A clear way to make the judging process, more transparent & fair
Free TON community is taking its first steps towards development and decentralization. It would be naive to say that there won’t be any obstacles in the development and widespread adoption process. Some of these obstacles will take some time to be removed by the community and some of them can be omitted a lot faster. I believe the judging process of contests is one of the weaknesses of our space and we all know it.
It is worth mentioning that the developers are doing their best to push this community into GOV 2.0 where every user will be able to vote by holding TON Crystal tokens. But what will happen to submissions until GOV 2.0? Participants of contests put a lot of effort into their work for contests so I believe they deserve a better and more transparent process to be judged. This is why I decided to write this proposal and suggest 2 options to prevent misjudgment until the developers implement the second phase of governance in Free TON blockchain:
1- KYJ (Know Your Juror) Process.
2- Halting all the contests until GOV 2.0.
1- KYJ (Know Your Juror) Process:
Having jurors who are known to participants is a great way to improve contests’ transparency. In this way, all the given scores can be discussed between participants and jurors. Also it can help to prevent malicious acts of some jurors. In this process:
- All of the jurors should provide their full name (Can be verified by the community admins).
- All of the jurors should provide a valid Telegram ID (Can be verified by the community admins).
- All of the jurors should provide a valid Email (Can be verified by the community admins).
- Before the start of the contests, Jurors’ names with Telegram IDs, Emails, and wallet addresses will be shown on each contest’s forum page, under the main post of the contests.
- If any participant would have any question regarding the score that a juror has given him/her, he/she can ask for an explanation from that juror, and the juror should attend a special zoom meeting (arranged after every contest) and answer all the questions which participants have asked.
- If there’s a malicious voting pattern from a juror or it is proved that any juror is a participant himself/herself, or have any relationship with other participants, he/she should be banned from voting, forever.
2-Halting all the contests until GOV 2.0:
If the above method is difficult for the community to implement, I suggest putting a stop to all contests until the beginning of GOV 2.0. I believe it will prevent any further malicious voting-and-winning process until GOV 2.0.
I urge the community to pass this proposal since it’s completely doable and will absolutely have a positive impact on the health of contests and therefore the quality of the contests.
All the best.