Beefy Boxes and Bandwidth Generously Provided by pair Networks RobOMonk
Keep It Simple, Stupid
 
PerlMonks  

We should elminate: Anonymous, and DOWN-voting

by sundialsvc4 (Monsignor)
on Nov 30, 2011 at 10:12 UTC ( #940809=monkdiscuss: print w/ replies, xml ) Need Help??

Here are two things that we should eliminate:

  1. The ability of Anonymous Monk to post entries.
  2. The ability of anyone to down-vote any entry (and thereby, any Monk).
And here is why:

First, obviously, “the spam-bots have discovered us.”   No one should have to use the “reap” facility to eliminate unwanted bot-generated advertisements for cleaning fluid.   Okay, that’s the easy one.   (But it also means that we will have to eliminate whatever causes login-sessions to vanish.)

Second, we should take this lesson from another site that is sometimes filled with popular opinions:   http://www.geocaching.com, the GPS hunting-game web site.   “Why is it that you can say that you like a cache, and you can recommend that it needs to be removed for some reason, but you cannot say that you don’t like it?”   I didn’t know.   Somebody asked.   And the answer I heard was both two-fold and interesting.

The one-sentence version of that response was simply this:   that, while everyone naturally has strong opinions both about geocaches and about the other people who place them, only the positive opinions, if there be any, are actually useful to caching.   (Unless the consensus is that the cache is broken or that it for some reason needs to be “reaped,” i.e. for violation of the cache placement rules, which is a separate and unrelated technical issue.)   When someone wants to express the opinion that a cache (other than his or her own) is a “favorite,” then that’s useful.   But if someone, say, “doesn’t like micro-caches,” that very-quickly grows into “doesn’t like anyone who places micro-caches” to an outright vendetta against both those behaviors and against every single thing that the individual does.   It happens.   Quickly.   Inevitably.   And it is not useful to the purpose of that web-site, which is:   the caches, and promoting the experience of going out into the woods (or, as the case may be, lifting up the “skirts” of a lamp-post every 530 feet) to find them.   If someone attaches gold-stars to a particular cache, then it might mean that you, too, really want to go after this cache.   But if someone has thrown tomatoes at it, that’s just an opinion.

So, the site gives you the ability to cast positive feedback (upon anyone other than yourself, and never mind of course the “sock puppets,” but it does not give you the ability to cast negative feedback.   In short, “what goes up, must not come down.”

And ... it works.

Now, there are those who will disagree with me on this.   (Which is why this post probably by now has both a reputation of at least -1 -2 and counting, and perhaps an “anonymous” rebuttal, both posted by a person to whom I owe (and give) an apology and who otherwise does not need to be named.)   It is also why, after cooling down a bit, I am grateful to the NodeReaper.)   But this post actually isn’t “a sideways response to that individual.”   Instead, it is an observation of how the psychology of the thing gets in the way of the purpose of the site, which is both to promote the Perl language and to rapidly answer questions concerning it.   It is possible for people to be both provocative and provoked.   Neither of these have anything to do with the quality of the posts, both now and, very importantly, in the future.

Posts are a lasting resource.   Posts that are widely regarded as being good posts are helpful and the “attaboy” peer-review incentive is therefore good.   (It feels good, too.)   Negativism, and of course spam, are contrary.   The pure psychology, then, of being able to say “I don’t like this,” and therefore by extension to say either, “I don’t like you” or “I am going to take it upon myself to condemn what I don’t think is a ‘good’ post according to me,” is also contrary.   People are going to read these posts for years to come; we all do.   And meanwhile we are also people.   We lose our tempers sometimes, sometimes at other participants, and these behaviors have nothing to do with the purpose of this site but are contrary to it.

