Amendment: Jury Voting Mechanics for “#1 Analytics & Support Jury Selection”


This was a jury selection contest where in order to be accepted as a juror, the score was to simply be “yes” or “no”. Because no yes/no functionality exists, and because the only voting options are a score of 1 to 10, reject or abstain, the proper scoring of this contest should have been reject = no, any score = yes. Unfortunately, the current voting requirements state that scores will determine winners instead of a yes/no system, which is incorrect.

Proposed amendment

For the “#1 Analytics & Support Jury Selection” contest, as well as any future contest where the score should be based on a yes/no principle, any score from 1 to 10 means YES. Any score of reject means NO. 50% + 1 total votes from all who are scoring are necessary to pass the minimal acceptance threshold.


As I understand it. At the moment, the jury (A&S) can include new illiquid participants (reject or low points)
Is it possible to add to the jury (part) of participants with decent characteristics ? This will add activity in future votes.

In the future (in my opinion)
It is better to use a score of 1-10 (for voting for the jury).
Reject and refrain - do not use at all. Only 1-10
Let’s say there will be 100 questionnaires for 10 free places.
Of these, 30 high-quality (/Yes)
Will turn out to be a traffic jam. Out of 30 high - quality participants, you will have to choose the best ones again.

1 Like

this is solution for voices counting!

Good proposal. Please put it for voting.

1 Like

Dear your proposed mechanism for acceptance a submission is already in the rules for preparing a winners list.

Any submission must required 50%+1 votes from the jurors to pass.

Any submission having 50%+1 rejection will get rejected at all even after having an average score of 10.

We kind of came to a consensus on the mechanics of the competition. However, the question of the number of accepted participants remained unresolved. By consensus, 27 people pass, but 15 were originally planned.
It is better to watch our discussions in the zoom and telegram
group, but here is a brief summary

Selecting 27:
+ More jury - better decentralization
+ Meets all consensus rules
* The number 15 was originally conceived as the minimum desired number of participants
* In the future it is possible to exclude from the composition of the ineffective jury
- Less motivation for the jury due to the division of awards

Selecting 15:
+ Only the best are included in the jury
* It is possible to create new jury competitions that will attract new people
- Mechanism selecting 15 still needs discussion

Maybe I forgot to mention something. Please correct me