[Discussion] Bitcointalk Community Awards 🏆

[GazetaBitcoin]

We will always learn from the experience. When will we go live?

I'll let icopress announce the date

So, as far as nominees are concerned, there's nothing prohibiting them from abusing with merit bribery, right? If someone wants to buy votes with merits, all that's needed is to merit them at some other post.

That's possible, or it can happen in a local (translated) topic. But it'll be hard to prove it's because of the vote: I've Merited many of the users who have voted for me on other posts, but this had nothing to do with their votes.

We will try to be as cautious as possible regarding such shenanigans... No method is bullet proof but, if suspicions arise, we will pay attention to such particular cases... Let's hope though that most will see things in a fair way and not try to cheat by any means. Of course, if other users observe shady things, they are free to highlight them. But let's adopt a positive attitude though...

The problem with this however, is that communication between the nominee and the voter is required (in contrast with previous contests wherein the voter knew it beforehand).

Or, without explicit communication, it can be implied. Or expected. There is no perfect solution, unfortunately.

Sadly, yes. But still (maybe I'm too naive?) I believe in people honesty. It's about having fun, not about finding sophisticated methods to cheat...

I do not like this rule because competitions are supposed to be won based on merit (not smerit but... you get the idea). Disqualifying someone who would've won because they were the previous winner would put the competition in a bad light and make some people think it's stealing the award from them, especially since financial prizes are now on the table.

However, the coefficient just seems wrong to me. Either you prevent previous winners from winning or you don't. While, I do like the idea of seeing new faces of the winners list, I think that's rather down to the community rather than anyone else. If users want to see new winners, then vote for new users, and not the popular choices. A rule change probably isn't necessary in this case, at least for me.

Thank you both for your feedback I got your point.

Well, I didn't remember that second point. They could start creating user just to vote in the poll. 

So forget the idea! It won't be one of the best ideas!

Don't worry, joker_josue, it's good to bring as many ideas, by different users... In the end this is how things can be made better (in this particular case, but also when speaking at large). Some ideas may not be suitable but others can. And with such open discussion bright ideas may arise So don't hesitate if another thought crosses through your mind.

[1714662476]

1714662476

[1714662476]

1714662476

[1714662476]

1714662476

[1714662476]

1714662476

[BitcoinGirl.Club]

We will always learn from the experience. When will we go live?

I'll let icopress announce the date

Can't wait to see the post live. Have a criteria to vote for best WO hat concept 😉?
You all are forgetting WO has a long history on the forum and some crazy OGs spend their time only there.

[1miau]

Or, without explicit communication, it can be implied. Or expected. There is no perfect solution, unfortunately.

Bribing is pretty much of a big concern for the world-- not just for this forum. Even if there wasn't a merit system, nominees could bribe their voters with other currency (and yes, I imply that merits can be considered an in-forum currency, that is used to "purchase" certain ranks, which can later on give you money in return).

I don't know if it's directly bribery what's our problem here, maybe we can call it "passive bribery".
The issue from our previous round has been somehow like that:

a) Account xy (Bob) is nominated by someone (Alice).
b) Bob notices, how Alice nominated him and sends a Merit to exactly the post from Alice, where Bob is nominated.
c) The post from Alice where Bob is nominated is now Merited by Bob
d) Other possible voters are coming over Alice's post and are drawing the conclusion that if Bob is your nominated Account, you'll receive a Merit from Bob.
e) c) repeats multiple times, resulting in more d)
f) Some opponents (Ted) of Bob will see his practice farming votes by Merit and Ted will give out Merit to everyone who voted for him as well.
g) shitposters are activating all their Alt Accounts to get free Merit from members like Bob and Ted for nominating them.

= everyone who wants to obtain a Merit will start to nominate Bob and Ted, therefore Bob and Ted are "indirectly bribing" voters and possibly, more members will act like Bob and Ted.

The motive behind it is a mixture of of shitposters looking for a cheap Merit and in our case some members (like Bob) abusing the greed / need of shitposters for Merit. Then, members like Ted join because he notices how Bob is getting more votes.  

