note
ww
<p>I'm suspect I'm missing something about the intent of your first sentence.</p>
<p>Isn't a gratuitous ad hominem attack "bad?" And, far more to the point, if a node shows no effort <b>and</b> flies in the face of Monastery <strike>values and</strike> guidance, isn't it reasonable to adjudge that node "bad?' I'm thinking -- for example -- of nodes which ignore the site docs' mantra that one should "post code; post data" or which ignore prior requests for relevant information.</p>
<p>And while I agree wholeheartedly with your reservations about "more rules," your remark led me to doublecheck those parts of the site where we offer guidance on how to weigh casting votes.</p>
<p><b>Oops!</b></p>
<p>[Voting/Experience System] offers info on how one "earns" or obtains votes and on various technical aspects of the system, but nowhere did I find anything comparable to the [How do I use the power of consideration responsibly?|guidance we offer on considering nodes]. Perhaps we need such a guide on the value-judgement aspects of voting (and as a member of SDC, I'll take that as encouragement to draft some suggestions). Thanks!</p>
<p><b>Updated: </b> Struck ill-considered words in 2nd para.</p>
<p><b>Updated, again: </b> See [mr_mischief]'s citation of the [How should I spend my votes? -- General Voting Guidelines|guidance on voting] that I missed.</p>
885015
885037