Free TON

Amendment: Accounting rejections for average score

Rejections are not considered when calculating the average score in contests where the average score is taken into account.

Proposed amendment:
Count each rejection as 0 points when calculating the average score in A&S SG contests where the average score is taken into account.

1 Like

It seems that this logic
does not work in this case:

How about another addition to the text of a previous amendment (additions are in bold):

In order to reject a submission, only 50% + 1 votes are needed to reject from those jurors who actually voted for the contest submission (excluding Abstain votes). For example, if only 10 jurors voted for a submission (and 2 of them abstained), only 5 need to vote to reject in order for the rejection to pass.

According to the final table of payouts, this submission was rejected:
Final Payouts _ A&S payouts01 dec20 - Google Таблицы

1 Like

I am for these additions since they are consistent with the amendment adopted by the main gov

1 Like

if rejection option is removed and scoring option extended from 1-10 to 0-10, will makes average score more accurate and perfect.

In this case, even if one judge mistakenly gave 1 point, and the other 15 gave 0 pts, the work cannot technically be rejected as not valid. This is a bad option.

average score will reduced to approximately zero automatically out of contest.
Every contest should have a minimum threshold to qualify, then it will be ok.

It’s not good idea in current situation.
If the jury mistakenly rejects the submission, it will greatly harm the participant. There are many examples of similar problems. Why should I have a lower score due to a judge’s mistake? Moreover, in this situation, judges are not subject to fines.
Moreover, in this situation, the judges are not punished.

1 Like

What is your proposal to overcome these types of issues.

One possible solution is to reject submissions at the first stage of voting. At the second stage, the jury will not be able to reject submissions.

1 Like

Idea is good.
1st Stage : three option




2nd Stage: ten option


1 Like

There will be disadvantages to any choice. The question is where these disadvantages are smaller. The judge can also put 1 point instead of 10 points by mistake, there is no way to get rid of mistakes. But not taking into account rejects at all when calculating the average score is a much greater drawback, in my opinion.

This is not a bad solution. However, at the moment this requires quite large changes in the smart contract and interface.

It is also necessary to determine the level of acceptance of the submission. Or the level of rejection of the submission.

This has long been accepted. Here the problem is only one who is will deploy it :slight_smile:

then what is role of SMV?
you meant 50%+1 acceptance is not same as 100% acceptance.
I think different smart contracts behaves as according their inherent creation.
There should be a universal rule for every voting contract.