|
Re: using the power of consideration responsibly (what is personal attack what is trolling, can you lose power to consider)
by LanX (Saint) on Jun 07, 2013 at 09:12 UTC
|
The first two were obvious insults, the third one has to be read in context.
Hiding behind an anonymous account and mobbing people is not acceptable.
Consideration is a democratic process, the fact that others shared my sentiment seems to indicate that I wasn't too wrong.
If you wanna participate get an account and follow the rules.
If you wanna troll and provoke get used to being reaped and ignored.
Cheers Rolf
( addicted to the Perl Programming Language)
| [reply] |
Re: using the power of consideration responsibly
by Ratazong (Monsignor) on Jun 07, 2013 at 09:47 UTC
|
Hi!
In my opinion it was 100% Ok for LanX to consider the three nodes you mentioned.
They all contain personal attacks on a certain monk, and by the way they are written I get the impression that the
personal attack was the main reason for writing them (and not the small piece of information inside).
Obviously, a sufficient number of monks agreed with LanX that the nodes should be reaped.
I don't think that the power of consideration has been abused since I am monk. Therefore I don't think we need a
way to punish monks that use that feature. And I think the current definitions are good enough as a guideline for the monks.
But I don't have a full picture of all nodes that have been considered. So maybe some changes are indeed needed.
If you think that the consideration-process runs totally wrong, please provide suitable evidence.
I don't consider the three nodes you have cited as suitable, as they convince me that consideration works, and not otherwise.
Have a nice day! Rata
btw.: I don't understand your initial conclusion Being Anonymous Monk can be hard. Any nodes with questionable content may get reaped, not only those written by anonymonks!
| [reply] |
Re: using the power of consideration responsibly (what is personal attack what is trolling, can you lose power to consider)
by hdb (Monsignor) on Jun 07, 2013 at 08:58 UTC
|
I only just finished my first trimester at PerlMonks, so I am new to this all. From my understanding, the reaping of a node is not automatically the result of some monk considering the node but of a poll among monks.
In How does Nodes to Consider work?, it says:
If the voting on a consideration goes preponderantly toward reap (again, according to a magical formula of the keep/edit/reap tally), the node will be automatically reaped. Note, though, that the conditions under which this happens are quite stringent, the idea being that it's better to err on the side of not reaping a bad node, rather than reaping a good node.
So even if you feel that a particular monk considers nodes for reaping too often or for the wrong reasons, there must still be a number of other monks agreeing with the consideration. Excluding from consideration does not seem to be the right tool to prevent the potentially unjustified reapings.
A more precise definition of "troll" and "personal attack" might be desirable, however, a lot of personal judgement will still be involved.
| [reply] |
Re: using the power of consideration responsibly (what is personal attack what is trolling, can you lose power to consider)
by JockoHelios (Scribe) on Jun 07, 2013 at 13:33 UTC
|
I've read the three reaped posts, and both
http://www.perlmonks.org/index.pl?node_id=326922 and http://www.perlmonks.org/index.pl?node_id=92975.
As AnonymousMonk points out, according to those guidelines, the three reaped posts should not have been reaped. They should have been down-voted or ignored.
I would like to suggest that the guidelines be revised. From sad experiece with other groups ( non-Perl ), allowing postings like the three reaped posts is a cancer which I've seen ruin groups and chase away legitimate users.
My view is that Personal Attacks and posts meant to incite non-Perl-related controversy, including those using legitimate content as a cover, should be eligible for Consideration.
Trolls and fanatics deserve no quarter; none should be given.
| [reply] |
Re: using the power of consideration responsibly (what is personal attack what is trolling, can you lose power to consider)
by CountZero (Bishop) on Jun 07, 2013 at 14:43 UTC
|
I agree with the other Monks that the power of consideration is not used irresponsibly.And who will check whether the decision to revoke the consideration rights of some Monks is taken rightly? "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" as Juvenalis already asked.
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 My blog: Imperial Deltronics
| [reply] |
|
|
And who will check whether the decision to revoke the consideration rights of some Monks is taken rightly?
Who watches the watchmen? They watch themselves :) or the gods watch them.
I imagine janitors or power users, the folks actually making these types of decisions, would have final say, and if someone wants to appeal a decision, they might "/msg janitors" or gods or start a thread in Perl Monks Discussion... as gods would set this up, whatever protocol they decide is what would be used, just like everything on perlmonks
| [reply] |
|
|
Even the gods are human (and not only here on Perlmonks), so their decisions are likely to be as good (or bad) as the considerations of ordinary monks.
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 My blog: Imperial Deltronics
| [reply] |
|
|
|
|
|
Re: using the power of consideration responsibly (what is personal attack what is trolling, can you lose power to consider)
by Old_Gray_Bear (Bishop) on Jun 08, 2013 at 20:36 UTC
|
To paraphrase Salvor Hardin:
Posting Anonymously is the last refuge of the incompetent.
If you have something worth saying, then sign it. And take the responsibility for your words.
I used to think that posting anonymously meant that the OP merely forgot to log in. Over the years I have been in the Monastery, I have been disabused of this opinion.
Update: Fixed tyop....
----
I Go Back to Sleep, Now.
OGB
| [reply] |
|
|
If you have something worth saying, then sign it. And take the responsibility for your words. If something is worth saying, what difference does it make who said it, esp if the facts don't change, and its the facts that are being argued, not the man?
| [reply] |
|
|
| [reply] |
|
|
Re: using the power of consideration responsibly (what is personal attack what is trolling, can you lose power to consider)
by sundialsvc4 (Abbot) on Jun 21, 2013 at 21:01 UTC
|
To me, the “Consider” system is one of PM’s most pragmatic and innovative features. It pushes responsibility for content-management to the collective community, instead of burdening the gods with it. Of all the things I have had to do, “moderating a crowd of should-be grown-up brats” was exactly what prompted me to shut-down my own various forums.
| |
|
|
To me, the “Consider” system is one of PM’s most pragmatic and innovative features. It pushes responsibility for content-management to the collective community, instead of burdening the gods with it. Of all the things I have had to do, “moderating a crowd of should-be grown-up brats” was exactly what prompted me to shut-down my own various forums. What does that have to do with the OP?
| [reply] |
Re: using the power of consideration responsibly (what is personal attack what is trolling, can you lose power to consider)
by Anonymous Monk on Jun 08, 2013 at 12:56 UTC
|
This idea seems to have been thought of before
Re: Re: Front Page with Negative Rep.. If it were up to me, the power to consider nodes would have been suspended, for a time, from certain monks who seem to have more concern for the "purity of the database" than for helping others.....
| [reply] |