In my opinion, all steps taken by icopress and GazetaBitcoin to prevent participants from abusing Merit is a very good solution.
Members engaging in such "passive bribery" will be punished accordingly, which should prevent abuse.  

[joker_josue]

~~

No more! It's worth noting that maybe Bob didn't do this with the idea of getting more votes, he might be giving merit to all the members who voted in the game.
But this creates a chain effect, difficult to stop and to prevent.

The measures presented really seem to be a minimally competent solution to prevent this type of situation.

[GazetaBitcoin]

The issue from our previous round has been somehow like that [...]

= everyone who wants to obtain a Merit will start to nominate Bob and Ted, therefore Bob and Ted are "indirectly bribing" voters and possibly, more members will act like Bob and Ted. [...]

The motive behind it is a mixture of of shitposters looking for a cheap Merit and in our case some members (like Bob) abusing the greed / need of shitposters for Merit. Then, members like Ted join because he notices how Bob is getting more votes. 

Loooooooool!

My dear 1miau, you exposed things in the most rigorous and academic way possible! Chapeau to that!

In my opinion, all steps taken by icopress and GazetaBitcoin to prevent participants from abusing Merit is a very good solution.
Members engaging in such "passive bribery" will be punished accordingly, which should prevent abuse. 

Thank you for your support. We (all) know that no method is bullet-proof but, at least, we tried something. Let's see how things will develop...

No more! It's worth noting that maybe Bob didn't do this with the idea of getting more votes, he might be giving merit to all the members who voted in the game.

Indeed, maybe Bob just wanted to show a sign of appreciation to all users which participated as you say. But then...

But this creates a chain effect, difficult to stop and to prevent.

... but then another Bob appeared and observed "the benefits" of acting this way. See? So we have a Bob which had no bad intention but another one speculated this action and realized it is, in fact, an opportunity...

The measures presented really seem to be a minimally competent solution to prevent this type of situation.

If you have any other solutions, always feel free to present them.

[BlackHatCoiner]

= everyone who wants to obtain a Merit will start to nominate Bob and Ted, therefore Bob and Ted are "indirectly bribing" voters and possibly, more members will act like Bob and Ted.

Exactly what I was thinking. Bribing isn't prevented; what's prevented is the instant conclusion that there are bribers. Disability to merit means there cannot be Bobs and Teds who will gather their voters in one place and, essentially, sell their merits effectively. Alts can only get what they want if they ask for it privately, which discourages them due to merit whoring. Bribing is, ultimately, reduced in a large scale.

[joker_josue]

The measures presented really seem to be a minimally competent solution to prevent this type of situation.

If you have any other solutions, always feel free to present them.

How to say, I think the idea is good: whoever gives merit to a post where he received a vote, that vote doesn't count.


Another idea would be the weight of votes. In other words, the vote of a Legendary was worth more than a Member.
A bit of what happens in the voting of sports associations, that those who have been a member for the longest time are entitled to more votes than new members.
I don't know if that would discourage meritorious motivations outside the voting topic. Since votes from new users would not be as valuable as those from older users. The older ones, in turn, don't need so many merits (allegedly).

[BlackHatCoiner]

In other words, the vote of a Legendary was worth more than a Member.

You probably mean "the vote of an more experienced and dedicated member is worth more" here, instead. All experienced and dedicated members are legendaries (or that's where they're heading to), but not all legendaries are experienced and dedicated.

And I'll have to disagree with this thinking. Being a year here is equivalent to being a decade when it comes to judging the quality content.

[joker_josue]

In other words, the vote of a Legendary was worth more than a Member.

You probably mean "the vote of an more experienced and dedicated member is worth more" here, instead. All experienced and dedicated members are legendaries (or that's where they're heading to), but not all legendaries are experienced and dedicated.

And I'll have to disagree with this thinking. Being a year here is equivalent to being a decade when it comes to judging the quality content.

That's not quite what I mean. A Legendary doesn't need merit to level up, so it's less influenceable - in that respect.
As an example (just an example): a Legendary vote was worth 4 votes, while a Member's vote was only worth 2. This is an example, it doesn't have to be that way.
That is, there was not so much interest in assigning "bribe" with merits users to receive votes.


