The point of the jab was really the "mindless" part. You seem to supported "considered non-voting" but insist that voting be a mindless, simplistic calculation based solely on node content. I strongly disagree.

If I voted strictly and enclusively on node content then I'd only be allowed to vote on the very best nodes which means that 90% of the monks would never get any of my votes.

I don't know where you got this moral stance but suspect it stems from some misguided overextension of "voting based solely on the author is bad". I agree with that quote where you can replace "author" with just about anyhing but "content". But, for most values of "X", I strongly disagree with "taking X into consideration when voting is bad".

I may disagree with the community's overall assessment, but I'm willing to accept the fact that the tribe has spoken.

I think you are demonstrating a logical fallacy here. The "tribe" can't "speak" and the rep doesn't represent the community's overall assessment. The rep mostly (currently) represents how quickly the reply was posted and how easy the node was to understand! Why should I respect such a value??

I think taking global information into consideration when voting is a good thing. It doesn't make my vote unfair unless you think rep being mostly based on speed and simplicity is fair. It isn't the case that speed and simplicity became the biggest rep determiners due to most monks valuing them over all other virtues. They have the biggest influence on rep due to quirks in the voting system and in the node presentation system.

So I'm bucking the quirks in the system for the benefit of having the reps be more useful (and so that I feel good about the way I voted). Sure, the reps aren't extremely useful, but I you want to argue that I shouldn't "play games" (come on, voting at all is more "a game" than anything else) because the reps aren't important, then lets just throw out voting altogether!