►
From YouTube: W5 Reward System: Rewards Board, Rules, App and more!
Description
Timecodes:
00:00 - Reward system process
02:40 - Rewards Board
06:19 - Rules of Praise and Quantification
18:55 - Backend updates
20:13 - App
🙏 Thank you for watching! Hit 👍 and subscribe 🚩 to support this work
🌱Join the Community🌱
on Discord https://discord.gg/uM4ZWDjNfK
or say hello on Telegram https://t.me/tecommons
Join the conversation https://forum.tecommons.org/
Follow us on Twitter: https://twitter.com/tecmns
Learn more http://tecommons.org/
A
B
It
didn't
seem
like
there
was
any
critical
feedback
on
it.
I
pointedly
I
asked
people
like
jeff
an
octopus
to
review
it,
so
I
think
that
seems
good
enough
to
go
ahead
with
I
put
in
the
roadmap
to
the
first
quant
there.
As
a
comment
and
yeah.
That's
pretty
much
my
update
from
that
point.
Do
you
want
me
to
pass
it
going
or
talk
about
that
particularly
christopher.
A
No,
I
think
we
just
can
conclude
like
you
were
saying
that
everyone
has
been
given
ample
opportunity
to
comment
on
that
and
if
so,
if
no
no
more
voices
are
erased,
they're
commenting
etc.
We'll
assume
that
we
are.
We
are
good
to
proceed
with
with
that
process,
basically
and
make
that
a
closed
issue
and
then
so
that
then,
let's
move
on
to
and
and
and
I've.
A
C
Well,
for
the
first
distribution,
the
first
test
distribution
that
we
made
months
ago,
we
used
an
aragon,
tc
drops
dao,
so
we
don't
necessarily
have
to
use
the
same
one,
but
we
can
start
and
set
the
first
parameters
for
for
this
new
dial
with
those
parameters
that
we
used
at
the
moment.
So
I
would
say
that,
besides
getting
all
of
the
information
from
from
source,
cred
and
grabbing
and
setting
how
much
everyone
is
going
to
be
getting,
we
need
to
set
the
the
the
regular
flow
process
for
each
distribution.
C
If
it's
going
to
be
two
months
every
month,
if
it's
going
to
be
only
two
weeks,
every
week,
etc,
who's
gonna
take
charge
on
that.
I
am
sure
that
I
can
take
that
lead.
So
I
will
begin
I
was
talking
with
levy,
and
I
think
that
I
will
make
a
more
detailed
document
on
that
before
I
go
next
week
following
the
step
number
five
on
mitch's
post.
C
A
Yeah
and
to
summarize
it
for
you
who
don't
have
that
road
map
fresh
in
your
head,
what
needs
to
be
done
before
the
before
the
first
quant
is,
is
to
to
set
up
this
rewards
committee.
So
like
and
nominate
and
and
vote
for
for
the
committee
members,
we
need
to
amend
the
old
source
credit
proposal
and
and
make
sure
that
it
covers
the
increased
powers
of
the
reward.
This
reward
committee
power
also
overpriced
not
only
over
source
cred
reward.
A
A
Yeah
we
need
to
summarize,
and
we
need
to
come
up
with
those
parameters
and
and
post
that
on
the
forum
for
for
some
advice,
process
or
snapshot
vote.
I
guess
that
is
up
to
to
be
decided.
How
do
we
ratify?
Do
we
ratify
the
params
on
this,
with
the
snapshot
vote,
probably
for
the
first
time
for
the
first
quant,
and
that's
basically
it
what
we
need
to
do
before
the
first
quant
when
it
comes
to
this,
this
work
stream.
D
D
D
And
then
things
we
don't
praise
is
more
objective
contributions
in
general,
but
things
that
will
be
captured
by
source
credit
already.
So
I
linked
to
the
list
them
each
posted
in
this
post
here
so
having
an
idea
of
everything
that
is
captured
by
source
cred
will
also
help
us
to
not
praise
that
and
that
awareness
is
going
to
come
with
time.
