Beefy Boxes and Bandwidth Generously Provided by pair Networks
Do you know where your variables are?
 
PerlMonks  

Which bad behaviour most deserves an electric shock?

by talexb (Canon)
on Mar 15, 2009 at 11:48 UTC ( #750717=poll: print w/ replies, xml ) Need Help??

vote on Which bad behaviour most deserves an electric shock?

Posting code without code tags
[bar] 103/14%
Putting 'urgent' into the title of a node
[bar] 124/17%
Ignoring the fine manual
[bar] 60/8%
Using lolspeak in a post
[bar] 148/21%
Posting the same question multiple times
[bar] 120/17%
Asking monks in the Chatterbox to answer their question posted to SoPW
[bar] 19/3%
Complaining about the performance of the site
[bar] 20/3%
Making suggestions to change the XP system
[bar] 30/4%
Using Cowboy Neal's name in vain
[bar] 39/5%
Other
[bar] 50/7%
713 total votes
Comment on Which bad behaviour most deserves an electric shock?
Re: Which bad behaviour most deserves an electric shock?
by ww (Bishop) on Mar 15, 2009 at 12:15 UTC

    Omitting code tags and multiple-posting clearly deserve high amp shocks, but surely asking a question readily answered with perldoc ... deserves at least a small static discharge.

Re: Which bad behaviour most deserves an electric shock?
by Gavin (Canon) on Mar 15, 2009 at 12:19 UTC

    Failure to use Strictures gets the Electric Chair!

Re: Which bad behaviour most deserves an electric shock?
by bradcathey (Prior) on Mar 15, 2009 at 12:33 UTC

    My pet peeves:

    1. patronizing salutations, e.g., "Most esteemed and learned monks..."

    2. non-descriptive titles, e.g., "Need help"

    3. misspelled words, e.g., "seperate"

    But none of these deserve cruel and unusual punishment. After all, we do have a voting system, so even if they don't care about XP, they at least know how their question was received—or not.

    —Brad
    "The important work of moving the world forward does not wait to be done by perfect men." George Eliot
      patronizing salutations

      Are you sure that they meant to be patronizing? I always thought that they were being sincere (though it does get old).

      And you didn't even know bears could type.

        I like them too, and don't think that they are patronising as a general rule.
        If they're asking for complete programs, homework solutions ... its patronizing.
      patronizing salutations

      PerlMonks has a motif/theme that plays off of Western (Christian) and Eastern monasteries. Is it odd then that some people play off of that theme as well? I happen to play pencil and paper role-playing games (e.g. Heroes of Rokugan which uses the Legend of the Five Rings role-playing system) so that behavior feels natural to me. I suspect actors and actresses would feel the same way.

      We even embody some of those ideals, such as being more concerned with enlightenment -- either for ourselves or helping others achieve it -- than say experience points and leveling up. See XP problem for an example.

      Elda Taluta; Sarks Sark; Ark Arks

Re: Which bad behaviour most deserves an electric shock?
by shmem (Canon) on Mar 15, 2009 at 12:33 UTC

    None.

Re: Which bad behaviour most deserves an electric shock?
by Old_Gray_Bear (Bishop) on Mar 15, 2009 at 12:46 UTC
    Other -- The thing that really sets the Monastery apart from other sites is the general level of civility. By and large, we are polite and use social engineering to get the point across (it is not by accident that "How To Post A Question" is one of the more frequently cited nodes). We really don't need to deal in electro-shock therapy.....

    ----
    I Go Back to Sleep, Now.

    OGB

Re: Which bad behaviour most deserves an electric shock?
by dreadpiratepeter (Priest) on Mar 15, 2009 at 13:41 UTC
    My pet peeve involves the answers, rather than the questions. Shocks should go to those providing rude, dismissive or condescending answers to obviously new to Perl or new to Perl Monks questions. We should be a safe haven for people trying to learn.

    Although, now that I think about it the same applies to answers to experienced monks questions. Civility on the internet is hard to find; we should always find it here.


    -pete
    "Worry is like a rocking chair. It gives you something to do, but it doesn't get you anywhere."
      My pet peeve involves the answers, rather than the questions.

