Reward: add a reward judge role for receiving complaints

[hbenali]

Is your feature request related to a problem? Please describe.

• There are no reward details (a reward history must be attached when gamifying users to give more peace of mind) to authenticate rewards.
• Absence of "judge" role to receive complaints

Describe the solution you'd like

• First of all, we need to provide full history details about rewarded rules ( date - action, further info if needed) when sending rewards
• To the platform, introduce a new user role called reward-judge (this can be a reward admin or a normal user (I'd like a normal user for independence)) that receives user complaints about reward errors and gamification rules fraud. Platform and Rewarding administrators can assign this role or request a poll vote from platform users (I'd like democracy 😄). This role should be re-assigned (renewed) every 3 months (may vary depending on specs). This role can be assigned to multiple users and the plaintiff can select which judge to address.
• A judge can seek the opinion of his colleague by voting on the complaint. In case of fraud, the actor of the fraud will be sanctioned by blacklisting the fraud gamification rule for several days (A deactivation mark must be affixed to the gamification rule).
• The complaint must be confidential and only visible to the awarding judges.

Thanks

[plamarque]

Interesting. Thanks for elaborating this proposal.

I agree we need to decentralize action validation, but have different thoughts on how to solve the issue. See below .

Instead of having a dedicated permission that creates a new role, I think it's possible to let any reputable* member dispute a points attribution. This could be done with :

• some dispute button available on each point history
• to dispute, one should have a minimal level of reputation on the Hub
• to dispute, one should put some of our MEEDS (or reputation) at stake
• if the dispute fails, plaintiff would loose the stake
• if dispute succeeds, there should be some kind of rewards (reputation, and / or points)
• to succeed, the dispute should gather enough conviction from other reputable members.
• the conviction voting and conversation should be public for transparency

With such system, there should be an incentive for a community to self moderate points attribution and resistance to abuse by collusion or Sybil attacks.

• reputation is not scored yet in MEEDs. Buy it seems natural to derive it from from previous points earned and have some kind of time decay. We could onsider some discrete reputation scores within contribution programs to be calculated (ex: I should be a reputable marketing contributor to moderate attribution of points on actions of a marketing program)