D
And
and
then
here
just
some
examples
of
things
that
we
have
been
praising
a
lot,
but
that
we
should
start
like
stop
phrasing
once
source
spread
starts
working
better
and
then
this
will
change
a
little
bit
if
we
change
the
parameters
of
source
cred.
So
those
are
things
that
will
have
to
be
always
revisited
and
and
shared,
and
then
how
is
appraised
formulated
just
on
this
chord?
D
Is
this
format
and
on
telegram
is
a
different
format
and
and
then
just
a
quick
like
hint
to
be
specific
to
avoid
superlatives
and
if
we
want
to
use
superlatives
to
give
a
quality
point
to
it.
So
one
bad
example
would
be.
Oh,
I
praise
all
the
work
they
did
in
this
process
and
then,
if
still,
we
want
to
go
for
something
big,
but
giving
a
quality
point
would
be
a
praise,
the
thoughtfulness
they
put
in
the
details
of
this
process
like
adding
emojis
related
to
each
topic
of
the
agenda.
D
This
is
not
not
something
that
will
ever
be
praised.
I
think,
but
just
a
dumb
example
that
came
to
my
mind
and
then
how
quantification
works.
It's
all
in
the
post
that
we
worked
on
it
and
the
category
there
are
no
categories
for
praise,
but
just
the
slide
that
we
decided
using.
I
saw
that
mitch
suggested
to
have
just
five
points
of
this.
I
personally
prefer
having
more,
because
I
think
there
are
like.
D
D
E
A
Yeah
and
and
when
it
comes
to
the
the
number
of
place
categories
or
the
the
values
you
choose
from
octopus,
he
he
thought
that
maybe
seven
numbers
was
a
nice
number
mitch
thought
five,
maybe
yeah.
Let's
make
that
a
part
of
the
params
params
debate
or
something
before
the
first
place
quan
for
the
actual
system.
It
will
be
easy
to.
You
know,
adapt
and
then
which
numbers
we
we
can
put
in.
But
but
of
course
allowing
for
the
144
is
a
is.
That
is
a
huge
number
compare
if
we
stop
at
55.
B
With
the
reasoning
behind
boiling
it
down
to
those
five
points,
because,
like
the
first
half
of
the
fibonacci
sequence,
is
minuscule
compared
to
the
second
half
so
like,
I
think
it'll
be
less
intuitive
for
people
to
use
it.
You
know
if,
if
half
of
it
is
like
actually
a
tiny
fraction
compared
to
the
other
half.
D
I
would
love
to
ask
to
the
people
that
have
been
quantifying
the
most,
so
I
quantified
a
lot
and
for
for
me
particularly,
was
interesting
having
that
like.
Sometimes
there
is
something
that
just
slightly
more
feels
slightly
more
important
than
than
the
other
thing,
and
then
there
are
things
that
are
like.
Oh
that's
huge,
and
then
you
want
to
jump
until
the
end,
but
I
would
love
to
hear
from
zapdimz
and
juan
that
are
in
this
call
that
quantified
so
much.
Also
dan
and
mateo.
D
Just
if
you
think
it's
easier
to
so
am
I
still
sharing
my
screen?
Yes,
so
here
those
numbers,
do
you
think
it's
easier
to
better
to
have
them
just
like
that,
like
one
two,
three
five
eight
like
to
have
the
very
little
differences
between
them,
or
would
it
be
better
to
have
like
two,
eight
thirty,
four
144
like
have
less
options
of
numbers.
G
Yeah
that
was
very
interesting
because,
even
though
there
was
a
normalization
of
the
numbers,
there
were
people
like
that
gave
like
one
million
and
other
gave
like
from
one
to
a
hundred
and
in
the
value
of
the
praise.
So
I
think
like
it
is
good
to
have
like
this
this
framework,
and
maybe
I
agree
with
septi,
to
be
able
to
have
like
a
high
cap,
because
sometimes
there's
just
one
phrase
that
goes
to
a
very
important
activity
and
that
we
can
have
a
high
cap,
but
but
yeah.
G
I.
