Beefy Boxes and Bandwidth Generously Provided by pair Networks
Welcome to the Monastery
 
PerlMonks  

Re: History now influences voting

by Anonymous Monk
on Nov 19, 2007 at 22:29 UTC ( #651781=note: print w/ replies, xml ) Need Help??


in reply to History now influences voting

I see a little bit of a problem here: it seems like we are getting away from "voting" and moving toward "politically correct accolades".
I have, on 2 occasions, sought out and down-voted most, if not all, of a particular person's contributions. I did so with the intention of hoping to make that person re-consider their style of posting and their choice of content. These 2 people were blatantly against the norms and practices of this community; and I would do it again, if another opportunity presented itself.
However, now that I am being judged "bad" by having a bad opinion of someone; I am inclined to conclude that this community is really just self-destructive, and leave it to die the death it seems to desire.

Now, to clarify, I never down-vote any node that I feel is constructive; regardless of who posts it; but I hoped that no-one would punish me for disliking a person's post so much, that I would go back and find out if they had ever posted anything worthwhile, and finding nothing good: calling it so.

Sad to say; the rules are changed already; in an "holier than thou" manner (which is not the first time either); and I am dissuaded from voicing my opinion anymore.


Comment on Re: History now influences voting
Re^2: History now influences voting (wrath)
by tye (Cardinal) on Nov 19, 2007 at 23:34 UTC

    You are still free to go downvote every node by a particular author. You just have to have the motivation to do that despite the fact that it will cost you about as much XP as the "damage" you inflict.

    I did so with the intention of hoping to make that person re-consider their style of posting and their choice of content.

    My experience is that your desired reaction from an author is much less likely than a reaction similar to "some bozo got his thin hide bruised by something important and True™ that I expressed not gently enough". After all, voting down every single node of an author makes a lot more sense as "attack the author" than "wow, every single node that he wrote actually sucked a lot and I never noticed before now". Even as you express what you did it doesn't sound to me like you actually evaluated every single node and found that it sucked before you down-voted it. So I don't find your story convincing even when listening to you tell it. So I'd be very surprised if the author got out of your actions anything close to what you were trying to convey. So you no longer being able to convey this particular sentiment so ineffectively doesn't seem like a big problem, to me.

    As I said before, these are simple rules; they can't handle all situations perfectly. I think the picture you paint, even interpretting it in the best light, is quite an exceptional case so I'm not too bothered by the new rules not handling it so well.

    And I think it makes sense to forgive past sins. If you didn't notice that my nodes sucked horribly when I posted them, then you lost the chance. That seems completely appropriate to me.

    but I hoped that no-one would punish me for disliking a person's post so much, that I would go back and find out if they had ever posted anything worthwhile, and finding nothing good: calling it so.

    I'm sure the person whose style you johny-come-lately decide to hate had hoped that nobody would punish them for continuing a style over years that was not discouraged (by you) during that entire time.

    You'll just have to look harder now so you can identify the "bad people" who post these bad nodes so that you can anonymously throw rather uninformative "something about that node sucked" snipes at them sooner rather than later. Surely discouraging (however vaguely communicated) their bad behavior earlier can only be an over-all improvement.

    If you are going to throw XP stones, then don't live in an XP glass house. Suck it up and take what you dish out (in the rare case when you feel the need to spew a whole ton of down-votes in a row).

    Sad to say; the rules are changed already; in an "holier than thou" manner (which is not the first time either); and I am dissuaded from voicing my opinion anymore.

    Rules can change back, of course. Somebody will have to explain to me the "holier than thou" angle. Most of these changes were announced years ago. All of them have been discussed at various times with various groups.

    These 2 people were blatantly against the norms and practices of this community

    There have been a lot more than 2 people who were abusing downvoting blatantly against the norms and practices of this community. I think that concern wins out. Perhaps you have been lucky in not having been on the wrong side of that issue and so not caring about it.

    "politically correct accolades"

    The rules are content-free so I don't see how anything about them can be "politically correct". If it becomes politcally unpopular to use the term "nerd", then these rules will make absolutely no notice. Nice pejorative term, however.

    - tye        

      Something in this discussion made me think again about the nodevote vs. monkvote distinction. The purpose of nodevotes is to highlight to the community those nodes that are worthy and also those nodes that are less so. In that regard, it's not about XP (we've all gotten over the XP thing, right?). So it seems to me that upvoting or downvoting old nodes that we missed for whatever reason (I only just joined this year myself) still serves this purpose.

