Beefy Boxes and Bandwidth Generously Provided by pair Networks
Perl-Sensitive Sunglasses
 
PerlMonks  

Re: We should elminate: Anonymous, and DOWN-voting

by jdporter (Canon)
on Nov 30, 2011 at 21:51 UTC ( #940946=note: print w/ replies, xml ) Need Help??


in reply to We should elminate: Anonymous, and DOWN-voting

With regard to the issue of down-voting: if I were to argue your viewpoint, I might point out that very popular social networking sites such as Facebook, Google+, and LinkedIn only support up-voting, not down-voting. But when I'm on such sites, I often find myself gravely disappointed that they don't support down-voting.

/me also notes that StackOverflow supports both up/down voting, fwiw... ;-)

I reckon we are the only monastery ever to have a dungeon stuffed with 16,000 zombies.


Comment on Re: We should elminate: Anonymous, and DOWN-voting
Re^2: We should elminate: Anonymous, and DOWN-voting
by Anonymous Monk on Nov 30, 2011 at 22:56 UTC

    Yes, but did you stop to think WHY you feel a need to down-vote something? You probably disagree with it right? You want to attack it? To de-construct that which is not compatible with your existing ideals? And therein is the proof that down-voting is inherently de-constructive. What if your wrong? What if your part of a majority that is wrong? If the thousands of years which have passed since the invention of Democracy by the Greeks have proven anything, it's that the majority is not always correct, that sometimes like in Pre-WWII Germany, the process of democracy can empower a monster.

    By limiting the option to upvoting only, you remove that destructive ability, then the cream of the crop rises to the top not by being resistant to destruction, but instead by simply proving itself to a large enough number of people as worthy of being upvoted.

    If you don't agree, then please consider what would of happened if the Wright brothers had to ask the general populace for permission to build their flying machine... they would never of got of the ground, because the majority of people knew, or thought they knew, that the idea was impossible and that it could never work. Their idea would of been massively down-voted and would never of received any funding support, or permission to use the group owned materials.

    Additionally anyone who tried to support them in the face of the majority belief that their ideas were bogus, would of faced being labelled as delusional, insane, a troll, a kafir etc etc by various quasi-intellectual members of the group who can't see past the end of their own noses.

      By posting anonymously I remove your ability to simply down-vote me and move along. This way if you disagree you have no recourse but to use your words to say so, and by doing so you potentially expose the flaw in your thinking, and open up the possibility of discussion and debate. The anonymous feature is useful in the context of the rest of the software, but if down-voting is removed it's usefulness as a defensive shield would diminish, and then it's only use would for anonymous cowards to throw crap without having to stand by their words.
        By posting anonymously I remove your ability to simply down-vote me and move along.

        The fallacy there is because it's nodes that get down-voted, not users.

      did you stop to think WHY you feel a need to down-vote something?

      Sure, all the time. So what? If I decide I wish I could down-vote something, who are you to tell me I shouldn't be able to?

      please consider what would [have] happened if the Wright brothers had to ask the general populace

      Absurd. My downvote -- or even a net negative from a majority of voters -- has no such impact. Unless, I suppose, the poster wants to let it have that power over him. You don't have to. "XP is a game." You can choose to play, or not.

      I reckon we are the only monastery ever to have a dungeon stuffed with 16,000 zombies.

        It's far from absurd. Sure the example is stretched a little because the write brothers had everything they needed already and could simply ignore the crowd, but in the case in point not all the pieces were in place, and it took an awfully large amount of effort bashing my head against the brick wall of pseudo-religion around here to get the puzzle fragments needed to proceed. If 4 years ago someone had just mentioned to me what CODEREFS are and what /e regex modifiers do, I would not of needed to be so apparently obstinate.

        Even without these things the code I had at the time significantly outperformed the nearest equivalent; CGI.pm and now armed with these things I've got what's probably one of the fastest stacks in the whole world of Perl.

        If only IkeGami had been a little more helpful instead of dropping that line about leaving before he say's something unconstructive, if only I had more experience to be better able to quantify exactly what my system was about in a standardised and understandable way, I would of been able to come forth with a working system that was already efficient, and I wouldn't be in the situation where my personal details are now being used to hold me hostage. How easy would that of been?

        All I wanted was to share my work and get a little bit of advice on how to use Perl's more advanced features to bring a modern level of performance to it, I wasn't looking for a cross examination or a psychological profiling, or a permanent record to be held against me by the unquestionable self appointed authorities of this place.

        You probably don't understand this at all, but I HATE this place with a burning passion that will not die easily because I have been very much wronged by the people here.

Log In?
Username:
Password:

What's my password?
Create A New User
Node Status?
node history
Node Type: note [id://940946]
help
Chatterbox?
and the web crawler heard nothing...

How do I use this? | Other CB clients
Other Users?
Others cooling their heels in the Monastery: (6)
As of 2014-10-01 18:20 GMT
Sections?
Information?
Find Nodes?
Leftovers?
    Voting Booth?

    What is your favourite meta-syntactic variable name?














    Results (32 votes), past polls