Beefy Boxes and Bandwidth Generously Provided by pair Networks
Don't ask to ask, just ask
 
PerlMonks  

Maximum down-votes per monk/day

by LanX (Canon)
on May 14, 2013 at 14:11 UTC ( #1033472=monkdiscuss: print w/ replies, xml ) Need Help??

Hei Monastery!

How many down-votes can I give to a special fellow monk, w/o them being invalidated at the end of the day?

His constantly spreading nonsense, never provides code to prove his "theories" and is immune to any open critic.

I don't care about loosing XP for down-voting, I just want my votes to count.

So how many per day, or which percentage of my votes can I dedicate to his propaganda?

Cheers Rolf

( addicted to the Perl Programming Language)

PS: Not interested in discussing his identity, elections are secret.

Comment on Maximum down-votes per monk/day
Re: Maximum down-votes per monk/day
by choroba (Abbot) on May 14, 2013 at 14:15 UTC
    I did not know any votes could be "invalidated". Is it mentioned somewhere?
    لսႽ† ᥲᥒ⚪⟊Ⴙᘓᖇ Ꮅᘓᖇ⎱ Ⴙᥲ𝇋ƙᘓᖇ
      It's hard to find, that's why I ask!

      Maybe here History now influences voting

      I already observed my down-votes vanishing after a day.

      Could also be that this "no significant down-votes" mechanism is interfering and causing a misconception... (?)

      I would be glad to hear that history doesn't invalidate down-votes! =)

      Cheers Rolf

      ( addicted to the Perl Programming Language)

        Could also be that this "no significant down-votes" mechanism is interfering and causing a misconception... (?)

        I believe that is the only thing that is happening.

        - tye        

Re: Maximum down-votes per monk/day
by ambrus (Abbot) on May 14, 2013 at 14:44 UTC

    My personal rule is that I don't downvote nodes without actually looking at what they say. As long as you read all my nodes, together with the context if they are replies, you can downvote all my nodes.

      > My personal rule is that I don't downvote nodes without actually looking at what they say

      Neither do I. Occasionally he also gets an upvote.

      I'm in a situation to censor necessary down-votes because I think "more of them and they'll ALL be deleted again".

      Cheers Rolf

      ( addicted to the Perl Programming Language)

Re: Maximum down-votes per monk/day
by ww (Bishop) on May 14, 2013 at 15:53 UTC
    Thought: while I am as a BIG believer in downvotes for bad answers (ie, wrong or off target) as I am for bad SOPWs (insuff info, gimme's, repeated questions that have already been answered for the specific OP and such like) you might want, instead, to write well-considered replies as correctives. If your unnamed poster insists that 2+2 = 5, why feel free to note (even, sarcasticly) that conventional arithmetic holds the correct sum to be 4.

    And frankly, since the first several downvotes could boost your XP, it might be hard to distinguish between XP-whoring and a campaign to discourage a spewer of falsehoods.

    That said, on to your specific questions: Were you to conduct a vendetta based on poisonality, programming preferences or other inappropriate*1 reasons for downvoting, the Gods (and Tye in particular, in his incarnation as a deity) may have the power to invalidate such votes.) And he has posted (finding it is left as an exercise to those with more ambition than I have at this moment) a fairly detailed explanation of the XP-loss-algorithm.

    *1 "inappropriate," that is, for some value of slease, error, obnoxiousness, etc., that I suspect neither you nor I can define in 20 words or fewer.

    OT: For me, the capability of downvoting the upvoters of some of the worst SOPWs posted here -- such as the gimme's; the repeated requests for solutions to problems for which the OP has already been given solutions, etc... -- would be a bene.

    Update: look for "dog votes" -- an indication you've exceeded the downvote tolerance in tye's rule.


    If you didn't program your executable by toggling in binary, it wasn't really programming!

      > you might want, instead, to write well-considered replies as correctives.

      I already do, but it starts to conflict with the "don't feed the trolls rule" and a day has limited hours.

      BTW: He is proven to be immune against critic and sarcasm.

      Cheers Rolf

      ( addicted to the Perl Programming Language)

Re: Maximum down-votes per monk/day
by Anonymous Monk on May 14, 2013 at 16:56 UTC
    So how many per day, or which percentage of my votes can I dedicate to his propaganda?

    Prop-a-gand-a: ... uses loaded messages to produce an emotional rather than rational response to the information presented.

    Your use of the word propaganda in this context is itself progranda. You are using the negative connutations of that word to induce an emotional response to cause the reader to see your opinion, and your actions in support of your opinion as virtuous.

