|Syntactic Confectionery Delight|
Re^6: History now influences voting (hypocrisy)by tye (Cardinal)
|on Nov 21, 2007 at 23:22 UTC||Need Help??|
Huh? You're projecting one idea of some conjectured bad actor's motivation upon all instances of a behavior which exhibit the same pattern. [....] I'm not doing it to take away XP (cackling menacingly (while of course twirling my handlebar mustache) at the undeserved XP woe I'm inflicting).
Thanks for mentioning the mustache; I forgot to note that. No, I actually don't presume that the pattern of a long strings of down-votes implies evil motivation. And, obviously, the implemented voting rules can't distinguish motivation.
If one is downvoting a user's nodes because one sincerely believes they're not good how the frak does that make one a hypocrite?
It doesn't. I don't believe I claimed that it did.
And I'm not stopping you from continuing to do that.
The only way this could be hypocritical in some way would be if I downvoted nodes while expecting my own output to be protected from the same in return. I don't.
I agree that you present one way of being hypocritical. I disagree that it is the only way. The way I was talking about (several times) was feeling cavalier about doing something that causes people to lose XP while being quite the opposite of cavalier about the prospect of losing XP oneself.
Your linked article on hyprocrisy starts with one definition of the word that is much more limited than the definition I found when searching for a definition instead of an article. Certainly, by the limited definition you linked to (I didn't read the entire article), you can claim that what I was seeing as hypocritical isn't. But I think that is a problem with that particular definition more so than my use of the word.
Having said that I also find it somewhat patronizing to be seemingly told that I can't be trusted to responsibly exercise my franchise according to my honest belief as to the the quality of content being created here, and that I need my nose whapped with the metaphorical newspaper of negative XP because I see fit to honestly express my views as to the (what I see as) dreck coming in.
So are you saying that our visitors can't be trusted to responsibly exercise the privlege (that we give them) to post questions based on their honest desire for answers such that you need to whap their noses with the metaphorical newspaper of negative XP because they see fit to honestly express their questions? Oversight is a bitch, I guess.
In the aggregate, downvoting nodes for minor infractions is a disruptive influence at PerlMonks and so, yes, I'm encouraging that it be done less often. If you want to take it as a personal insult as to your maturity, than who am I to stop you? If the natural tendency to turn into an old grump and complain about all the clueless, inconsiderate newbies is never resisted, then PerlMonks too can become the bastion of quality content that Usenet became. We can get to the point that the number one feature everyone needs to be able to get the slightest use out of the site is an advanced "kill file".
Yes, I'm guilty of the "offense" in question here at least once. I did go back through and downvote most of Win's nodes when he became an obvious leech on the community; and yes, most of what I downvoted I felt deserved downvoting as well. I'll be sure immediately commence my penance by saying 9 "Hail Larry"s.
I guess you should count yourself lucky that I'm not whapping your nose for past sins, then. I guess you would strongly object if I proposed doing so despite you having thwapped Win for his past sins (quite understandably, FYI). I think there is a term for having that kind of double standard... :)