The Triple Appeal Process

I propose a possible appeal process in case the submitter disagrees with the consensus decision.

If the submitter does not agree with the consensus decision, he can appeal it by going to Login by selecting the triple and clicking “Appeal”
After that, the selected triple is again added to the queue with the highest priority.
This triple should be checked by validators who did not check it for the first time in order to exclude the repetition of the same outcome.

  • If the consensus made the same decision for the second time and the triple was rejected then:

    • The submitter that appealed loses 10 points in addition to that 5 he already lost when the triple was rejected the first time
    • Validators who have checked for the second time receive a standard 1 point
    • Validators who checked for the first time do not get anything
  • If the decision of the second consensus was the opposite and the triple was accepted:

    • The submitter that appealed receives 10 points instead of the standard 5 and those 5 points that were deducted from him are removed
    • Validators who have checked for the second time receive a standard 1 point
    • Validators who checked for the first time and voted for reject lose 2 points instead of standart 1 plus they lose that 1 point they received before. And they are blacklisted and if this situation repeats 5 times, they will be prohibited from validating again. Validators who checked for the first time and voted for aprrove receive a standart 1 point and that 1 point that was deducted from them is removed.

Also, ideally, among the validators who check for the second time, there should be more than 50% of validators who have an accuracy rating above 90%

2 Likes

I like the idea. I also propose that this triplet should have an additional “appeal” badge. This would alert the validators that this triplet should be treated with special attention.

2 Likes

Not a bad system in general, but I would reduce the penalty which refers to: " Validators who checked for the first time and voted for reject lose 2 points instead of standard 1 plus they lose that 1 point they received before. And they are blacklisted and if this situation repeats 5 times, they will be prohibited from validating again.

Because at first there was confusion in some aspects of validation, for example, initially we did not reject non-English sites, and then there were changes in the process.

with triplets that did not evaluate correctly, everything is clear, how about an appeal during validation, these are different things, and should look different.

I agree with this approach, because during submission triples and validation I have already faced with the issues when my contribution is rejected by consensus however it is absolutely incorrect decision I can provide evidence for that; and second issue when triple has green mark “Validated” but when I check sometimes (not often) it happens that it is not valid triple. Agree that even after triples has been validated by consensus if submitter disagrees it should be possible to do

Generally, I support the idea. At the same time, I would like to ask some questions:

  1. Validators who checked for the first time do not get anything Im not sure that’s a fair system. If a validator has spent his/her time and effort (even not so much for a triple validation) he/she should be rewarded anyway I believe.

  2. And they are blacklisted and if this situation repeats 5 times, they will be prohibited from validating again. This looks too much as well. So we have two validators, First - who checked the triple first, Second - who checked the triple after the appeal was presented. So they check the same triple and for each of them it’s the first time, but the penalty is far way different for presumably the same work.