|
Re^6: We should elminate: Anonymous, and DOWN-voting
by CountZero (Bishop) on Dec 04, 2011 at 12:33 UTC
|
It is the essence of democratic and free voting that it is done only subject to your own conscience and that you never ever have to give a reason why you did it.
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
| [reply] |
|
|
It is the essence of democratic and free voting that it is done only subject to your own conscience and that you never ever have to give a reason why you did it.
Perlmonks is not a democracy.
| [reply] |
|
|
I thought we were an autonomous collective?
| [reply] |
|
|
|
|
Perlmonks is not a democracy. I never said it is.
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
| [reply] |
|
|
| [reply] |
|
|
In real-life democratic voting, there's generally a pool of at least tens of thousands of other voters, and each one only has ONE vote to cast. The damage that any single person can do if he pointlessly or maliciously places his vote is minimal. Here, the pool of voters at any given time is maybe a few dozen, and if someone really hates your guts, he can have a significant impact on your overall rating. I don't think the comparison is terribly valid. In a democratic system, you also have a right to face your accuser.
| [reply] |
|
|
In real-life democratic voting, there's generally a pool of at least tens of thousands of other voters, and each one only has ONE vote to cast. The damage that any single person can do if he pointlessly or maliciously places his vote is minimal. Here, the pool of voters at any given time is maybe a few dozen, and if someone really hates your guts, he can have a significant impact on your overall rating. I don't think the comparison is terribly valid. In a democratic system, you also have a right to face your accuser.
And you just got caught with your pants down
In real life, you get one vote for each ballot measure, each office ... same as here, one vote per node, fair and democratic
XP isn't life or death, you aren't accused of anything, and when you vote for president/ballots, the ballots don't get to face you.
Turning a one second barometer into a bureaucracy is bat-guano-insane-o
And no, a single voter cannot have a significant impact on your overall rating, see Voting/Experience System
| [reply] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re^6: We should elminate: Anonymous, and DOWN-voting
by Anonymous Monk on Dec 04, 2011 at 13:45 UTC
|
I like that, at least then the person receiving the negative feedback has something to go on instead of having to guess as to the reason for the down-vote. The given reason itself can then become a discussion point. For instance if someone was down-voting a comment because they felt that the theory expressed in the comment cannot possibly work, then when they say that is the case they can be called to explain their position and provide evidence for it, or have their objection refuted. That way everyone can learn from the process. | [reply] |
|
|
No no it's far easier and more convenient to just click and move along without giving any justification, if someone is too stupid to figure where they are going wrong then maybe the shouldn't be a programmer at all. This isn't a support group it's a game / battle ground where the winner takes all.
| [reply] |
|
|
Yeh, who gives a **** about anyone coming in who doesn't appreciate that fact?
| [reply] |
|
|