      Hear, hear! The answers of the nature "Hmmm! smells like homework!" tend to get on my nerves. I've always held that Dominus got it right.

      • another intruder with the mooring in the heart of the Perl

        I add to that: many monks seem to think pretty short term. We're not just answering single questions, we're building an archive of questions/answers/discussions. If it were homework and the answer existed already online, no one would complain. The answers we provide outlast, one hopes, the context in which they are posed.

        Though I completely understand not wanting to help cheaters. My high school graduating class's valedictorian got there, in small part, by cheating off my math tests. :(

      I like that as a concept, especially as a Newbie myself. Mind you, having read some recent posts, most incivility seems to leave itself open to derision, especially if the author is incorrect in any way. ;)

      But I agree: an open forum for an open answer would be everyone's greatest wish... or at least mine.

Re: Which bad behaviour most deserves an electric shock?
by codeacrobat (Chaplain) on Mar 15, 2009 at 13:56 UTC
    Not testing code.

    print+qq(\L@{[ref\&@]}@{['@'x7^'!#2/"!4']});
Re: Which bad behaviour most deserves an electric shock?
by apl (Monsignor) on Mar 15, 2009 at 14:15 UTC
    Not trying to debug the program that doesn't work.

    Not specifying the error-code, message or behaviour that resulted in the program not working.

    Posting a spec and asking for someone to write the code.

      Seconded. But I'd add

      • Giving no feedback whatsoever as to which of the suggestions worked, or how the problem was solved otherwise — especially when the problem was non-trivial enough to be of interest to anyone googling up the thread later.
      More "favorites":
      • "There's can't be a problem in my code, so has anyone else reported this bug?" (that is, asserting as truth that which hasn't been shown, as opposed to someone who really has demonstrated the problem is not in his code)
      • "Why doesn't Regex / grep / etc. do what I want it to?"
Re: Which bad behaviour most deserves an electric shock?
by targetsmart (Curate) on Mar 15, 2009 at 14:39 UTC
    Electric shock on the day when you spent all the day doing some mundane job and learnt nothing new to sharpen/improve your knowledge.

    Vivek
    -- In accordance with the prarabdha of each, the One whose function it is to ordain makes each to act. What will not happen will never happen, whatever effort one may put forth. And what will happen will not fail to happen, however much one may seek to prevent it. This is certain. The part of wisdom therefore is to stay quiet.

      They don't need electric shocks. They've got cubicles.


      Information about American English usage here and here. Floating point issues? Please read this before posting. — emc

Re: Which bad behaviour most deserves an electric shock?
by zentara (Archbishop) on Mar 15, 2009 at 15:22 UTC
Re: Which bad behaviour most deserves an electric shock?
by Illuminatus (Curate) on Mar 15, 2009 at 18:22 UTC
    Please replace 'most deserves an electric shock' with whichever of the following restores balance to your universe:
    1. 'is most annoying'
    2. 'most deserves being added to every mailing list that involves being offered 10% of a 10M$ wire transfer, if only they will supply their bank account info'
    3. 'most deserves a personal visit from Nodereaper'
    4. 'most deserving of reincarnation as an arthropod'
    5. 'most deserving of eternal damnation'
    And sorry, Old_Gray_Bear, the Hoover Dam doesn't generate enough juice for someone who takes the name of Cowboy Neal in vain...

    fnord

Re: Which bad behaviour most deserves an electric shock?
by johngg (Abbot) on Mar 15, 2009 at 23:31 UTC

    My vote would go to those who silently update their questions, thus rendering nonsensical any answers already given.

    Cheers,

    JohnGG

Re: Which bad behaviour most deserves an electric shock?
by Bloodnok (Vicar) on Mar 15, 2009 at 23:37 UTC
    To my mind, this poll ought to allow multiple responses: missing code tags, titles containing urgent, multiple postings & asking the same question in both CB and SoPW - all get my goat.

    Failure to do even the most basic search prior to posting an SoPW also rates as a capital crime in my book.

    A user level that continues to overstate my experience :-))
Re: Which bad behaviour most deserves an electric shock?
by talexb (Canon) on Mar 16, 2009 at 03:33 UTC

    Wow, what a surprise! My first poll!

    While the electric shock sounds a little rude or violent, it's meant in the British way -- it's meant with the utmost civility.

