There's a common saying around the Monastery: "Judge what is said, not who is saying it". As a general guideline that is a very sound piece of advice. And as an absolute rule to be applied in all circumstances, it fails as miserably as any other rule does when applied indiscriminantly with an absence of common sense.
Node Re^5: The Evil Embedded Space is an example of what this node is talking about. Regardless of what the topic is ("Judge what is said, not who is saying it", right?) the people voting against deletion are making a clear statement about where their heads are at concerning the well-being of the Monastery: "if we don't agree with someone, mob action -- hiding behind one guy who is wearing a mask -- is what we want." Needless to say, it was truly despicable when the Klu Klux Klan did it, and it's despicable here.
When the "speaking" that is being considered is a personal attack - a critical challenge not of a person's statements but of their personality, self-ness, general conduct or character, anonymous posting ought to be ruled undesirable and in contravention of common ethics. Encouraging (which voting against a "Delete" consideration is) such subject matter to be presented anonymously is irresponsible to an extreme degree. It degrades everything that Perlmonks ought to stand for. It encourages some of the worst aspects of human nature: cowardice, deceit, manipulation, scheming, slander.
By posting anonymously, the person launching an ad-hominum attack avoids damage to his own reputation through being seen as contentious or angry or vindictive, when in fact it is quite likely that personal dislike or vindictiveness are at the very root of this person's motivations for posting. It allows avoidance of the immediate effects of one's actions, which on Perlmonks might include the intangible loss of regard from one's peers, and the tangible (unfortunately) loss of XP due to downvotes accumulated by the node.
There are apparently people who want to have their cake and eat it too, who are not posters, but are administrators who determine and execute the policies for the site. Their cake is the illusion that Perlmonks is a special place, in which people can feel happy to participate and with which they are happy to identify themselves. Their cake is simultaneously a complete dismissal of any responsibility for discerning when reality has intruded on the Monastery, in the form of ubiquitous, universal aspects of human nature. In the reality of human nature, people are vindicative. They hold grudges. They occasionally meet another person and form an instant aversion to that person (this is "chemical", some say -- meaning it isn't susceptible to rational explanation, in other words; it just happens) -- online as well as "IRL".
On the occasion of jotting down these thoughts, I've been given the unavoidable impression that all these are common delusions adhered to by some members of the Perlmonks community. This delusion that human nature doesn't exist in Perlmonks is, of course, blatantly absurd: any dis(not UN)interested party reading this must think I am talking about mental midgets of the most extreme degree, or the defective inhabitants of an asylum somewhere. Yet Perlmonks think themselves an excellent lot, better than average by far, damn right, and are commonly heard poking fun at "pointy- haired bosses" and "those people over in marketing".
So if Monks are subject to human flaws, negative mental modes like vindictiveness and grudge-holding and scheming to undermine others, that must mean that the Monastery is a pretty awful place? I don't find it so, but I think the awareness of others on this ethical level is in a sad state, and eventually collective karma may come back on the place with some answer that will cause widespread dismay among those who have kept their heads down in the sand and made passive-aggression their primary strategy for getting by here. I believe in karma: that there is a mechanism of causality in life that is impersonal and dispassionate and makes sure that the actions of any person that unjustly cause harm and unhappiness to others based on low modes of mental being come back on the person 10, 100, or 1000 -fold.
I'm here to remind Monks who think that the Monastery is a Utopia, that it is not. It's a Dystopia. It may be partly make-believe by collective consent (or consent / preference of a majority) but it still exists in the Universe as a community where people play out their embedded karmic patterns and commit acts with negative moral content as well as acts with positive impact. The numbers of people who will say "I don't take Perlmonks seriously" seems to be larger than one expects given the amount of time some people devote to it, and one is invited by this disparity to also conjecture whether people aren't merely deluding themselves on this level as well.
In any event, anonymous posting of personal attacks ought to regarded as a
nearly-automatic cause for node deletion; any other course of policy is not
defensible on any rational level. People opposing the consideration-for-deletion
in this event ought to be considered then obligated to make the most throughgoing
defense of their reasons for doing so.
In reply to Applying Wise Guidelines Wisely by Intrepid
| For: | Use: | ||
| & | & | ||
| < | < | ||
| > | > | ||
| [ | [ | ||
| ] | ] |