Re^4: Unwritten rules variably applied. (My comprehension is fine thankyou)

[BrowserUk]

And there is a part of the problem.

<Q>I've repeatedly complained...</Q>

<Q>...hence what I wrote.</Q>

<Q>...why I refuse to...</Q>

<Q>My preference would be...</Q>

Though my post was not prompted particularly by what the rules are (though I admit that I disagree with many of them), but of the consistency (or utter lack thereof) of their application.

For the record, the flaw in my argument was a vague recollection of this.

Later, once I had looked that up, I created a skeletal tie::array class:

#! perl -slw
use Carp;
no warnings 'once';

package Array;
use constant {
        CLASS => 0, SELF => 0, INDEX => 1, VALUE => 2,
        OFFSET => 1, LENGTH => 2,
};

sub TIEARRAY {  
    bless [], $_[CLASS]                           
}

sub STORE {
    warn "STORE: @_";
    $_[SELF]->[ $_[INDEX] ] = $_[VALUE] 
}

sub FETCH {            
    warn "FETCH @_";
    $_[SELF]->[ $_[INDEX] ]             
}

sub FETCHSIZE {         
    warn "FETCHSIZE: @_";
    @{ $_[SELF] }                          
}

sub CLEAR {   
    warn "CLEAR: @_";
    undef @{ $_[SELF] }                          
}

sub STORESIZE {        
    warn "STORESIZE/EXTEND @_";
    $#{ $_[SELF] } = $_[INDEX] - 1          
}
*EXTEND = *STORESIZE;

sub EXISTS {     
    warn "EXISTS: @_";
    exists $_[SELF]->[ $_[INDEX] ]             
}
sub DELETE {     
    warn "DELETE: @_";
    delete $_[SELF]->[ $_[INDEX] ]             
}
sub PUSH {    
    warn "PUSH: @_";
    push @{ $_[SELF] }, @_[ 1 .. $#_ ]          
}

sub POP {     
    warn "POP: @_";
    pop @{ $_[SELF] }                          
}

sub SHIFT {   
    warn "SHIFT: @_";
    shift @{ $_[SELF] }                          
}

sub UNSHIFT { 
    warn "UNSHIFT: @_";
    unshift @{ $_[SELF] }, @_[ 1 .. $#_ ]          
}

sub SPLICE  { }

package main;

tie my @x, 'Array';

my $x = $x[ -1 ];

$x[ -1 ]->meth;

and reviewed my original thoughts in the light of my findings. I then re-posted my modified conclusions.

I can see no benefit in posting information which I already know to be incorrect. It would serve only one purpose...that which you apparently think is a valuable contribution to this site, and which I do not.

And your opinion should prevail because...?

So, whilst I have it within my limited power to delete information which although posted, I immediately realise is wrong or even dubious, I will continue to exercise that power.

If the information has been widely viewed and/or responded to before I realise my error, or someone else points it out, I will strike it, or update the node identifying that the post is in error--as you will find many examples of all over this site.

But in the specific case of instantly realising the error, or even suspecting that it may be in error, I will continue to withdraw that information until I have verified it, or corrected it.

One other question. Why is it that you feel the need to "ridicule" and insult ("Are you so dense")? Is it not possible for adults to have a disagrement without resorting to that?

[tye]

And your opinion should prevail because...?

Where did I say that my opinion should prevail? The automated system has repeatedly gone against my opinion as already noted. I even have the power to reverse those and you can see that I haven't.

Though my post was not prompted particularly by what the rules are (though I admit that I disagree with many of them), but of the consistency (or utter lack thereof) of their application.

The rules are that nodes can be considered and people can vote on them... If you want more consistency in outcome then what you'll get is my opinion prevailing a lot more often because my opinion is influenced by discussions (and vice versa) with those who shape the policies of the site (including me) and more forceful application of those policies would (currently) lead to my opinion prevailing a lot more often.

So the only one trying to argue that my opinion should prevail is you.

I prefer the community police itself as much as possible, despite the inconsistency that that entails and the occasional whining by those who can't see a chaotic community and system in action and avoid taking the results personally.

You (currently) have the power to erase your words. You don't have the power to delete your nodes. The momentum behind restricting/removing the former power continues to grow.

Describing in this thread your thinking regarding the technical details of that other thread is quite inappropriate. Why don't you cut and paste that into the thread where someone might learn from it? Oh wait, that would be admitting your mistake or losing the argument. Nevermind.

But in the specific case of instantly realising the error, or even suspecting that it may be in error, I will continue to withdraw that information until I have verified it, or corrected it.

Preview nodes to your heart's content. I have no power nor desire to create nodes from your previews before you hit that 'create' button. Once you hit 'create', the node has been created (you can't unring the bell). To "uncreate" it (in part, since it can't be completely uncreated) leaves an ugly gap and requires machinery be activated to do this uncreating (including the effort of volunteers). You have no way of knowing how many people loaded your node before you managed to wipe the contents. And the number of people who load your node after that is certainly plenty large. So I draw the line right there. Once you hit 'create', I opine that you need extraordinary cause to justify deletion (such as reaping or nuking).

An explanation is just polite. A reaped node is ugly and rather disappointing for the person who clicked on the link to bring up the node or the thread that it is in. You can't nuke a node quickly after it has been created (it leads to database errors; too many race conditions; someone could have already started replying to it, for example). So your node in various states of deletion is going to be around for at least a while and quite a few people are going to trip over it. You have the power to be rude about it, but I would prefer that you be polite about it.

Why is it that you feel the need to "ridicule" and insult ("Are you so dense")? Is it not possible for adults to have a disagrement without resorting to that?

Sometimes I chose to be more provacative as a tool to goad the argument along. In addition, none of us are immune from emotion. For example,

Have you ever watched a politician change the subject when asked a question they don't want to answer?

In this case, it was a combination of factors, two of which I just mentioned.