Come for the quick hacks, stay for the epiphanies. | |
PerlMonks |
Re^3: discouraging flamebatingby tye (Sage) |
on Oct 24, 2004 at 16:09 UTC ( [id://402045]=note: print w/replies, xml ) | Need Help?? |
Regarding your proposals, please see Possible changes to Voting/XP. In point of fact, I expect people to disagree with me violently and at length almost any time I open my virtual mouth in Internet public. I have very strong opinions, and have an aggravating tendency to be difficult to logically argue against. In other words, you're a habitual flame bater (perhaps unintentionally but unapologetically), have already prompted a variety of people to reply to you trying to get you to realize that arguing endlessly about word definitions isn't particularly useful, and (I'm sure) you've gotten an even wider variety of people to downvote you (and some of your co-arguers) for endlessly arguing word definitions and commenting on the stupidity of others. If you keep this up, you'll soon have people characterizing you as a troll and many won't be able to read your nodes that happen to not be arguing about the definitions of words and commenting on the stupidity of others without letting a large volume of your other nodes influence them. And to be frank, I post this less in hopes of getting you to realize the errors of your ways and save you the likely spiral of frustration (for more than just you) than I do it as an early public notice that can be pointed to when this comes up again; because I'm doubtful you'll be able to overcome your strong attachment to your beliefs and modify your behavior. I'd rather you try to figure out how to produce more light and less heat when you argue. One great improvement would be to not get distracted by arguing about aspects of the argument (or at least drasticly limit it). - tye
In Section
Perl Monks Discussion
|
|