[Discussion] Bitcointalk Community Awards 🏆

[m2017]

I'm talking about "Best Bounty Manager". Maybe add another title?

As I wrote last year:

that's the problem with Voting like this: it's more of a Recognition award than an award for actual accomplishments.

When it comes to "bounty managers", I expect the most active one to get most votes, while the campaign manager who rejects spammers won't be loved. Then again, bounty spammers usually don't have Merit so they can't vote.

Thank you for your clarification. I also had doubts about what criteria to evaluate them, but it was worth trying with the proposal of the idea.

[...] I'm talking about "Best Bounty Manager".

Even if you do not take into account that there is already a Craft Master category, do not forget that there are not so many managers on the forum, so the category you actually proposed would exist for one or two people, ^{[just read the description and you will understand that there is no need for an additional category]}.

Thanks for clarifying. Forgive me my inattention. You are absolutely right and convinced me. A separate category would be redundant.

I looked at the names of the nominations in this contest, but did not see the important title for almost every forum participant. I'm talking about "Best Bounty Manager". Maybe add another title? Bounty managers have been an integral part of bitcointalk for many years, and it would not be superfluous to nominate and encourage them too. Why not. 

This is already included in a Craft Master category as you can see in explanation below.
It's not only limited to managers but also to escrow, designers, etc, and you can see that most people voted for managers.

I already figured it out and thank you too.

We will assume that from now on my proposal to add a new category "Best Bounty Manager" is invalid due to the fact that there is already a category "Craft Master".

[1714684883]

1714684883

[1714684883]

1714684883

[uchegod-21]

In the award there is Miss Bitcointalk.
Why is there no Mr. Bitcointalk?
Or is any of the award titles an equivalent to Mr Bitcointalk?

[Foxpup]

In the award there is Miss Bitcointalk.
Why is there no Mr. Bitcointalk?

Because awards are customarily only given to those who are exceptional in some way, and Bitcointalk users who are (or at least are believed to be) female are, regrettably, the exception to the norm.

[icopress]

If I had not added this nomination, I would have been called a sexist. 

Although I agree with this statement.

There are no girls on the internet

[joker_josue]

In the award there is Miss Bitcointalk.
Why is there no Mr. Bitcointalk?

Because awards are customarily only given to those who are exceptional in some way, and Bitcointalk users who are (or at least are believed to be) female are, regrettably, the exception to the norm.

The question here is: how do you know through a generic username if you are male or female?

For example @foxpup is a name that I can't tell if the user is male or female. Unless the user identifies himself.

Of course, there are names that can be deduced that it is a man or a woman, but if we analyze it well, we will see that in most cases it is not possible to distinguish.

[_BlackStar]

For example @foxpup is a name that I can't tell if the user is male or female. Unless the user identifies himself.

A guy may not really like eating taco because of their high fat and cholesterol content, but a girl usually prefers this type of food. First Foxpup identification, done.

Foxpup, don't kick my ass. 

After all, who identified me as a man? 

[decodx]

In the award there is Miss Bitcointalk.
Why is there no Mr. Bitcointalk?

Because awards are customarily only given to those who are exceptional in some way, and Bitcointalk users who are (or at least are believed to be) female are, regrettably, the exception to the norm.

The question here is: how do you know through a generic username if you are male or female?

The question here is, does it really matter?

I think some people take this matter too seriously. By the same logic, we can reevaluate every other category on the list.
In my opinion, the goal of this campaign is not to discuss and analyze the gender of the forum members, but to encourage activity and have some fun in doing so. Don't you think so?

[Foxpup]

You guys do realise that your forum profile has a gender field, right? (Even if the options are as outdated as the rest of the forum...) You don't have to jump to questionable conclusions based on crude stereotypes and nude pictures.

[joker_josue]

The question here is, does it really matter?

I think some people take this matter too seriously. By the same logic, we can reevaluate every other category on the list.
In my opinion, the goal of this campaign is not to discuss and analyze the gender of the forum members, but to encourage activity and have some fun in doing so. Don't you think so?

No more! I think this is irrelevant. Here we are all the same, in the sense that we all want to talk about Bitcoin and cryptocurrencies.
So there is a category for a specific genre, I think it was irrelevant.

But it's alright.

You guys do realise that your forum profile has a gender field, right? (Even if the options are as outdated as the rest of the forum...) You don't have to jump to questionable conclusions based on crude stereotypes and nude pictures.

That's true. But not being a mandatory field in the registration, most forum users do not have this field filled. Using this as a yardstick makes the selection even more unfair. Since this field may not be filled in, or not filled in correctly.

In a forum, where the basis of communication is the text, there is no gender in the words.

[LoyceV]

Quote from the other topic:

From the moment of publication and until the end of Feb (+2W), a public vote will be open

Can you clarify what this means? The end of February plus 2 weeks would make it March 14, but in that case it doesn't make sense to say the end of Feb.