In closing, then, I submit for the consideration of the Monks that “geocaching.com was right on this one.”   So, I might add, are many other sites who have a “fave” button and a “report this entry” but not a “thumbs down.”   This is 100% human behavioral psychology, but it is important to any site whose intended-to-be-lasting content is contributed by humans.   This is not “a sideways slap,” the negative-XP of this posting notwithstanding, but the experience of encountering it (thank you again, NodeReaper ...) was an eye-opener to me concerning its significance.   Therefore, I submit it and mean it seriously.   The “consider” mechanism works well and should remain as-implemented, as does pre-posting “peer-based moderating,” but downvoting should be permanently removed.   You can vote a posting off the island, and you can fave it, but, by design, you can no longer speak poorly of it.

Comment on We should elminate: Anonymous, and DOWN-voting
Re: We should elminate: Anonymous, and DOWN-voting
by Corion (Pope) on Nov 30, 2011 at 10:26 UTC

    You will have noticed that most of the spam that gets through the defenses, and gets subsequently reaped, is not by Anonymous Monk.

    As for the rest of your proposed mechanics, I don't see a future for them. The site has worked well with these mechanics for some time now, and I don't see your arguments making a case why Perlmonks should change away from them except that other mechanics seem to work well elsewhere.

    I don't see how eliminating "negativism" contributes - there are actual bad answers, and also out-of-place answers, and for both, downvotes seem to work well enough. If you take a "I don't like this" downvote as identical to "I don't like you", that's a personal problem, but nothing that this site or its mechanics can rectify.

Re: We should elminate: Anonymous, and DOWN-voting
by Anonymous Monk on Nov 30, 2011 at 10:29 UTC
Re: We should elminate: Anonymous, and DOWN-voting
by Ratazong (Prior) on Nov 30, 2011 at 10:57 UTC

    I totally agree to the opinion of Corion (thats why I upvoted his node) and disagree with your proposals.

    Furthermore, I don't think that your description of geocaching.com is correct:

    On that site, negative feedback IS given to the cache-owners. It is not done by a number (favourite points are only positive), but with the log-entries: From time to time you find log-entries stating the location is a boring or even horrible place (e.g. used as a garbage-dump by the locals). And I use that information before deciding wether I go for a cache or not.

    Additionally, there are rating-add-ons like gc vote, which have the possibility of negative votes to caches - and that addon is very popular with my caching-friends.

    So there seems a need to be able to express negative opinions even in the perfect world of geocaching.

    Rata

    Note: According to the guidelines (How should I spend my votes? -- General Voting Guidelines) I have downvoted your post. Which is nothing personal. But it is my only way to indicate I don't want that proposed change in perlmonks without cluttering the site/thread with a me-too-posting.

Re: We should elminate: Anonymous, and DOWN-voting
by JavaFan (Canon) on Nov 30, 2011 at 11:14 UTC
    I've downvoted your post. If you think that that means I don't like you, go ahead, and think that way. I don't care.
Re: We should elminate: Anonymous, and DOWN-voting
by dreadpiratepeter (Priest) on Nov 30, 2011 at 13:03 UTC

    I disagree with your views on downvoting, but I am totally in favor of not having Anonymous posting. This is a technical forum, not a support group. There is no reason not to stand by what you have written. If you are using anonymous to avoid negative xp for trolling or ad hominum attacks, you shouldn't be posting.

    I have never posted anonymously, I stand by everything I have ever posted (despite the accusations of a certain resident troll that I do post anonymously). People should be accountable for their words. Using internet anonymity to be a rude, disruptive bully or tool is cowardly and petty. If you wouldn't say something to someone face to face, don't say it on the internet.

    And when it comes down to it, we are all Anonymous anyway. My real life name is not Dread Pirate Peter (although how cool would it be if it was). But I would have no problem attaching my real name to my account. I stand by what I post, and I would have no issue if my employer or my grandmother read it.

    As the great philosophers said, "Be awesome to each other"



    -pete
    "Worry is like a rocking chair. It gives you something to do, but it doesn't get you anywhere."
        And therefore you say such things as an Anonymous Monk. I pity you.

