[FAC]Failcoin

One theory why it doesnt work out: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fqwEy8eg7Ac

@barrysoetoro

Your attitude of lumping together all those who have a problem with the carrying out of the vote is childish. I am neither participating not having a problem with anyone to win or loose. I think the conditions turn out to be contraproductive for the intentional idea of the contest. I don´t mind if you disagree but I´d like to ask you to be at least that tolerant to not randomly accuse everyone who doesnt agree with you of trolling.

"So to have all participants be in mutual agreement is impossible."

I didnt say it was possible, I only said that IF there are changes there SHOULD be mutual agreement...sigh

Imho the contest must not be canceled entirely. Too much work and energy has been spent by too many talented designers. The final choice won´t necessarily change the design used by the foundation but still it is an important competition for the community.

I understand the reservations towards a reboot of the votation given the fact that people were waiting for this vote for a long time, but this cannot be the decisive argument if the vote turns out to be unfair or a mere question of mobilization. To reconsider the proceeding is not, like some seem to argue, a contradiction and betrayal of the participants and the community or an attempt to impose own interests, it is rather the attempt to save the result from being worthless in the long run. This poll may close as it is - but what will the result be worth if people have constant arguments about whether or not the other cheated?

To prevent arguments and to raise the acceptance of the competition it is crucial to have a robust set of rules that is most likely to prevent misconduct - currently I don´t see that. The organizer splitted the vote into a public vote and a vote of the participants, which makes it less likely to be manipulated. However, as the vote of the participants hasn´t been conducted yet, participants are technically able to vote strategically with the result of the public vote in mind. To me that is inaceptable. The vote needs to be made in advance and it needs to be secret until the public vote ends.

This is only one flaw of the current proceeding. There are others like the fact that contributions aren´t standardized and therefore hard to compare. In some cases people don´t know what they are voting for because there are different logos. In other cases participants only created a logo but no different scenarios of use that are pretty important to decide whether the use makes sense.

On page 6 I suggested a two-step votation and an appropriate presentation of the contributions. In general I don´t think that the organizer should decide but rather - as FlipPro said himself - the participants of the competition in mutual agreement.  

@Leigrecc

I don´t really see why you would address me, but since altcoincryptographer didn´t accuse Smaragda of cheating, I guess its me who you are talking to.


Could you please back up your accusation? I didn´t attack "the next person who took the lead".

I made several points why I think this competition isnt fair and I am not the only one who thinks this way. Of course you can accuse all those crititcs to just envy other people for the winning prize but to me that is a killer argument. People get angry when they see that someone is altering the competition. I don´t care who wins as long as the competition is fair. 

@Netnox

Exactly, we need standardized entries, otherwise you don´t know what you are voting for.

@altcoin

Right, sorry, I was indeed mixing a comment of pajsor33 to your nick

@Smaragda

Whatever bs you are talking.... welcome to my ignorelist.

Smaragda, there is one crucial knowledge that your parents and teachers obvioulsy forgot to teach you: only because you point at someone and call him_her stupid, bad or a troll doesn´t mean that this person is actually stupid, bad or a troll. You keep on calling everyone who doesn´t agree with you a troll. I´d call that childish but my niece with 11 years does better.

And no, I don´t remember any conversation. I only remember your hysteric shouting and swearing because people accused you to have manipulated your votings or just mentioned that it is a travesty that your logo was leading the vote for some time.

Smaragda, would you please stop spamming the thread. Obviously youa re neither able to talk and argue like a normal human being nor to cope with controversial opinions. Its a shame for the quark community.

@altcoincryptographer

There is currently no rule that prohibits advertising your own work like Ultimist did, so it isnt cheating. I also think that it doesnt contributes to a fair competition if voters haven´t been involved in the quark community before. Therefore I proposed changes in the procedure (check page 6) but if it stays like this we have to accept that the vote will be heavily based on peergroup mobilization.

"You are trying to change the terms of a contest"?!??!?!?!!?!?! BS! I made a PROPOSAL for a reboot for reasons that I made pretty clear. I am not changing anything, as you suggest, I am debating an obvious problem and as we have freedom of speech I have all rights to do so. Your way of communication is inaceptable and asocial.

Here my proposal as it became washed away by your one-person shitstorm.


I think the contests should be rebooted for the following reasons:

1. There are two votes: community votes and votes between contestants. As I understand it the latter hasnt been done yet and will be flawed by the result of this vote. That shouldn´t happen because it allows strategic voting.

2. There is no acceptable way to look through all contestants. There is a Google Doc but there is no way the community looks through all of it. It is WAY to much clicking, thus the result will be flawed.

3. Some contestants and their voters were posting the entries in the forum, so they were visible, others were not. Same: no fair competition.

4. The contestants made different entries that are not really comparable. In some cases you just dont know what you are voting for. I voted for martijnp but actually I don´t know for which of the different types I vote. Thats the same for some other contestants.

