(Discussion) Best Bitcointalk Interview

[FatFork]

@CryptopreneurBrainboss, what impact did you expect from the distribution of merits to your voters? True, you got a few votes from some high-ranking members, but what you think was an incentive for those 'Newbie' members who voted exclusively for you. Do you think they've even read the ANN post and voting rules?

I won't mind getting punished if the organizers feel that's the best thing to do and also I want to use this opportunity to bring to the awareness of users begging for votes in local board.

Do you have any evidence for that? By the way, I think machine translators are really bad at catching sarcasm!

[1714837107]

1714837107

[1714837107]

1714837107

[1714837107]

1714837107

[1714837107]

1714837107

[CryptopreneurBrainboss]

I see valid point in all you have said @LoyceV and others too. I believe the idea behind this initiative was to give the best interview a recognition and nothing more, that their favorite chances of winning is been challenged doesn't mean they should drag my reputation under the mud. I have spent years building the trust & respect I have now and I wouldn't trade that or allow it to be taken away from me merely because of few bucks. I earned everything I currently have and I'm very proud of it, I got no local board to support me and have to work twices than most of them.

I hate the fact that my name is getting dragged all round the forum especially in local board therefore I would love to withdraw from been eligible in this contest. My actions were just an appreciation and nothing more, if my actions brought about dishonesty to the contest I'm sorry and It'll be best I withdraw to avoid further complications. Understandable few users took advantage of this act of mine and for those that genuinely voted for me, thank you.

Please grant my request @zasad@ thank you.

Do you have any evidence for that? By the way, I think machine translators are really bad at catching sarcasm!

https://archive.is/wip/nZw7O

[cryptofrka]

The problem with your interview is that it's really, really, REALLY bad. There are so many good ones and if yours was even decent, I'm sure it would not cause such a stir.

You have to be aware of that yourself, right? Just read a few of the good ones, then read yours and then try to justify giving it a vote. You don't have 5 votes, you have like 20+, maybe even more. So, naturally, we all know something's gone terribly wrong there.

That said, I'd hate to see you withdraw from the contest because in reality, these votes are not your fault at all. It's the fault of people who vote for you just so you will maybe remember them in the future when you are picking campaign members or for the merit you were giving. You did nothing wrong so do not take the blame for it.

[NeuroticFish]

therefore I would love to withdraw from been eligible in this contest. My actions were just an appreciation and nothing more, if my actions brought about dishonesty to the contest I'm sorry and It'll be best I withdraw to avoid further complications. Understandable few users took advantage of this act of mine and for those that genuinely voted for me, thank you.

I didn't have the time for it, but I've seen as possibly some sort of "friendly bribery". You are not new in here and you know that there's quite a hunger for merits, since they can bring better paid places in most signature campaigns.
It doesn't matter at all if you knew or not that meriting will attract more votes. It may not even matter if you withdraw from the contest or not (honorable move, but possibly useless since there's plenty of time until 17th for many more votes around).
What matter the most is to see the point and .. well, merit posts only for their usefulness

[zasad@]

I hate the fact that my name is getting dragged all round the forum especially in local board therefore I would love to withdraw from been eligible in this contest. My actions were just an appreciation and nothing more, if my actions brought about dishonesty to the contest I'm sorry and It'll be best I withdraw to avoid further complications. Understandable few users took advantage of this act of mine and for those that genuinely voted for me, thank you.

Please grant my request @zasad@ thank you.

I consulted with the sponsor and here is our opinion:
As far as we understand, CryptopreneurBrainboss did not violate any special forum rules. The rules of this competition do not prohibit awarding voting participants.
We try to remain neutral as much as possible, so we cannot accommodate such requests.
We remind you that the rules of the competition do not prohibit changing your vote.

[cryptoaddictchie]

There are so many interesting participants in the interview and some of those are really amazing talks. It's gonna be a tough competition and we can see some issue on voting. There are 213 choices I'm sure not all read everybody's interview and focus on the person that somehow interest them. If the contest was shortlisted by a committee let say up to 5 to 10 candidates that will be chosen to proceed with the voting.

At least if there is a short list people can have time to review which one is really struck them most or amazed. Anyway just a thought but I appreciate this wonderful competition. Thumbs up to you @zasad and to @Best_Change for sponsoring this event.

Still thinking regarding my vote there are so many interesting interviews. Very confuse whom to write. Anyway will vote when the date is close to the final date.

[Marvelman]

What matter the most is to see the point and .. well, merit posts only for their usefulness

Usefulness to whom? I bet that Brainboss finds those posts useful. Well, at least for him.

Joke aside, if merits have been implemented to improve the overall quality of this forum, then I just don't see any reasoning for using merits in this way. Especially not by merit sources, since their responsibility for distributing merits is even greater.

[The Sceptical Chymist]

@CryptopreneurBrainboss Is it really necessary to award everyone that votes for your interview with merit?

I read the rest of this thread and realize the issue, but I'm not entirely convinced that he was trying to induce other members to vote for him by meriting those who had previously voted for him.  IMO he was probably thanking those people for their votes--but I agree, he shouldn't have done that for two reasons: 

1) Even hinting that a vote for him would lead to the voter getting a merit is reputation-damaging for the reason that's now obvious, i.e., he's starting to look suspicious. 

And 2) As mentioned, merits should be given for good posts, not necessarily as a thank you (although I do think that people are free to do with their sMerits what they will, as long as it isn't selling them or abusing the system.

I totally lost track of this thread and the interviews somehow.

The problem with your interview is that it's really, really, REALLY bad. There are so many good ones and if yours was even decent, I'm sure it would not cause such a stir.

Are you referring to CryptopreneurBrainboss?  I'll have to go back and read what he wrote.