I
also
think
that
what
what
I
was
reading
in
one
of
the
first
chapters
like
I,
I
really
think
that
that
people's
feelings
shouldn't
be
like
thought,
biased
per
se
like
we.
We
should
try
to
think
that
people
is
doing
it
the
best
way
they
can.
I
mean
I
will
try
to
explain
myself,
even
though
that
I
like
levy
and
like
I
like
septi,
and
I
like
the
people
who
I
relate
the
most
in
the
community.
G
D
E
E
I
don't
know
if
it's
it's
helpful
or
not,
but
I
actually
for
story
points
with
a
lot
of
projects
I
work
on.
I
was
using
a
fibonacci
sequence
with
people
on
the
team
and
I
had
done
a
wider
swath
with
a
higher
number
and
over
time
I
found
keeping
it
one
through
five
is
way
easier
for
people
who
aren't
as
technical
to
categorize
things
into
once.
I
started
to
introduce
like
21
and
beyond.
E
A
Yeah,
actually,
the
the
those
story
points.
What
was
the
inspiration
for
this?
I
think
this
is
a
slightly
different
scenario
where
you
can
easily
you
know
you
can
easily
see
that
praising
someone
for
writing.
This
huge
scientific
report
is
way
is
a
way
bigger
contribution
than
someone
someone
attending
a
meeting
or
or
doing
some
small,
really
small
thing.
So
I
I
think
there
really
needs
to
be
this.
E
A
Yeah,
I
I'd
suggest
that
we
make
this
part
of
the
the
a
params
debate
or
not
necessarily
a
debate,
but
but
at
least
an
open
process
where
we
post
the
suggested
params
on
the
forum
and
have
an
advice
process,
and
we,
where
we
also
include
other
stuff
that
we
talked
about.
What
did
we
talk
about?
I
don't
remember
something
something
that
levy
said
that
that
we
yeah
it.
No
it's
about
being
anonymous
or
not
using
certain
names.
A
A
I
I
To
that
I
wanted
to
mention
in
in
livia's
document
about
the
format
of
the
praise
I
think
and
bye
bye,
vic
you've
joined
now.
I
think
we
wanted
to
change
that
to
to
the
slash
comments
and
not
the
exclamation
mark
comments,
just
slight
change
in
the
format,
but
but
maybe
I
maybe
I
write
a
comment
in
the
in
the
document
and
yeah,
and
the
plan
is
just
to
continue
start,
maybe
well
refine
a
bit.
The
the
telegram
board
maybe
start
with
a
discord
one
and
yeah.
I
A
Does
the
vice
versa?
So,
for
instance,
I
mark,
I
quantify
praise
number
one
and
I
mark
praise
number
two
as
a
duplicate
of
number
one
and
then
quantifier
number
two
does
the
opposite
thing
of
quantifying
phrase
number
two
and
marking
that
the
phrase
number
one:
that's
the
duplicate
of
number
two:
what
are
the
end
results
and
how
do
we
handle
those?
So
there's
a
lot
of
like
edge
cases
and
and
stuff
like
that,
but
I
think
we
have
solved
most
of
them
now.
A
B
A
D
A
No,
I
I
think
we
saw
that
this
way
that
that
we
treat
them
completely
separate.
We
don't
it
doesn't
matter
if,
if,
if
you
are
a
quantifier-
and
I
am
a
quantifier
which
praise
we
mark
as
duplicates
it
doesn't
matter
when
we
do
the
calculation,
the
the
the
end
result
is
still
the
same,
we
need
to
set
a
parameter
for
that
and
the
parameter
will
decide
how
much
is
a
duplicate
praise
worth
compared
to
the
original
and
and
most
probably
it's
a
straight
percentage.
So,
let's
say
a
duplicate.
A
Praise
is
worth
ten
percent
of
the
original.
Then
that
is
solved
that
way.
Yeah.
Let
me
not
get
too
too
technical
on
the
details
with
the
data
model,
but
the
data
model
isn't
isn't
that
big?
We
have
done
some
some
modeling
in
our
table,
with,
with
actual
data,
to
see
that
sort
of
the
data
fits
into
the
model
and
yeah
it
seems
like
we
have
ironed
it
out,
mostly.