      A few years back I was visiting my grandmother (called Gran, of course) who lived in Kent. There were so many family visiting I was boarded at a neighbor's house which dated back 150 years -- 14 foot ceilings and all that. I was going to be out late, so my hosts told me they'd leave the kitchen door unlocked.
      Mindful of the safety issues this raised, my host added with mock concern, "You won't murder us in our beds, will you?" Shocked, I started to assure him that this was absolutely out of the question .. until I saw the twinkle in his eye and realize I'd been had. That subtle British humour -- it gets them every time.

    It's just my way of saying, "Oi, don't do that!" :)

    Alex / talexb / Toronto

    "Groklaw is the open-source mentality applied to legal research" ~ Linus Torvalds

Re: Which bad behaviour most deserves an electric shock?
by moritz (Cardinal) on Mar 16, 2009 at 07:29 UTC
    My "favourites" include
    • Posting code that doesn't compile, but writing what output it produces
    • Not reading error messages, even if they contain useful information
    • Pasting error messages/warnings, but truncating them so that line number (or other useful debug information) is not included
    • Stating that something "doesn't work", without further explanation.
Re: Which bad behaviour most deserves an electric shock?
by dsheroh (Parson) on Mar 16, 2009 at 15:49 UTC
    Posting code without <code> tags is usually little more than a minor annoyance.

    Posting code in <pre> tags, on the other hand, should be a hanging offense. Especially since nobody seems to do it unless they have at least one line that's several hundred characters long.

Re: Which bad behaviour most deserves an electric shock?
by cdarke (Prior) on Mar 16, 2009 at 16:18 UTC
    Saying that something did not work, but not saying what did happen. Related to "it gave an error".
Re: Which bad behaviour most deserves an electric shock?
by sweetblood (Parson) on Mar 16, 2009 at 16:34 UTC
    Other!

    "I /(want|need)/ a script that does ...

    Sweetblood

Re: Which bad behaviour most deserves an electric shock?
by gokuraku (Monk) on Mar 16, 2009 at 19:21 UTC
    The manual is friendly and if you can get to the Monks on the internet surely you've already checked the Google?
Re: Which bad behaviour most deserves an electric shock?
by marto (Chancellor) on Mar 16, 2009 at 22:45 UTC
**URGENT!** Re: Which bad behaviour most deserves an electric shock?
by Hercynium (Hermit) on Mar 17, 2009 at 01:27 UTC
    HAI GUISE? IM IN UR PERLMNKS! LOL! I've read and re-read man perl and it says nothing about using fork except for this one line! I really need to get this script working asap, but this site is so slow I wonder if anybody will *ever* be able to read this, fer CowboyNeal's sake! I keep askin in da chatterbox but nobody listens. What's a borg? Maybe I dont have enuff karma yet to get noticed you guise shuld fix dat for us newbies ROFL! Here's my code but it doesn't work right now: #!/usr/bin/local/perl -w -T -f use fork; for( $spoon=1; $spoon<10; $spoon++ ) { if ( fork()) { print "I has a fork but can't eat my soop" if !$spoon } } bzzzzzzzzzztttttttttaaaaaaaaugh!

    /me can't believe nobody else did this yet ;-)

      Hey, illiterate; use strict; use warnings;; check something irrelevant, and lern 2 spell:

      s|/me can't believe nobody else did this yet ;-)|/me cant blv nobody elz dun this yt :-)/

      yo, bro! ++ (repeatedly, if I could!); ROFL; definitely the high point of this thread!

      I think I would like to quote HatfulOfHollow and say

      "i'm going to become rich and famous after i invent a device that allows you to stab people in the face over the internet"

      But seriously, good job capturing the spirit of those who deserve death by electricity. :P

      While trying to explain palindromes to my alien friend, he asked "Eks, aeh dneirf neilay motsem-ordni lapnial p xeot gni y rtelihw?"
      What can I say? Palindromes are rasemordnilapyasinactahw~

      You forgot the non-descriptive Title change, but you surely got the intention correct :)

      And I didn't see <pre> tags or inlined images


      Enjoy, Have FUN! H.Merijn
      Is this homework?

