in reply to Re: Self-actualization considered harmful (no more "self front-paging/approving")
in thread Self-actualization considered harmful (no more "self front-paging/approving")

I think removing the ability to approve it is silly

I really need to disagree with this. I have rarely approved my own nodes (my feeling on that is closely aligned with tye's statment on blind spots), I have never this felt this behaviour was silly or even inconvienent. In the few cases of that I did approve my own nodes I always had another monk (unfortunately it's usually Ovid) I trust (cough) read it before I approved.

My thinking is: I should be more concerned about the quality of my post (going into posterity) than my convienence of the moment



grep
Just me, the boy and these two monks, no questions asked.
  • Comment on Re: Re: Self-actualization considered harmful (no more "self front-paging/approving")

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re:(3) Self-actualization considered harmful (no more "self front-paging/approving")
by shotgunefx (Parson) on Jun 14, 2002 at 16:42 UTC
    Well I'd have to disagree. In my experience in this community, almost any Perl question, no matter how simple or plain out wrong is almost certainly approved so I'm not sure what this step buys.

    Most monks know by the time the reach the higher levels a bit about what's appropriate. It doesn't keep out trolls because they can still respond to any approved node. The only thing I can see that it does is keep Anonymous Monk from posting flamebait root nodes. And if someone really wants to, the can make an alternate nic that's level(5) or higher pretty quickly so it doesn't stop the XP whores.

    I really don't think it's that big of a deal. I guess I find it a little vexing in principle. I answer questions at least 10 times more than I ask them so I guess it just bugs me that I have to raise my hand before I speak.

    -Lee

    "To be civilized is to deny one's nature."
[reply]

In Section Perl Monks Discussion