        CountZero

        A program should be light and agile, its subroutines connected like a string of pearls. The spirit and intent of the program should be retained throughout. There should be neither too little or too much, neither needless loops nor useless variables, neither lack of structure nor overwhelming rigidity." - The Tao of Programming, 4.1 - Geoffrey James

        First of all Simon, you are the single most non-anonymous Anonymous poster on the site. Your combination of delusion, paranoia and hate-mongering is unmistakable.

        Secondly, anyone can look back at the history of my posts to see what I have said to you. I stand by it. It was not anonymous. They can also see that I never once resorted to threats or profanity to make my point.

        And thirdly, I would have no problem saying it to your face. However, I know your type and I am sure that if this were a real conversation you would not be spouting off like you do from the safety of the computer. Consider this an attack if you will, but you are nothing more than a childish internet bully using this forum to have your temper-tantrums



        -pete
        "Worry is like a rocking chair. It gives you something to do, but it doesn't get you anywhere."
      How do you plan to distinguish between anonymous postings, and postings from throw away accounts? I mean, it's trivial to set up a new account, and while anonymous postings don't really excite me, they aren't worse than postings with throw away accounts.

      Besides, if postings should be judged by its content, it doesn't matter who posts them, does it? Who posts something only matters if we would have individual filters, so I could ignore certain people - or make certain posters more prominent. And then when you have individual filters, everyone could decide whether or not (s)he wants to see postings from anonymous monks.

      Heh....

      As it happens, "perlmonks.org" seems to have utterly forgotten about me, somewhere in the past four minutes, and, as it happens, I do not care and I have utterly nothing to prove by it."

      Let us therefore, as we may continue to “discuss this,” sharply delineate any “mere technical forgetfulness of this site” from any perhaps-intentional efforts to don some cloak of erstwhile anonymity.   The distinction may indeed prove to be significant . . .

Re: We should elminate: Anonymous, and DOWN-voting
by wazoox (Prior) on Nov 30, 2011 at 13:04 UTC

    I disagree completely with you, and I have two examples of other communities where downvotes exist and work well:

    • reddit
    • hacker news

    It's too bad that it's not possible to take back a downvote on PM, though, like you can on reddit (but not on hacker news; furthermore HN small arrows make it very easy to miss, particularly on touch devices).

    I didn't downvote you, because I don't downvote people I disagree with on matters of opinion, and I think it's wrong to downvote you for this. However, downvotes are extremely useful to express the "crowd wisdom" on technically wrong messages. I don't think you to be technically wrong, only misguided.

      Down-voting is inherently destructive and serves no purpose what-so-ever other than to catalyse the group-mind to marginalise and single out individuals ripe for a group banging session.
        It definitely works this way on unmoderated sites, but certainly not on carefully moderated sites such as Perlmonks.
Reaped: Re: We should elminate: Anonymous, and DOWN-voting
by NodeReaper (Curate) on Nov 30, 2011 at 13:23 UTC
      ... the parthenon of "gods" ...

      I think you mean pantheon.

      PerlMonks parthenogenetically spawned by Tim Vroom.
        yup, that too.
        Yes, God damn it, the Parthenon!

      This is not a democracy, it's not even a meritocracy, it's tyranny by arrival date, government by those who happened to arrive first and for those who happened to arrive first.

      Rubbish. There are currently eight monks with more experience than myself logged on, but only one of them has been here longer than me (11 years). Of the other seven, one of the monks with more experience has only been here nine months.

      Experience is indicative of participation, and particularly community-approved participation.



      - Boldra
      This is not a democracy, it's not even a meritocracy, it's tyranny by arrival date, government by those who happened to arrive first and for those who happened to arrive first.
      I find it very interesting that you give this as your reason for opposing the existence of downvotes because, if posts can only be voted up, then their scores will be less reflective of their merit, but instead become largely an accident of who happened to post first...
        Ah yes, but under my system the ranks don't infer social privilege, only kudos for having contributed.
Re: We should elminate: Anonymous, and DOWN-voting
by CountZero (Chancellor) on Nov 30, 2011 at 13:38 UTC
    I think the Perlmonks system is not broken so we should resist all urges to repair it.

