Free TON

Hide jury votes until the end of voting to make their voting unbiased

Suggestion to make jury votes for contests invisible for everyone, including jurors, until the voting is finished.

On “Voting” stage, only the number of votes for every submission is shown and all jurors activity(i.e. total points awarded, avg score, comments etc) is hidden.

When the voting ends, the scores/comments and all other related data will be automatically made public for everyone.

That way jurors will be unbiased when casting their votes and the bandwagon effect is entirely removed, i.e. no jury member would subconsciously want to give high/low score just because everyone else did the same, because that juror would simply not be able to see other jurors’ votes.

Edit: I have to clarify that this proposal is for Governance 2.0 in case this feature is not planned already. I think we don’t have to waste time on current version of governance, since 2.0 is already in the works.


Great idea toward fair voting.


A good idea. I also think that we need to create more tools for monitoring juries work. I have a suspicion that some of the juries have done manipulations.


Hello! Great idea, the main thing is to arrange it correctly.

I agree with the idea to hide score, but I do not agree with hiding comments.
Since the comments allow judges who haven’t yet voted to take into account any flaws that they may have missed, but the judges who had already voted didn’t miss.

I find this early flaw detection system very important. By abandoning it, we will make the judging system much more vulnerable to various forms of abuse.

So I suggest:

  • to hide the score;
  • do not hide the comments of the judges;
  • prevent judges from writing score in comments: if a judge indicated a score in a comment, he does not receive his fee.

I also suggest not to hide the Rejects and Abstains.

I guess if the hiding mechanism is possible to implement, it may be also possible to have custom settings for every contest, i.e. the author of the proposal can specify in his proposal if he wants all info to be hidden or only scores. Same for reject/abstain.

In this case, I think that this should not be decided by the author of the proposal, but by those who vote for approval of a proposal.

Hiding comments and rejects can lead to a lot of chaos and outrage in the community. Not all judges will notice some critical flaws in the proposals. As a result, prizes will be taken by participants that should not have taken them. Do we need chaos in such a delicate matter?

  1. If temporarily hidden comments and rejects will result in chaos we can always start showing them back. As of now there wasn’t a single case of “chaos and outrage” because flawed works were getting prizes. No need to solve problems that don’t exist.

  2. Jurors should take full responsibility for their actions instead of relying on other jurors’ comments. Otherwise no one will take responsibility and the voting will be worse in general.

  3. Flaws are either subjective for each jury member(“gifs not funny”) or obvious to everyone, i.e. corrupted .pdf that won’t open. Also, there were cases when jurors should have rejected the work but instead just gave very low score, so even showing rejects/abstains will not work as expected.

  4. What if someone wants to comment “awesome work, really enjoyed!”? Even though there isn’t a score number you can still see it’s a high score. I don’t think we can force jurors to only comment on flaws.

Not hiding comments in a right way seems to be too complex to implement and the benefits are questionable at best.

Maybe hiding all info is not the perfect strategy, but so far it looks better than hiding only part of info.

We do not solve a problem that does not exist, we create a new problem that does not exist yet.

I understand your point of view. Of course, judges must be held accountable. The downside to this, however, is that the system loses a number of filters that increase its accuracy.
I think we need to alternate different approaches to voting in order to understand which one is really better.
The truth, however, is that both approaches have their disadvantages. We need to come up with something third, that will be devoid of both disadvantages.