Beefy Boxes and Bandwidth Generously Provided by pair Networks
Syntactic Confectionery Delight
 
PerlMonks  

whither Anonymous Monks?

by princepawn (Parson)
on May 19, 2000 at 20:01 UTC ( #13269=monkdiscuss: print w/ replies, xml ) Need Help??

should we allow non-authenticated people to traipse about in the monastery with anything other than viewing privileges? i dont think so. for one, someone might ask something in a profane way... or attack another person they have a gripe against.

Comment on whither Anonymous Monks?
RE: whither Anonymous Monks?
by chromatic (Archbishop) on May 19, 2000 at 20:23 UTC
    There's a discussion of this over at Anonymous Monk's Logging. Most of the opinion there was that it's not an issue, yet.
RE: whither Anonymous Monks?
by pschoonveld (Pilgrim) on May 19, 2000 at 21:49 UTC
    Look, if anyone should not be allowed to post, its you. Surfing around today, I came across a very interesting statistic that others might find intersting. Look where princepawn ranks on the categories. Perhaps, someone with so much insight on the matter of this site's management should reconsider his status.
      Mmm. Looks like someone has a vote-down-princepawn bot. :-)
RE: whither Anonymous Monks?
by Aighearach on May 21, 2000 at 21:33 UTC

    I agree that Perl Monks is not the place for activities that require Anonymous status. Those asking questions anon are mainly people that don't want to read the documentation. And it's not like the registration process is painfull...

    There are a couple problems I see with this site so far, from the perspective of it's usefullness to thid Perl programmer. One is voting. Bad idea. The popularity contest stuff is fine over at everything2, but this is supposed to be a place of learning and sharing. An example of how voting gets in the way of this, is the node I am replying to now; it is downvoted. Why? Because the question should not have been asked? Because it contains false information? No, only because people disagree with him. There is more than one way to do it, or at least there should be. And this sort of popularity BS discourages that, by punishing divergent thought. While this has not become a major problem yet, if it is allowed to become a problem, then there will be little that can save it. This is not slashdot; this is not everything2; if it is run that way, it will spin apart.

    I fear that the combination of voting, and Anonymous, will mean that this site will totally rock, until it hits critical mass. Then it will be consumed by trolls, and Anonymous asking how to declare an int.

    Like so many newsgroups.

    My $2.00

    Paris Sinclair    |    4a75737420416e6f74686572
    pariss@efn.org    |    205065726c204861636b6572
    I wear my Geek Code on my finger.
    
      I do not think that he has been moderated down because people disagreed with him, rather because the post was redundant. The question has been asked (probably several times) before and, as the first response indicates the issue has not gone away.
      Would a valid solution to this issue be to supply a short reason for voting - and have this displayed for all to see? eg insightful/informative/original for +ve votes and redundant/obvious/offensive/pointless for -ve votes? (apologies to \. for the blatant rip-off of their ideas...)
        Ah, redundancy. Redundant suggestions aren't bad though, I just think that the threads should be linked.

        cciulla mentioned this idea (comments for minus votes) in Voting. I still think it's a good idea.

Log In?
Username:
Password:

What's my password?
Create A New User
Node Status?
node history
Node Type: monkdiscuss [id://13269]
Approved by root
help
Chatterbox?
and the web crawler heard nothing...

How do I use this? | Other CB clients
Other Users?
Others chanting in the Monastery: (4)
As of 2014-09-03 04:49 GMT
Sections?
Information?
Find Nodes?
Leftovers?
    Voting Booth?

    My favorite cookbook is:










    Results (35 votes), past polls