    Eliminating down-votes would definitely take away a very valuable element of appreciation of a post's (relative) merit. I am not blind to the fact that a very small minority uses down-votes to personally punish some other Monks, but that is such a rare occurrence (IMHO) that it disappears in the random fluctuations of all voting. And to make things clear, I upvoted your post since I think any post which shows that the OP was honestly thinking on how to improve the Monastery merits a plus-vote, even though I think your proposal is wrong.

    CountZero

    A program should be light and agile, its subroutines connected like a string of pearls. The spirit and intent of the program should be retained throughout. There should be neither too little or too much, neither needless loops nor useless variables, neither lack of structure nor overwhelming rigidity." - The Tao of Programming, 4.1 - Geoffrey James

Re: We should elminate: Anonymous, and DOWN-voting
by talexb (Canon) on Nov 30, 2011 at 17:58 UTC

    I disagree with your two proposals, but I upvoted your post.

    Some folks don't want to join the community, but they do have a quick question. Slashdot works the same way -- it's possible to post anonymously. I have used it myself, on the rare occasion that I need to contribute to a discussion that's employment related, for obvious reasons.

    Yes, getting downvoted is a drag, but it sends a message, a) that's wrong; b) that's stupid; or even c) I disagree. Perlmonks has worked well in the close to ten years I've been here -- I think downvotes are here to stay.

    Alex / talexb / Toronto

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

Re: We should elminate: Anonymous, and DOWN-voting
by blakew (Monk) on Nov 30, 2011 at 19:17 UTC

    I would prefer Anonymous postings versus throw-away accounts.

    I haven't seen downvotes become a problem, ever, on this site. A worthy post is never hidden because of downvotes - if it's controversial and somewhat abrasive then it invites downvotes for disagreement. Reporting is not a valid way to communicate disagreement. Plus my understanding of the mechanism is downvotes don't much matter unless there's an overwhelming number of them.

      The problem arises when people view a post which has already received 1 or several down-votes, and start reading it with the biased presupposition that it is wrong, even if the initial voters were incorrect in their appraisal. If there is going to be down-voting, then the current score a comment has ought to be invisible, otherwise it's just begging for the group mind to condemn it based on the initial first reactions rather than on it's merits when presented without that bias to each new voter.
        Wrong!

        Monks or AMs, unless they go looking for a tally (best nodes, worst nodes, etc) readers don't see a vote count on a node UNLESS they've already voted it up or down.

Re: We should elminate: Anonymous, and DOWN-voting
by jdporter (Canon) on Nov 30, 2011 at 21:51 UTC

    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.

      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.
        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.
Re: We should elminate: Anonymous, and DOWN-voting
by Argel (Prior) on Dec 01, 2011 at 19:21 UTC
    Disagree on the downvotes. But anonymous posting has become problematic as of late. And it's disingenuous for Monks to claim the system is working just fine when anonymous posting was just recently temporarily turned off. Not sure what the answer is, but wearing rose tinted glasses is certainly not part of it.

    Elda Taluta; Sarks Sark; Ark Arks
    My deviantART gallery

Re: We should elminate: Anonymous, and DOWN-voting
by thezip (Vicar) on Dec 02, 2011 at 06:04 UTC

    I do *not* believe we need to eliminate anonymous postings.

    I do, however, find myself constantly ignoring (and wishing that I didn't have to view) anonymous posts. It is in my nature to ignore all anonymous posts, and I would prefer to have a PM configuration setting that defaults to not displaying anonymous posts.

    By having a mechanism such as this, some monks may participate in the flamewars, and others can happily go about their business without being burdened by the unnecessary noise.


