I do like the approach and how further rounds earn more exposure with introducing the project. But there are a few complications that we would need to consider;
- As @yellowdino pointed out here -
This is a valid point and even if you go with @Cortezz suggestion for a double elimination bracket, what we have then is another problem with a flood of voting frequency that will backlog or require change to the queue and execution times.
In short – this will create voting congestion as what would otherwise take a single vote, is now requiring 4-8x more, and there is a execution time delay that would likely need adjustment.
-
Placement seeding isn’t going to provide for equal opportunity to each project, and promotes a rather competitive sentiment between two projects that are head to head. We want projects to highlight what is best about their own project, and not encourage a kind of political-sparring match between candidates (which i think should also be renamed to ‘Applicants’). At current, it wouldn’t make sense for any single applicant to try undermine confidence in the other 3 applicants in a round – that would only ostracize themselves. Yet, if you change this to a head-to-head format – then we encourage the disposition of toxic behaviors. Such as, crapping on the “opponents” project instead of promoting ones own project. Most teams are somewhat beyond that immaturity, but some aren’t and certainly not general community members.
-
This approach requires that there are more applicants to fill-out the starting round, sometimes we may not have the applicant numbers to kick-off the tournament leading to delays. Yes, could run with odd numbers and automate a project to the next round, but then how do you determine which project gets that privilege on top of the added opportunity to highlight more about the proejct (AMA, ect). We run into favoritism issues, with odd numbers – or delay issues with empty slots.
-
With increased voting frequencies and applicants, it is essentially asking more of the voters time for no greater improvement to the rewards for voters. With a bracket style, double the applicants and single execution queue, its almost asking voters to take on a part-time job just to stay informed and not miss a vote. We can’t really expect people to give up so much more of their time each month for no greater compensation. And to say perhaps that we should simply be more active and enthused, the reality is not all have the time for it with responsibilities and priority’s.
I do like this as it would be more entertaining which is good for engagement, but in practical terms for what we’re trying to achieve, its very cumbersome and inefficient. Also, because of the format of brackets, we’re kind of limited then to either 4 or 8 slots, which does not give flexibility to occasions where we have more or less applicants.
What I would instead suggest, is to allow voting power to be distributed by the individual over 1 or more selections, and by the individuals preferred weighting to each.
E.g
Your Total VP: 1000
(select one or multiple).
Project A. - 30% of VP
Project B. - 20% of VP
Project C - 15% of VP
Project D - 35% of VP
each slot would have a slider bar to allocate how much VP you wish to that project. Voters can opt to allocate all their VP to one project, or spread to any number of the others.
This way we accommodate preferential voting into the single vote simultaneously, which would provide a much more accurate representation of the communities sentiment towards each project. Effectively getting the same outcome as a bracket format without overburdening voters and workgroup coordinations.