Beefy Boxes and Bandwidth Generously Provided by pair Networks
Perl: the Markov chain saw
 
PerlMonks  

unequal treatment

by daxim (Curate)
on Oct 26, 2019 at 08:33 UTC ( #11107977=monkdiscuss: print w/replies, xml ) Need Help??

Time line:
  1. jdporter posts an indignity directed at me.
  2. I retaliate in kind.
  3. marto sends me a message my post was deleted.
  4. I message marto whether he's going to delete the originating post.
  5. He replies with a suggestion to "flag it appropriately".
  6. I submit the originating post for deletion.
  7. My submission is deleted.
I will not suffer this injustice. Either restore my post or delete jdporter's.

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re: unequal treatment
by marto (Archbishop) on Oct 26, 2019 at 11:03 UTC

    3. marto sends me a message my post was deleted.
    4. I message marto whether he's going to delete the originating post.
    5. He replies with a suggestion to "flag it appropriately".

    I considered your node, which was just abuse, the system itself sends a message if reaped, not me. You replied asking "and you're not going to delete the flamebait parent?". Firstly nodes don't get 'deleted' via this mechanism, simply hidden behind another click, with the moderation reason displayed beforehand. I asked if you have flagged it, at the time you hadn't. Flagging such nodes or just ignoring posts/users you consider to be trolling is a better approach than an abusive response. You've been here a long time, I'm surprised you'r not familiar with this common approach here.

Re: unequal treatment
by haukex (Bishop) on Oct 26, 2019 at 09:18 UTC
Re: unequal treatment
by Corion (Pope) on Oct 26, 2019 at 08:47 UTC

    Your perception of "in kind" is certainly not what I would consider "in kind". It looks to me much more directed at the other person.

    I don't find jdporters original reply that eloquent, but it certainly is not a direct insult. I consider your post a direct insult.

    Your consideration of the post did not contain an action (edit or delete). I don't see who closed the consideration and when, but if a consideration receives enough "keep" votes, it gets removed from the node.

    I think a better way forward would be for jdporter to edit his post and direct it towards a more constructive critique of your original post. For example, I could see that suggesting to introduce an unapproved machine into a network is not really sound advice to somebody who wants to keep being gainfully employed.

      I don't see who closed the consideration and when, but if a consideration receives enough "keep" votes, it gets removed from the node.

      I did, earlier today. I don’t remember the exact tally, but I think the node had 6 “keep” votes, well above the 2 required to prevent reaping.

      daxim: I’m sorry my action caused you offence. But the Consideration votes were such that the node could not be reaped under the guidelines, so I saw no point in leaving the node in Nodes to Consider.

      I hope you understand that this is all standard procedure; also, that jdporter was not involved in the process.

      Update: Please see What is Reaping?

      Cheers,

      Athanasius <°(((><contra mundum Iustus alius egestas vitae, eros Piratica,

Re: unequal treatment
by LanX (Cardinal) on Oct 26, 2019 at 09:21 UTC
    Relax, your reply is still there; it's only one click further away.

    Isn't it LOL? ;)

    Cheers Rolf
    (addicted to the Perl Programming Language :)
    Wikisyntax for the Monastery FootballPerl is like chess, only without the dice

Re: unequal treatment
by trippledubs (Deacon) on Oct 27, 2019 at 04:36 UTC
    1. jdporter laughs at daxim's suggestion to just change the policy
    2. daxim personally attacks jdporter against policy
    3. daxim's post is reaped per policy
    4. daxim makes effort to just change the policy, asserts unequal treatment
    5. policy upheld

    There is an undeniable consistency here

      > 1. jdporter laughs at daxim's suggestion to just change the policy

      Daxim didn't suggest a change of the board's policy.

      No need to add fuel to the fire.

      Cheers Rolf
      (addicted to the Perl Programming Language :)
      Wikisyntax for the Monastery FootballPerl is like chess, only without the dice

        Daxim didn't suggest a change of the board's policy.

        he kind of did -> Either restore my post or delete jdporter's.

        Which of those two options is consistent with policy?

        I didn't mean to add "fuel to the fire", just pointing out that daxim proved jdporter's original point.

        It's no big deal.

        Updated

Re: unequal treatment
by Anonymous Monk on Oct 26, 2019 at 10:57 UTC

Log In?
Username:
Password:

What's my password?
Create A New User
Node Status?
node history
Node Type: monkdiscuss [id://11107977]
Approved by LanX
help
Chatterbox?
and the web crawler heard nothing...

How do I use this? | Other CB clients
Other Users?
Others chanting in the Monastery: (4)
As of 2020-08-11 07:04 GMT
Sections?
Information?
Find Nodes?
Leftovers?
    Voting Booth?
    Which rocket would you take to Mars?










    Results (58 votes). Check out past polls.

    Notices?