Proposal: How to get rid of duplicated submissions and multiple works by a single user?

Hello everybody!

I just made a proposal on how we can automatically get rid of duplicated submissions & reduce the multiple submissions by a single user. Please read the PDF file of the proposal, from the link below:

Thanks for checking it out!

But what about those applications that were incorrectly issued, and the participant wants to upload a new, correct one?

As I’ve described in the proposal, when a contestant wants to upload his/her work again, the second submission will be replaced with the first one & the first submission will be flagged as “duplicated” & will be rejected automatically.

There are some contests in which it is allowed to submit multiple entries to participate. In this case, one of the works will be canceled

The point is making filters available in the smart contract of the contests.
Some contests experience heavy loads of submissions. (like meme & etc) It will be even harder to judge after more contestants will join free TON.
Let’s say there are 500 contestants in a contest & each one is trying to submit 3 works. That will be 1500 submissions to judge.
But if the contest designer enables the filters with his defined values, that 1500 number can be decreased dramatically.

So, in each competition, it is individually added that you can or can not submit several applications for participation. In addition, the more works-the greater the payment for the jury. I don’t think they’ll give up on overtime.

In addition, do not forget that the community is moving towards the adoption of Governance 2.0

1 Like

According to your logic, the participant himself reduces his chances of winning by investing efforts in several works at the same time. Actually, this should be the moment that discourage him from such behaviour. But if all works from one and the same person are of high quality, then what’s the problem? Why should we fight this?

The point is to make filters available in the smart contract of all contests so the contest designer would decide if the contest needs to apply filters or not (It can be forum joining dates or entry fees as i described).
correct. This is why i proposed this idea and asking if there’s a possibility to code this idea up in governance 2.0.

1 Like

Don’t miss the whole point.

Let’s take Telegram as a live example.
There are some Telegram contests (like quiz contest) that see a heavy load of submissions from contestants. That’s hundreds (even thousands) of submissions. They always have difficulty to judge these kinds of contests. (This is why they did a qualification test on their latest quiz contest to reduce the number of contestants. Actually they applied a filter!)

Telegram admins usually check out some submissions and ask their creators to judge other submissions. Even though they choose many jurors, it takes months for them to completely evaluate all of the submissions. It’s worth noting that they don’t hold many contests in parallel (sometimes they do 2 or 3 contests at the same time & i think it’s their max potential).

But talking about Free TON, we have many sub-governments that are running many contests at the same time.
Imagine what will happen when the community grows bigger & number of contestants follows the same pattern.
We will have more than a thousand submission in a single contest.

How can you judge that?

I expressed similar ideas here and in DGO group…

However, I do not think your method is the right way we should go. For my taste we shouldn’t decrease the input, but increase our qualifying and judgement ability. Something like multi-stage evaluation of proposed solutions. In a little theatrical form, I described such a possible multi-stage system below, in the nine circles of hell. Feel free to check it out…

1 Like

I can’t see how your proposal will solve the problem that I mentioned. The problem I am trying to address is the high number of submissions that we see in some contests & will see worse in the future as the number of participants will raise. Your proposal makes the judging process of such contests, even longer.

Btw, there’s nothing wrong with reducing the input for good. I think you haven’t checked out some of the contests. Some people literally just send multiple PDFs with zero working quality while they already know that their work’s quality is so low.

You believe 1vote:1token isn’t good but i’m in favor of that. You’re against rich people but i like to bring rich people to the community so everyone can benefit. This is why one of my suggestions for filters is the entry fee. I support all the ways & all the applications that incentivize users to buy/lock/hold crystals. It’ll be good for the community as a whole & it’ll keep the price of the token, in an upward trend.

This is exactly what happened when the community implemented depools. Most of the crystal holders have put their tokens into depools instead of just selling them on exchanges. So we found a usecase for tokens & incentivized holders to lock their balance in depools. this was the main reason that prevented the price of crystals to go even lower.

The same thing goes about judging. You want more voting power so you’ll keep your tokens (or you’ll buy them) to have more voting power. That will keep the price of the crystals in an upward trend!