[lovesmayfamilis]

The vote was split into two completely different positions.
1. This is a high-quality interview that gmaxwell did. Without question, this is an absolutely quality interview.
2. This is a simple and casual yet candid interview with CryptopreneurBrainboss. This is an interview with the most ordinary ex-bounty hunter, who eventually realized that he was wasting his time, and after that, he gained a reputation, which commands respect.

Comparing the two interviews is like comparing soft to cold.

And then, of course, people's opinions are divided on their sympathy for CryptopreneurBrainboss. If you look closely at those accounts that voted for CryptopreneurBrainboss, they are like-minded people, if you can call it that. Almost all of them are from the same country, and most likely this is just support.
CryptopreneurBrainboss is certainly not to blame here. I doubt it was collusion. If you look at the merit sent, most have a lot of merits received from CryptopreneurBrainboss. This is nothing more than gratitude.

Probably in the conditions it was necessary to clearly define what needs to be assessed by quality, and not by sympathy.

[cryptofrka]

Are you referring to CryptopreneurBrainboss?  I'll have to go back and read what he wrote.

Yup. That interview is not even decent, let alone worthy of challenging gmaxwell's. That's where all the fuss came from.

That said, we are a diplomatic society so if people decide that one's the best, I fully support it. I don't have anything against CryptopreneurBrainboss, I do have everything against every single person who gave him his vote though. Not because I don't respect opinions, it's because of what's behind voting for it.

[Vod]

I would like to propose my interview as the best.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5262967.0

(I am the only one in red)   

[CryptopreneurBrainboss]

Are you referring to CryptopreneurBrainboss?  I'll have to go back and read what he wrote.

Yup. That interview is not even decent, let alone worthy of challenging gmaxwell's. That's where all the fuss came from.

Ok now I feel offended as my interview was written with all sincerity and zeal. I didn't bother to add some extra words to spies things up and make it interesting to read. i wrote all I have gone through over my years on the forum and community at large therefore you continuously tagging it not decent kind of offset me. I get it that your fav chances of winning was challenge (as I understand from discussions ongoing in your local board) but that doesn't mean you should disrespect me. Also If I may ask, was there any standard set for the interview, I guess not.

My interview might haven't had interest you but I believe it did to others and probably given some individuals hope. You speak of decency, so you mean I shouldn't have written the truths but made up stories like some hollywood scripted films so it'll interest you and satisfy your urges, Please. If you're only voting a particular users interview because it was decent then that's on you and just like others voting because they want to be on the winning team or because a high ranked user has voted that particular individual then so be it. 99% of the time, the best never wins but the most popular and favorite users always does. Nothing serious here, lets not fight ourselves, it's just a vote.

[cryptofrka]

Well, I really don't care whether you are offended or not. It's a forum, deal with it or don't read it. I'm not disrespecting you, I'm just calling your interview inadequate for a top reward.
I don't have a favorite, I do not care about this at all, I said 5 times already that I have nothing against you and that I feel you should win if the votes say so.

Just please, don't pretend it's a good interview. It is not. People are voting for you because they hope they will eventually earn 3$ off of you.

Now, I already said the same thing too many times so I won't be replying here anymore. I'll just read your next interview in the New York Times.

[malevolent]

Since there's more than one person who can win anything, I would have preferred to have some sort of ranked or even cardinal voting. There are more interesting interviews than just one, but looking at this thread so far, there's going to be a pretty big gap in terms of votes between individual places. There might even be multiple users taking the 3rd place.

[tranthidung]

This book deserves to be read Calling Bullshit

"Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man’s character, give him power." - Abraham Lincoln.

[Stalker22]

Since there's more than one person who can win anything, I would have preferred to have some sort of ranked or even cardinal voting. There are more interesting interviews than just one, but looking at this thread so far, there's going to be a pretty big gap in terms of votes between individual places. There might even be multiple users taking the 3rd place.

I'd like to support this idea, too. There are a number of interviews that are good, each in its own way. It is unfair to ask members to vote for only one candidate.
In my opinion, a better solution would be for the jury to select a dozen representative interviews and then the community selects the best among them.

[NeuroticFish]

I would have preferred to have some sort of ranked or even cardinal voting

Sounds good and I would have supported the idea at the start of the contest.
But changing the rules in the middle of the contest may not be OK for all the participants or for the sponsor, so a discussion with them (sponsor and the current top5?) may be needed before the idea gets more traction.
Else it could get confusing.

[malevolent]

Sounds good and I would have supported the idea at the start of the contest.
But changing the rules in the middle of the contest may not be OK for all the participants or for the sponsor, so a discussion with them (sponsor and the current top5?) may be needed before the idea gets more traction.
Else it could get confusing.

Yes, at this point it's probably too late, I wish I had found about this thread earlier, maybe it would have been received differently. On the other hand more than half the time allotted to place a vote has already passed and the number of votes hasn't even reached half the number of published interviews, so that could be a good argument with restarting or extending the vote. Eh, either way, it's still a cool initiative.

To think of it, maybe the voting topic would be seeing more views if it was in Meta? Although with the monetary rewards it's where it should be.

[zasad@]

Thank you for your opinion. The project "[Interviews] with Bitcointalk members" is not closed.
I will continue to invite forum participants for interviews.
I tried to post information in all local forums.
If you want to help, feel free to tell your friends about this competition.

[LoyceV]

I'll just read your next interview in the New York Times.

That is actually a good measure to choose which interview to vote for. Mine wouldn't be interesting for the 99.9999% of the population that doesn't use Bitcointalk, but gmaxwell's would be interesting for almost anyone who's ever heard the word Bitcoin.

Captain Hindsight: you should have asked voters to estimate how many interviews they've read. I get the feeling many people only read one.
I think I've read about 80%.