      QUICKLY HOW IS NEWLINE MADE? URGENT: HELP ME SAVE THE FUZZY BABY SEALS!  PLZ REPLY EMAIL WORLDSBESTHAXOR@HOAXMAIL.COM  BEFORE TODAY
      

        Wow. As soon as I saw that the formatting of this post had completely screwed up the entire page, I knew it had captured the true essence of bad posting.

        Congratulations Mr 1234567.

        --
        use JAPH;
        print JAPH::asString();

        I meant to answer this but the "Comment on" page came up so slow that I forgot what I wanted to say. Plus, I'm half a day late and this question is not even a root node so no-one will read this post and I won't get any XP anyway, so I can't bother myself.

      Oh no -- I've created a monster.

      Alex / talexb / Toronto

      "Groklaw is the open-source mentality applied to legal research" ~ Linus Torvalds

Re: Which bad behaviour most deserves an electric shock?
by Dru (Hermit) on Mar 17, 2009 at 03:52 UTC
    Perlmonks [helping|entertaining] you repeatedly, but never once returning the favor by contributing to the Offering Plate


    Thanks,
    Dru

    Perl, the Leatherman of Programming languages. - qazwart
Re: Which bad behaviour most deserves an electric shock?
by Your Mother (Canon) on Mar 17, 2009 at 15:46 UTC

    Double posts. :)

Re: Which bad behaviour most deserves an electric shock?
by Your Mother (Canon) on Mar 17, 2009 at 15:47 UTC

    Double posts. :(

Re: Which bad behaviour most deserves an electric shock?
by svenXY (Deacon) on Mar 18, 2009 at 14:53 UTC
    other - "Peeing on an electrical fence" - because it will really give you an electrical shock (people die from this each year)

      You should not die from peeing on an electric fence unless it is someone who has made their own with lethal current or you have a weak heart/pacemaker. Proper electric fences use a voltage of around 10Kvolt but in very short non-lethal pulses. Of course some idiots just plug a length of conductor into mains and manage to kill people every so often but then you have a good chance to die on contact, no peeing needed.

      I can confirm one case of pee on fence survival, a mate of mine did this when we were about 14 to prove how tough he was. He screamed like a girl and ended up on his back with an embarrassing wet patch. Most amusing for the rest of us but the string of profanity from him confirmed his non-dead status.

      Cheers,
      R.

      Pereant, qui ante nos nostra dixerunt!
Re: Which bad behaviour most deserves an electric shock?
by Tux (Monsignor) on Mar 19, 2009 at 12:58 UTC
    • Reviving 5-year old threads with new posts that add nothing at all, or worse, add rubbish or false information.

    Enjoy, Have FUN! H.Merijn

      I don't mind this. Even if the added post was pointless, it lets newcomers (and oldcomers who forgot about it) see the thread that they would usually otherwise never see.

      While trying to explain palindromes to my alien friend, he asked "Eks, aeh dneirf neilay motsem-ordni lapnial p xeot gni y rtelihw?"
      What can I say? Palindromes are rasemordnilapyasinactahw~

Re: Which bad behaviour most deserves an electric shock?
by tweetiepooh (Friar) on Mar 23, 2009 at 10:23 UTC
    Asking for help with homework/project with no indications of having done any work at all. An exception would be asking for help to find an answer because of difficulty phrasing the question.

    Thinking a smiley can forgive any rudeness or misappropriate behaviour.

Re: Which bad behaviour most deserves an electric shock?
by dk (Chaplain) on Mar 24, 2009 at 07:59 UTC
    Telling that complaining about the performance of the site is bad behavior. That deserves prodding electrodes directly into the lobes.
Re: Which bad behaviour most deserves an electric shock?
by punch_card_don (Curate) on Mar 24, 2009 at 19:06 UTC
    Which bad behaviour most deserves an electric shock?

    Working on your PC's interior with it still plugged in and turned on




    Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana.

      Obviously you're not a hardware guy. Working on the interior of electronic devices while powered up is both a commonplace and necessary practice. Naturally it should only be done by qualified individuals who know where not to poke their fingers.

