Free TON Blog Contest results evaluation Proposal

SMM Sub-Governance
#11

You can’t argue with the fact. But the nullification of the results? Nothing that people really tried and spent 2 weeks of their free time of life to participate in the contest?

To be honest, for the first time I was happy with the result achieved in the contest, because I really made an effort. Draw conclusions for the future, apply measures directly to people, not to the results of the competition.

But thanks to this experience, I have some interesting ideas about competitions and the distribution of awards, and I will describe them later in a separate topic.

С фактом не поспоришь. Но обнуление результатов? Ничего что люди реально старались и потратили 2 недели своего свободного времени жизни на участие в конкурсе?

Скажу честно, впервые я обрадовался достигнутому результату в конкурсе, потому что реально приложил усилия. Делайте выводы на будущее, применяйте меры непосредственно к людям, а не к результатам конкурса.

Но благодаря этому опыту у меня появились интересные мысли по поводу конкурсов и распределения наград, позже изложу их в отдельной теме.

1 Like
#12

И где гарантии что именно это предложение об обнулении 3 судей не является чьим то закулисным интересом? Человеческий фактор сложен. Изначально надо менять подход к делу. Позже опишу своё видение на этот счет.

And where is the guarantee that this particular proposal to reset 3 judges is not someone’s behind-the-scenes interest? The human factor is complex. Initially you need to change your approach to business. Later I will describe my vision on this matter.

2 Likes
#13

Завтра вроде как должен быть стрим , там услышим все мнения

#14

Мнение это хорошо, лишь бы это не было показательным выступлением на публику. И мы не наблюдали конфликт интересов двух групп людей. Еще раз повторю, изначальный подход к делу надо менять. Начиная с принятия технического задания и способа распределения призовых чисел. Например учитывать людей принявших активное участие и прошедших все требования, призовой фонд на активных участников. Например среди 10 мест, на 10м и 11м месте могут быть равные работы с разницей в 0.1 но кто-то получит компенсацию времени, а кто то получит чупа-чупс. Время жизни бесценно, и оно не восполняется.

The opinion is good, if only it was not a showcase to the public. And we have not observed a conflict of interests between two groups of people. I repeat once again, the initial approach to business must be changed. starting with the acceptance of the terms of reference and the method of distributing the prize numbers. For example, take into account people who took an active part and passed all the requirements, the prize fund for active participants. for example, among the 10 places on the 10th and 11th place there may be equal jobs with a difference of 0.1, but someone will receive time compensation, and someone will receive a lollipop. Life time is priceless and not replenished.

#15

What do you mean by nullification of the results?

#16

Proposal Specification

Based on this open data it is proposed to remove the votes of 3 members of the SMM Sub Governance Jury mentioned below from the Free TON Blog Contest scoring process.

0x7ee520d94a4df7cda9d8e4a8354c0787decd1bd7837f1bb4412959881e2e312f
0x8355ee4acf95b683e4c24b0cb0c2c15e4c5358dcca4e376cf46670396583798b
0xf994c44f75375032a0565916f461315337b863c95c236ea1b9162453639b589a

Against this background, at least 3 beneficiaries of such a decision appear. Before that there was 1, and after this decision as many as 3. Sub 4, Sub 11, Sub 15. Therefore, it gives absolutely no guarantees of behind-the-scenes interest.

#17

Again - what nullification of the results you were talking about?

The procedure of voting is fixed in the accepted proposal. Period.

#18

About this.

Img_001
Img_001723×200 39.9 KB
The picture that appears after that draws those who benefit from it.

#19

Примерно 7 работ соотвествовали критериям необходимым для участия в конкурсе, на момент завершения подачи заявок

#20

Предлагаю весь призовой фонд распределит между всеми участниками

1 Like
#21

It seems that you’re ignoring the point of the original post - the procedure has been violated. That’s it.

1 Like
#22

I do not ignore the fact of violation, I do not agree with the proposed way to correct the situation.

1 Like
#23

It’s the only way - to follow the procedure. There are no other options.

Everything else is subjective.

#24

You are protecting your personal interest right now, aren’t you?

#25

Тогда должно быть меньше 10 участников

#26

Nope. I’m ok with whatever is the outcome.

My point was always the same (before the submissions were even open) - juries can’t vote for their works. That’s the procedure.

I was the person who initiated Landing Page contest. We didn’t take the first place - it is not our decision. Same here - the place is decided by the jurors who follow procedures fixed in the accepted proposal.

P.S. I’m muting myself as I’ve stated my opinion. Would like to here the three jury members mentioned in the original post.

#27

Sorry, but I did not find in the description of the contest an item on the possibility of canceling the jury’s votes, which they gave for the work of other participants. Free TON Blog Contest

#28

A few thoughts…

Is there a way to rewrite data added to blockchain?
I think - no.

What we can do now?
The answer is to exclude these persons who make violations from jurors.

What we can do to prevent a similar situation?

  1. To elect jurors before.
  2. To teach jurors to follow the strict rules.
  3. The jurors must leave a deposit (as a guarantee) before voting.
  4. The jurors must detailedly explain their marks. The good way is the tables with criteria.
3 Likes
#29

I also say that in the future it is necessary to change the approach to business, to learn from experience. I also want to add for the future - transparent assessment criteria developed BEFORE the start of the competition. Not after the voting has started.

1 Like
#30
2 Likes