Topic: [Discussion] Bitcointalk Community Awards 🏆 - page 35. (Read 20111 times)
OP made new tread about Bitcointalk Community Awards 🏆 and have reward for answering this tread like choose some vote member and give them achievement? I see OP got many feedback after creating this tread with his points merit received.
Personally, as a voting participant, it would be more clear for me to see the list of candidates with the current number of those who voted for them. Perhaps such information could prompt me to change my choice to another candidate.
Thanks for the comment, I will take your opinion into account ... but you and you should understand that creating and regularly updating such a list seems to me quite problematic (unless, of course, you are not Mr. Robot, not to mention the fact that each voter has the opportunity to edit his answer). Even if there was such a list, the first 10 who voted would set the pace for the entire voting.
@icopress, here is a link to the discussion thread on the Croatian local board [...]
You are very kind! OP updated!Ed: Btw, franky1, as a true Anti-Hero, voted for himself, moreover, he also tried on the corresponding avatar
@icopress
Are you thinking of creating a list of those who have already received votes or are you not going to have that list?
Are you thinking of creating a list of those who have already received votes or are you not going to have that list?
Personally, as a voting participant, it would be more clear for me to see the list of candidates with the current number of those who voted for them. Perhaps such information could prompt me to change my choice to another candidate.
LoyceV has already pointed out, this won't work, since each participant can change their vote at any given time. Keeping such a list up-to-date in real time would be difficult, and besides, it would result in needless favoritism of certain candidates.
@icopress, here is a link to the discussion thread on the Croatian local board, in case you want to include it in the announcement post:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/bitcointalk-community-awards-2021-5382997
@icopress
Are you thinking of creating a list of those who have already received votes or are you not going to have that list?
Are you thinking of creating a list of those who have already received votes or are you not going to have that list?
Personally, as a voting participant, it would be more clear for me to see the list of candidates with the current number of those who voted for them. Perhaps such information could prompt me to change my choice to another candidate.
~
No, not always the one who sends an invitation to PM deserves a negative tag. I'll be more specific. Some time ago, an interview was conducted with forum users. Out of good intentions, the interview organizer sent personal invitations to everyone. And one day he got a negative tag from a DT member.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=2654005
The man felt he was being forced to take part. It took a while to change the review to neutral. Why bother once again people who are not ready to do something?
That is why I said sending unsolicited PMs to a large number of members is bad idea. I am not saying zasad@ deserves a negative tag in this particular case, since he probably did so inadvertently, but there is no doubt that the rules were broken, and he probably apologized for that later on.
I also agree that this vote should be free participation. If someone does not want to write there, do not force him. Moreover, META is the central place of the forum, which most of the participants know about. And all the events there are unlikely to go unnoticed.
Agreed. Anyone interested in participating in this initiative is probably already aware of it. Moreover, there are other ways to "spread the word" that are much less intrusive.
5. Event of the Year: COPA vs Faketoshi
5. Event of the Year: COPA vs Faketoshi (My favorite)
Thanks, we won. But this is not his name beginning on "F". You should choose another name not to break the contest rules. "CSW" for example.11. Antihero: Faketoshi
Probably but this is not his name. You should choose another name not to break the contest rules. "CSW" for exampleHow exactly would this violate the contest rules? "Faketoshi" is a perfectly good answer like any other.
It's no big deal, even if you don't like the sound of it.
I've moved the discussion here from the Voting topic in accordance with the local rules.
Are you thinking of creating a list of those who have already received votes or are you not going to have that list?
That won't work:You can edit your application until the thread is locked ➥ Note.
@icopress
Are you thinking of creating a list of those who have already received votes or are you not going to have that list?
Are you thinking of creating a list of those who have already received votes or are you not going to have that list?
~
It's true that trust systems are not moderated but when they use that power to tag someone in good faith [like informing them of the existence of this thread] then that power should be revoked. Other than that I'm not urging the OP to do it, it's just a suggestion from me.
It's true that trust systems are not moderated but when they use that power to tag someone in good faith [like informing them of the existence of this thread] then that power should be revoked. Other than that I'm not urging the OP to do it, it's just a suggestion from me.
I am unsure that ever happened. Anybody who gets a negative tag for sending unsolicited PMs is probably deserving of it.
As for your proposal, you are free to do it yourself. You can send PMs to your friends or members you are close with, I don't believe anyone will tag you or report you to a moderator for that. However, sending mass PMs to a large number of random forum members with whom you have no previous contact is not recommended.
No, not always the one who sends an invitation to PM deserves a negative tag. I'll be more specific. Some time ago, an interview was conducted with forum users. Out of good intentions, the interview organizer sent personal invitations to everyone. And one day he got a negative tag from a DT member.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=2654005
The man felt he was being forced to take part. It took a while to change the review to neutral. Why bother once again people who are not ready to do something?
I also agree that this vote should be free participation. If someone does not want to write there, do not force him. Moreover, META is the central place of the forum, which most of the participants know about. And all the events there are unlikely to go unnoticed.
