|P is for Practical|
Are you supporting this or are you simply stating what others have requested/suggested?
I like the ideas, and hope they get implented. I'm curious if it will cause much backlash, or it will cause some confusion among most of the monks.
I know a lot of people have expressed their growing concern over getting voted down without explination( I'm one of them, considering my level jumped from scribe, to monk, back to scribe four times in one day ). Many of the chatterbox folk have suggested adding a requirement that a response be given on a -- vote. This would obviously be difficult to implement since many could just enter garbage or demeaning words as their reasons. It would be nice, however to have to have some requirement that a -- be accompanied with the reason why the person thinks you should be voted down. I know this revokes some basic rights we have a perlmonks.org, not the least of which tends to be anonymity, and I'm not sure exactly how you would go about doing keeping fairness and efficiency in hand. I simply wanted to breach the subject.
Good luck with the other changes,
Nobody expects the The Spanish Inquisition