PS: With these exchanges of ideas, we end up giving ideas to those who think trying to manipulate the results. 

[1miau]

The motive behind it is a mixture of of shitposters looking for a cheap Merit and in our case some members (like Bob) abusing the greed / need of shitposters for Merit. Then, members like Ted join because he notices how Bob is getting more votes.  

Loooooooool!

My dear 1miau, you exposed things in the most rigorous and academic way possible! Chapeau to that!

Nice to hear abusers got EXPOSED.  
Maybe I'm getting a Ph.D. in exposing abusers.  

= everyone who wants to obtain a Merit will start to nominate Bob and Ted, therefore Bob and Ted are "indirectly bribing" voters and possibly, more members will act like Bob and Ted.

Bribing is, ultimately, reduced in a large scale.

Exactly and for the rest I'm sure we'll get some top tier detectives looking into suspicious Accounts participating in that event, all evidence of abuse will be compiled and Alt Accounts will get busted.  
Jokes aside, Bitcointalk's Community awards will be a very fair event and we should be able to detect any sort of abuse because rules are massively improved compared to the last time and since we had already several Bitcointalk Community Awards, multiple offenders like Alt Accounts only used for Bitcointalk Community Awards voting could be spotted easily if Merit requirements aren't enough.

[GazetaBitcoin]

Maybe I'm getting a Ph.D. in exposing abusers. 

I bow down to that, brother!
If I could, I would offer you the diploma with my hand, as you fully deserve it. It's just I am not an academician, thus I am not (yet? ) entitled to do that...

Exactly and for the rest I'm sure we'll get some top tier detectives looking into suspicious Accounts participating in that event, all evidence of abuse will be compiled and Alt Accounts will get busted. 
Jokes aside

You may have said it in a funny way but, for sure, there will be "top tier detectives looking into suspicious" activity...

Bitcointalk's Community awards will be a very fair event and we should be able to detect any sort of abuse because rules are massively improved compared to the last time and since we had already several Bitcointalk Community Awards, multiple offenders like Alt Accounts only used for Bitcointalk Community Awards voting could be spotted easily if Merit requirements aren't enough.

I am also thinking in a positive manner, as I wrote in the previous posts as well -- meaning to think (hope) that people will understand this event is for fun and appreciation to forum's iconic figures, thus they should be all incentivized to play fair. But again, if there will be ones more attracted to outsmart the other participants, I hope we will be vigilant enough to catch all these particular cases.

[LoyceV]

Another idea would be the weight of votes. In other words, the vote of a Legendary was worth more than a Member.
A bit of what happens in the voting of sports associations, that those who have been a member for the longest time are entitled to more votes than new members.

If you're going to adjust voting power, why not give each vote the power of the log of the earned Merits? You've earned 1096 Merits, so your voting power is 3.0398. O_e_l_e_o earned 12992 Merits, so his voting power is 4.1137. A user with the minimum of 50 earned Merits, gets voting power 1.6990. This way, the increase in voting power is only very small so votes from newer members don't become worthless.

[Lucius]

Not that I'm overly interested in this competition, but if you want to have a somewhat fair competition make it for the competition and not the prize - in other words no prizes for the winners in terms of money. Let them be awarded a special badge or something similar - maybe a temporary title of winner of the competition that they will have until the next competition.

[Welsh]

Not that I'm overly interested in this competition, but if you want to have a somewhat fair competition make it for the competition and not the prize - in other words no prizes for the winners in terms of money. Let them be awarded a special badge or something similar - maybe a temporary title of winner of the competition that they will have until the next competition.

I think the event is actually a really good idea, which actually promotes a lot of good habits among the community. However, I'd somewhat agree that the sponsorships have taken away from that a little bit. The event doesn't feel like it's for the community any more, and that's no dig at the organisers. It's just the competition felt quite authentic, but when there's any financial reward available it seems to be a prime target for abuse.

It's a shame to see. I do think with the correct changes you can mitigate it. The merit issue was pointed out by quite a few users, and removing a vote is actually a decent way of going about it. Since, it only really effects the nominee if they decide to merit the user that voted for them.