[icopress]

Can you clarify what this means? The end of February plus 2 weeks would make it March 14, but in that case it doesn't make sense to say the end of Feb.

Two additional weeks will be required if 200 votes are not reached by the end of February ^{[how was it last time]}.

[funsponge]

Can you clarify what this means? The end of February plus 2 weeks would make it March 14, but in that case it doesn't make sense to say the end of Feb.

Two additional weeks will be required if 200 votes are not reached by the end of February ^{[how was it last time]}.

We are at 80+ votes and we have 28 days left.

[_BlackStar]

Two additional weeks will be required if 200 votes are not reached by the end of February ^{[how was it last time]}.

PM some users who are not currently participating in that voting thread, I think it will save you more time to get at least 200 votes from different users.
The forum also raised user awareness after the news section was announced about this vote, so maybe PMing to some users would also help a lot. This is just a suggestion, you decide.

So far there are 95 users who have participated in the thread based on ninjastic.space. It will up soon, but may slow down a bit if there isn't much of a push.

[LoyceV]

PM some users who are not currently participating in that voting thread

Don't do that, it's against the rules:

29. Sending unsolicited PMs, including but not limited to advertising and flood, is not allowed.

I remember a DT-member leaving negative feedback in a similar case. If you PM enough people, some of them won't appreciate it.

[_BlackStar]

PM some users who are not currently participating in that voting thread

Don't do that, it's against the rules:

29. Sending unsolicited PMs, including but not limited to advertising and flood, is not allowed.

I remember a DT-member leaving negative feedback in a similar case. If you PM enough people, some of them won't appreciate it.

Can we expect exceptions in certain cases even though I've actually read about it in the unofficial rules?

If all cases of sending PMs to multiple users can be considered as unsolicited PM's, then I really believe not many people would dare send PMs to other users for a good cause if not asked. It's true that trust systems are not moderated but when they use that power to tag someone in good faith ^{[like informing them of the existence of this thread]} then that power should be revoked. Other than that I'm not urging the OP to do it, it's just a suggestion from me. 

[icopress]

- The existing notifications in this event are more than enough.
- I will not invite anyone to vote, just because most of those who I would send a message to would be embarrassed to refuse me.

After all, we are talking about voluntary voting? Right? 

[Stalker22]

~
 It's true that trust systems are not moderated but when they use that power to tag someone in good faith ^{[like informing them of the existence of this thread]} then that power should be revoked. Other than that I'm not urging the OP to do it, it's just a suggestion from me. 

I am unsure that ever happened. Anybody who gets a negative tag for sending unsolicited PMs is probably deserving of it.

As for your proposal, you are free to do it yourself. You can send PMs to your friends or members you are close with, I don't believe anyone will tag you or report you to a moderator for that. However, sending mass PMs to a large number of random forum members with whom you have no previous contact is not recommended.

[Rikafip]

PM some users who are not currently participating in that voting thread, I think it will save you more time to get at least 200 votes from different users.
The forum also raised user awareness after the news section was announced about this vote, so maybe PMing to some users would also help a lot. This is just a suggestion, you decide.

Why would he do that? Honestly, if someone sends me PM about something like this, I would be really annoyed and probably wouldn't even vote, even if I initially planned to. Additionally, threads in Meta and Reputation are constantly close to the top of the boards so anyone that is even remotely interested in voting will eventually see it. Give it a time, some are probably having issue deciding so they are still waiting. Same thing happened to me last year.

[lovesmayfamilis]

~
 It's true that trust systems are not moderated but when they use that power to tag someone in good faith ^{[like informing them of the existence of this thread]} then that power should be revoked. Other than that I'm not urging the OP to do it, it's just a suggestion from me. 

I am unsure that ever happened. Anybody who gets a negative tag for sending unsolicited PMs is probably deserving of it.

As for your proposal, you are free to do it yourself. You can send PMs to your friends or members you are close with, I don't believe anyone will tag you or report you to a moderator for that. However, sending mass PMs to a large number of random forum members with whom you have no previous contact is not recommended.

No, not always the one who sends an invitation to PM deserves a negative tag. I'll be more specific. Some time ago, an interview was conducted with forum users. Out of good intentions, the interview organizer sent personal invitations to everyone. And one day he got a negative tag from a DT member.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=2654005
The man felt he was being forced to take part. It took a while to change the review to neutral. Why bother once again people who are not ready to do something?
I also agree that this vote should be free participation. If someone does not want to write there, do not force him. Moreover, META is the central place of the forum, which most of the participants know about. And all the events there are unlikely to go unnoticed.

[joker_josue]

@icopress
Are you thinking of creating a list of those who have already received votes or are you not going to have that list?