    What can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof. - Christopher Hitchens
      You know I'd actually agree with that, most of the crap that was thrown at me came from anonymous monk comments. If I could of ignored them so easily I wouldn't of wound up looking like a troll myself and ending up in a situation where a post with my name on it no matter what it's about getting massively downvoted, probably without even being read.

        It does work but the threads are still there so if/when anyone else participates you'll see those nodes in Newest or Recent Threads. While I do use the blocking css you posted, I still sometimes end up stumbling into a thread I would have otherwise preferred to ignore ( like this one ;-) ).


        UPDATE
        Same Day :: 3:28 PM :: Turns out I was wrong. As long as tables are displayed as divs in the Display Settings, MidLifeXis' css works well. Apologies.


        "...the adversities born of well-placed thoughts should be considered mercies rather than misfortunes." — Don Quixote
Re: We should elminate: Anonymous, and DOWN-voting
by sundialsvc4 (Monsignor) on Dec 03, 2011 at 03:26 UTC

    Gentlebeings ....

    I very-consciously abstained from this thread for a couple days, literally “just to see what would happen to it,” and ...

    Without “reading anything into anything by anybody,” (as best as a real human-being can ever hope to do such a thing) ...

    Perhaps we should all simply take a look at “what actually happened next.”   And see if there is (or, as the case may well be, there is not) “proof in the pudding.”   Again, not as a reflection upon anyone anywhere, but strictly in light of my OP’s original and honorable intention.   Quickly scanning through this thread so-far, I see:

    1. One of the first responses was quite obviously by someone who (so it appears, and “frankly, my dear, I don’t give a damn who...”) hid behind Anonymous Monk in order to make a rebuttal “off the record.”   (Is that a good thing?)
    2. Other folks rather-quickly pointed out that “this sort of thing has happened before.”   (Is that a good thing?)
    3. The Grim Reaper had a lot of cleanup to do ... since the posts are gone now we may never know what they were.   The simplest interpretation is that:   “Houston, we have a serious spam/noise problem; we have been discovered.”
    4. There was a heckuva lot of emotions going off here, and not a single one of them were good ones.

    Personally, I do feel that this is “the proof in the pudding.”   (I think that ...)

    1. The Anonymous Monk account was used in both of the negative ways of which it is all-too capable:   as a venue for slinging-mud at someone else without taking responsibility for it; and as a venue for loading the site with useless spam.   (Notice:   I think that.   It’s my opinion.)
    2. Several participants of very long standing instantly confirmed what we all know:   “this does happen here.”   People do feel that they are being “dissed upon” by others.   Animosity among the Esteemed Monks does, indeed exist.   I think that’s a way-serious problem.

    Given that this site is intended to be a Place Of Worship, so to speak, maybe we do need to consider these two aspects of the site more closely, as I have suggested.   There are, I think, very strong human-psychology reasons why other sites have chosen to omit from their implementations two key features that are presently implemented here.   I submit for your pragmatic consideration that this very thread might well serve as a concise illustration as to why.

    If it is possible for you to take for granted, now, that I do not in fact “have a bone to pick with” anyone here ... (!) ... “what do you think?”

    And, yeah.   I am actually, perfectly, serious.

      In the twelve years this site has existed, only once has the anonymonk function been disabled, and ONLY because it was used to make the gods feel uncomfortable. For the entire previous period it was used and abused freely, monks abusing other monks with this feature is just fine in the eyes of the gods, but monks abusing the gods is totally unacceptable.

      That my dear monkie brained chums is called hypocrisy and corruption.

        Anonymous Monk has never been disabled

      The Grim Reaper had a lot of cleanup to do ... since the posts are gone now we may never know what they were.

      Reaped nodes are still viewable, its just an extra click, or an extra user setting

      And, yeah. I am actually, perfectly, serious.

      I'm sure you are, but your entire statement is vague and unclear. It appears to me that you're merely restating your "argument", with extra mixed metaphors, implications, and emphasis, ipso facto

      This is not persuasive, nor a well reasoned argument -- definitely not worth reconsidering.

        definitely not worth reconsidering.

