Some of you might have already read about the transition from the "Weekly Top Posts" towards the "Bitcoin-Centric Writing Contest" in @siggy47's weekly newsletter, and this post will dive into the official primer / rules announcement for the contest!
  • Each Monday, a [pinned] post will be created under which participants can comment with their submissions for the respective week. (27.05)
  • Each Friday, a post will be created detailing the winner of the respective week's reward. (31.05)
  • Topics: Specific topics are scrapped: everyone's free to submit a summary, write-up, article et cetera covering a Bitcoin-related [technical] topic of his- or her's choice.
  • Winning conditions: A winner will be picked through the ⚡-rank, as well as Siggy and I's personal assessment--- Only the ⚡-rank can be cheated.
  • The [weekly] 🏆 will be a reward of [initially] 5000 sats, paid-out each Friday; 50% by siggi, 50% by me.
  • The initial reward can be increased by ⚡'ing the Monday- and Friday-posts; the total zaps from the Monday (-10% fees) are added unto the 5000 sats at the moment of pay-out, while 100% of the zaps from the Friday are forwarded to the winner.
And last but not least: V4V.
The competition isn't ment as a handout, but as a tool to endorse the publication of quality learning material.
Therefore, if all of a week's submissions are either incomplete, shallow, faulty, or a mix of the former, no reward will be paid out, resulting in the respective week's reward to be added to the following week.
The submissions can be improved based on the feedback received, after which the respective work can be submitted again.
This might come off as harsh, but both siggy and I don't intend the contest to be a sort of "see what sticks" kinda event.
Take your time, do your research, and include the necessary details into your submission; it's about quality, not quantity. 🧡
If anything's missing or unclear, feel free to comment❣️
This looks promising and much more zaprank resistant. As you mentioned that zaprank can be cheated so you apply your personal assesment. That's cool because we now have two cool guys evaluating the content.
I'm ready for the fun and learning!
Thank you @siggy47 and @Fabs
reply
That's cool because we now have two cool guys evaluating the content.
Aww stop it! You're making me blush, man! 🤭
reply
You can blush more now!
I hail @siggy47 and @fabs are the coolest guys on SN.
🥰
reply
I don't know. Well, I do root for Virat Kohli.
reply
Thanks for reminding me. I have to write a post for ~stackersports about world T20.
Virat kohli isn't the coolest and he is also not on SN. But, yeah he is a GOAT of batting.
Will you be supporting India in India vs Pakistan clash?
reply
Of course I will.
reply
Make it a post and you may call yourself "one of us, one of us"... 🔥🌝
reply
I don't think there is any questions remains about zaprank. I will lovingly submit my content there. I must say I was a little stressed when I first found out the dramatic zaprank miscalculation.
But now I'm happy that content shall be judged by the best stacker on SN who I follow and like whom I want to become.
If I can suggest, I want to say that it would be better if we have 2 permanent judges and 3 or 5 temporary or weekly judges for the content and also for the evaluation of content we have an open discussion post running throughout the week. Or it can be that all judges weight the content of Stackers on the competition post.
Hope you understood my point.
reply
Whoa! Somebody bombed at me with 10k sats! Thank you so much!!!
reply
feels good
reply
Yeah, wtf.
reply
If I can suggest, I want to say that it would be better if we have 2 permanent judges and 3 or 5 temporary or weekly judges for the content and also for the evaluation of content we have an open discussion post running throughout the week. Or it can be that all judges weight the content of Stackers on the competition post.
SN's the main "judge"; siggy and me are simply there to fill the gap and point a finger if need be, or make a call if multiple submissions are too close together in terms of "ranking". 🙂
reply
I think you make some great suggestions. To be honest, I think @Fabs and I are still nervous there won't be much interest. If this thing gets big enough I have no problem having more judges. I can't speak for @Fabs. Let's see how week 1 goes.
reply
I'll let you be the "judge" about that... 🌝🤭.
reply
Hello! I can not interpret this part in the recent post: "- [] Only provide the order, and can be left out in your comment." What's about?
reply
54 sats \ 1 reply \ @Fabs OP 27 May
You don't have to include the words within the brackets in your reply, it's simply to state the order.
Thanks for replying under this one!
reply
Ok! Thanks! :)
reply
I'm glad to see a new effort being made in this regard. I rather doubt I'll be winning any of the contests as my positions usually are outside the "hey, we like what you have to say range" but it's cool they might have a shot anyway.
reply
I'm glad to hear you intend to participate.
reply
I rather doubt I'll be winning any of the contests as my positions usually are outside the "hey, we like what you have to say range" but it's cool they might have a shot anyway.
Oh, just give it a go ❣️
reply
I intend to. If I wrote on the basis of what people liked, I wouldn't have many works to my name. ;)
reply
Thanks for posting this and helping out with the contest. @cryotosensei already has expressed an interest. I'm hoping maybe @Radentor will also jump in, along with all the other loyal territory posters.
reply