PM some users who are not currently participating in that voting thread, I think it will save you more time to get at least 200 votes from different users.
The forum also raised user awareness after the news section was announced about this vote, so maybe PMing to some users would also help a lot. This is just a suggestion, you decide.
Why would he do that? Honestly, if someone sends me PM about something like this, I would be really annoyed and probably wouldn't even vote, even if I initially planned to. Additionally, threads in Meta and Reputation are constantly close to the top of the boards so anyone that is even remotely interested in voting will eventually see it. Give it a time, some are probably having issue deciding so they are still waiting. Same thing happened to me last year. The forum also raised user awareness after the news section was announced about this vote, so maybe PMing to some users would also help a lot. This is just a suggestion, you decide.
~
It's true that trust systems are not moderated but when they use that power to tag someone in good faith [like informing them of the existence of this thread] then that power should be revoked. Other than that I'm not urging the OP to do it, it's just a suggestion from me.
It's true that trust systems are not moderated but when they use that power to tag someone in good faith [like informing them of the existence of this thread] then that power should be revoked. Other than that I'm not urging the OP to do it, it's just a suggestion from me.
I am unsure that ever happened. Anybody who gets a negative tag for sending unsolicited PMs is probably deserving of it.
As for your proposal, you are free to do it yourself. You can send PMs to your friends or members you are close with, I don't believe anyone will tag you or report you to a moderator for that. However, sending mass PMs to a large number of random forum members with whom you have no previous contact is not recommended.
- The existing notifications in this event are more than enough.
- I will not invite anyone to vote, just because most of those who I would send a message to would be embarrassed to refuse me.
After all, we are talking about voluntary voting? Right?
- I will not invite anyone to vote, just because most of those who I would send a message to would be embarrassed to refuse me.
After all, we are talking about voluntary voting? Right?
PM some users who are not currently participating in that voting thread
Don't do that, it's against the rules:29. Sending unsolicited PMs, including but not limited to advertising and flood, is not allowed.
I remember a DT-member leaving negative feedback in a similar case. If you PM enough people, some of them won't appreciate it.If all cases of sending PMs to multiple users can be considered as unsolicited PM's, then I really believe not many people would dare send PMs to other users for a good cause if not asked. It's true that trust systems are not moderated but when they use that power to tag someone in good faith [like informing them of the existence of this thread] then that power should be revoked. Other than that I'm not urging the OP to do it, it's just a suggestion from me.
PM some users who are not currently participating in that voting thread
Don't do that, it's against the rules:29. Sending unsolicited PMs, including but not limited to advertising and flood, is not allowed.
I remember a DT-member leaving negative feedback in a similar case. If you PM enough people, some of them won't appreciate it. Two additional weeks will be required if 200 votes are not reached by the end of February [how was it last time].
PM some users who are not currently participating in that voting thread, I think it will save you more time to get at least 200 votes from different users.The forum also raised user awareness after the news section was announced about this vote, so maybe PMing to some users would also help a lot. This is just a suggestion, you decide.
So far there are 95 users who have participated in the thread based on ninjastic.space. It will up soon, but may slow down a bit if there isn't much of a push.
Can you clarify what this means? The end of February plus 2 weeks would make it March 14, but in that case it doesn't make sense to say the end of Feb.
Two additional weeks will be required if 200 votes are not reached by the end of February [how was it last time]. Can you clarify what this means? The end of February plus 2 weeks would make it March 14, but in that case it doesn't make sense to say the end of Feb.
Two additional weeks will be required if 200 votes are not reached by the end of February [how was it last time].
Quote from the other topic:
From the moment of publication and until the end of Feb (+2W), a public vote will be open
Can you clarify what this means? The end of February plus 2 weeks would make it March 14, but in that case it doesn't make sense to say the end of Feb. The question here is, does it really matter?
I think some people take this matter too seriously. By the same logic, we can reevaluate every other category on the list.
In my opinion, the goal of this campaign is not to discuss and analyze the gender of the forum members, but to encourage activity and have some fun in doing so. Don't you think so?
I think some people take this matter too seriously. By the same logic, we can reevaluate every other category on the list.
In my opinion, the goal of this campaign is not to discuss and analyze the gender of the forum members, but to encourage activity and have some fun in doing so. Don't you think so?
No more! I think this is irrelevant. Here we are all the same, in the sense that we all want to talk about Bitcoin and cryptocurrencies.
So there is a category for a specific genre, I think it was irrelevant.
But it's alright.
You guys do realise that your forum profile has a gender field, right? (Even if the options are as outdated as the rest of the forum...) You don't have to jump to questionable conclusions based on crude stereotypes and nude pictures.
That's true. But not being a mandatory field in the registration, most forum users do not have this field filled. Using this as a yardstick makes the selection even more unfair. Since this field may not be filled in, or not filled in correctly.
In a forum, where the basis of communication is the text, there is no gender in the words.
You guys do realise that your forum profile has a gender field, right? (Even if the options are as outdated as the rest of the forum...) You don't have to jump to questionable conclusions based on crude stereotypes and nude pictures.
Jump to: