|Just another Perl shrine|
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||Need Help??|
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.