:> Do we read before we vote?

To quote the great Steve Martin, "Well, Excuuuuuuuuuuuuse me!"

PM gets Hi, I want to do something that's really really easy to do with technology X, but without using technology X type questions all the time. If someone gives a really good reason to use technology X, than I'm gonna upvote him just for being helpful. All in all, it looks like a pretty good node do me. Lots of different ideas with a Merlyn column to wrap it up in a nice pretty bow.

BTW, if you really want to loose xp, you should check out thepen's node. I use it every now and then when I'm feeling the need for some monkly ritualistic self-flagulation.

update Just deducted 5 xp for misspelling self-flaggelation, as pointed out by Brother VSarkiss. OW!!!

()-()
 \"/
  `

Comment on :> Do we read before we vote?

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re: : Do we read before we vote? by TGI (Parson) on Jun 13, 2002 at 21:30 UTC
I don't have a problem with Avoiding a second click. I don't have a problem with the bad advice that was posted in response. I was quite pleased with the good advice that it also generated. I have a problem with the reputation value of the bad advice in comparison with the reputation of the good advice. I actually upvoted the original node, because it lead to some novel and interesting points being made. This just makes me worried that the moderation system may be breaking down. Look at how Slashdot had to keep tweaking it moderation system. I think I'll go post a meditation about Natalie Portman. TGI says moo	[reply]
:>:>:> Do we read before we vote? by ignatz (Vicar) on Jun 13, 2002 at 22:46 UTC
Funny, the person who made the original post found gav^'s advice very useful. If you think the advice is bad, don't scream about how the sky is falling, reply to the thread showing us all why and how you would do it better. It's real easy to slam someone else's work. It's a lot harder to contribute something of value. ()-() \"/ `	[reply]
Re: ::: Do we read before we vote? by TGI (Parson) on Jun 13, 2002 at 23:33 UTC
I'm sorry if I have offended you. Posting another reply would have been redundant, as I didn't have anything to offer that hadn't already been said. I don't think gav^ is a bad person, a bad programmer or a bad monk. I do think that he posted hastily, and that that particular node was of poor quality. You obviously disagree, which is your right, and is reasonable considering the poster's response to gav^'s post. I think it is important for a community's members to question the way their community operates. I think vroom does to, otherwise we wouldn't have a special place for these discussions. In retrospect, my post came off a little too preachy and didactic. A more carefully reasoned post, that offered my thoughts on the moderation system and explained my ideas on how it might be improved would have been preferable. I have posted bad nodes before, and unless I drop dead in the very near future, I will do so again. I expect to get downvoted for every one. Honestly, I'd be somewhat flattered if I were to stir someone to post a Meditation or PM Discussion regarding my faux pax. Maybe I'm a closeted troll. Despite my (possible) internal monster, I try to keep my posts here at least constructive, if not positive.	[reply]