in reply to Re^6: RFC: Better Best Answers
in thread RFC: Better Best Answers

Some good ideas for consideration. Thank you.

Why is the opinion of someone...

I see your point; the only argument I can make, which is the conventional one, is that we'd like to reserve extraordinary site-related privileges to those who have clearly demonstrated commitment to and investment in the site.

Your proposal boils down to exactly one simple change: Don't limit the number of times a monk can vote on a node to two. I agree that this isn't such an extraordinary privilege, and thus wouldn't think it would need to be so restricted.

(Updated per response)

I reckon we are the only monastery ever to have a dungeon stuffed with 16,000 zombies.

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^8: RFC: Better Best Answers
by BrowserUk (Patriarch) on Sep 15, 2016 at 12:45 UTC
    Your proposal boils down to exactly one simple change: Don't limit the number of times a monk can vote on a node.

    Not quite. I would limit it to 2 per node, otherwise the 'spend all my votes on the nodes on the front-page" crowd will become "spend all my votes on the first node on the front page" people.

    With the rise and rise of 'Social' network sites: 'Computers are making people easier to use everyday'
    Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error.
    "Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority". I knew I was on the right track :)
    In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice.
[reply]

In Section Perl Monks Discussion