Free TON

Amendment: Jury Voting Mechanics [Accepted]

Amendment: Jury Voting & Reward Mechanics

Issue 1

There are 31 jury members. In order to reject any unqualified contest submission(s), at the moment 50% + 1 of all jurors must vote to reject a submission.

Since not all jury members vote, this means that; for example, if only 10 jurors voted for a rejectable submission, even if all of them voted to reject, the submission is still awarded tokens since the minimum number of votes to reject it are 16 given that 50% +1 of 31 jurors is 16.

Issue 2

At the moment the percentage of tokens awarded to the jury is distributed evenly among all jurors who voted regardless of how many votes they cast; so for example, if one juror voted 5 times but another juror voted 50 times, the reward they each receive is equal.

Proposed amendment

In order to reject a submission, only 50% + 1 votes are needed to reject from those jurors who actually voted for the contest submission. For example, if only 10 jurors voted for a submission, only 6 need to vote to reject in order for the rejection to pass.

The percentage of tokens awarded to the jury should be distributed unevenly based on the number of votes a juror casts in total. For example, if one juror voted 5 times and another juror voted 50 times, the juror who voted 50 times will get 10 times the amount of tokens from the total distributed than the one who only voted 5 times.

11 Likes

Hey.

I fully support this.

We also need to think about the mechanism of “recusal” of judges and expulsion. On this issue, I personally have no exact finished ideas at the moment. But I know that in the community this is very widely discussed and requires attention. Hope for ideas from the community on that issue. I saw that the tables were already being prepared in which the votes for the contests were studied for each member of the jury. Perhaps this will help in developing the necessary mechanisms.

3 Likes

Step by step. Baby steps!

2 Likes

Great proposal.

I also suggest new jury members to deploy new wallets to be totally anonymous. Because now anybody can easily match the judge’s identity with his address and use this for manipulative purposes.

My second proposal - to hide jury’s votes and comments on gov.freeton.org until the end of the voting, showing them only at the end of the contest. This change will not require much resources as we shouldn’t rewrite the smart contract. We will still be able to see the votes in the blockchain explorer. This proposal will allow the judges to vote more impartially, so we will get a better quality voting.

4 Likes

I support everything that makes the contests and votting process more systematic. :+1:

2 Likes

Guys, but this time there are applicants that the work was rejected by the majority of the jury, but received a vote from a smaller part (I don’t know whether this work took the prize money or not) But if so, is it legitimate?

Guys, there is still such a nuance. Once we started discussing this.
In general, look. There is one person (I will not get personal - I do not want to hate, but I want to discuss) he is a member of the jury. But he also took part in all (or almost all) graphic competitions, maybe in others (sitting on all the chairs, lol).
So, for sure other members of the jury are aware that this person is also a member of the jury. And in this case, for sure, many are biased towards the assessment of works (oh, this is our guy, let me give you a higher grade; or vice versa, someone evil may think like this: how he got everyone, sticks his nose everywhere, we’ll give you two points now)
This should not be the case in an ideal voting. I know that at the moment everything is just taking shape, but this is the case.
ps someone who recognized himself, I ask you not to be upset, but you yourself probably understand that you are in an advantageous position

Hi! Can you provide a link on his account in PM?

1 Like

You know him. I want to note right away that he himself did not take part in the voting. In this regard, everything is honest.
And you know, probably, such a question can be resolved by itself when there are many active members in the jury who do not know each other (more or less decentralization will come in this area)
In this case, the main thing is not to allow these juries to form groups)

I have so many chats. That I can’t say who exactly you mean. Also, there needs proof for that.

1 Like

I have so many chats. That I can’t say who exactly you mean. Also, there needs proof for that.

1 Like

To avoid such problems in voting, we need to judge some non-technical contest through poll instead of jury votes. If the # of votes is as high as (lets say) 100, the bad data has a very low effect.

Another solution is that we cut the bad data from the jury votes and finally pay all the participants proportional to their average points they got from juries.

Bad data in the votes is something nobody can deny. In one of my submission, one jury has said that the work in not original at all and the other jury has said your work is really original. What does it mean? One is wrong for sure.

1 Like

I believe that the choice of voting by the jury is a necessary measure. Because polls can be artificially increased by bots.
And I understand you, I took part in the competition and also received assessments of different polarity (in my opinion, lol. After all, my work is the best :D).
In general, the community has made great progress in this direction and has become better (as we see the stone gradually turns into a diamond). The rest will be adjusted over time.
And the jury did a great job, thanks to them. Honestly, I would like to be a member of the jury, but presenting their pain after viewing almost 400 works, the desire decreases))

1 Like

Yes, it is correct. We shouldn’t increase their pain.

I would like to thank all the juries, too. If I were a jury, I would make more crazy mistakes (if I want to be honest)

1 Like

Accepted https://gov.freeton.org/proposal?proposalAddress=0:3a518aa8ad3793812007dfbc05d679139889ae639c01598acf3d5d672c503560

1 Like

I suppose we need to consider some kind of slashing mechanizm to jurys.