[Discussion] Bitcointalk Community Awards 🏆

[LoyceV]

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

Mr. A can prefer all he wants, I'm with Mr. D. and Miss F

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.

For the record, I don't think it's necessary to adjust "voting power" based on anything else than "one user, one vote".

[1714660370]

1714660370

[1714660370]

1714660370

[1714660370]

1714660370

[1714660370]

1714660370

[1714660370]

1714660370

[o_e_l_e_o]

For the record, I don't think it's necessary to adjust "voting power" based on anything else than "one user, one vote".

I would advocate for using single transferable vote instead, although I know that ~90% of the forum users wouldn't read the instructions and would end up spoiling their vote.

[LoyceV]

I would advocate for using single transferable vote instead, although I know that ~90% of the forum users wouldn't read the instructions and would end up spoiling their vote.

I tried to quickly find out what a single transferable vote is, but couldn't figure it out without spending more than a few minutes. I think that puts me with the ~90%, which makes me think it's not a good idea. Voting should be easy, so dumb people can vote too (after all, dumb people can also get elected).

[o_e_l_e_o]

Actually, I misspoke. Since there is only going to be a single winner in each category, you don't need to use single transferable vote. Instant runoff voting is easier. The process from the voters' point of view is actually the same in each system.

Everyone could still be allowed three votes in each category, or could be allowed as many votes are they like, but instead of just picking x number of users you would rank them first choice, second choice, third choice, and so on. This is the limit of what individual users need to do.

To calculate the winner, you simply tally all the votes by their first choice. Then, look for the user or users with the fewest number of first choice votes, and they are eliminated. All their ballots are then redistributed to the next highest choice candidate. Repeat this process over and over until only one candidate remains, and they are the winner.

It is a much more fair system than simply using first past the post. Let's say, for example, theymos got 20 votes, you got 18, and I got 16. With first past the post, theymos wins. With first past the past, theymos wins with 20 votes, but 34 votes end up getting a choice they didn't want at all. But what if of the 16 people who voted for me, 14 wouldn't want theymos to win at all and would prefer you to win? With instant run off voting, you would win with 32 people getting either their first or second choice, and only 22 people getting a choice they didn't want at all.

But as I said, I can guarantee the majority of users would not read the instructions or would misunderstand them, so although it is an all round better system, probably best not to use it.

[1miau]

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.

Makes sense, maybe it's an option for our next round one year later because I can't judge how much more work it would be to do it like that in the end and after all, the benefit should outweigh the additional work because I believe managing and counting all votes from all participants for each category will be quite time consuming for icopress and GazetaBitcoin.
But still, log earned Merit votes are an interesting idea of course. 

[LoyceV]

It is a much more fair system than simply using first past the post. Let's say, for example, theymos got 20 votes, you got 18, and I got 16. With first past the post, theymos wins. With first past the past, theymos wins with 20 votes, but 34 votes end up getting a choice they didn't want at all. But what if of the 16 people who voted for me, 14 wouldn't want theymos to win at all and would prefer you to win? With instant run off voting, you would win with 32 people getting either their first or second choice, and only 22 people getting a choice they didn't want at all.

Now you're assuming not many people had theymos as their second choice, while the other candidates had many "second place votes". It would be nice if someone does the math on last year's results, it would be interesting to see if anything changes.

[joker_josue]

It is a much more fair system than simply using first past the post. Let's say, for example, theymos got 20 votes, you got 18, and I got 16. With first past the post, theymos wins. With first past the past, theymos wins with 20 votes, but 34 votes end up getting a choice they didn't want at all. But what if of the 16 people who voted for me, 14 wouldn't want theymos to win at all and would prefer you to win? With instant run off voting, you would win with 32 people getting either their first or second choice, and only 22 people getting a choice they didn't want at all.

Now you're assuming not many people had theymos as their second choice, while the other candidates had many "second place votes". It would be nice if someone does the math on last year's results, it would be interesting to see if anything changes.

The idea is good, but that means that the three choices that a user makes, have no order of preference and are all worth the same, is that it? In other words, everyone gets one vote.

