Hello @Narrative Network Team
Voting for the niches is becoming quite time consuming especially if we want to leave informative comments for any downvotes, or a controversial upvote. And yet the community must do this in order for the platform to work.
1) This may already be the case, but in case it isn't, I propose that the voting activity from the outset of the Chaucer Alpha be taken into account in the initial reputation scoring when the platform launches. This way the people putting in all this effort to enable this very manual process will be getting something out of their community service, and you'll be more likely to have sufficient voters as the niche proposals multiply.
The scoring could in some shape or form reward in reputation for each vote that ends up being the correct vote (matching the ultimate decision on the niche, whether by vote validation or Tribunal), and slightly penalise if it goes against the ultimate decision for the niche.
This in turn motivates people to study how the community is deciding on these niches, and for everyone to hone their sense of what makes a good niche with a good description.
(As an aside, I also think the community ranking currently in place should be taken into account in the initial reputation as well - to what degree is best determined by the Team, but it would not be right to completely disregard it).
2) I think it is worth the Team considering each vote being made up of two yes or no answers, one for the niche title and another for the niche description. There have been many cases already of niches with great titles, and terrible descriptions. It would be far more efficient if in one single step, the community pronounced itself twice - on the title, and the description. This way, a niche with a good title does not get rejected, but a bad title can be. This then leaves the niche in need of a title revision, but otherwise approved?