D
A
A
Yeah,
but
at
the
same
time,
if
they
know
that
that
double
praises
are
not
worth
anything
at
all,
that
would
really
deter
people
from
from
praising,
because
if
someone
has
already
praised
for
for
for
that
thing
that
then
you
they
know
that
yeah.
That
contribution
I
made
as
doing
the
praise
that
that
wasn't
worth
anything
at
all.
D
D
A
Let
me
move
into
the
front
end,
then
this
is
the
wireframes
I've
made
for
for
the
quantification
screen.
So
this
is
a
screen
where
one
one
quantifier
sees
the
all
all
the
praise
received
by
this
autonomous
character:
happy
salamander
for
one
praise
period.
So
there's
a
list
of
of
praise
and
and
there's
a
you
do
the
quantification-
and
in
this
case
you
you
choose
from
the
fibonacci
sequence.
I
cut
this
off
at
34
just
now,
but
I
guess
well
yeah.
It
will
be
longer
again.
A
It
was
longer
before,
and
I've
also
included
this
marking
of
duplicate
and
also
dismissing
praise.
I
think
this
missing
place.
It
was
a
time
that
highlighted
that
we
need
to
to
be
able
to
dismiss
a
praise
so
to
be
able
to
dismiss
a
place
where,
where
the
information
is
you
know,
it
doesn't
contain
any
praise,
information
or
or
it's
totally
out
of
scope
for
the
prey
system
or
somehow
just
to
market.
That's.
A
D
A
B
A
F
B
A
Those
quantifiers
can
make
a
mark
different
praise,
as
being
duplicates
of
you
know
that
they
can
mark
duplicates
in
different
ways.
So
when
we
try
to
squish
everything
together
to
do
one
view,
it
will
be
difficult
to
determine
which,
which
phrase
was
a
duplicate
of
which
other
praise,
but
when
we
look
at
it
from
the
perspective
of
one
quantifier,
it's
really
easy
because
it's
then
it's
your
subject.
Your
subjective
opinion
of
of
which
phrase
is
the
duplicate
of
which
other
did
that
make
sense.
F
What
about
letting
the
quantify
like
you,
you
flat
the
duplicate,
and
then
you
let
the
quantifier
decide
like.
If
it's
you
know,
this
task
is
like
you
know,
like
sometimes
people
price
stuff
like
twice
like,
maybe
they
press
it
like
before,
and
then
they
press
it
again
on
the
community
call.
But
then
there's
this
other
case
like
when
someone
is
praising
someone
and
then
other
person
is
pressing.
This
person
for
the
same
thing
so
yeah
it
should
have
like
different
values,
but
this
is
a
subjective
thing
and
what
about
letting
the
quantifiers
decide
like?
F
F
F
I
thought
like
the
duplicate
system
was
like
it's
the
quantifiers
who
have
to
see
like
the
duplicated
I
mean.
Whoever
has
to
do
it
like.
Okay,
we
do
it
and
after
that
the
quantifiers
decide
like
I
I'm
so
I
was
not
fully
understanding
like
I.
I
also
christopher
mentioned
before,
like
when
we
we
pray
spare
people
like
we
see
all
the
presents
from
one
people,
and
then
we
give
a
number
or
it's
like
it
was
like
okay
yeah.
H
Relative,
I
had
a
question
is
in
this
place
data.
Would
we
have
like
an
anonymous
id
for
who's,
giving
the
place
or
something
like
that?
That
way,
they
would
know
like
if
two
different
people
gave
the
same
place
or
if
it's
the
same
person
giving
them
place-
and
I
think
is
this-
a
duplication
feature
that
it
doesn't
remove
the
aspect
of
having
place
there.
H
So
it's
up
to
it
if
we
still
have
duplication,
we're
just
flagging
all
the
duplicates,
we're
still
giving
some
consideration
to
what's
being
what's
being
credited,
so
I
think
it's
all
entirely
up
to
the
analyzing
the
places
whoever
is
quantifying
to
give
it
to
wait,
and
I
think
we
should
give
leave
it
up
to
them
to
decide
if
this
phrase
gets
more
consideration.
