=)))

I'll take this as a compliment! Thank you for trusting my immutable attitude toward respecting the rules -- and also, toward the spirit of the rules!

It must be GazetaBitcoin 😉
Something is not right. The merit suckers will not going to have a good time in the season 🤣

I didn't get the reference.

Guys, GBitcoin will be here soon so greet this rascal with loud applause.

No. See Cambridge Dictionary:
We don't know any of these criteria. All we know, is a user's contributions to the forum.
I'm not allowed to vote in more than 99% of the countries on the planet. That's not discrimination, it's because I don't qualify.

I also do not think that this will lead to discrimination. Since this is a vote for the members who contribute the most to the community, it makes sense that only active members have the right to vote.

Last year there was a rule:

I think it would be good to expand this rule to take into account only merits earned during the current year. It does not have to be a limit of 50 merits, but maybe it could be reduced to 20 or only 10.

I don't think it's discrimination, as long as the rules are clear and they're presented before the voting starts.
After voting begins, no changes should be made to the rules unless it is something serious that you have to do.

Wow it's almost one year, time flies.

Yes, a very important point sending merit does affect voting but I guess this will be part of it and we have to accept it. Yes rules can placed for example not to count votes of certain users based on some xyz criteria but will this not introduce some sort of discrimination too?