        Clearly you've never been on the receiving end of an anony-coward slinging crap from behind a mask.

Re: We should elminate: Anonymous, and DOWN-voting
by Plankton (Priest) on Dec 03, 2011 at 08:19 UTC
    What I do not like about limiting Anonymous postings and restrictions on down voting is that doing so is merely treating the symptoms of disharmony not the actual cause. Someone responded to you negatively and you in turn responded with negativism, that is the real problem. The solution to this problem is not to make rules and tell others what they need to do. The solution is to improve yourself, to free yourself from your ego, so that you can respond to negativity with compassion and love.

      ++ but s/with compassion and love/meh, some persons suck. Think I’ll go bake a pie instead of getting engaged/.

Re: We should elminate: Anonymous, and DOWN-voting
by Xiong (Hermit) on Dec 03, 2011 at 21:22 UTC

    How did anyone conflate these two issues? Anonymous Monk and downvoting are barely related. I'll put a smiley face on that and say I fail to see the connection.

    So instead of making an ass of myself trying to respond to two different issues in one post; I'll make two asses of myself. Please downvote them individually, thank you.

    Feste: Misprison in the highest degree. Lady, cucullus non facit monachum. That's as much to say as, I wear not motley in my brain....
Re: We should elminate: Anonymous, and DOWN-voting
by Xiong (Hermit) on Dec 03, 2011 at 21:32 UTC

    Anonymous posting (here or anywhere else on Da Internet) is the default; it's extremely difficult to suppress without killing off almost all participation. On Da Internet, you are who you say you are; and if tomorrow you say you are someone else, nobody can prove or disprove it.

    If a site does not allow "officially" anonymous posting, those who wish to post anonymously just create throwaway accounts. If the site requires email verification to create an account, the evil little villains just create throwaway email addresses.

    So the chief point of Anonymous Monk is not to permit or condone anonymous posting. It's merely a small convenience: it makes it easier to decide who to ignore, downvote, or reap. If I see a post by this "author", I feel less inclined to approve it. And anything that makes the stack of paperwork go by more quickly is a Good Thing.

    Feste: Misprison in the highest degree. Lady, cucullus non facit monachum. That's as much to say as, I wear not motley in my brain....
Re: We should elminate: Anonymous, and DOWN-voting
by BrowserUk (Pope) on Dec 03, 2011 at 21:58 UTC

    I've refrained from posting till now. (I've also refrained and will continue refrain from voting on the OP.)

    Three things to say:

    • One, perhaps my main, reason for down-voting, is when I wish to track the community response to some post on a subject of interest to me, but which I cannot bring myself to up-vote.

      I justify this action on the following basis. I only have one vote per post. If my vote is out of kilter with the majority of the monastery, it will disappear in the flood of upvotes. If my vote is in accord with the majority, then it is only one more.

    • I rarely, (maybe never, but I cannot guarantee I never have), down-vote people for disagreeing with me.

      Indeed, I often up-vote good counter argument if it is well made. Even when I disagree with it.

    • I don't usually down-vote obvious -- to me -- errors. None of us know everything; we are all capable of misunderstanding or misreading things; we all make mistakes.

      In these cases I prefer to just post a correction.

      But I reserve special ire for those that repeatedly post the same misinformation, despite having previously be taken to task for it and corrected.

    So, no. Down-voting is an integral and important part of this place and should stay.

    As for AnonyMonk, whilst many of the most annoying posts come from that source; so also do many of the most insightful answers. I'll put up with the bad in order to retain and learn from the good.


    With the rise and rise of 'Social' network sites: 'Computers are making people easier to use everyday'
    Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error.
    "Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority".
    In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice.

    The start of some sanity?

      so also do many of the most inciteful answers

      Did you mean inciteful as in provocative, or insightful, as in perceptive?

        The latter. Now corrected. Thank you.


