|
in reply to Re^3: using the power of consideration responsibly (what is personal attack what is trolling, can you lose power to consider)
in thread using the power of consideration responsibly (what is personal attack what is trolling, can you lose power to consider)
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. Sure, but I don't see that as a problem. I've been around perlmonks a long time, and the gods are pretty level headed even tempered bunch |
Re^5: using the power of consideration responsibly (what is personal attack what is trolling, can you lose power to consider)
by CountZero (Bishop) on Jun 08, 2013 at 10:10 UTC
|
the gods are pretty level headed even tempered bunch
But so are most of the active Perlmonks and as one Monk's consideration alone cannot do much, you get automatically an "average" opinion on these issues, which --I assume-- will be very much in line with what the gods think.
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] |
|
|
...you get automatically an "average" opinion on these issues, which --I assume-- will be very much in line with what the gods think.
I'm sorry but I have to disagree on both points.
- The number of monks involved in a typical consideration "event" is very small. One to consider; 4 can vote and effect reapage; but 2 can vote oppositely and prevent reapage. And if, as is entirely realistic, one monk downvotes and just one other monk upvotes, reapage is prevented. So no, it is very much a stretch to imagine that these things reflect anything like a consensus of the fraternity.
- The rank and file monks are notoriously independent-minded relative to the wills* of the gods.
* Yes, plural, since even the gods are not always 100% in accord.
I reckon we are the only monastery ever to have a dungeon stuffed with 16,000 zombies .
| [reply] |
|
|
Yes, you are right. I should have said that the system is stacked against reapage through consideration. And that is indeed the general trend in the Monastery (in my humbled opinion).
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] |
|
|
| [reply] |
|
|
See Re: Small Perl quests for a beginner? Considered: jdporter: reap. spam.
I freely admit that was a mistake. I judged, and acted, too hastily. Immediately after I submitted for consideration, I upvoted the node and voted Keep. :-)
I reckon we are the only monastery ever to have a dungeon stuffed with 16,000 zombies .
| [reply] |
|
|
I am not saying the consideration system if fail-proof, but I still prefer having it over not having it or revoking consideration powers from *some* by a decision of gods or handing reaping powers only to a select *few*.
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] |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
My node is a bad example: Reap 1, Keep 6, +2 votes at the moment.
| [reply] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
