in reply to Re: Re: Reputation for anonymous monks
in thread Reputation for anonymous monks

But that raises the issue of people casting null votes all the time...
That's good, isn't? That would mean people are interested in the reputation of a node, wouldn't it? It'll support Tye's conjecture that's node reputation is more important than monk reputation.
I personally don't see need for change.
Neither do I, but I don't see a need to defend or keep it either.

Abigail

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re: Re: Reputation for anonymous monks
by Chady (Priest) on Dec 08, 2003 at 14:34 UTC
    Neither do I, but I don't see a need to defend or keep it either.

    Looks like everyone(everyone who generalizes is a fool) most monks in the Monastery are programmed like this:

    if ($NODE->{title} =~ /new feature/) { print [ 'You already have that feature in your browser', 'You can already do that manually with X', 'The DB server is already very loaded', 'No' # I ran out of ideas ;) ]->[rand(4)]; }

    He who asks will be a fool for five minutes, but he who doesn't ask will remain a fool for life.

    Chady | http://chady.net/
      I believe you meant to write :)
      if ($NODE->{title} =~ /new feature/) { print "I like things the way they are, and your suggest does not s +eem better",$/; }

      MJD says "you can't just make shit up and expect the computer to know what you mean, retardo!"
      I run a Win32 PPM repository for perl 5.6.x and 5.8.x -- I take requests (README).
      ** The third rule of perl club is a statement of fact: pod is sexy.

        Perhaps even this:

        if ($NODE->{title} =~ /(?:XP|vote|voting|reputation)/ or $NODE->{content} =~ /(?:XP|vote|voting|reputation)/) { print "Your name has been appended to the enormous", " list of people who dislike the implementation", " of the Voting/Experience System. Perhaps one day", " the whole thing will be discarded as a horrible", " failure."; }

      Give them some credit, Eliza's code is at least slightly more complex than that ;-P