Syntactic Confectionery Delight | |
PerlMonks |
Re: On downvoting (Re: Interesting use of the chatterbox...)by Necos (Friar) |
on Apr 12, 2002 at 20:58 UTC ( [id://158672]=note: print w/replies, xml ) | Need Help?? |
In the root post, I pointed out that I was probably going to get downvoted for the node was because I was going to talk about a fairly controversial topic that I know quite a few people will disagree with. If you walk into a park and there's a sign on it that says "Anything goes," chances are that after some mishaps (theft, fights, etc.), even if the sign says no rules, that the regulars will begin to agree on a type of etiquette. In the case of my root node, I was pointing out a particular type of question, as well as how the question was asked. When I said Am I being paranoid... I was asking whether or not there was some sort of "etiquette" that had developed in the CB. According to most of the replies, the answer is no. When I wrote the After -3 rep..., there were only 3 replies or so (I think). By time I finished writing, there were a few more replies (I should note it was like 3AM or something and I was half asleep). I'm just trying to start a discussion on the "etiquette (or lack thereof)" that may have developed over time in the chatterbox. For example, in places like #perl (on IRC), CGI/Apache/WWW specific questions are frowned upon. In posting this node, I was hoping to start a interesting debate... And, from the looks of it, it somewhat backfired. Oh well... Theodore Charles III Network Administrator Los Angeles Senior High 4650 W. Olympic Blvd. Los Angeles, CA 90019 323-937-3210 ext. 224 email->secon_kun@hotmail.com perl -e "map{print++$_}split//,Mdbnr;"
In Section
Perl Monks Discussion
|
|