|
Re: Anonymous Monk comment(s) on questions
by chacham (Prior) on May 24, 2017 at 20:29 UTC
|
Constraining is not usually the best method to move forward. Indeed, it rarely works, and even when it does, something else is usually found to do the same thing again. Personally, i think that having almost all such comments under the same username keeps it to some extent contained.
To combat this, we have Nodes To Consider. The situation may not be perfect, but it does seem to work well enough.
| [reply] |
|
|
Hello chacham,
I had no clue about (Nodes to consider), thanks for the tip.
Well constraining maybe not be the answer, and at the end if the nodes are reaped it kind of make sense not constrain the Anonymous Monk.
Maybe I was thinking too aggressively.
Seeking for Perl wisdom...on the process of learning...not there...yet!
| [reply]
[d/l]
[select] |
Re: Anonymous Monk comment(s) on questions
by Discipulus (Canon) on May 25, 2017 at 08:28 UTC
|
Hello thanos1983,
to costrain it is no good; freedom to express himself anonymously is a sign of civility in PM.
Also many anonymous comments are precious and technically neat and many monks post anonymously for years before creating an account.
I'd prefere a way to distinguish visually bad content from good one as proposed in Re: Let's Make PerlMonks Great Again! -- font size
L*
There are no rules, there are no thumbs..
Reinvent the wheel, then learn The Wheel; may be one day you reinvent one of THE WHEELS.
| [reply]
[d/l] |
|
|
Hello Discipulus,
I agree with you, I have noticed that many monks post an answer anonymously and also this is an open forum and people should express their opinion even if some people just spend time to comment in an insulting way the OP.
On top of that, I was thinking that by restraining the Anonymous Monk on commenting on questions, how he/she would comment on his own question. I mean let's assume that Anonymous Monk is asking a question and there are some replies but yet he/she is not clear about the answer, how he/she would be able to comment after?
So I think my idea is not applicable for many reasons. A better approach would be as you suggested to use key words to detect malware comments.
Seeking for Perl wisdom...on the process of learning...not there...yet!
| [reply]
[d/l]
[select] |
Re: Anonymous Monk comment(s) on questions
by marinersk (Priest) on May 25, 2017 at 15:26 UTC
|
Constraint is not in keeping with the spirit of the Monastery; that's been covered well enough.
The comments to which you refer are also, in my humble but arrogant opinion, not particularly well-aligned with the spirit of the Monastery, either; each one of those reminds me of jeffa as he was losing his marbles and maturity a little ways back.
However, censorship carried too far is also not in the spirit of the Monastery; the usual approach by most experienced Monks in most of these situations seems to be to quietly tolerate and ignore the trolls.
I took a heavier hand during jeffa's diarrhetic explosion, and apparently many Monks agreed because many of those nodes got downvoted, considered, and, if memory serves, reaped. But it felt out of place in the Monastery, and even jeffa himself questioned whether Perlmonks had become intolerant of opinion. It was a ludicrous example, but a valid question, and I later resolved to return to the policy of simply ignoring the troll.
I do find value in seeing the question addressed by the more senior Monks, if they'd care to take the time. Do we want to "police" the unfriendly and unhelpful nodes, or is ignoring them still in the best interests of the Monastery from their perspective?
| [reply] |
|
|
Hello marinersk
A long version of my reply would include an analysis which persons are causing the damage and speculating about their motivation beyond just trolling.
And I would talk about how the senior monks are underestimating the damage° because they don't see the "juniors" who silently avoid the monastery.*
The short version is that we have good mechanisms to handle named users, which fail with Anonymous Monks who "lost their marbles".
Hence I'd say some restrictions on censorship should be lifted in the case of AM , because realistically a real account would have been blocked or ignored already.
One possibility could be allowing janitors to reap AM immediately, another lowering the threshold° for automatic reaps of AM, or a combination of both.
I also like the idea from Discipulus of a quality feed back by signaling the level of negative votes
Because a newbee might think otherwise this rude reply he got is normal and accepted here.
Instead of shrinking the font one could also grey it out successively.
In any case this must be well discussed , because any change of rules might ruin the game or open new exploits.
In the end it's a social not a technical problem...
My 2 cents. :)
°) See also
*) IMHO bad experience outweighs good memories by factor 100
| [reply] |
Re: Anonymous Monk comment(s) on questions
by Anonymous Monk on May 25, 2017 at 19:17 UTC
|
Personally, I think AM opens up interesting modalities for having conversation, not to mention the lowered participation threshold this site absolutely needs.
There's the node for "I think there should be a section". Where is the equivalent page for "We should loboto/circum/whatever-ize the AM"?
| [reply] |
|
|
I submitted a request to the SiteDocClan for exactly this in March of 2013. However, no SDC member has bothered to take on the task. I could do it myself, obviously, but I don't want to be a work hog. Some of the other SDC members are going to have to step up.
I reckon we are the only monastery ever to have a dungeon stuffed with 16 ,000 zombies.
| [reply] |
|
|
Well, why don't you compose it?
| [reply] |
| A reply falls below the community's threshold of quality. You may see it by logging in. |
| A reply falls below the community's threshold of quality. You may see it by logging in. |
