Beefy Boxes and Bandwidth Generously Provided by pair Networks
Clear questions and runnable code
get the best and fastest answer
 
PerlMonks  

Re^9: And here's why I think "downvotes" should be eliminated, or tabulated separately ...

by aaron_baugher (Curate)
on Jul 01, 2015 at 17:04 UTC ( #1132857=note: print w/replies, xml ) Need Help??


in reply to Re^8: And here's why I think "downvotes" should be eliminated, or tabulated separately ...
in thread And here's why I think "downvotes" should be eliminated, or tabulated separately ...

There are many (better) solutions. It depends on what flavor people want. Here's some that might require tweaking:

Those might help; it's hard to say. But how much work should people have to do to accommodate one determined troublemaker? We've already wasted considerable time writing about it in this thread alone. Multiply that by however many threads over the years, plus however many threads started out useful and then were taken over by this. Now add whatever coding someone would have to do to add these features, then tweak them, then add more tweaks and features when he finds ways around those...

It just seems like an awful lot of trouble to go to, and for what? I agree with you that downvoting isn't a solution, but it is a way to show the people in charge of the site (of whom I am not one) how many people are sick of it. If anyone thought he only rubbed a couple people the wrong way, well, now we know otherwise.

Let's say you open a soup kitchen. You make it open to absolutely everyone, no restrictions by race, creed, etc. Anyone can come and get a bowl of soup, and you're very proud of that fact. Then one day a guy comes in, gets his bowl of soup, and dumps it on the next person who walks in the door. You're nice to him at first, thinking if he feels welcome he'll stop doing it, but he doesn't. You try talking to him about respecting others, but he doesn't listen. You get volunteers to stand next to the door with trays to catch the soup when he dumps it, but he just turns and dumps it on someone else. You even design a dump-proof bowl, but he gets a mouthful out and then spits it on people.

How long would it take before you admitted you needed to put a restriction on your "everyone is welcome" policy? And why would you feel bad about doing so?

Aaron B.
Available for small or large Perl jobs and *nix system administration; see my home node.

  • Comment on Re^9: And here's why I think "downvotes" should be eliminated, or tabulated separately ...

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^10: And here's why I think "downvotes" should be eliminated, or tabulated separately ...
by chacham (Prior) on Jul 01, 2015 at 17:58 UTC

    First things first. That is a nice post.

    how much work should people have to do to accommodate one determined troublemaker?

    There isn't just one disfavored monk, there are many. However, one of them annoys more than the rest to the point it is considered unbearable. A solution, however, can work for everyone.

    Of course, if that isn't worth the effort, or the idea of changing the way things are done (which has worked for well over a decade) is anathema, a single monk can be singled out. If so, deal with the issue for the one monk with a banning or something. Pick your poison.

    it is a way to show the people in charge of the site (of whom I am not one) how many people are sick of it

    That is an excellent point. I didn't think of that. Reputation is an indicator to the management, especially when a difficult choice may be in the offing. Although this would require due diligence in voting on the post and not the monk (making quick downvotes less valuable), it is still a decent indicator.

    It should be noted that it would make the site exclusive to people who don't tick everyone else off. That is still intolerance (by definition), but understandable, especially if the main concern is that bad advice is being offered consistently and in enough quantity, where there is a real fear of damage via misinformation.

    How long would it take before you admitted you needed to put a restriction on your "everyone is welcome" policy?

    That might depend on how much anime i watched recently, where some supposedly righteous character never gets angry. :) But seriously, such a person would likely get a warning and then get banned.

    That case is not really comparable because he is both causing damage to other people and cannot be ignored given just one general area.

      Thanks for your thoughtful response.

      It should be noted that it would make the site exclusive to people who don't tick everyone else off.

      True, but if you set the threshold high enough, it would take a lot to meet it. Say if someone's overall rep for a week is below -100, or if his ratio of downvotes to upvotes is below some level, there's a call for a vote on whether to boot him, for instance. Dunno what the exact number would need to be, but I'd think something like that would be possible without people having to fear that annoying the wrong person or having a bad day would get them banned.

      Of course, that would require coding too, and discussion when a vote came up, so that's not a free solution either. But it seems to me like a reasonable extension of the reputation concept, if people wanted to do it.

      Aaron B.
      Available for small or large Perl jobs and *nix system administration; see my home node.

        but if you set the threshold high enough

        That's one of those dangerous phrases that sounds good at first, but are many times are (perhaps unconsciously) justifications for detestable behavior. Just a note to be extra careful.

        Say if someone's overall rep for a week is below -100

        Not such a bad idea though. Instead, i would look at for rep that is x% below the average. And then, just make the person a candidate for banning.

        that would require coding too, and discussion when a vote came up

        If it's for excessive abusers, it would not need to be automated. A simple query would show weekly rep (for a reported abuser), and cause for a vote amongst the gods. They can put the monk on probation for 1 hour the first time, and double it from there. Probation could simply mean posts must be approved before being seen by new users.

      "a single monk can be singled out."

      Can they?

Log In?
Username:
Password:

What's my password?
Create A New User
Node Status?
node history
Node Type: note [id://1132857]
help
Chatterbox?
and the web crawler heard nothing...

How do I use this? | Other CB clients
Other Users?
Others making s'mores by the fire in the courtyard of the Monastery: (5)
As of 2020-08-12 13:04 GMT
Sections?
Information?
Find Nodes?
Leftovers?
    Voting Booth?
    Which rocket would you take to Mars?










    Results (65 votes). Check out past polls.

    Notices?