Re^2: Thoughtless voting?

I'm suspect I'm missing something about the intent of your first sentence.

Isn't a gratuitous ad hominem attack "bad?" And, far more to the point, if a node shows no effort and flies in the face of Monastery ~~values and~~ guidance, isn't it reasonable to adjudge that node "bad?' I'm thinking -- for example -- of nodes which ignore the site docs' mantra that one should "post code; post data" or which ignore prior requests for relevant information.

And while I agree wholeheartedly with your reservations about "more rules," your remark led me to doublecheck those parts of the site where we offer guidance on how to weigh casting votes.

Oops!

Voting/Experience System offers info on how one "earns" or obtains votes and on various technical aspects of the system, but nowhere did I find anything comparable to the guidance we offer on considering nodes. Perhaps we need such a guide on the value-judgement aspects of voting (and as a member of SDC, I'll take that as encouragement to draft some suggestions). Thanks!

Updated: Struck ill-considered words in 2nd para.

Updated, again: See mr_mischief's citation of the guidance on voting that I missed.

Comment on Re^2: Thoughtless voting?

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^3: Thoughtless voting? by moritz (Cardinal) on Jan 29, 2011 at 20:13 UTC
Isn't a gratuitous ad hominem attack "bad?" It is. But who can objectively judge that a certain node poses a gratuitous ad hominem attack? And, far more to the point, if a node shows no effort and flies in the face of Monastery guidance, isn't it reasonable to adjudge that node "bad?' It probably is, but people might still find the replies it spawns very useful, and thus think that the original node still deserves an upvote. Even if something falls obviously into one category, for somebody from a completely different cultural background it might be not the case. I agree that it would be nice to have some guidance on how to decide what to vote up or down (or if to vote at all). But we should be very clear that it's only guidance, not rules. Perl 6 - second systems done right	[reply]
Re^4: Thoughtless voting? by CountZero (Bishop) on Jan 30, 2011 at 10:11 UTC
I agree that it would be nice to have some guidance on how to decide what to vote up or down (or if to vote at all). Oh noes! That would be so very bad. It makes me think with horror of the "voting suggestions" handed down by priests in their sermons to their flock. A worse situation can hardly be imagined. Voting only works if it is free of all influence, only between you and your conscience. Of course you then get the government, web-site, community, ... you deserve, but that it still infinitely better that getting the government, web-site or community someone else thinks you deserve. CountZero A program should be light and agile, its subroutines connected like a string of pearls. The spirit and intent of the program should be retained throughout. There should be neither too little or too much, neither needless loops nor useless variables, neither lack of structure nor overwhelming rigidity." - The Tao of Programming, 4.1 - Geoffrey James	[reply]
Re^5: Thoughtless voting? by moritz (Cardinal) on Jan 30, 2011 at 11:01 UTC
It makes me think with horror of the "voting suggestions" handed down by priests in their sermons to their flock. Doesn't that depend strongly on how these suggestions look? I mean I agree it's bad if the priests say "vote $particular party", but what's so bad if the priests suggest "vote for the politician who you think will sustain peace and justices and still makes our economy strive"? That's the kind of advice I imagined, that is general advice, not advise particular to a single node. And I fail to see how that's bad. A worse situation can hardly be imagined. I don't have any troubles come up with any number of worse scenarios :-) Perl 6 - second systems done right	[reply]
Re^6: Thoughtless voting? by CountZero (Bishop) on Jan 30, 2011 at 18:00 UTC


Come for the quick hacks, stay for the epiphanies.
	PerlMonks