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

NodeReaper out of control

by Wassercrats
on Sep 18, 2004 at 18:58 UTC ( #392020=monkdiscuss: print w/ replies, xml ) Need Help??

Just want to expose a little about how Perlmonks is managed. This is from CB, after people spent a good amount of time criticizing me and my script:

<Wassercrats> How could you still be criticizing Varstructor after I totally debunked the global variable myth in more than one thread? How could you say I'M the troll after people like sporty call me an idiot, and people like diotalevi say my script is insecure?

<Wassercrats> FOR NO REASON!

<Sidhekin> Think "comedian", folks.</tip>

<Wassercrats> And I almost never voted, yet others downvote posts of mine FOR NO REASON!

<Petruchio> If you persist like this, you will be borged. You may consider this fair or unfair, as you please.

<Wassercrats> FU P

<castaway> oooh, can I?

NodeReaper has swallowed Wassercrats. NodeReaper gets indigestion.

Comment on NodeReaper out of control
Re: NodeReaper out of control
by Anonymous Monk on Sep 18, 2004 at 19:32 UTC
    Maybe it's because you're a freakin' idiot, and everyone recognizes that.

    Considered: Aristotle delete, flame
    Unconsidered: ysth enough keep votes - Keep/Edit/Delete: 9/2/42

      (original message 'self-reaped', in the interests of peace and quiet...)

      --J

Re: NodeReaper out of control
by Anonymous Monk on Sep 18, 2004 at 20:19 UTC

    Yes! My eyes are opened; Perl Monks is completely mismanaged. Power-mad monks aiming NodeReaper at anyone they please!

    How can we fix this, you say?

    Borg Wassercrats more quickly next time, please.

    Considered: Aristotle delete, flame
    Unconsidered: ysth enough keep votes - Keep/Edit/Delete: 13/1/35

      The one thing I find even worse than the troll's posts themselves are Anonymonk flames like this that always pop up on his threads in significant concentration.

      I considered the two nodes here for deletion (as I would have the root node, had arunbear not beaten me to it), and they got a bunch of keep votes and have positive noderep as we speak. To be fair, the ratio of delete to keep votes is 2:1, but that still means that quite a few people delight in these posts.

      I'm disappointed. I thought we were more mature than that.

      Makeshifts last the longest.

        People are fed up. Monkey cannot be reasoned with and keeps flinging his feces all over monastery. All thats left is to throw them back in his face.
        I considered the two nodes here for deletion (as I would have the root node, had arunbear not beaten me to it), and they got a bunch of keep votes and have positive noderep as we speak. To be fair, the ratio of delete to keep votes is 2:1, but that still means that quite a few people delight in these posts.

        Delight? Not necessarily.

        I voted "keep" on all of those nodes (as well as the others that have recently been considered "delete, troll" or "delete, flame") - not because I'm tittilated by shallow controversy and petty flamage, but because I think that's a pretty poor reason to remove content. The only nodes I vote to delete are true, word-for-word duplicates; otherwise, I don't like the idea of removing content from the Monastery, whether we like it or not.

        I guess I like to think that not sweeping our trolls and flamers under the carpet is the mature option, rather than making their nodes harder to read.

        --
        F o x t r o t U n i f o r m
        Found a typo in this node? /msg me
        % man 3 strfry

        I also voted to keep the original node. Personally, I find W to be insulting and immature; I tend to ignore most of his posts. However, Perlmonks is not meant to be limited to the mature poster. A wide variety of views and opinions are, imho, meant to be aired here. If W feels that s/he's getting the shaft, then it is not only his right to speak up, but his responsability. Do we really want a repeat of Abigail?

        I do think that many of the responses to W have devolved from reacting-to-content into reacting-to-speaker. I forget which monk has it in his sig, but "Look not at who speaks, but instead look at what is said." It's an ideal, but one I think we should all strive to achieve.

        ------
        We are the carpenters and bricklayers of the Information Age.

        Then there are Damian modules.... *sigh* ... that's not about being less-lazy -- that's about being on some really good drugs -- you know, there is no spoon. - flyingmoose

        I shouldn't have to say this, but any code, unless otherwise stated, is untested

Re: NodeReaper out of control
by thor (Priest) on Sep 18, 2004 at 20:28 UTC
    Votes have little or nothing to do with how you yourself vote, but what the content of the posts that you post is. From what I've seen, it looks like you're intentionally trying to stir peoples' feathers. As such, you've been downvoted accordingly. If you don't like it and can't say anything "nice", lurk.

    thor

    Feel the white light, the light within
    Be your own disciple, fan the sparks of will
    For all of us waiting, your kingdom will come

      W is also upvoted accordingly since it seems to be a goal of his to garner downvotes.
        I know of people who make a habit of upvoting my nodes for the normal reason, particularly controversial ones likely to be undeservedly downvoted. Ironically, until recently, diotalevi was one example. Well, that's what you led me to believe when you said you automatically upvote my nodes.
Re: NodeReaper out of control
by hardburn (Abbot) on Sep 19, 2004 at 00:38 UTC

    <Wassercrats> Oh, I'm sorry, I thought we were talking about my penis

    Sorry, you lost any credibility you might have had when you wrote that one.

    "There is no shame in being self-taught, only in not trying to learn in the first place." -- Atrus, Myst: The Book of D'ni.

      This node was taken out by the NodeReaper on Sun Sep 19 02:30:05 2004 (EST)
      Reason: graff Delete -- obscene and insulting

      For more information on this node visit: this

Re: NodeReaper out of control
by NodeReaper (Curate) on Sep 19, 2004 at 08:30 UTC
    This node was taken out by the NodeReaper on Sun Sep 19 10:31:07 2004 (EST)
    Reason: Aristotle delete.. more trolling

    For more information on this node visit: this

      ...but as I've said, I'm wrapping up my business here and leaving and I'll try as hard as I can to not do anything to help the Perl community, particularly this one.