        With the rise and rise of 'Social' network sites: 'Computers are making people easier to use everyday'
        Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error.
        "Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority".
        In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice.

        The start of some sanity?

Re: We should elminate: Anonymous, and DOWN-voting
by Xiong (Hermit) on Dec 03, 2011 at 22:04 UTC

    When I'm done blathering, I'm going to go back and downvote the OP. Then I'm going to have a cup of coffee. If I'm feeling as bitchy then as I am now, I'll go through and downvote some more.

    Why would you take this away from me? I'm annoyed at this thread, I'm annoyed at OP's author, I'm annoyed at a lot of people, places, and things. I can, will, and must vent my rage in some direction. Either I downvote some nodes that offend me; indulge in personal rant in CB; or visit the liquor and gun stores and go on a rampage. You pick.

    One thing that annoys me so much about this thread is the naive assumption that, as a group or as individuals, we want to be helpful, constructive, loving, or even honest. This may or may not be true but it's fantastic to assume it. So long as we're talking about humans, we'd better recognize the existence of "impure" motives. If no outlet exists for their expression -- believe me! -- more than one will be created.

    The other thing that annoys me so much is the naive presumption that anybody who runs this site cares what you think. Again, somebody might but it's madness to presume it. Like most communities, online or in meatspace, PerlMonks is controlled by a small group of people who started it or got in early. They are not going to share much power. A large number of people who got in later are content with this leadership and will support them in any battle. As in most online communities, such a battle is especially one-sided since the group in power has the keys to the rack room -- and you don't.

    Just in case you don't understand how this site works, XP is pretty much worthless. You do not get to join the gods, no matter how many points you get. You do not get any money. Downvoting a node may lead to the author losing XP. But since he can't go out and buy a beer with that XP, so what?

    The most significant effect on an author whose posts get downvoted is... he has fewer opportunities to vote on other people's nodes. The most significant effect on a post getting downvoted is that it may get reaped... which means you have to click a little harder to read it. Either way, everyone knows that somebody doesn't like you; and yes, that hurts. But never fear: if tomorrow downvoting disappears, people will still find a way to express their unlove.

    What you really want is a way to shoot dead anybody who even tries to downvote you. You don't get that; you can downvote back. And that's it.

    My big suggestion today is to replace upvotes and downvotes with smileys and bloody bullet holes. These would have the same effects as ++ and -- but might make it more clear to OP's author that it's all just a game.

    Feste: Misprison in the highest degree. Lady, cucullus non facit monachum. That's as much to say as, I wear not motley in my brain....

      :D :D

      It is just a game until personal details are cross-linked to it in a deliberate attempt to create a real-world punishment for disagreeing with the hive-mind. At that point it ceases to be a game and gets serious and personal.

      The gods do not care what monks do to each other so long as it shows no possibility of diminishing their power and status. I wonder just how long Corion would accept someone using all their votes to down-vote him before he logged in as Co-Rion and abused his godly powers to defeat the attack upon his monk level character. My guess is not long at all.

        It's a game when it gets serious and personal. Personally, I prefer seven-card stud. When you see yourself pitching in your greens and blacks, you start to understand the meaning of the word "game".

        Don't you think one of the main goals of gaining power is to use to further your own ends? I agree that there are nobler goals. But realistically, personal aggrandizement is a driver. Why are you complaining?

        Feste: Misprison in the highest degree. Lady, cucullus non facit monachum. That's as much to say as, I wear not motley in my brain....
Re: We should elminate: Anonymous, and DOWN-voting
by TJPride (Pilgrim) on Dec 03, 2011 at 22:47 UTC
    I agree that nobody should be able to post without getting an account first. If you care -that- little about getting an answer, you're probably going to make a lazy post and waste our time. I've already seem some examples of this in just the past couple weeks. Not that registered users are necessarily perfect either, mind you.

