There's much more people in sin here ...

[Chicken]

This node falls below the community's threshold of quality. You may see it by logging in.

[coreolyn]

I'm against this one, as I, for one don't seem to be as prone to making enemies, so haven't had to deal with this phenomenom. Secondly, I get a lot of XP from old nodes that go way back and that I'd least expect to see XP from... Not that XP matters but.......:)

coreolyn

[ignatz]

It's Perlmonks, not XPmonks. Focus on Perl.

()-()
 \"/
  `                                                     

[lachoy]

Rather than creating a system with more and more elaborate schemes for ensuring that nobody's feelings get hurt around a measurement (XP) with no meaning, wouldn't we be better served if person A in your example thought the better of calling someone wrong and stupid?

Chris
M-x auto-bs-mode

[metadatum]

IMHO, you worry too much about XP, Chicken, and not enough about Perl and this community.... Why not make some positive comments, learn some perl, or help others out?

[chromatic]

If you believe you are the victim of a downvoting campaign, especially by a bot, please send a message to one of the gods. We will look into it and take the appropriate action. (Be prepared for that action to be telling you to find something more important to worry about.)

[atcroft]

I'll go at these a little out of order, so pray excuse me, but it makes organizing my thoughts a little easier.

From my limited understanding of node XP, it does not make sense for a user to have the ability to, as you suggest, '"lock" it's [sic] node, thus making it's current XP unchangeable'-the whole point of a node's value is supposed to be how useful or not someone finds that node. As to the facility to force a message (/msg) from the downvoter to the downvotee, truly they should comment why they are doing so anyway, either in private via /msg or in public by a posting in response to the node.

I disagree somewhat with your title premise. In the context of the Monastery, definitions 1 and 3 of the third entry for the word sin at dictionary.com seem the most appropriate (to wit, a transgression of moral/religious law, especially if deliberate, or something shameful/deplorable/utterly wrong). I'll grant that personality voting is perhaps immature and should be avoided, but then again, I consider this over-fascination with XP and the extremes to which people try to preserve it to be slightly immature as well. I would reserve the term "sin" to be more like doing something that is a known wrong, such as intentionally writing insecure scripts or such without just cause.

<soapbox>At the moment, I have been here for about 1yr 4mo. In that time, I have seen numerous postings about people whining and complaining about the XP system. I have, sadly, even stooped to responding before. XP is like bogomips-a made-up value, which should only be used as a relative indicator of how appropriate and useful that particular contribution is, and if it is low or negative, maybe you should look at how your suggestions compared to that of others on that topic, and see if there is a way to improve yourself or the way you presented yourself for the next time. Point is, you can't legislate or force people to be mature-they must learn to do that on their own, and personality voting many times may show that lack. So, as the Eagles song goes, "Get over it."</soapbox>

[trs80]

In these Monastery walls there is no 'sin', sin implies a belief in a religion or a true right and wrong.
The Monastery is a place of public consumption where some people chose to respect others and treat them with some level of reserve so as not to anger or instigate a negative reaction. While some choose to always respond or use what may seem to the majority as a negative tone, that is still left to personal preference.

It takes a small person to ridicule or constantly evoke negative emotions, but it takes an even smaller person to allow them to succeed.

[Anonymous Monk]

Hmm, well in cases like yours, I usually pick 1 user in which to give XP. In this case it is Chicken or Courage, as you freely admit, and I choose Courage to give the XP too, including Chicken's XP. I find this fair enough becuse I typically only vote on Courage's small, not so signifigant nodes, when distributing Chicken's XP. I personally think Chicken is a troll account and should be classed as such. I also think you should read the rules regarding duplicate accounts again.

And the reason this is "Anony Monk" is because I don't really think this thread is worthy of any votes, negative or positive, and this is the easiest way to say "Don't vote here"

[Anonymous Monk]

Why do humans like to obsess over attempting to get meaningless numbers as high as possible? This isn't the only place it happens, either. A lot of people are obsessed with their characters levels in Everquest, their /. karma, their Linux uptime, etc. In fact, back when I used IRC, someone had a script that would add or subtract "smileys" from someone specified by the owner (so it would say things like "Added 35 smileys to SomeGuy. SomeGuy now has 108 smileys in total"), and one time when someone's smiley count got into the negatives they started making death threats against the script owner. I am not making this up.

Don't obsess over XP. Besides, posting about it is a sure way to get it even lower.

[valdez]

There will always be some problems, like in many things that involve people with their liberty of doing something; so locking nodes doesn't seem a solution to me.

May be it would be helpful to know the reason of a vote, just to be informed and LEARN from my errors. I really appreciated people who told me why they wanted to downvote what I wrote.

Finally, I understand XP listed in our homenodes, but what is the meaning of Reputation, if you can't see reputation of nodes that you didn't vote on?

Ciao, Valerio

[demerphq]

This sounds great.

I look forward to discussing your patch on pmdev very soon now.

Yves / DeMerphq
---
Writing a good benchmark isnt as easy as it might look.

[ehdonhon]

Well a couple dozen people have already told you not to worry about XP, so I'm not going to go down that lane...

Here's a more tempered solution, but I doubt that it will happen: What if the current XP formulas were modified to take the age of the node in to consideration. For example, once a node is a week old, multiply the odds of a vote causing an XP change by 0.5. Once a node is a month old, multiply the odds by 0.25, etc...

I really like the way that I can do a search for an old topic and upvote an old node if it turns out to be useful to me, and I wouldn't want that taken away. But I also agree that most of the voting on old nodes is probably not happening for valid reasons.

It isn't that important, really. But if we had a simple solution that didn't represent a major change to things as they are now, I guess that would be good.