But now I ask, isn't that what is already done?
What is the advantage of the OP asking for 3 choices for each category, if later it would only count with the first name?

[LoyceV]

The idea is good, but that means that the three choices that a user makes, have no order of preference and are all worth the same, is that it? In other words, everyone gets one vote.

No, the order still matters for the elimination rounds.

[fillippone]

Ladies and gentlemen,

Thanks Gazeta.
As a suggestion, I would put those rules in the OP of this thread, updating past rules, or I would provide a direct link to this post, as it would be difficult for a random user, like me, to land on the correct post.

2. No merit sending is allowed from nominees to users which nominated them. This should improve dramatically the accuracy of results and offenders will have to support a penalty. For each merit sent, 1 vote is deducted. So for example, if in the voting topic Alice sent 5 merits to those who nominated her in any category, then we will not count these votes (but the rest of the votes that are addressed to other nominees will be taken into account). In addition, if a user voted for Alice in two categories, then the votes for each of the categories will be unaccounted for.

I would like to merit the OP of the Contest Thread by Icopress, I see he voted for me, would that infringe the rules?
As a merit source, dropping merits everywhere on the forum, if this rule would extend beyond the tread it would be very difficult for me to make sure there are no incident.
As a declaration I am also going to merit this post by Gazeta.

We were also curious about how users feel about implementing a rule which would give chances to more people to win. What we were thinking about is the following: to arrange things thus the winner of a category cannot be the same person from previous contests. Or he can be, as this does not mean a ban -- but he can be with more efforts. To be more precise, all previous winners could start with a coefficient of 0.8. Attention! -- this happens only regarding the previously won category!

I am strongly against this measure.
If an user is too good, then it’s our task doing better, not tweaking the rules to demote him.
Merit is important in this forum! (Pun intended).

[icopress]

I would like to merit the OP of the Contest Thread by Icopress, I see he voted for me, would that infringe the rules?
As a merit source, dropping merits everywhere on the forum, if this rule would extend beyond the tread it would be very difficult for me to make sure there are no incident. As a declaration I am also going to merit this post by Gazeta.

You can't send merit to the second post and only, so this doesn't apply to the OP.

Thanks Gazeta.
As a suggestion, I would put those rules in the OP of this thread, updating past rules, or I would provide a direct link to this post, as it would be difficult for a random user, like me, to land on the correct post.

Also, in the OP, I already provided a link to GB's post.  

[o_e_l_e_o]

Now you're assuming not many people had theymos as their second choice, while the other candidates had many "second place votes".

Well, yes. That's what makes it a superior system - it takes in to account second and third choices rather than just a single choice.

It would be nice if someone does the math on last year's results, it would be interesting to see if anything changes.

Well that wouldn't work, since the individual voters last year were not told to rank their three picks by order of preference.

Regardless, the competition is now launched, so this discussion is kind of moot.

[Mbitr]

@icopress - thanks for the awards again this year  Will be voting today

Not sure if there’s an error or not - could be a copy and paste error ……

Quote “Event of the Year
What event had the biggest impact on you?

This nomination is a tribute to the most notable events in the crypto community or the most significant for you personally. This is the second annual award, you can only nominate and vote for all significant events of 2021”
 
Are we we voting on 2021 or 2022 ? Sorry to be pedantic 

[BitcoinGirl.Club]

You can't send merit to the second post and only, so this doesn't apply to the OP.

Finally it's live means I will need to spend few hours to think of my votes LOL
I will do some draft here 🤣


Absolute Hero of Good: Satoshi, theymos are done. I need someone new.
Golden Feather: JJG is boring LOL
Bitcointalk Ninja: TryNinaja, Mr. Bot and Ddmr are done. I need someone new again
Bitcoin Geek: No achow101, I need to think of a fresh blood.
Event of the Year: Bitcointalk pumpkin craving (I was squeezing my orange 😉)
Fail of the Year: FTX, BTC price drop from $69 to under $16k
Discovery of the Year: There is a user who have good bitcoin technical knowledge and in chipmixer campaign. He is relatively new forum member.
SpamBuster: No fucking idea. I would like to fine who have sent most report for this year
ScamBuster: This group of people are tricky. Most of the time they use it to build their reputation and sometimes they scam others when get their chance. I don't trust users falls in the group. No vote
Craft Master: Homer from WO
Antihero: Thinking
Miss Bitcointalk: I highly doubt Foxpup is she.