    They may be, but it would be better to avoid using propaganda to counter what you see as propaganda, and stick to rational justifications.

      Hi! Anonymous Monk here again.

      To those of you who've upvoted the above comment, thank you! I assume you did so because you understood it to be telling someone to be nice. (And shouldn't we all be nice?)

      Unfortunately for me, Anonymous Monk, I now realize that my earlier statements have major flaws. In fact, there are so many obvious flaws that I feel like I must have been a different person when I wrote the comment above.

      • My definition of propaganda is not correct. Oops, I guess I should have looked it up before correcting someone based on its meaning.
      • This purported definition is pedantry. Pedantry is a bullying form of rhetoric, a cheap form of argument from authority, if you will. What was I thinking? As we see from my first point, it wasn't to establish fact.
      • My argument that calling something propaganda is itself propaganda is specious. Worse, my phrase "in this context" is disingenuous, since any context in which the word "propaganda" is not freighted with negative connotations would be non-operative, e.g., as in a discussion of the etymology of the word.
      • Even worse I hide my warped reasoning behind a barrage of pseudo-intellectual phrases (which would have come across better if only I had used spell check!) to reach a conclusion that the OP is actively running a campaign of counter-propaganda. At the end of my second paragraph I have imputed that the OP is himself a propagandist. That is where you upvoters probably got the idea that the OP was not being nice. However, I went back to the original post and could not find out how the question of wanting downvoting to be counted was a form of counter-propaganda. In my enthusiasm for smacking down anyone who uses the word propaganda I overreached and started rebuking non-existent actions. Gosh, if it weren't for the fact I am a faceless entity, I might have to be worried about being charged with libel!

      Anyway, dear upvoters, I'm sure that by my last sentence, where I, in my role of goody-goody objective authority, call upon the OP to use rationality as the basis of discourse, you were sure and certain that I had made a stand for civility against the evil forces of strong opinion and should be endorsed accordingly. Again, I thank you.

      But now I address those who didn't upvote me. I ask that you forgive me, Anonymous Monk, for crafting such a mistaken, sanctimonious, supercilious and illogical chastisement that must seem to have been crafted by a pretentious lackwit truckling to the politically correct "don't use words that can possibly offend anyone" crowd. I promise you that in the future, I, Anonymous Monk will do better.

      ... and, alas, worse.

      (Maybe I should increase my lithium dosage?)

        sarcasm++ :)

        thanks, very entertaining! xD

        Cheers Rolf

        ( addicted to the Perl Programming Language)

        -- To those of you who've upvoted the above comment, thank you! I assume you did so because you understood it to be telling someone to be nice. (And shouldn't we all be nice?)

        O'fanku 4 showin' uz d'errs ov uz ways. Innit.
        It wer st'pid ov uz 2 fink dat wez cud dezid 4 uzzelves 'ow wez can blow uz bling votes.
        P'aps u can uz yor god-gi'n spidy skills 2 make only the rite bu'on 'sply so wez paw deluznol b4k4s dont do it some more.
        Wez marvell a'youz skillz 2 sus d'trrof. Props innit man.
Re: Maximum down-votes per monk/day
by pemungkah (Priest) on May 15, 2013 at 03:43 UTC
    I now think the best way, based on recent experience in controversy here, is to reply once, then disengage (defnitely by post, possibly by vote). Replies past the first post and response generally end up in horrible, dark, and uninformative places. I've put myself on a one-reply diet now.

      Although I disagree with "replies past the first post" reasoning, I think pemungkah's advice of disengaging is right on the mark -- I hate to get all trite but 'you can lead a horse to water ....'

      -derby

      I now think the best way, based on recent experience in controversy here, is to reply once, then disengage (defnitely by post, possibly by vote). Replies past the first post and response generally end up in horrible, dark, and uninformative places. I've put myself on a one-reply diet now.

      There is not enough time in the day, and not always enough meat in the post, to go replying even once

      Sometimes all one can do is downvote and move on

      Looks very trollish to reflexively reply this reply is offtopic, factually erroneous ... and this guy won't stop posting them

Re: Maximum down-votes per monk/day
by sundialsvc4 (Abbot) on Jun 02, 2013 at 17:34 UTC

    I have suggested (unsuccessfully), and still maintain, that there should be upvotes but no downvotes.   (I am unaware of any algorithms that modify down-votes tallies ... and, if they exist, suggest that the perceived need for them is pointing out a problem with the whole idea.)   This is not, however, the present consensus of the community.