      Halleluja (sp?)

      Do you need any help packing?

        You obviously believe you have a reasonable point of view, yet you're hiding behind "anonymous." How about speaking up against the voting system if you're afraid you would be treated unfairly by it.

        Continue to be an experience whore if you want. It works. People here will like you and that will help you find a job, plus you get bragging rights. I happen to care about what people I work for and I have morals and some controversial things to say, so I won't be a whore, but you go ahead and stay anonymous when you say controversial things. But why not take full advantage of it and speak out against the idiots who vote!

Re: NodeReaper out of control
by Wassercrats on Sep 19, 2004 at 20:37 UTC
    Compare this node that got reaped to the first reply in this thread. The first reply here is much more deserving of getting reaped, but it should really be deleted. And compare Abigail's insulting posts to mine, not just the language, but what they're directed towards.

    The complaints of others in this thread about troll replies not being reaped are good, but I seem to be referred to as a troll in the same posts. Let's review some of the history of my "trolls" vs. other's trolls and see if we could see a difference.

    I posted an idea about changing abs to || in Perl::Improved Volume 0, Number 1. Aristotle viciously attacked it in his desperate attempt to draw attention away from his ignoring the guidelines for considering/reaping nodes. sporty even called me an idiot for that idea. I believe I explained myself sufficiently in response, explaining more than once how parentheses were a reasonable solution to the points some people raised. I got downvoted, and I'd be willing to bet that Sporty and Aristotle weren't. Were they?

    I thought diotalevi was purposely making people ignore me with his home node button. I suggested he be punished. In return, people downvote me. Again, compare my post to the attacks of others against me, which Aristotle himself considered for reaping. Those attacks got upvoted.

      I posted an idea about changing abs to || in Perl::Improved Volume 0, Number 1. Aristotle viciously attacked it in his desperate attempt to draw attention away from his ignoring the guidelines for considering/reaping nodes. sporty even called me an idiot for that idea. I believe I explained myself sufficiently in response, explaining more than once how parentheses were a reasonable solution to the points some people raised. I got downvoted, and I'd be willing to bet that Sporty and Aristotle weren't. Were they?
      I called you an idiot because you refuse to learn from what people tell you. You were told it won't work, and yet again, you ignore what people say, with proof. *I* gave you an text books by established computer scientists explaining the situation, ambiguity. Plus, you changed your argument mid stride by saying, "you meant to recommend parrens". Had you said that the first time, the discussion would have taken a DRASTICLY different form... explaining that |'s chars would be superfulous... or something.

      If you believe i was in err and votes mean so much, please, downvote my nodes and find out that i'm a terrible person and smite me at the same time, by downvoting those nodes.

      You really need to realize, you try impose change or create a solution and expect people to jump all over it as if it were gold. If people tell you somethign isn't "good" due to reasons, you need to listen or properly refute them. You can't force people to switch from abs(...) to (|....|) w/o talking about it and figuring out if you really right or wrong. Unless you've written perl (not Perl), or have written patches against it, it could be a long shot, a complete trouble, to write that part to be the new abs, but it won't work. Point of all this jibber jabber is, you dont' want to work WITH people, just in your own little world, forgetting that this is a community.

      Btw, you wanna see something that created change? Look at my node about passwords being repopulated in the user form. I argueed it, people disagreed, agered and veered off into no-where, like a herd of kittens, but all in all, MANY people agreed. They agreed on somethign that was a major concern. And fulfilling that concern didn't affect those who didn' thave the concern. THAT is how you can create change. Plausible argument, and some proportion of people agreeing. /rant

      ----
      Then B.I. said, "Hov' remind yourself nobody built like you, you designed yourself"

        WADR, the ambiguity argument is garbage. AFAIK, all useful languages have ambiguities; as long as they are resolved in a clear way there's no problem. Perl certainly has more than its fair share, and not all of those are at all clearly resolved (e.g. /$x[foo]/: is it a scalar and a character class, or an array element? Depends on what foo is, and the guessing code is complex beyond description.)

        Update: just for fun, here is the code that disambiguates $x[foo] in a regex. FALSE means a character class; TRUE means a subscript. s points to foo.

        I didn't refuse to learn from anyone. I answered the first person who gave the example of a possible problem. That's when I mentioned parentheses. As ysth just told you, the ambiguity argument is garbage. I didn't think it was necessary to point out that parentheses are used in a similar manner for lots of operators and functions and they shouldn't be considered a required part of the |...| function, and their use isn't indicative of a bad function or operator.

        Compare that with you, who ignored the person who gave the example of a possible problem when he said that a different grammar could be a solution. You also ignored it when I told you he admitted that, and you ignored it when I told you who had posted a grammar that would solve the problem.

        I'll give you the benefit of the doubt about you not reading an additional reply of mine, which mentioned these same things, because I didn't reply to your post. Your idiocy seemed pretty much self-refuting.

        Just remembered, Aristotle called me an idiot once too, when he thought I wasn't making sense. Turned out he didn't know the meaning of a word I used. Several days later, he said in CB the HE has difficulty explaining himself. I wonder what that makes him.

Log In?
Username:
Password:

What's my password?
Create A New User
Node Status?
node history
Node Type: monkdiscuss [id://392020]
Approved by Petruchio
help
Chatterbox?
and the web crawler heard nothing...

How do I use this? | Other CB clients
Other Users?
Others rifling through the Monastery: (18)
As of 2014-07-24 15:28 GMT
Sections?
Information?
Find Nodes?
Leftovers?
    Voting Booth?

    My favorite superfluous repetitious redundant duplicative phrase is:









    Results (161 votes), past polls