Re: Which bad behaviour most deserves an electric shock?
by sundialsvc4 (Monsignor) on Mar 25, 2009 at 13:34 UTC

    u rly pz me o44 whn u dnt uze vwls!  Ths is nt txtng!  (N qt tryng 2 ch4t 0n pr1mnk5.0rG whn u r drvng! u almst ht my Prsche, u l00z4r!)

Re: Which bad behaviour most deserves an electric shock?
by Anonymous Monk on Mar 28, 2009 at 19:37 UTC
    • Trolling
    • Feeding trolls
    • Whaling
    • Feeding whalers
    • Infant mutilation
    • Feeding infant mutilators
      Goatse

        I don't see how that *quite* fits.

        I don't mind occasionally having to reinvent a wheel; I don't even mind using someone's reinvented wheel occasionally. But it helps a lot if it is symmetric, contains no fewer than ten sides, and has the axle centered. I do tire of trapezoidal wheels with offset axles.

        I think the implied domain for bad behavior was 'PerlMonks'. :)

        Finding a bug in the site and causing that to display would certainly be classed as bad behavior though, and would probably warrant more than an electric shock - a garrotte might be more appropriate.

        If you don't know what Goatse is, consider yourself lucky... and don't go looking for it either.


        "Half of all adults in the United States say they have registered as an organ donor, although only some have purchased a motorcycle to show that they're really serious about it."
Re: Which bad behaviour most deserves an electric shock?
by missingthepoint (Friar) on Mar 31, 2009 at 09:49 UTC

    • Asking for help with PHP code


    "Half of all adults in the United States say they have registered as an organ donor, although only some have purchased a motorcycle to show that they're really serious about it."
Re: Which bad behaviour most deserves an electric shock?
by HamNRye (Monk) on Apr 09, 2009 at 03:07 UTC

    My pet peeves (As someone who asks more questions than answers them....)

    I try my best to be a good question asker, taking time to make sure everything is there, building the smallest sample and dataset that explains my problem. (Which also is a great debugging technique...)

    Overly brief useless answers only designed to improve the posters XP. There are those who chirp in on threads with something like "Use CPAN". It is my theory that these yokels are not trying to be helpful, they're just trying to glom on to threads that will gain popularity and mooch the XP off of them.

    Overly arcane answers that leave you wondering what they do. Many of the monks like to post code samples with something like print << $@ >>! if EOF while $% and no explanation. Mostly this just leaves you with a "What the hell?" feeling. I've remarked to a co-worker that I need to start "whatthehelldoesthatdo.com" where a collection of the strangest Perl idioms will be cataloged and explained.

    Complex solutions to simple problems. A question about matching a brace pattern turns into "Use Parse::RecDescent". Two replies later (after the guy who writes "Use Cpan"), someone comes along and says "Oh, you just need to put a "?" there..."

    The guy who points out that the "code" I wrote earlier in this post as an example of unreadability doesn't compile.

    The guy who instead of answering your question picks an entirely different part of your script to criticize... "Well, before we even talk about the regex, you're not getting the file listing before it in the most efficient way. Sure, it works in Windows, but what happens if your script needs to run on an OS2 machine? I don't even want to talk about what would happen on a PDP-11..."

    Those are my minor pet peeves that don't add up to much for all of the great help I have gotten here over the years.

      Well print << $@ >>! if EOF while $% doesn't even compile :)
Re: Which bad behaviour most deserves an electric shock?
by Lori713 (Pilgrim) on Apr 13, 2009 at 11:35 UTC
    I didn't find in the poll the thing that annoys me the most... the failure to put a decent description in the title. I use this site **heavily** to search for answers and it's frustrating when there aren't any decent key words in the title.

    <snip...> use strict; my ($response, $title); if ( $title eq 'Help!' || $title eq 'I get an error' || $title eq 'Homework' || $title eq 'Can you look at this' ) { $response = 'GRRRRRRRR'; }

View List Of Past Polls


Log In?
Username:
Password:

What's my password?
Create A New User
Chatterbox?
and the web crawler heard nothing...

How do I use this? | Other CB clients
Other Users?
Others contemplating the Monastery: (8)
As of 2014-07-29 05:23 GMT
Sections?
Information?
Find Nodes?
Leftovers?
    Voting Booth?

    My favorite superfluous repetitious redundant duplicative phrase is:









    Results (211 votes), past polls