    I prefer to assume that anyone who posts here is doing so, clearly most-of-the-time, with the intent to be useful and helpful, even if I don’t agree with them and even if they’re wrong.   (I was famously wrong, again, in a post just yesterday that somehow fell-out to become “Anonymous,” so that I can’t touch it now.   Did I intend to be wrong?   No.   Would I strike it if I could?   Yes.)   If a post is are good, or humorous or what-have-you, I toss out an “attaboy,”   and sometimes I wished to be able to offer two.   If they are not, I do nothing.   If you don’t want negativity among a group of people, don’t implement the means to do so.   But this is not the consensus.

    I’d get rid of Anonymous Monk’s ability to post, too.   But, “ditto.”

      > I have suggested (unsuccessfully), and still maintain, that there should be upvotes but no downvotes.

      You mean Proposal: eliminate down-votes which was "leading" the Worst Nodes Of The Year list with Reputation: -41 (+17 -58) till before yesterday?

      Cheers Rolf

      ( addicted to the Perl Programming Language)

      "I prefer to assume that anyone who posts here is doing so"

      Historically your assumptions, especially technical but also the wild conclusions you arrive at regarding "enemies" or things verging on conspiracies against you are disproven by those with the knowledge or the ability to check who has voted on what.

Re: Maximum down-votes per monk/day
by sundialsvc4 (Abbot) on Jun 03, 2013 at 01:49 UTC

    (Shrug ...)   Obviously, you mistake me for someone who is a great deal more “engaged in” the vagaries of the politics of ... a particular web-site ... than I actually am, or have ever been since 2007.

    No, I mean that quite seriously.   (Sorry to disappoint those few of you who actually care about such things.)   I made a statement, and I Rhett Butler what you “think about” it, or don’t.   If this site were my property, then I would not have downvotes at all ... but it isn’t, so there.   The owners, and the gods, are the ones who decide, and their decision has zero relevance to me as a humble participant.   This is a community.   If the community likes, not only down-votes, but the scrupulous tallying of them ... then, well, “So What?™”   Why should the community/gods care about what I think, anyway?

    “Conspiracy theories?”   Heh.   See paragraph #1 ...   :-)

    Every web forum has its factor of inter-personal politics, which manifests in various ways among its “long-time participants.”   How “engaged” you wish to be, with regard to such things, is an individual decision.   My decision is, and always has been and will be, “~.”

      Shrug ...) Obviously, you mistake me for someone who is a great deal more “engaged in” the vagaries of the politics of ... a particular web-site ... than I actually am, or have ever been since 2007.

      Golly gee, you made suggestion more than once, you complained about the votes more than once, you're engaged, no doubt about it

      ... inter-personal politics ...

      So you chalk up being often stubbornly off-topic , and often wrong , to inter-personal politics?

      Lets ban sundialsvc4 for his tireless violation of the rules of the forum

      "Obviously, you mistake me for someone who is a great deal more “engaged in” the vagaries of the politics of ... a particular web-site ... than I actually am, or have ever been since 2007"

      Since you once again reply to seemingly the wrong posts (there is no context for this reply in the parent node), which is a tactic you've employed in the past, I can only address what you say here in the context you provide. You seem to feel engaged enough to repeatedly regurgitate the same ideas again and again, each repitition provides nothing new. You also do this with technical advice, regardless how many times it's proven to be flawed. There's being engaged in the level of providing the same responses over and over, then there's engaged in some sort of worthwhile contribution. Heck you don't even follow up on bugs you claim to experience with the site, clearly you're not interested in any meaningful contribution.

      “Conspiracy theories?”

      Actually, nobody said this. Are you sure you meant to quote this? You certainly feel strongly about being downvoted since you complain about it, and even go so far as to suggest that you have an "enemy". If you cared about post reputation, why would you contunially post the same flawed answers to posts, again and again?

        Hi marto

        I think it's better not to feed him anymore.

        It's evident he ignores our rules and wants to establish his own.

        And these "rules" and his manners are rejected by the vast majority here.

        There are enough boards w/o downvotes, he can easily find a new home.

        Don't burden yourself with his problems.

        Cheers Rolf

        ( addicted to the Perl Programming Language)

Log In?
Username:
Password:

What's my password?
Create A New User
Node Status?
node history
Node Type: monkdiscuss [id://1033472]
Approved by bulk88
help
Chatterbox?
and the web crawler heard nothing...

How do I use this? | Other CB clients
Other Users?
Others scrutinizing the Monastery: (20)
As of 2014-10-24 14:00 GMT
Sections?
Information?
Find Nodes?
Leftovers?
    Voting Booth?

    For retirement, I am banking on:










    Results (132 votes), past polls