Re: Thoughtless voting?

[wjw]

I think value is in the eye of the beholder. Any given node may be helpful to me simply for having mentioned something which reminds me of something else, which I subsequently find useful, and so I up-vote the node.

I find some old nodes very helpful, and up-vote them at the point I find them.

Occasionally, I will up-vote a node or nodes, not because I find it helpful, but because the dialog reflects the helpful nature I often find here.

On a very rare occasion I will down-vote a node simply because the snide tone of the node is out of proportion with the ignorance displayed in the question asked, or the opinion expressed.

I have been granted some bit of influence in the form of XP which I feel it is my responsibility to use as I see fit for the benefit of this community. If the current system is detrimental to the community, I would be in favor of changing it. If the only detriment is that some folks get a lot of XP when others feel they should not, that is not in my view a detriment to the community.

XP is really not the point here as far as I am concerned. Do I pursue XP? Yes. Why? Because having gained it means I contributed something. If it means something else to someone else, so be it. I certainly don't get better help from those with exceptionally high XP or rank than I do from anyone else. In fact, I never check anyones rank; I simply don't care.

The above is a collection of thoughts, in no particular order, on the subject of XP. Reading back through them, I would summarize by saying that any system can be gamed by those who want to game a system, and therefor said systems will be gamed. Invariably, those who game the system accomplish only and exactly that; having gamed the system. Again, who cares? It is not like one can go to the bank and deposit XP and gain interest on it.

Update

...having read through the discussions, I find it encouraging that:

• The subject is being discussed
• There are guidelines on voting
• The guidelines are exactly that, guidelines; and therefore, like Perl itself, enforced by convention(which is reinforced by discussion like is being done here) as compared to strict type casting, grammar, syntax etc...(TMTOWTDI)
• the discourse is thoughtful and concerned with the health of the community

It seems clear to me that this site and the community it is a window to has what I consider to be a true democracy based on a meritocracy. What is at question is the the means by which merit is granted(or removed). That will always be questioned, and should be. Doing so shows respect for the democratic nature of the site and the community(no goofy middlemen here playing on a representative republic and watering down the strength of the individual vote).

I appreciate that fact that one can do a disagreeable job of voting; and I appreciate the fact that someone can disagree with how one votes, what one votes for etc... .

It is interesting to me that the bulk of the responses to the original post have been protective of the right to vote as one sees fit(including mine). At the same time, the original <rant> is concerned with the impact of exercising that right in a haphazard or manipulative way. Several suggestion were offered as possible ways to mitigate that impact, which in my view, makes it not-so-much a rant, but a considered concern(thus my up-vote).

My thought is that it is damn good that such <rant>s are brought forth and resulting dialog pursued. Therein lies the merit of a healthy community of healthy community members(ie, diverse).

++that!(and donate the XP to charity, or better yet, a buy barrel of beer for the Monastary) :-)