      The thing is we don't even have MONKvotes. There are some feedback mechanisms so that those who write good NODES get rewarded and those that write bad NODES get some disadvantage. But the way it's structured, those are consequences of how you write your nodes. And this is as it should be, I think.

      Perhaps, though, since we have now changed it so that voting on old nodes does not punish in the present the monk who wrote them (and may well have learned and improved from it and repented of her or his evil ways in the meantime), we should also consider making it so that the voter on old nodes is not punished either. As stated, the purpose of the NODEvotes is to identify good or bad nodes (and old good nodes are still good and old bad nodes are still bad). I would think current voting to support that system shouldn't be punished; I guess it seems enough to separate the punishment to the node author from the downvote without punishing the voter.

      As I stated before I think the spirit of the change is good - to prevent downvoting from being used as a personal attack. I'm not asking that rules change back, but I'm expecting that as the larger community comes to understand the new system, that they might still be allowed to change forward.

      (big parentheses - I am NOT anonymonk of Re: History now influences voting. I'm just responding to the discussion as I think of it)


      I humbly seek wisdom.
      The rules are "politically correct" because they purport to "protect" the tender feelings of posters who consistently post bad nodes at the expense of the "mean" voters who vote their nodes down.

      I say "holier than thou" meaning that you, tye, have decided and decreed it be so. "Suck it up." There may have been discussion, but I have not seen it. It seems as arbitrary and capricious as the whole "redefine the levels" bit, not too long ago.

      If I vote down a series of nodes by the same bad author; why should I have to agree to take a hit on XP myself? I don't understand the logic. If they are "votes" they should be able to be exercised without repercussion or identification. If there is reward or punishment attached to how they are used, they cease to be votes and become something else.

      If down-voting nodes is such an ineffective way of communicating that nodes were bad, then why have it at all? Maybe you should only allow up-votes? Or take it even further, you should decide on each node that you like, and give it the grade you feel it deserves; and then inform all of us trolls and unwashed masses what we should think of it.
        The rules are "politically correct" because they purport to "protect" the tender feelings of posters who consistently post bad nodes at the expense of the "mean" voters who vote their nodes down.

        I personally believe that, excessive aggressiveness in your post apart, you++ are somewhat right: your rants remind me of Abigail's complaints about PM as a whole, which are IMHO unjust, but do do have some solid foundations too...

        The rules are "politically correct" because they purport to "protect" the tender feelings of posters who consistently post bad nodes at the expense of the "mean" voters who vote their nodes down.

        Actualy downvoting all nodes of a single author because of the author instead of the post reduces the utility of the reputation of a node. So I see this as trying to protect nodes from their own authors. If you realy think all the nodes are bad then still down vote them all, after all, all you loose is some XP.

        I say "holier than thou" meaning that you, tye, have decided and decreed it be so. "Suck it up." There may have been discussion, but I have not seen it. It seems as arbitrary and capricious as the whole "redefine the levels" bit, not too long ago.

        Many discussions on site policy happen away from everyday users, this isn't a democracy after all.

        If I vote down a series of nodes by the same bad author; why should I have to agree to take a hit on XP myself? I don't understand the logic. If they are "votes" they should be able to be exercised without repercussion or identification. If there is reward or punishment attached to how they are used, they cease to be votes and become something else.

        They already have a reward, so a punishment only balances it out and this argument doesn't make much since to me. The only punshiment is for behaviours that are seen to dilute the use of the votes in the first place, i.e. voting based on personal feelings towards and author instead of based on the content of nodes.

        If down-voting nodes is such an ineffective way of communicating that nodes were bad, then why have it at all? Maybe you should only allow up-votes? Or take it even further, you should decide on each node that you like, and give it the grade you feel it deserves; and then inform all of us trolls and unwashed masses what we should think of it.

        No one ever said "don't down vote", or even "don't use all your votes to downvote", rather they seem to be saying "don't down vote all of a single users posts just because you hate that user". This to me protects the very thing you say it hurts. It makes it so that hopefully a nodes rep closer reflects the communities opinion of the node, not the author.


        ___________
        Eric Hodges
Re^2: History now influences voting
by BrowserUk (Pope) on Nov 20, 2007 at 16:59 UTC
      Dot dot protest

Log In?
Username:
Password:

What's my password?
Create A New User
Node Status?
node history
Node Type: note [id://651781]
help
Chatterbox?
and the web crawler heard nothing...

How do I use this? | Other CB clients
Other Users?
Others musing on the Monastery: (9)
As of 2014-08-29 10:14 GMT
Sections?
Information?
Find Nodes?
Leftovers?
    Voting Booth?

    The best computer themed movie is:











    Results (277 votes), past polls