|
Re: Psychological 'warfare'?
by moritz (Cardinal) on Jun 12, 2012 at 10:32 UTC
|
There's one hard lesson yet ahead of you: "don't feed the trolls".
In this case, by "troll" I mean anybody who, from your perspective, does you injustice. There will always be people like that, in real life and in the internet. Independently of whether there are downvotes or no. Or as Randall phrases it, someone is WRONG on the internet.
If you want to know why people downvote your stuff, ask in the CB. If there are genuine reasons for downvotes, even people who don't downvote the nodes will see them and tell you. If several monks in the CB can't find reasons, you just have to shrug off the downvotes as trolling.
However starting public discussions in Meditations or Perlmonks Discussions is, in my experience, counter productive. It reminds people too much of a fanatic who shouts "I'm a victim of injustice by the establishment!!!" in the center of town.
Any Monk who posts code that is attempting to help out a fellow (especially new) Monk should be criticized respectfully... that means SHOWING CODE that explains how their code is broken.
The harsh reality is that on perlmonks it is more important to have a useful contribution than trying to help.
However I found that when I actually run the code prior to posting, and it works, then I almost never get downvotes. There's an impartial judge installed as /usr/bin/perl, and you can ask it prior to submitting your answer. If it agrees with you, chances are good that the majority of perlmonks won't take offense.
| [reply]
[d/l] |
Re: Psychological 'warfare'?
by zentara (Archbishop) on Jun 12, 2012 at 09:11 UTC
|
You need to buy a kevlar monks robe. Each of us here got put through a period of hazing where the other monks test our metal. If you think a node response is lacking or too flippant, post a reply to it asking for clarification. If you think they are bluffing, call it, just like a poker game.
| [reply] |
|
|
| [reply] |
|
|
...test our metal.
It's mettle not metal. But I suppose it's a "mood" point ;-)
| [reply] |
Re: Sycophantic 'warfare'?
by tye (Sage) on Jun 13, 2012 at 08:56 UTC
|
stevieb, I hope this will come soon enough and be well enough received by
you that you can significantly benefit from it. I am trying to avoid being
harsh, but I still worry that you may not take what you are about to read
well. It likely will not be easy to take. On the other hand, I do think
it is important that you take it seriously... at first.
I provide such detailed and frank feedback because I think you are
capable of benefiting from it and will be willing to try and
because I believe your expressed desire to be a positive contributor. I sincerely hope it isn't too hard to take. Your
only real crime was enthusiasm and your mistakes are still so few
so that I hope you can quickly adjust and soon get to the point where
you no longer need to take this epistle seriously.
| [reply] |
Re: Psychological 'warfare'?
by Anonymous Monk on Jun 12, 2012 at 08:56 UTC
|
I diagree -- there is not enough time in the day to go dissecting every nonsense code offered when solutions are already provided
so you're grumpy, that is no cause for laughably ridiculous suggestions
downvote the offending node and move on with your life
| [reply] |
|
|
| [reply] |
|
|
Update: you can downvote everything I do, but I'll just remind you of if statement confusion.
Well, obviously you were talking about a different situation than me. The situation I remembered was I post an answer, a complete solution, and someone shows up later with irrelevant junk that doesn't compile -- there no point in even discussing that junk, I'll point out that its junk , point out my solution, and I move on -- no point in discussing or dissecting all the things wrong with the junk
Now back to Re^3: if statement confusion where you accuse blackstar of being a sockpuppet, just whose sockpuppet do you think blackstar is?
His writing style isn't reminiscent of the other players in that thread , but his reappearance could be seen as suspicious
I doubt the original account holder actually posted or was a sockpuppet -- I suppose the account could have been hacked ( It's Time for Everyone to Change Passwords! ) but I don't really know the odds of that happening, the gods would have a better idea
| [reply] |
Re: Psychological 'warfare'?
by Argel (Prior) on Jun 14, 2012 at 00:05 UTC
|
Geezus, I hop in today after being absent a few days and it looks like some wannabe bad ass teenage 80s punks with pink mohawks are attempting to look cool at streetgang warfare. Pathetic doesn't even cover it.
So lets see. Our infamous, Monk sundialsvc4 makes another over the top, eccentric post like he typically does in if statement confusion. Was his post so egregious that it was really worth derailing a thread over?? Do Not Feed the Trolls!!! comes to mind, regardless of whether sundialsvc4 is troll or not (I prefer to go with eccentric myself).
And then to top it off, stevieb goes all [alleged] defamation of character on poor fellow monk blackstarr for reasons only someone who has been slipped a Mickey Finn could understand.
Like I said, pathetic does not even cover it. Imagine yourself back in college, kicking back with friends, having fun, while getting some studying done. THAT imo is the kind of vibe we should be aiming for.
| [reply] |
|
|
I am very sorry for the derogatory comments I made in general, and especially for those where I may have singled people out.
It is not my typical character to do so, and it is apparent to me that I brought some external life frustrations into my post here on PerlMonks.
Thank you for pointing out the err in my way. I will take this to heart so that I ensure it doesn't happen again.
Steve
| [reply] |
|
|
Ah!! There we are!! The real steveb! Glad to see you have returned! (^_^)
| [reply] |