Free TON

Proposal: Contest Voting System

Short description:

To upgrade contest voting mechaics, making it more fair and independent.

Type:

Proposal

Motivation:

The current voting system is too simplified. I suggest improving it by making the voting process more detailed and fair.

Was:

  1. The Jury may evaluate the entire work from 0 to 10 without comments or detailed scores.
  2. The works are sorted in the order they were uploaded to the page https://freeton.org/proposals, but not in the order of their initial posting on the forum (This is a problem only for competitions that started before the freeton.org/proposals page was created.).
  3. The Jury can see the evaluations of other Jury members druing the voting process. This can make influence on their decision.

Proposals:

  1. Introduce several evaluation criteria. On the example of Airdrop Contest:
    a) Abuse protection
    b) Safety
    c) Ease of use
    d) Difficulty of implementation
    e) Potential audience coverage
    f) Originality

For each criteria there will be a rating scale from 0 to 10. The final grade is calculated as an arithmetic mean.

This will make the evaluation more complex and also will help in determining the winner in a situation when participants will have equal number of points. In case of an equal number of points, the winner is determined by a priority criteria (e.g. protection against bots is more important than complexity of implementation).

It is also mandatory for the Jury member to leave a short comment on the work. This will help to ensure that he has read it carefully and will also help participants understand the Jury’s priorities for future competitions.

  1. Works on old competitions (which were posted before the voting page https://freeton.org/proposals was created) should be sorted according to the date of their posting on the forum. This will help to give priority to participants who post a popular idea among the first ones.

For example, a participant has posted a good idea and future participants have finalized it. In this case, the first participant gets a high score for originality, and the next participants get much less points on this criteria.

  1. In almost all serious competitions the jury does not know what grades its colleagues put before the end of voting. This is done to make the voting as independent as possible. Seeing someone else’s estimation can affect jury’s decision (social factor).

I propose to make the voting process invisible until the results are announced, so that the jury could evaluate the works as objectively as possible.

9 Likes

In full on-chain voting it seems only possible with ZKP implementation. If you have a particular design in mind please do share!

1 Like

Hello Daniil!
Your point #1 re more detailed voting is already implemented, partially now, partially in Governance 1.1 (upcoming very soon).

On occasion we have discussed some related points on call, see
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bV378XrTE18 from 2:14:20

Point #3 was also concerned and it reveals some pros and cons. Pavel said that for jury it is very meaningful to know what discussion was taken by community re each contest application. So the whole topic needs to be discussed further (in any format).

2 Likes