Via the /msg system, ptkdb was alerted to the mistakes so that he could correct them. They were errors that could have been corrected in a minute or two of typing. ptkdb expressed a disinterest in changing anything, and instead, became somewhat irritated at someone noticing problems.

Since it was "via the /msg system", it isn't available for peer review. I see your interpretation of what happened here, but without ptkdb's, that's pretty useless. In light of that, it's only fair to give him the benefit of the doubt...

You call the holes in his response "mistakes" but he claims he was just sketching the approach out. You say he was "somewhat irritated at someone noticing problems" but I wonder if he might not have actually been irritated at someone suggesting he should write the OP's code for him. I probably wouldn't have been, but I can understand why someone might've, and I wouldn't hold it against ptkdb if he were.

It was only after my followup that ptkdb edited his node. But rather than editing the node to fix the problem, he added the line, "Just tossing some pseudocode out there:", and then went on to take the time to post a flaming response to my call-out.

After reviewing his response, I see nothing in it that should be construed as a flame. He was explanatory ("just trying to put the basic structure out there"); he suggested the OP needed to at least have a minimal skillset to complete his task; he highlighted a difference between his and your styles of helping ("if everything has to be perfect for you before posting, forget it"); and he asked you a question about the correctness of the logic of his approach. A question to which you never responded, by the way.

I also disagree with your addendum. By calling it "pseudo code", ptkdb called attention to the fact that the code was not complete and, insofar as there are no logic errors, it does fix the mistakes of omission simply by allowing that they exist.

You tried to hold the help he offered up to your standards for helping. That's fine, right up until he tells you that you can shove your standards, at which point that's what you should do.

He wasn't wrong no matter how hard you tried to make him wrong. He was offering different help in a different style based on his interpretation of the OP. Whether or not your help is better or worse than his isn't at all relevant. Helping is not a competition. Or, if it is, then it needs to stop being one the moment it becomes unfriendly. Bickering over who helped more or less isn't going to make this site better. Diversity in the help offered, on the other hand, does.

I've upvoted both ptkdb's original response in that thread as well as response to you. I've downvoted your response to him. I also upvoted the Anonymous Monk response to you. As that one was posted today, I guess I'm not the only one that feels this way about this fiasco. I hope other monks here will review the original thread and vote their opinions as well.

-sauoq
"My two cents aren't worth a dime.";

You are depicting ptkdb as a martyr of unjust persecution, but in fact he's only victim of his own excess of pride.

In the case you are mentioning, any sane person should have added an "untested" label and let it go. But no, ptkdb reacted to davido's childish remarks in a even more childish way. Both of them were changing their posts to create a favorable case, thus coming to the unfortunate complain of Code Blocks.

But ptkdb was not at his first experience. Look at Tales from the Crypt, 'use strict' Horror Stories. He posted a stupid question, most likely misunderstanding his own intentions. Then after two saints made clear that he was completely off track, he claimed that he was saying the opposite of what he actually said.

Summing up, there was some overreaction from somebody, but it's also true that ptkdb also made things worse, by placing the blame on the Monastery for his faults. And then, what was just a kids' caprice became a global issue.

About ptkdb being wrong or not, I don't believe that the standard of his question was really high, but this is not the point, and the point isn't competition either, because davido's nitpicks about irrelevant style points are as unpleasant as ptkdb complaints. The point is that the Monastery is based upon a standard of quality that is kept high thanks to two elements: the XP and the dialog.

One of the things that should not be tolerated here is a wrong answer. In these cases, many monks have been abused by more knowledgeable people, such as merlyn and Abigail-II, and even though these remarks may seem unpleasant, they are necessary and healthy for the Monastery as a whole. If you make a mistake, and somebody points it to you, you should accept it and learn from it, and life goes on.

What went wrong in this particular case was that the one pointing at the mistake is also somebody who is often involved in mistakes and does not take criticism well, (he changes the contents of his nodes when somebody points at them). Therefore, in this fight between egos the real victim was the Monastery, which reacted in the only way it could, i.e. by taking on the one who was screaming louder.

By calling it "pseudo code", ptkdb called attention to the fact that the code was not complete and

What you might not realize sauoq is that the node in question has been edited. It did not originally mention pseudo-code, in fact it did quite opposite as I recall.

I hope other monks here will review the original thread and vote their opinions as well.

That is no longer a possibility. davido's comments now lack the context that brought them forth!