5. Obviously there is some cheating going on, as referred by many community members. There is a need for a different procedure.


I propose the following procedure:

1. All contestants are asked to hand in a logo for two standard formats a) vertical and  b) squarred  in three scaled sizes so community user can compare how the logo would be used.

2. The entries are presented in a visible gallery so the voter can actually look through it. Every contest should write some lines (max. ~5 sentences) why he decided to do it this way. That is pretty important as community members will sometimes not see the "bigger picture".

3. Before the public vote starts there is a vote between contestants. The result will be secret until the poll is closed. Bot results are counted 50:50.

4. All contestants that reached a certain mark, I propose 10%, take part in a second round where they can present whatever else they want to present (use on mobile devices, webpages etc.). This will be presented in a gallery as well.

5. There is a final vote between the contestants and after that a public poll as in 3.


As the winning price is quite high and the result has a certain impact to the community it is crucial to me to keep the procedure as transparent, fair and self-controlling as possible. Currently I dont see that.


This is a comparison between current contestants that reach the 5% mark. Decide for yourself whether visualisations like that are neccesary to have a fair competition.

@Smaragda

Please answer the rest of my post:

"I wasn´t opening a new competition so whats your point?"

@Smaragda

I wasn´t opening a new competition so whats your point?


Obviously you do, as you are jumping up and down like a troll on amphetamines when people criticize your logo.

The fact that I wasn´t there doesn´t mean I can´t debate it now. I joined the quark community only some weeks ago, and only recently heard about the contest.  

It is quite clear why you are not in favour of stronger competition policies.

P.S.: Don´t play the Diva, just because I don´t like your logo.

@Leigrec  

I think this FlipPro as organizer has quite an important function in all of this but I think there can´t be a "we can´t go back" argument. The winner will get his_her prize but it is the community that needs to accept and use the logo and if many people don´t think it is a fair competition then the result will rather have a bad effect on what logo people are going to use.

As I said, I just made a proposal. I think it serves a) to filter the not so professional logos and fake-votes b) to give everyone equal chances to present their work and c) to have discussion about the concept.

Until now there is no debate, only fanboy_fangirl-comments. The reason why is that currently there is no real base for discussion, only a huge ammount of entries that are in many ways not comparable and leave us user without a clue why they have been designed they way they were designed. To me that isn´t very productive and therefore I would ask everyone to consider changing the framework for the voting and reboot the procedure.

I am willing to support the organization of a reopened competition.

I think the contests should be rebooted for the following reasons:

1. There are two votes: community votes and votes between contestants. As I understand it the latter hasnt been done yet and will be flawed by the result of this vote. That shouldn´t happen because it allows strategic voting.

2. There is no acceptable way to look through all contestants. There is a Google Doc but there is no way the community looks through all of it. It is WAY to much clicking, thus the result will be flawed.

3. Some contestants and their voters were posting the entries in the forum, so they were visible, others were not. Same: no fair competition.

4. The contestants made different entries that are not really comparable. In some cases you just dont know what you are voting for. I voted for martijnp but actually I don´t know for which of the different types I vote. Thats the same for some other contestants.

5. Obviously there is some cheating going on, as referred by many community members. There is a need for a different procedure.


I propose the following procedure:

1. All contestants are asked to hand in a logo for two standard formats a) vertical and  b) squarred  in three scaled sizes so community user can compare how the logo would be used.

2. The entries are presented in a visible gallery so the voter can actually look through it. Every contest should write some lines (max. ~5 sentences) why he decided to do it this way. That is pretty important as community members will sometimes not see the "bigger picture".

3. Before the public vote starts there is a vote between contestants. The result will be secret until the poll is closed. Bot results are counted 50:50.

4. All contestants that reached a certain mark, I propose 10%, take part in a second round where they can present whatever else they want to present (use on mobile devices, webpages etc.). This will be presented in a gallery as well.

5. There is a final vote between the contestants and after that a public poll as in 3.


As the winning price is quite high and the result has a certain impact to the community it is crucial to me to keep the procedure as transparent, fair and self-controlling as possible. Currently I dont see that.


This is a comparison between current contestants that reach the 5% mark. Decide for yourself whether visualisations like that are neccesary to have a fair competition.

Btw. has the voting between the entrants finished already? Otherwise the result of this poll could cause strategic voting.

I just registered coming from  forum.qrk.cc and I voted for martijnps design. There are other good ones in the ring...boxxl made a good one as well imho. But while these are professional design from what you can see in the result and in the idea behind, the result of smaragda is a laugh. I mean, its cool that he_she provided a design but it lacks of all that a logo needs. Its not scalable, not suitable for masses and lacks a unique look. The fact that it takes the lead way ahead can only be explained by peer-mobilization or fakeaccounts. Both would be a problem for the contest.