Painting “The Oath of Horatio”
«Per Apollinem medicum et Aesculapium, Hygiamque et Panaceam juro, deos deasque omnes testes citans, mepte viribus et judicio meo hos jusjurandum et hanc stipulationem plene praestaturum. Illum nempe parentum meorum loco habiturum spondeo, qui me artem istam docuit, eique alimenta impertirurum, et quibuscunque opus habuerit, suppeditaturum.
Victus etiam rationem pro virili et ingenio meo aegris salutarem praescripturum a pemiciosa vero et improba eosdem prohibiturum. Nullius praeterea precibus adductus, mortiferum medicamentum cuique propinabo, neque huius rei consilium dabo. Caste et sancte colam et artem meam. Quaecumque vero in vita hominum sive medicinam factitans, sive non, vel videro, vel audivero, quae in vulgus efferre non decet, ea reticebo non secus atque arcana fidei meae commissa.
Quod si igitur hocce jusjurandum fideliter servem, neque violem, contingat et prospero successu tarn in vita, quam in arte mea fruar et gloriam immortalem gentium consequar. Sine autem id transgrediar et pejerem contraria hisce mihi eveniam.»
— Hippocratic Iusiurandum*.
*Hippocratic Oath is a physician’s oath expressing the fundamental moral and ethical principles of physician conduct. It is not a law.
This document is not a law, but an instruction (guide) that the jury is advised to follow.
- Norms for jurors
- Scoring Criteria
- How to vote
- Jury exclusion mechanics
- Recommendations for recruiting new jurors
- Recommendations for jury analysis
- Appendix and comments
Free TON contests are juried by groups of professionals who vote on papers, contests, hackathons, etc.
The jury is a public duty and responsible position introduced in the Free TON community, before Governance 2.0 (when everyone can vote).
This document gathers the basic guidelines for juries, the mechanics of adding new jurors, and disqualifying jurors.
2. Norms that juries are recommended to follow in Free TON:
- Being open-minded.
- Jurors strive to meet their professional standards in their work.
- Strive to avoid conflicts of interest in all circumstances.
- Leave correct and polite comments on the work.
- In the case of any attempt to pressure a judge, it is recommended that it be made public immediately.
- Treat everyone with equal attention and respect.
- Strives for a neutral position that does not discriminate against people on any grounds.
- Do not vote in contests in which the jury is involved. Use an “Abstain” option.
- Report all violations noticed during the contest to colleagues/community members on the forum.
3. Judge’s evaluation criteria for submissions
- Provide constructive feedback for each paper in English only.
- The jury needs to familiarize itself with the conditions of the competition, the evaluation criteria, the requirements for it as a whole (both for the participant and for the jury).
- The jury needs to read each work (which are uploaded on the website gov.freeton.org
- Evaluate contests on points according to the prescribed conditions, namely: from 1 to 10, or if other conditions are prescribed (see jury elections recommendations)
- If the link to the work does not open, you need to look at the work of the participant on the forum.
- “Reject" is put if the work is not in the PDF application or on the forum, or the application does not meet the conditions of the contest/plagiarism, as well as involves downloading a file from third-party resources.
- In case a participant’s work has doubts about the evaluation of a particular work, it is recommended to use “Abstain”.
- Before voting, jurors are encouraged to review all submissions for plagiarism and duplicate entries. The jury may also choose a “jury chairman” who will examine papers for plagiarism and duplicate submissions.
- In a commentary on the work, disclose as much as possible why the appropriate grade was given.
- In the comment field of the participant’s work, do not indicate the answers: “ok”, “simple”, “good” and other single words.
- Contact the participant via Surf/Telegram/Forum if the participant left his/her contacts, in case the participant’s work has questions from the jury and the participant did not leave contacts, the jury assigns a grade at its discretion.
- Your evaluation is encouraged to be independent of the other jurors’ evaluations. You should form your own opinion about the quality of each work.
- If new jurors have questions, they can address the question to more experienced members of the community who have experience in judging.
4. How to vote in a public jury position
Each juror, before starting to judge, should familiarize himself with these instructions and the criteria for evaluating the work.
5. Jury exclusion mechanics
The following factors, which may be taken into account in the jury’s exclusion:
- An agreement with one of the bidders to over-evaluate his work
- Voting for the judge’s immediate family/friends.
- Jury bribery
- Multiple Jury Accounts that are involved in contest
- Ignoring voting for an extended period (1 month or more)
- Collusion with other jurors
These cases must be decided privately by the community, with respect to each jury.
All proposals for exclusion from the jury must be provided PUBLICLY on the forum.
5.1 Recommended mechanics for influencing unscrupulous jurors:
- Do not take into account the jury’s votes (for this you must prepare a Proposal on the forum)
- Exclusion from the jury (smart contract must be renewed)
- Jury member’s smart contracts / deposit lock period (or awards) until the end of the judging period (jurors are responsible for their work)
5.2 An example of exclusion from the jury:
Example: Ivan is a judge and voted for the contestant Maria and Fedor. Maria is his wife and Fedor is his brother. In this case, Ivan should have put “Abstain”, because there is a clear conflict of interest.
In this case, it is recommended to write Proposal and not to take into account Ivan’s (jury) votes in the evaluated works of contest participants.
To do this, other members need to prepare a Proposal in the forum and vote for this via on-chain voting, in which they must clearly explain the reasons for the exclusion of the jury.
6. Recommendations for Jury Analysis
- For the analysis of the jury’s evaluation, it is recommended to interact with Analytics & Support Sub-Governance, whose members and experts can evaluate the jury’s work for its possible interest, collusion, etc.
- Hold contests to evaluate the effectiveness of judges, with clearly stated criteria and inviting outside experts. An example of involving external experts.
- Motivate people to conduct an analysis of the work of the jury, citing the facts of violations of the judging of the contest.
7. Recommendations for Jury Recruitment (Before the Governance 2.0)
An excellent example is recommended for jury recruitment.
Jurors need to be familiar with how to vote through the gov.freeton.org interface. (See point 4 of this guide)
It is recommended that the jury be recruited from experienced members of the community, and that a resume (confirming qualifications for judging) be listed.
8. Additional comments
- The community must regulate and regularly evaluate the activity of juries, since their position implies “public scrutiny”.
- All workflow activities should be as transparent as possible (public chats only, no closed groups)
- Creation of report sheets on jury scores that can be verified even by any member of Free TON Community.
- In the case of collusion proceedings, a general vote recommends that payments should be stopped, pending clarification of the circumstances.
- Participants are encouraged to leave feedback for the jury in the appropriate forum thread.
- Motivating people to perform useful activities through the DeSupport contest.