That does pretty much limit the merit issue we saw previously. The preventing of old winners, I think was suggested with good intentions, I just don't think personally it's the best way of going about it. I do think most of the creases will be ironed out with the merit suggestion, which should make the sponsorships not get in the way as much as they did last time.

[joker_josue]

Another idea would be the weight of votes. In other words, the vote of a Legendary was worth more than a Member.
A bit of what happens in the voting of sports associations, that those who have been a member for the longest time are entitled to more votes than new members.

If you're going to adjust voting power, why not give each vote the power of the log of the earned Merits? You've earned 1096 Merits, so your voting power is 3.0398. O_e_l_e_o earned 12992 Merits, so his voting power is 4.1137. A user with the minimum of 50 earned Merits, gets voting power 1.6990. This way, the increase in voting power is only very small so votes from newer members don't become worthless.

Using this as a base is very interesting! Instead of being the user's level, it will be the number of merits received that values more or less the weight of the vote.

It's a question of finding a balanced model, so as not to value the votes of some users too much and not create totally useless votes from other users.

[1miau]

Maybe I'm getting a Ph.D. in exposing abusers. 

If I could, I would offer you the diploma with my hand, as you fully deserve it. It's just I am not an academician, thus I am not (yet? ) entitled to do that...

It's quite sad to see it failing that way but maybe we'll get an appropriate opportunity in the future. 

Another idea would be the weight of votes. In other words, the vote of a Legendary was worth more than a Member.
A bit of what happens in the voting of sports associations, that those who have been a member for the longest time are entitled to more votes than new members.

If you're going to adjust voting power, why not give each vote the power of the log of the earned Merits?

Very interesting idea. Taking earned Merit into consideration and adjust votes according to log earned Merit, achievements (ranks) would be taken into consideration while lower ranks could still participate.
But it would be very time consuming for icopress and GazetaBitcoin to count all votes and calculate winners, especially when many members will vote here...
Is it an option to scrape data and calculate it that way automatically? 

Maybe it's an option for next round next year. 

[LoyceV]

But it would be very time consuming for icopress and GazetaBitcoin to count all votes and calculate winners, especially when many members will vote here...
Is it an option to scrape data and calculate it that way automatically?

I have the earned Merit data already (although it's updated only weekly). That shouldn't be too difficult to combine with a spreadsheet with votes.

[BitcoinGirl.Club]

Another idea would be the weight of votes. In other words, the vote of a Legendary was worth more than a Member.
A bit of what happens in the voting of sports associations, that those who have been a member for the longest time are entitled to more votes than new members.

If you're going to adjust voting power, why not give each vote the power of the log of the earned Merits?

Very interesting idea. Taking earned Merit into consideration and adjust votes according to log earned Merit, achievements (ranks) would be taken into consideration while lower ranks could still participate.

It will allow monsters like Mr. Bot and others who have most of the merit market share in other words merit whales ( 😉 ), a super power to influence the voting system.
I don't know how log works 🤣

[LoyceV]

It will allow monsters like Mr. Bot and others who have most of the merit market share in other words merit whales ( 😉 ), a super power to influence the voting system.

Not really, see my examples.

I don't know how log works 🤣

It's simple math:
Log 10 = 1
Log 100 = 2
Log 1000 = 3
Log 10000 = 4
Since 50 Merit is the minimum, the voting power doesn't change much. Having to earn 9000 more Merits to go from 3 to 4 sharply reduces the power of more Merits.

[BitcoinGirl.Club]

Since 50 Merit is the minimum, the voting power doesn't change much. Having to earning 9000 more Merits to go from 3 to 4 sharply reduces the power of more Merits.

I don't understand the decimal counts so I am going to put xxx.

When I am voting for Mr. A, he receives 3.xxxx
When you are voting for Mr. A, he receives 4.xxx

Mr. A will always prefer you over me on his campaign 😉

Anyway jokes aside, I don't have better idea in mind and I don't see it's a bad idea too. The only problem last two years we had were the merit sent by users and accounts (those were voting) were taking advantages from it. This year if we can prevent it, then that will be a huge improvement.