If
it's
been
reproduced
many
times,
I
don't
think
we
should
say
that
you
necessarily
need
to
do
this.
It's
up
to
them.
A
A
If
that
is
a
smallest
score,
you
can
give.
If
you
have
a
marker
appraised
as
a
duplicate,
and
you
need
to
select
a
number,
then
the
the
lowest.
The
score
you
could
select
again
is
one
which
means
that
a
a
a
small
contribution
being
praised
two
times
will
get
the
double
amount
of
raise,
because
it
will
get
a
one
and
a
one,
and
I
I
don't
think
that
is
the
intention.
H
A
H
A
So
if,
if
you
get
praised
for
your
scientific
report
and
you
get
144
in
score
for
that,
and
then
you
have
10
people
each
praising
that
again,
you
will
get
ten
percent
for
for
new,
each
reprise
or
or
out
of
that,
which
would
lead
you
to
in
in
the
end,
get
the
double
amount,
because
not
only
was
was
your
contribution
really
important,
but
also
like
10
other
people
said
that
it
was
really
important.
So
then,
like
super
important.
B
A
And
let's
keep
in
mind
now
that
what
we
are
building
is
the
the
mvp
version
of
this
system
that
we
need
to
be
done
somewhere
around
the
commons
upgrade
so
to
mid
to
end
november.
So
so,
let's
try
not
not
to
introduce
so
much
new
new
stuff
and
unless
it's
really
really
really
important
things.
Okay,
keep
it
simple
and
clean
and
get
get
it
done
on
time.
That,
at
least
that's
my
my
my
opinion.
A
Yeah
now
that
this
was
one
detail,
I
just
used
this
and
as
an
example,
why
we
had
to
spend
some
time
on
on
the
data
data
model
design.
But
this
is
one
of
the
things
that
we
have
been
sort
of
debating.
If
we
all
think
that
we
did,
this
needs
more
debating,
we'll
we'll
continue
to
do
that.
We
can
continue
that
in
the
in
the
chat.
Okay,
all
right.
I
I
A
But
and
that
that
leads
me
to
think
that
we
should
all
probably
include
the
from
column
again,
I
actually
removed
it
today.
It
was
there
in
this
view,
so
you
can
see
who
who
did
the
praise
but
using
a
sodium
as
well,
but
we'll
we'll
bring
that
back,
because
that
probably
adds
it
reveals
that
that
information,
for
instance,
what.
F
B
H
I
also
had
a
question
about
back-end:
are
we
going
to
maybe
lock
the
source
of
the
brace?
I
think
if,
when
we're
doing
audits,
it
could
be
really
helpful
if
we
clock
where
this
place
came
from,
maybe
like
a
discord
message
link
or
I
don't
know
how
telegram
identifies
messages,
maybe
we
could
lock
something
like
that.
So,
whenever
we're
doing
an
audit,
it's
super
smooth
to.
A
D
My
my
last
idea
about
that
about
the
the
duplicates
was
that
they
could
have
no
value
the
duplicates,
but
we
have
that
information
somewhere
of
how
many
phrases
word
duplicate
of
the
same,
because
you
said
we
would
have
to
inform
like
duplicate
of
what.
So,
if
that
duplicate
of
what
is
communicated
10
times,
let's
say
like.
A
Yeah
and
with
the
the
current
proposal
that
would
be
possible
you,
we
would
only
set
that
parameter
to
zero
percent,
that
that
the
duplicates
get
zero
percent,
and
you
you
have
you
have
that
and
and
of
course
we
would
need
to
to
include
that.
In
the
analysis,
the
information
about,
like
this
phrase
have
been
marked,
has
been
duplicated
by
x
amount
of
times.
A
A
A
So
the
the
quantify
pool,
where
you
add
the
the
community
members
that
have
expressed
interest
in
being
quantifiers,
the
quantify
quantification
periods
where
you
you,
you
start
in
a
new
period,
you
can
manually
set
the
length
of
a
period
for
instance.
