Beefy Boxes and Bandwidth Generously Provided by pair Networks
Just another Perl shrine
 
PerlMonks  

RE: (4): Limit on voting down a person (Run in circles, scream and shout)

by tilly (Archbishop)
on Aug 09, 2000 at 21:57 UTC ( #27125=note: print w/ replies, xml ) Need Help??


in reply to RE: RE (2): Limit on voting down a person (Run in circles, scream and shout)
in thread Limit on voting down a person

I disagree with you, and I disagree with you for one huge reason. I disagree on what "harm" means.

To me the posting levels are a fun joke. They mean nothing. Yeah, my rating is higher today than it was yesterday. At the current rate it will take 2-3 days to rise as much as it had been rising in one day. I really don't care. I wouldn't mind if it was driven down as fast as it ever rose.

To me harm is measured in people not present and technical contributions not made. I am telling you flat out that btrott was far from the first or only person to tell me that harm by my definition has happened. From the start of my publically commenting on this I have consistently said several things:

  1. If I believed that I was the only person this had happened to, I would not comment. Really.
  2. Don't vote for me across the board. I would find this a ridiculous thing to say were it not that people have been telling me that they have done just that. Votes should not be a popularity contest about people, they should single out good content. Right now an archive is being built up, and the reputation of posts is laying down a record that will undoubtably be useful some day. Don't pollute that record.
  3. If I bother you, feel free to talk to me. Perhaps after chatting with me in person you will change your impression. Perhaps I will learn a lesson.
For the record there have been some people I chat privately with a lot and this topic never comes up. Others have approached me. But it was not until I had been convinced that there was a problem that I began talking about it in public. Even then I don't bring it up in private.

Incidentally I downvoted your post simply because I think I have made my opinion on what I consider "damage" to be so clear that it is simply ridiculous for you to have avoided that issue. Having competent posters stop posting for extended periods because of perceived BS is harm. Having someone's rating go up and down like a yo-yo because of a joke most emphatically does not.

FYI the specific technical topic that I mentioned is one I have an opinion on, and is something that I intend to post. That I may not do that for some time qualifies as specific harm in my books. (My kind of harm, not yours.)


Comment on RE: (4): Limit on voting down a person (Run in circles, scream and shout)
RE: RE: (4): Limit on voting down a person (Run in circles, scream and shout)
by Ozymandias (Hermit) on Aug 09, 2000 at 23:16 UTC
    To me harm is measured in people not present and technical contributions not made.

    To ME, harm is in restricting the abilities of the members of this community in acting in the fashion that they desire, be it to post technical questions and answers, silly poems, obfuscated code, meditations, vote on Visor colors and ways of entering a room. Or to vote as they see fit on any aspect of the above, to comment as they see fit on any of the above, etc.

    Technical information can always be found. No one of us knows all the answers, and no one of us is critical in disseminating information. NONE OF US. Not you, not me, not merlyn, not even vroom. One thing that IS hard to find, and requires certain people, is friendship, camaraderie, and a sense of community. Some people work for it, others don't. The ones who work for it are essential to the health of the community. The ones who don't are essential to the community itself; without them, there wouldn't be many members. But as for the individuals themselves... they simply don't matter. The group, yes, but not the individuals.

    I am telling you flat out that btrott was far from the first or only person to tell me that harm by my definition has happened. From the start of my publically commenting on this I have consistently said several things:

    Harm takes place in a situation like this when people insist on changes to a system that make it more restrictive and less fun. Your definition simply means that you believe it's more important to get information out that anything else - more than that, that it's the ONLY important thing. You are wrong. There are plenty of people here and in many other communities who can disseminate information quickly, correctly, and informatively without sacrificing humor, community, or respect. THOSE are more important, simply because they are rarer. Information can always be found. We live in the information age, after all. Someone will know the answer and give it. That doesn't mean that person is the best person to do so. The person who can give that answer without sacrificing the sense of community, THEY are the best person to answer.

    Incidentally I downvoted your post simply because I think I have made my opinion on what I consider "damage" to be so clear that it is simply ridiculous for you to have avoided that issue. Having competent posters stop posting for extended periods because of perceived BS is harm. Having someone's rating go up and down like a yo-yo because of a joke most emphatically does not.

    You know, when I read that, I was pretty pissed. But I thought it over, went back, and looked. After all, maybe I simply missed it. But you know what? You never defined your definition of harm. At any rate, not anywhere in this thread. The one thing I can see that might possibly be considered defining it is saying that we as a community have been harmed because you haven't made a few posts of technical merit. And I certainly don't count THAT as a definition of harm.

    Certainly not one "so clear that it is simply ridiculous for [me] to have avoided that issue". I think it's clear that I haven't avoided the issue, once you actually clearly stated what the issue was.

    - email Ozymandias
      What you think "people not present" means? There are many things that can cause that. I am only talking about the one that I was told has been an issue.

      As for my defining harm, I have re-read RE (2): Limit on voting down a person (Run in circles, scream and shout) and while I make no definitions there, it is clear from that that XP is pretty low on my priority scale. My other posts are even more explicit, for instance RE (2): Goodbye! out and out says that I don't actually care about my rating. Although you might have liked a formal definition, it should be obvious to you that for me personally my XP is simply not an issue.

      As for the rest of what you say, if you don't think I am able to care about communities, then you don't know me.

      Anyways more than enough has been written about this, it is definitely time to stop. Unless you or someone else responds with something truly outrageous, I won't post any more on this topic.

Log In?
Username:
Password:

What's my password?
Create A New User
Node Status?
node history
Node Type: note [id://27125]
help
Chatterbox?
and the web crawler heard nothing...

How do I use this? | Other CB clients
Other Users?
Others contemplating the Monastery: (3)
As of 2014-09-18 05:05 GMT
Sections?
Information?
Find Nodes?
Leftovers?
    Voting Booth?

    How do you remember the number of days in each month?











    Results (108 votes), past polls