Can community find a solution for this issue?

Dear community,

We have participated on the contest “Subgovernance efficiency analysis”:
Contest proposal: Subgovernances efficiency analysis.

Our work was based on an Excel file (spreadsheet) and unfortunately when we uploaded on google drive, it was very messy. So, before submitting my work, we decided to present our work on the group first, in order to have the comments of coummunity. We got some complaints mentioning some guys may don’t like to download the file and they prefer online view. Based on the help of @FastSha we finally uploaded our work at online office drive. Here, there is a nice online view and jurors don’t need to download necessiraly. We also announced it at 12 Dec 2020 here:

But, one of jurors has voted us as:

Juror b624092041b68554db7c011f08da7ae12fb8a3ccb69c907193d3335fe7b50691

“Can’t accept the submission which recquires downloading”

How can it be acceptable? His comment is totally worng. No need to download. Download is up to the juror and is not necessary.

Although I have a doubt if a rejection should be accounted as 0 point on calculating average point or not, but what is clear on the published results:


unfortunately, the rank of us has been falled from 2 down to 4 due to the vote of this jury. Although it is not very important to me but the work was done by a team (as mentioned on the group and Excel file) and I am responsible to the rewards of my team.

P.S.: Our average point is 5.83 on blockchain but 5 on the table published by SG. Could you please clarify which one is correct? Is there any published rules for calculating the average points, off-chain? I think we need a fixed rule.


As a painful fact, the jurors still do not know that if they have any ambiguity or question, they can first contact with the work (submission) owner and if they are not satisfied with the answers, they can start to voting. What is the use of contact information (Telegram and Forum)?

1 Like

Hi. First of all, the screenshot with the results is not a final score from a blockchain. It’s just a precalculation.
Next, the blockchain average score represents only the average score from those who voted from 1-10 and doesn’t reflect rejections.

Total points: 35
Avg. points: 5
Jurors voted: 7
Accepted: 6
Abstained: 0
Rejected: 1

This leads to an average score of 5, not 5.83

Which average we will use - it’s yet unclear.

We thought that the published off-chain Table is final. Hope to our case be considered by SG team.

1 Like

No, of course not. It’s just a working process.

I agree that “rejection” should affect on the average score, BUT:

1- For next contests,
2- With clear statement in the proposal.

In the “Subgovernance efficiency analysis” contest, as you know, there was no such rule. Again, I hope that A&S members and community consider our special case. In addition, we did not deserve for “rejection”, and it was just a mistake.


I think this is not a participants problem that this contest from the beginning was wrong including how to calculate any “reject”

Rules: ● Each juror will vote by rating each submission on a scale of 1 to 10 or can choose to reject it if it does not meet requirements, or they can choose to abstain from voting if they feel unqualified to judge.
but it is a jury mistake in this case, that he did not think to give 1 point and put a rejection. Then his voice would be correctly count


Ok, doesn’t matter. We will not count rejects for these 2 contests. In fact, for me personally allmost all of the submissions doesn’t make any real sense and useless. So there is not a single reasond to spend time on arguing.


Thanks for your clarification about those contests.

I personally agree with you that a rejection should be aoccunted as 0 point. But, as we are a community, I hope any changes on the rule will happen only through a proposal and based on the opinion and support of the community and the new rules will apply only on future contests.

1 Like

Heh I totally get with you. This contest was painful for me personally.
I’m sure that all participants should provide quick( 3-5 min) AMA session and juros should ask any questions if they have issues.