[bitbollo]

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5422327.0
Please update first topic @icopress with new link for Italian Discussion thread.
Good luck to everyone and thank you for this nice initiative!

[GazetaBitcoin]

As a suggestion, I would put those rules in the OP of this thread, updating past rules, or I would provide a direct link to this post, as it would be difficult for a random user, like me, to land on the correct post.

Yup, it makes sense. icopress already included a link in contest's OP, but it would also help if the rules are updated here as well. Good point, my friend!

I would like to merit the OP of the Contest Thread by Icopress, I see he voted for me, would that infringe the rules?

Nope, meriting OP is okay.

As a merit source, dropping merits everywhere on the forum, if this rule would extend beyond the tread it would be very difficult for me to make sure there are no incident.

Merit sources can still do their jobs as usually... The rule addresses mostly this thread. However, if some suspicious activity is detected, it will be investigated. (I am sorry, I can't tell here precisely for what kind of suspicious activity we will look for, as it would give ideas to exploit this too. But it's not regarding Merit Sources activity, anyway... it would be ridiculous. So don't worry )

As a declaration I am also going to merit this post by Gazeta.

Grazie tante

We were also curious about how users feel about implementing a rule which would give chances to more people to win

I am strongly against this measure.
If an user is too good, then it’s our task doing better, not tweaking the rules to demote him.

Thank you for your feedback.

Merit is important in this forum! (Pun intended).

Especially cycling it =)))

As a suggestion, I would put those rules in the OP of this thread, updating past rules, or I would provide a direct link to this post, as it would be difficult for a random user, like me, to land on the correct post.

Also, in the OP, I already provided a link to GB's post.  

I think he meant to have the rules also added to the Discussion topic as well...

Not sure if there’s an error or not - could be a copy and paste error …… [...]

Are we we voting on 2021 or 2022 ? Sorry to be pedantic  

I'll answer instead of icopress. Yup, that's a typo there. We are voting for 2022.

[icopress]

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5422327.0
Please update first topic @icopress with new link for Italian Discussion thread.
Good luck to everyone and thank you for this nice initiative!

Thank you! OP updated!

I think he meant to have the rules also added to the Discussion topic as well...

So be it my Lord! 

[1miau]

German translation is now ready: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5422351.0
I've also changed the date of "Event of the year" to 2022.

Line linking other languages is also updated as requested by icopress, please let me know if it's ok. 
Somehow I've removed a bit formatting there as I've unfortunately have messed up the formatting. 
I've also added a link to Meta, where voting takes place.

[AverageGlabella]

Did we have both event of the year and fail of the year last time? I cannot remember both of those I thought it was just event of the year last time. For the next one can I suggest that they do a 'best Bitcoin start up' to highlight some of the companies that started in the last year that accept btc?

[GazetaBitcoin]

So be it my Lord! 

Amen, brother :*

German translation is now ready: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5422351.0

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5422327.0
Please update first topic @icopress with new link for Italian Discussion thread.

High appreciation to both for these efforts!

If anybody else is interested in translating the topic for a local board, feel free to do it. The more, the merrier!

I've also changed the date of "Event of the year" to 2022.

Good job, as always, 1miau!

[shahzadafzal]

Absolute Hero of Good: Satoshi, theymos are done. I need someone new.

Thank you... exactly that's what I have been asking since 2021, 2022

Golden Feather: JJG is boring LOL

I will give it pass.

Fail of the Year: FTX, BTC price drop from $69 to under $16k

Why no one is talking about TheBitcoinTalkShow? Am I rushing? Or is it too early call it a fail?

Craft Master: Homer from WO

Yes agree, but I guess only regular WO visitors know this.


In the end again thank @icopress, these small small events including the Pumpkin Carving contest by @ChiBitCTy are making this boring bitcointalk (excluding WO obliviously) a happening plcae:)