|Just another Perl shrine|
Re^6: History now influences voting (intervention)by tye (Cardinal)
|on Nov 22, 2007 at 07:38 UTC||Need Help??|
Would it have been too much to at least address that in your OP?
It wasn't anywhere in my mind. I still consider it the extremely rare exception and don't believe it is of much importance to the voting rules, though you are correct that the voting rules certainly impact how such an incident plays out in no small way.
Personally I think the alleged plagiarism incident was a good example of a self-policing community. You can argue how effective it was or not but I think the results speak for themselves.
Yes, I certainly approve of the community being able to manage on its own. And the community certainly did manage that on their own.
Now the community will have to rely on the gods.
Well, the only intervention I would expect would be a pronouncement and a single SQL update statement to subtract the determined number from one field (yes, a little bit more goes along with that behind the scenes). And I don't think that part is of much importance for the resolution of the actual problem, the halting of continued plagiarising. And I don't mind intervention in very rare situations, especially in such a non-crucial manner. I think the "vigilanteism" against old nodes was a good example of two "wrongs" nearly making a "right". I was at least somewhat happy to not have to intervene (which is never fun) but I think I would have preferred the case of vigilanteism being forced to be very limited, not being sufficient to reverse the accumulated XP (though certainly causing plenty of loss of future "good will") and an XP penalty based on a judgement being levied.
I guess I just wish we were at least given an opportunity to discuss it.
Strange, I got the feeling some discussion was happening right here and still yet the most controversial part is not yet deployed (and the other parts were announced quite a few years ago so I don't think you can reasonably complain about not having had a chance to discuss those -- and precursors of this most controversial feature were being discussed years ago as well).
I'm quite happy with the feedback I've gotten. One point was easily turned around and I was happy to scratch that off the list of consideration. Other points were challenged along several fronts and at the least a need for more clarity was demonstrated. I got more insight into different perspectives and at the least have more filed away for how things might be adjusted in future and there is still the possibility that things will be adjusted quite soon, depending on how these (and other) discussions progress.
I several times lightly lamented that there was not more contributions from other monks. I really prefer to see others jump into a discussion like this (and some did), rather than it mostly being OP, replies, and only OP responding to the replies. I've previously pushed for "speak up, either way" so there would be more cases of "me too" on all sides and was briefly tempted to do that here. But I think I've gotten somewhat used to "Warnock" because I'm now happy with the subtler signs I've seen that this is fairly widely approved of in general terms so far.
I don't think I'll be "throwing the big switch" at the original one-week mark (I didn't give good odds of that schedule surviving anyway). I'm mulling things, expecting further input, and will solicit more input as things gel...