I agree in the sense that we don't want to mold people into "me too" voting. But I can see virtue in encouraging people to be a little more considered in their voting. I suspect the up votes marto was highlighting were just fly by voting to use up today's quota and garner whatever XP might be available in doing so. I guess most of us have done that at times, but the quality of the site is much improved if people are encouraged take a little more time to read and understand nodes before voting. It kind of goes hand in hand with writing good questions and good answers.

But I can see virtue in encouraging people to be a little more considered in their voting

At that point I realized that I had no idea what the perlmonks rules (regarding voting) actually are.
Are there any ? If so, where ? (I should probably read them ;-)

I had assumed that we were free to vote as we liked - for whatever reason, or even without any reason whatsoever.
I do recall seeing something about losing some XP if one persistently downvoted a specific monk (or specific monks).
However, things that I've seen in the last few days lead to me deduce that repeated down voting of Anonymous Monk will incur no such penalty ??
And that is about the sum of my knowledge on this matter .... sad, but true.

Cheers,
Rob

PerlMonks FAQ->Voting, Reputation, Experience, and Levels.

Actual shaming isn't possible with secret voting, so...

Actual shaming isn't possible with secret voting, so...

That is not so - though I will concede that shaming would more effectively drive people away from this forum if voting was not secret.
Those 2 people would know who they are - and, if they read marto's post, they would be well aware that they were being told that they should feel shame for having voted the way that they did.
They would, of course, know that marto did not know the identity of the people he was belittling - but they would also be well aware of the fact that they were being nonetheless belittled.

I don't think people should be driven away simply because some of us don't like the way they hand out their votes.

Cheers,
Rob

To belittle is to dismiss as unimportant, precisely the opposite of my complaint. I maintain that anyone up voting this toxic behaviour is both driving away (or worse) new and established users of this forum, as well as acting in bad faith in the established spirit of the community, which I believe to be important. Both of which behaviours IMHO (I in no way speak for the site) is shameful.

I agree with syphilis 100%

Additionally, the pattern of +3/-16 votes is healthy and in par with reality. How many of us worked under or alongside people who were consistently suggesting or dictating similar non-sensical rubbish? I wish the ratio was only 3:16 (15%) - at least with such ratio the anonymous author has no chance to ever be voted in for public office, hehehe chlorinated covfefe anyone?

It's not all black and white in the real world. And a 3:16 greyness is IMO a very good adequate and realistic achievement.

In the meantime there was a 3rd positive vote since yesterday, defying all the "shaming" comments and warnings about the message's zero-value content. How do you explain that? Here is my explanation: Tom Waits on BBC TV sometimes in the 80's with a subserviant Ian Hislop:

Ian: 'You're over her [in England] to plug your new album aren't you?'
Tom: [mumbling] 'That's right, I am over here to promote some new work, and ... [mumble,mumble]...'

Ian: [interrupts in a determinedly jovial way] 'Perhaps you'd like to plug it a bit louder?'
Tom: [Stops talking and looks at Ian] '...Hm?'

Ian: 'Our microphones are having trouble picking you up-perhaps you'd like to plug it a bit louder?'
Tom: [Looks at Ian, wide-eyed...looks at other guests...looks at camera crew... looks at Ian...looks at camera crew...looks at Ian...long embarassing silence...] 'I'll plug it in my OWN damn way'...

bw, bliako

P.S. It's a pity that this thread under a reaped note will be lost forever(?)

P.S2 Need to know how to include square brackets in HTML text! is wrong. & # 092; is not the closing square bracket.