So
if
it
you
know
it's,
if
the,
if
there's
christmas
or
a
token
launch
or
whatever
so
some
some
fixed
state
that
we
need
to
keep
in
mind,
we
can
adjust
the
length
of
the
coming
period
period.
A
We
have
to
close
the
period
manually,
so
an
administrative
administrator
can
choose
to
to
close
a
period,
even
even
though
all
quantifiers
have
are
not
done,
because
if
we
need
to
be
able
to
move
on
even
if
people
not
deliver
on
their
promise
to
to
do
the
quantification
closing
periods,
we
have
this
yeah.
Of
course,
the
my
my
praise
feature
where
you
can
see
the
the
praise
you
get
and
get
some
overview
for
over
the
different
periods.
A
How
how
your
totals
price
score
has
been
over
the
different
periods
and
the
quantification
summary
where
you,
you
see
all
the
praise
for
that
period,
with
an
average
score
and
the
average
average
score
being
being
being
an
average.
If
there's
a
three
three
quantifiers
quantifying
appraiser,
then
the
average
score
is
the
their
total
score
divided
by
three.
Basically,
so
it's
really
simple
stuff.
A
Quantification
details
yeah
and
we
have
been
looking
at
the
quantifier
screen
and
yeah
that,
basically
that's
it
for
the
the
application
and
rad
he
is
doing.
The
quantifier
quantifier
periods
is
starting
with
this
screen.
The
quantifier
period
detail
screen,
and
I
think
I
will
be
doing
the
the
quantify
pool
screen
next.
B
I
reviewed
your
wireframes
just
before
this
meeting
christopher,
and
so
I
just
made
some
comments
there
in
the
orange
sticky
notes
mostly
around
I'm.
I'm
really
not
sure
who
the
user
is.
You
identify
three
personas
and
I'm
not
really
sure
who
the
user
is
in
that
scenario
yeah
and,
secondly,
the
wireframes
we
it
doesn't
really
specify
who
is
viewing
it
like,
which
persona
is
viewing
each
frame,
because
obviously
there's
going
to
be
some
frames
that
only
admins
can
see
and
some
frames
only
quantifiers
can
see.
B
Yeah,
my
my
only
thought
here
is
that
if
there
could
be
a
point
where
we
give,
if
the
user
is
defined
as
anyone
that
is
involved
in
the
praise
system
like
receiving
praise,
maybe
giving
them
too
much
information
while
the
process
is
actually
happening,
like
might
not
be
beneficial,
you
know
if
they
can
see
their
praise
being
quantified
in
real
time.
I
think
like
people
might
become
obsessive
or
something
like
that.
I
don't
know.
A
A
A
F
Yeah,
I
was
just
going
to
say
I
really
think
like
it.
I
prefer
like
the
way
that
christopher
is
saying
because
like
if
it's
like
the
the
good
thing
about
open
source
is
like
anyone
can
see
it.
So
if
you
know,
if
something
is
gameful
like
the
community
could
or
could
not
gamify
on
it,
but
at
the
same
time
we
can,
you
know,
make
it
better,
so
we
can
improve
it
and
yeah.
I
really,
I
really
think
it's
better
to
get
it
open
and
the
more
eyes.
A
H
H
B
Just
to
add
to
both
your
points,
there
livvy
up
added
a
point
into
the
process
which
is
going
to
be
analyze,
so
there
will
be
a
full
report
that
will
be
transparent.
That
comes
at
the
end
of
each
quant
period,
so
we'll
have
full
disclosure,
but
then
to
the
second
point
like
if
I'm
a
user
and
I'm
trying
to
access
stuff,
that's
admin
only.
You
might
just
end
up
with
like
ux
issues
of
users,
not
understanding
why
they
can't
push
buttons.
B
I
Also,
I
think,
a
risk
if
we
show
during
the
process
in
real
time
who
is
getting
what
valuation
that
would
leave
us
open
to
somebody
seeing
something
and
reaching
out
to
the
person
in
the
quantifier
pool
and
trying
to
influence
them.
