Isn't a gratuitous ad hominem attack "bad?"
It is. But who can objectively judge that a certain node poses a gratuitous ad hominem attack?
And, far more to the point, if a node shows no effort and flies in the face of Monastery guidance, isn't it reasonable to adjudge that node "bad?'
It probably is, but people might still find the replies it spawns very useful, and thus think that the original node still deserves an upvote.
Even if something falls obviously into one category, for somebody from a completely different cultural background it might be not the case.
I agree that it would be nice to have some guidance on how to decide what to vote up or down (or if to vote at all). But we should be very clear that it's only guidance, not rules.