Beefy Boxes and Bandwidth Generously Provided by pair Networks
Perl-Sensitive Sunglasses
 
PerlMonks  

Re: Anonymous Monk comment(s) on questions

by marinersk (Priest)
on May 25, 2017 at 15:26 UTC ( #1191223=note: print w/replies, xml ) Need Help??


in reply to Anonymous Monk comment(s) on questions

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?

  • Comment on Re: Anonymous Monk comment(s) on questions

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^2: Anonymous Monk comment(s) on questions
by LanX (Archbishop) on May 25, 2017 at 16:12 UTC
    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. :)

    Cheers Rolf
    (addicted to the Perl Programming Language and ☆☆☆☆ :)
    Je suis Charlie!

    °) See also

    *) IMHO bad experience outweighs good memories by factor 100

Log In?
Username:
Password:

What's my password?
Create A New User
Node Status?
node history
Node Type: note [id://1191223]
help
Chatterbox?
and the web crawler heard nothing...

How do I use this? | Other CB clients
Other Users?
Others lurking in the Monastery: (2)
As of 2020-01-18 12:22 GMT
Sections?
Information?
Find Nodes?
Leftovers?
    Voting Booth?
    Notices?