So
I
think
it
would
be
important
to
just
have
it
closed
during
the
process
and
then
afterwards,
of
course,
full
transparency
see
and
see
everything.
A
Yeah,
I
think
that
those
two
are
really
valid
valid
points,
so
I
I'd
say
we
we
make
those
adjustments
if
that
that
seems
like
the
a
general
idea
that
we
make
sure
that
the
admin
stuff
is
not
viewable
to
people
that
are
not
admins
and
the
phrase
data
that
the
quantification
data
during
an
ongoing
quantification
is
not
shown
for
other
than
the
people
doing.
The
actual
quantification,
of
course,.
A
H
D
D
But
I
think
that's
why
we're
trying
to
be
descriptive
so
always
adding
like
a
quality
or
a
way
that
you
feel
about
how
that
was
valuable,
so
that
would
inform
the
the
quantifier
and
then,
if
the
people
that
are
praising
fail
to
do
that,
then
I
think
is:
I
don't
know
if
something
is
totally
totally
impossible
to
understand.
Maybe
you
should
be
dismissed.
A
B
H
A
A
H
I
think
one
solution
to
this
might
be
like
we
have
an
open
channel,
but
no
one
can
talk
in
that
channel.
So
what
you
could
do
is
like
you,
use
a
command
in
games
or
something
where
you
can
ask
question
and
someone
can
answer
the
question
via
dns
and
it
all
of
that
is
viewable
in
a
public
discord
channel.
So
anyone
in
the
community
can
audit
that,
like
this
isn't
influencing
the
other
person
in
some
way.
H
It's
it's:
okay,
not
the
best
user
experience,
but
I
think
that's
a
way
that
we
can
have
that.
So,
for
example,
there's
this
channel
called
trace
discussion
or
praise
information
and
then
there's
a
bot.
You
can
dm
the
bot
and
you
can
say
you
can
use
a
command
like
question
the
id
of
the
place,
and
you
know
you
ask
your
question
whatever
it
is,
and
someone
in
the
server
could
just
use
in
command
called
answer.
H
I
Can
I
say
something
I
think:
maybe
that
would
like
following
what
web
ib
said,
maybe
it's
possible
to
make
a
bot
when
you
have
a
doubt
about
the
praise
you
can
write
to
a
bot
which
posts,
a
message
which
is
like
praise
clarifications
and
that
bot
mentions
the
person
who
gave
the
praise,
who
is
not
anonymous
to
clarify
what
they
meant.
So
you
say
I
don't
understand
what
you
said
here
and
then
the
bot
posted
and
the
praise
was
public,
so
that
person
gets
a
mention
in
the
discord
and
can't
clarify.
I
I
meant
that
this
paper
does
blah
blah
blah
blah
blah
or
this
program
does
this.
So
the
clarification
is
out
in
the
open
so
for
everybody
to
see,
and
you
don't
have
to
reach
out
to
other
quantifiers,
you
don't
have
to
know
who
the
quantifiers
are.
You
just
have
a
way
to
anonymously
contact
the
person
that
gave
the
praise,
which
you
think
is
unclear.
H
I
think
I
could
do
that
in
the
back
end.
I
think
we
do
store
the
id
of
who
was
praising
a
certain
person,
but
I
don't
know
how
this
would
work
in
telegram,
but
for
discord.
You
could
probably
have
this
like.
You
can
send
the
question
to
a
port
and
the
bot
asks
the
question
in
a
tame
to
that
person
who
sent
the
place.
What
did
you
mean
by
this
and
then
they
could
just
answer
it
right
there
and
that
gets
released
to
you
by
your
teams.
A
I
think
that
is
a
really
good
idea.
I
I
posted
that
as
an
as
an
idea
for
for
version
x.x
for
future
versions.
It's
really
interesting
and-
and
I
think,
going
forward
I'd
love
to
do
more
bot,
interactive
functionality
like
being
able
to
opt
into
the
quantifier
pool
by
calling
a
bot
command
using
the
bot
for
notifications.
Like
a
notification
saying
yeah,
the
quantification
period
has
started
and
you
have
been
chosen
to
be
a
part
of
the
quantifier.