Примерно 7 работ соотвествовали критериям необходимым для участия в конкурсе, на момент завершения подачи заявок
Предлагаю весь призовой фонд распределит между всеми участниками
1 Like
It seems that you’re ignoring the point of the original post - the procedure has been violated. That’s it.
1 Like
I do not ignore the fact of violation, I do not agree with the proposed way to correct the situation.
1 Like
It’s the only way - to follow the procedure. There are no other options.
Everything else is subjective.
You are protecting your personal interest right now, aren’t you?
Тогда должно быть меньше 10 участников
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.
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
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?
- To elect jurors before.
- To teach jurors to follow the strict rules.
- The jurors must leave a deposit (as a guarantee) before voting.
- The jurors must detailedly explain their marks. The good way is the tables with criteria.
3 Likes
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
2 Likes
I also support your idea 
mate! The teams should seat and discuss for the best thing to do because here all members are not happy about the cancellation 
. All the way I will still wait to here more updates and still participate in running contest since that us the only alternative to be considered.
1 Like
Someone in chats asked - and how did the juries vote in the contest?
I’ve compiled a template in which with bold font marked the votes of the juries with their own work in the contest. See below.
| Submission # | Points. Bold for jurors with their work in contest | Average, pts |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | 10; 8; 7; 8; 10; 8; 6 | 8.14 |
| 2 work by voting judges | 9; 7; 10; 10; 10; 8; 10 | 9.14 |
| 3 | 10; 6; 7; 9; 7; 7; 6 | 7.42 |
| 4 | 10; 10; 7; 10; 9; 7 | 8.83 |
| 5 | 9; 9; 5; 7; 9; 6 | 7.50 |
| 6 | 9; 6; 6; 8; 6; 6 | 6.83 |
| 7 | 8; 4; 5; 7; 5; 2 | 5.16 |
| 8 | 7; 6; 5; 6; 7; 6 | 6.16 |
| 9 | 8; 5; 1; 1; 6; 1 | 3.66 |
| 10 | 7; 6; 2; 3; 7; 3 | 4.66 |
| 11 | 9; 10; 5; 8; 10; 4 | 7.66 |
| 12 | 8; 8; 4; 6; 7; 3 | 6.00 |
| 13 | 9; 7; 7; 6; 6 | 7.00 |
| 14 | 8; 5; 4; 5; 2 | 4.80 |
| 15 | 9; 10; 5; 10; 4 | 7.60 |
| 16 | 9; 7; 7; 6; 6 | 7.00 |
| 17 | 4; 1; 3; reject; reject; reject | 2.66 |
| 18 | 9; 6; 4; 5 | 6.00 |
Won’t be commenting the votes themselves.
6 Likes
Let’s compare how results are different with and without points set by those jurors.
| Submission | Points by jurors eligible to vote | Average, pts | Points. Bold for jurors with their work in contest | Average, pts |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 10; 8; 10; 8 | 9 | 10; 8; 7; 8; 10; 8; 6 | 8.14 |
| 2 submission by participating jury members | 9; 7; 10; 8 | 8.5 | 9; 7; 10; 10; 10; 8; 10 | 9.14 |
| 3 | 10; 6; 7; 7 | 7.5 | 10; 6; 7; 9; 7; 7; 6 | 7.42 |
| 4 | 10; 10; 10; 9 | 9.75 | 10; 10; 7; 10; 9; 7 | 8.83 |
| 5 | 9; 9; 7; 9 | 8.5 | 9; 9; 5; 7; 9; 6 | 7.50 |
| 6 | 9; 6; 8; 6 | 7.25 | 9; 6; 6; 8; 6; 6 | 6.83 |
| 7 | 8; 4; 7; 5 | 6 | 8; 4; 5; 7; 5; 2 | 5.16 |
| 8 | 7; 6; 6; 7 | 6.5 | 7; 6; 5; 6; 7; 6 | 6.16 |
| 9 | 8; 5; 1; 6 | 5 | 8; 5; 1; 1; 6; 1 | 3.66 |
| 10 | 7; 6; 3; 7 | 5.75 | 7; 6; 2; 3; 7; 3 | 4.66 |
| 11 | 9; 10; 8; 10 | 9.25 | 9; 10; 5; 8; 10; 4 | 7.66 |
| 12 | 8; 8; 6; 7 | 7.25 | 8; 8; 4; 6; 7; 3 | 6.00 |
| 13 | 9; 7; 6 | 6.33 | 9; 7; 7; 6; 6 | 7.00 |
| 14 | 8; 5; 5 | 6 | 8; 5; 4; 5; 2 | 4.80 |
| 15 | 9; 10; 10 | 9.66 | 9; 10; 5; 10; 4 | 7.60 |
| 16 | 9; 7; 6 | 7.33 | 9; 7; 7; 6; 6 | 7.00 |
| 17 | 4; 1; 3; 0 (Reject) | 2 | 4; 1; 3; reject; reject; reject | 2.66 |
| 18 | 9; 6; 5 | 6.66 | 9; 6; 4; 5 | 6.00 |
4 Likes
Oil painting. Give yourself a max rating, but approach the assessment of others with the utmost rigor
Good afternoon! As a judge of the blogging competition, it is my duty to shed some light on this whole unpleasant story. I will try to present it as briefly and to the point as possible.