    As for downvoting, this is entirely necessary. Some people post horribly bad code, or troll, or whatever, and these people deserve to be downvoted to tell them they're doing something wrong. I rarely downvote people myself, but when I do, it's well-deserved. Given, this can again be abused by regular users - the account I had years ago was being automatically downvoted every day by one user's entire supply of votes, and the site admins wouldn't tell me who it was or do anything about it - but one would hope that if people doing nothing but downvote becomes a widespread problem, the admins will do something about it. It would be much worse to NOT allow downvoting and promote useless trash posts.

      was being automatically downvoted every day by one user's entire supply of votes

      You've just hit the nail straight on the head; that is the deepest flaw in anonymous consequence free down-voting theory, it empowers and enables the typical narcissistic serial bully and feeds his psychological need at the expense of his victim. If said victim is not in the favour of the gods for whatever reason then there is nothing he/she can do about it, and complaining merely serves to attract more of the same behaviour from others.

        ... said a typical narcissistic serial bully.

        This thread should not have been started or at least it should not have been started now while the site is still frequented by You-know-who whose petty ego has turned this thread into a flamefest already.

        Jenda
        Enoch was right!
        Enjoy the last years of Rome.

      Yes; but that's the point. If the node is written by Anonymous Monk then you can downvote it without even reading it, if you so choose. You don't even have to think about whether you like the poster or if he's done better at another time. You just click -- and it's Problem Solved.

      If nobody could post anonymously, then the same people would continue to lazy-post... but I at least would have to think twice before downvoting, perhaps even give the post the courtesy of a read. That would really waste our time.

      Feste: Misprison in the highest degree. Lady, cucullus non facit monachum. That's as much to say as, I wear not motley in my brain....
        If down-voting entailed a risk, people would not be so quick to judge.

        It's called "Apophenia"

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apophenia

        Sometimes however there really is a pattern.

        I would get a large number of downvotes every single day, and they were being systematically applied to all my posts. In addition, one of the mods checked into it and verified that I was in fact being systematically downvoted, he just wouldn't give me the person's name or do anything about it. It wasn't paranoia, I know a systematic attack when I see it.

        I'm not an XP whore and don't care -that- much about XP, but it's the principle of the thing - people shouldn't be allowed to abuse the site or the users on it.

Re: We should elminate: Anonymous, and DOWN-voting
by sundialsvc4 (Monsignor) on Dec 09, 2011 at 01:51 UTC

    I cordially submit ... that it would (just) perhaps be very enlightening (indeed!) to consider ...

    Just which replies to this very thread(!), have been “anonymous,” and which have not.

    “Why or why not?”   Very seriously, I submit, “let us leave that as An Exercise To The Reader.™”

    If we might agree that the site is the True Resource™ here, and that Our Mutual Objective™ is To Make It Better Resource For Us All™ ... what, if anything, might we mutually learn from this?

    Just askin’ ...

    Here we all are:   total strangers.   If we met one another at the railway station, we would both know exactly what to do:   we would utterly and completely ignore one another.

    So why do we, here, on the Internet, react to one another so completely differently?   Pardon me, but, Inquiring Minds Want To Know.™

    I mean, if we all just try not to be so utterly and completely and humanly(!) so caught-up in “this thing,” what might we take away from “this thing?”

    If the common human rules of civility would dictate upon us merely the decision of, “who among us should be purchasing the first round of Guiness?®” then perhaps we all should be focusing our attentions upon that!

    Just askin’™ ...

      WOW, JUST WOW!™

      LOL!™

        WELL SAID __ME__™

Log In?
Username:
Password:

What's my password?
Create A New User
Node Status?
node history
Node Type: monkdiscuss [id://940809]
Approved by marto
help
Chatterbox?
and the web crawler heard nothing...

How do I use this? | Other CB clients
Other Users?
Others romping around the Monastery: (6)
As of 2014-04-21 06:25 GMT
Sections?
Information?
Find Nodes?
Leftovers?
    Voting Booth?

    April first is:







    Results (492 votes), past polls