Alternative awards: four categories and open digital voting
Four categories and open ballots from October 1 to 20: how these alternative awards work with open voting and automated counting.
English · Original discussion in Spanish · Published
A digital community holds its own awards with digital voting
A participant entered their own name in the first three categories. Their vote was annulled: the regulations prohibit self-voting. The scene belongs to an alternative awards call organized by a digital community, with polling stations open from October 1 to 20, born from a specific complaint: institutional awards are distributed "among friends."
The results will be announced on October 21. Four categories, up to three votes per person in three of them and two in the fourth. And a requirement that conditions everything: the vote only counts if written in an exact formula.
What is voted: revelation, fruta, and best publication
The categories are four: revelation of the year, the most uncomfortable one —dedicated to the most criticized participant—, infiltrated community manager, and best publication of the year. In the latter, only two names are admitted; in the rest, three. Voting fewer is possible. Not voting at all is also allowed.
The organization will publish the top 10 of each category although only the first place receives an award.
How to vote and why counting is concerning
The vote is only counted if it respects a fixed format. Names mentioned in a comment, jokes, and surrounding explanations do not count if not written in that pattern. The intention is that an automatic system reads the votes without getting confused, or so they say.
In theory. The organizer themselves admit doubts about the counter: "I doubt it will be able to perform the count; in the end, I will have to resort to an external AI". If automatic scrutiny fails, the organizer said they would compile the results themselves. There are also strict rules: one person, one vote. Self-voting and multiple accounts are prohibited.
Why is there distrust towards institutional awards?
The starting point is a comparison with the Goya Awards. The complaint: that awards are distributed among circles close to those who organize them. Hence the insistence on the absence of rigged outcomes —no cronyism, in their jargon—, that anyone can vote, and in verifiable counting. Transparency is the selling point of the entire invention.
The first rulebook breaches
A participant announced their withdrawal: they did not plan to unblock the counting bot kept silenced only to be able to vote. Another ran for all four categories at once, with a wink included. And a third voted for themselves, which cost them annulment.
There remains the final paradox. The organizer can also be voted for, and has warned they will close the count themselves if the machine does not respond. Referee and player on the same table. With polling stations open until October 20, no one has yet explained who audits the auditor.
A participant entered their own name in the first three categories. Their vote was annulled: the regulations prohibit self-voting. The scene belongs to an alternative awards call organized by a digital community, with polling stations open from October 1 to 20, born from a specific complaint: institutional awards are distributed "among friends."
The results will be announced on October 21. Four categories, up to three votes per person in three of them and two in the fourth. And a requirement that conditions everything: the vote only counts if written in an exact formula.
What is voted: revelation, fruta, and best publication
The categories are four: revelation of the year, the most uncomfortable one —dedicated to the most criticized participant—, infiltrated community manager, and best publication of the year. In the latter, only two names are admitted; in the rest, three. Voting fewer is possible. Not voting at all is also allowed.
The organization will publish the top 10 of each category although only the first place receives an award.
How to vote and why counting is concerning
The vote is only counted if it respects a fixed format. Names mentioned in a comment, jokes, and surrounding explanations do not count if not written in that pattern. The intention is that an automatic system reads the votes without getting confused, or so they say.
In theory. The organizer themselves admit doubts about the counter: "I doubt it will be able to perform the count; in the end, I will have to resort to an external AI". If automatic scrutiny fails, the organizer said they would compile the results themselves. There are also strict rules: one person, one vote. Self-voting and multiple accounts are prohibited.
Why is there distrust towards institutional awards?
The starting point is a comparison with the Goya Awards. The complaint: that awards are distributed among circles close to those who organize them. Hence the insistence on the absence of rigged outcomes —no cronyism, in their jargon—, that anyone can vote, and in verifiable counting. Transparency is the selling point of the entire invention.
The first rulebook breaches
A participant announced their withdrawal: they did not plan to unblock the counting bot kept silenced only to be able to vote. Another ran for all four categories at once, with a wink included. And a third voted for themselves, which cost them annulment.
There remains the final paradox. The organizer can also be voted for, and has warned they will close the count themselves if the machine does not respond. Referee and player on the same table. With polling stations open until October 20, no one has yet explained who audits the auditor.
Summary of a discussion on Burbuja.info - Foro de economía, actualidad y política., translated from Spanish and reviewed before publication. Read the full discussion (35 replies).
More summaries
-
Digital Community Announces Awards for October
Voting runs from October 1st to 20th, with winners announced on the 21st. Four categories, automatic tallying, and concerns over duplicate votes.
-
AI as an economic engine: bubble or structural shift?
Economic analysis of AI: Is it the growth engine or a speculative bubble? Energy costs and business adoption are examined.
-
Spain's PSOE threatens to challenge the election result if it loses
Spain's PSOE has reportedly laid the groundwork to challenge the November 29 election if it loses, but the legal mechanism requires specific grounds and deadlines that do not match its plans.
-
Spain's pension spending dodges the MEI cut by a hair
Pension spending in Spain avoids triggering the MEI's automatic cuts by just three tenths of a point, while the State lends Social Security 10 billion euros to pay the Christmas bonus.
-
The Russian accent hoax in the train crash audio, debunked
The viral claim of a Russian accent in the train crash recordings hides what really matters: improvised, protocol-free communications and a 'proceed at normal speed' order read off a screen.
-
Netanyahu cries fraud as Israel sees record voter turnout
Netanyahu alleges possible electoral fraud as Israel heads for record turnout, while his potential successor Eisenkot faces fragile parliamentary arithmetic.