I was recommended and introduced to the jury of this competition as a responsible and experienced person.
Initially, the team of three judges listed in this proposal worked on their blog and did not hide it in any way. The guys did a lot from scratch and wanted to get adequate compensation for their work. As we know, all token distributions take place through competitions. They worked on and created a blog contest in which they presented their work.
Unfortunately, in the process of communication, it was clear that there was a conflict of interest (own work - own judges), which I announced on our calls.
Initially, there was a proposal not to vote for all three, but the guys (Senya and Katya) promised to adequately judge their own and other people’s work, and Alexander promised not to vote at all.
Anticipating difficulties and possible conflicts, I proposed a consensus: we develop and agree on a detailed protocol for evaluating the work, according to which all judges work.
The protocol was developed by me and agreed upon not only among the judges, but also by the contestants in the general SMM chat. He was highly appreciated and we decided that this would be enough to level out personal preferences. Protocol form and explanation of the procedure for working on it:
Unfortunately, these judges completely ignored all our agreements on the work on the protocol and violated the rules of their own proposal, which contradicts the rules of functioning of the FRITON ecosystem. In order for the system to evolve and the procedures to work correctly, such errors must be corrected.
I am presenting my completed protocol to demonstrate the openness and objectivity of my assessments.
The results obtained in this format of work fully correlate with the table of winners without taking into account the three votes of these judges.
In the thread of the competition itself, the guys fully supported and approved both the protocol itself and the work on it:
I fully support the proposal not to take into account the votes of these judges when evaluating entries.
Добрый день! Как судья конкурса блогов, я считаю своим долгом пролить свет на всю эту неприятную историю. Я постараюсь изложить её максимально кратко и по делу
Меня порекомендовали и ввели в члены жюри этого конкурса как ответственного и опытного человека.
Изначально команда из трёх судей, указанных в этом предложении, работала над своим блогом и никак не скрывала этого. Ребята много сделали с нуля и хотели получить адекватную компенсацию за свою работу. Как мы знаем, все распределения токенов происходят через конкурсы. Они проработали и создали конкурс блогов, в котором представили свою работу.
К сожалению, в процессе общения было видно, что имеется конфликт интересов (своя работа - свои судьи), о котором я заявлял на наших звонках.
Изначально было предложение не голосовать всем троим, однако ребята (Сеня и Катя) обещали адекватно судить свою и чужие работы, а Александр обещал вообще не участвовать в голосовании.
Предвидя сложности и возможные конфликты я предложил консенсус: мы разрабатываем и согласовываем детальный протокол оценки работ, по которому работают все судьи.
Протокол был мной разработан и согласован не только среди судей, но и конкурсантами в общем чате SMM. Его высоко оценили и мы решили, что этого будет достаточно для нивелирования личных пристрастий. Бланк протокола и объяснение порядка работы по нему:
К сожалению эти судьи полностью проигнорировали все наши договорённости работы по протоколу и нарушили правила своего же предложения, что противоречит правилам функционирования экосистемы ФриТОН. Чтобы система развивалась и процедуры работали правильно, подобные ошибки должны быть исправлены.
Я привожу свой заполненный протокол, чтобы продемонстрировать на нём открытость и объективность моих оценок.
Полученные результаты в таком формате работы полностью коррелируют с таблицей победителей без учёта трёх голосов этих судей.
В ветке самого конкурса ребята полностью поддержали и одобрили и сам протокол и работу по нему:
Я полностью поддерживаю предложение не учитывать голоса этих судей при оценке конкурсных работ.
3 Likes
Thank you for your contribution to clarifying the situation. I understand that these three judges did not enter their votes in the table before transferring them to the blockchain?
Спасибо за вклад в прояснение ситуации. Я так понимаю эти трое судей предварительно не вписали свои голоса таблицу перед переносом в блокчейн?
1 Like
Unfortunately the problem is more complicated, I described the problem in detail above