http://qs321.pair.com?node_id=417000


in reply to Re^3: A (highly) "ethical" use for for Perl
in thread A (highly) "ethical" use for for Perl

Then next time don't consider it with a reason of "useless". "Useless" doesn't tell me anything bad about a node. It tells me that the person considering the node could not think of much good about it but also was at a loss to actually describe anything bad about it.

And the person doing the considering is the one who must take the most care in evaluating what should be done. So if the considerer can't come up with any offense beyond "useless", my first reaction is to want to remove the consideration. When I investigated this one, I saw a reply from the considerer and it just emphasized the "useless" angle and went on to claim to not even know what the code did. So voting "keep" was an easy choice for me since "deleting" should require "harm".

- tye        

  • Comment on Re^4: A (highly) "ethical" use for for Perl (how not to consider)

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^5: A (highly) "ethical" use for for Perl (how not to consider)
by jryan (Vicar) on Dec 25, 2004 at 06:41 UTC
    You know, it sounds like our consideration system is really, really, really broken.

      Or at least, like a lot of people mix up the purposes of downvoting and reaping.

      Makeshifts last the longest.

        Well, either way, the root node is in the archives, approved, searchable, and even highlighted in Worst Nodes. I just can't wait for someone to take that code, slightly modify it, and bring down a network for less-hilarious reasons than blazar did.

        The thing that really bothers me was that the node wasn't reaped because it wasn't malicious, but that it wasn't reaped because people didn't like my consideration text. Thats just stupid.