|
in reply to Re^3: We should elminate: Anonymous, and DOWN-voting
in thread We should elminate: Anonymous, and DOWN-voting
If your goal is to have people not judge quickly, shouldn't the same risk be entailed to *any* vote, whether it's a down-vote or an up-vote?
How about this: all votes you make are public. Anyone can challenge your vote in the 24 hours following your vote. Once your vote has been challenged, you got 24 hours to write down the motivation behind it. People get to vote on that. If that doesn't attract enough up votes more than it has down votes, you lose. The first time you lose, you lose all your XP (and become leve 1 again). The second time you lose, you lose your posting rights for a year. The third time, Vroom comes over, pulls out your nails, kills your dog, sets your house on fire, slashes the tires from your truck, and sells your kids into slavery.
That ought to stop voting. So no more down votes. |
Re^5: We should elminate: Anonymous, and DOWN-voting
by Anonymous Monk on Dec 04, 2011 at 11:15 UTC
|
I don't see any point in risks being applied to up-votes, they are merely an extension of the principle of free association and mutual collaboration, down-votes of course being the exact opposite of that. | [reply] |
|
|
I don't see any point in risks being applied to up-votes, they are merely an extension of the principle of free association and mutual collaboration, down-votes of course being the exact opposite of that.
Typical *****nist propaganda
| [reply] |
Re^5: We should elminate: Anonymous, and DOWN-voting
by TJPride (Pilgrim) on Dec 04, 2011 at 12:16 UTC
|
I don't know about going that far, but it would be nice to be able to see people's voting history. I'm not a big fan of anonymous hotlines in real life, and I'm not a fan of people downvoting anonymously because their precious egos got hurt. For that matter, upvoting crap posts just because people are lazy and want their daily points without spending any time thinking about it is a big problem here too. I've seen totally horrible code that doesn't even work get a positive rating, or one-line posts at the start of a thread get higher ratings than posts a little further down with a full, well-coded solution that probably took 20-30 minutes to work out.
People's votes should be visible, you should have to type in a short reason as to why you're making your vote, and if the site mods downvote a post, anyone who upvoted that post should lose a point. Site mod vote display would of course be delayed several days, as would the loss of points, so people can't just see which way the wind is blowing and switch votes. This would make some people think a lot more carefully before they downvote or upvote. | [reply] |
|
|
It is the essence of democratic and free voting that it is done only subject to your own conscience and that you never ever have to give a reason why you did it.
CountZero A program should be light and agile, its subroutines connected like a string of pearls. The spirit and intent of the program should be retained throughout. There should be neither too little or too much, neither needless loops nor useless variables, neither lack of structure nor overwhelming rigidity." - The Tao of Programming, 4.1 - Geoffrey James
| [reply] |
|
|
It is the essence of democratic and free voting that it is done only subject to your own conscience and that you never ever have to give a reason why you did it.
Perlmonks is not a democracy.
| [reply] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In real-life democratic voting, there's generally a pool of at least tens of thousands of other voters, and each one only has ONE vote to cast. The damage that any single person can do if he pointlessly or maliciously places his vote is minimal. Here, the pool of voters at any given time is maybe a few dozen, and if someone really hates your guts, he can have a significant impact on your overall rating. I don't think the comparison is terribly valid. In a democratic system, you also have a right to face your accuser.
| [reply] |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
I like that, at least then the person receiving the negative feedback has something to go on instead of having to guess as to the reason for the down-vote. The given reason itself can then become a discussion point. For instance if someone was down-voting a comment because they felt that the theory expressed in the comment cannot possibly work, then when they say that is the case they can be called to explain their position and provide evidence for it, or have their objection refuted. That way everyone can learn from the process.
| [reply] |
|
|
No no it's far easier and more convenient to just click and move along without giving any justification, if someone is too stupid to figure where they are going wrong then maybe the shouldn't be a programmer at all. This isn't a support group it's a game / battle ground where the winner takes all.
| [reply] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
