(kudra: multiple characters) Re: Development of the Perl Monks Code of Conduct

I'd like to have a discussion about 'multiple characters'. The topic has come up a few times, mostly in relation to downvoting, but I can't remember a discussion devoted to it.

Personally, I would rather not see multiple characters because I see this as a discussion where you shouldn't need multiple logins to express your different sides. I want to feel that I'm communicating with a person not a MUD character--although with a single login a person can, of course, present a facade. As has been mentioned other times, multiple logins come with the potential of abusing the voting system. With talk of priviledges such as document editing coming with rank, that translates into a real ability to affect the site.

Of course there would be no real way to enforce a ban on multiple logins, but as there's no way to enforce any of the other things being discussed that's hardly a reason not to bring it up. It's just a thought on how I'd like things to be, mostly from the social aspect.

Comment on (kudra: multiple characters) Re: Development of the Perl Monks Code of Conduct

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re: Development of the Perl Monks Code of Conduct by lemming (Priest) on Nov 23, 2000 at 03:37 UTC
Most of what I'm saying has already been said better by others. Multi-login: I agree with kudra that multi-logins is wrong, but it's difficult at best to enforce. Multiple people from one location and people with multiple IPs are both fairly common. Chatbox: Prohibiting logging of chatbox is hard to do. As long as the guideline says that the contents of the chatbox can not be used, that should offer as much protection as can be had. Profanity: Depends on the context, but I would say any directed at people shouldn't be done. That goes with the anti-assault clause as well, but can be subjective. Except for certain posts as ovid pointed out. Voting and experience: I said this a different node, but I think a karma system would be good. If you -- more than you ++ in a day, you may lose experience. Published source: Tough one. Easily identified code should be sited, but I'm pretty sure a lot of people have snippits of code in their head that other people have used or even been published. Before File::Find, I had a directory walker that probably looks similar to what other people would throw together. Enforcement: Since none of this is really enforceable, we can have the guidelines (Off the FAQ?) published and when someone trangresses send them there as vroom suggests. Otherwise, it seems self correcting. I've learned a lot from the short time I've been at perlmonks and the sense of community is something I hadn't seen since I was involved on a forum in the early 80's. Thank you vroom and everyone else.	[reply]

Replies are listed 'Best First'.

Re: Development of the Perl Monks Code of Conduct
by lemming (Priest) on Nov 23, 2000 at 03:37 UTC

Multi-login: I agree with kudra that multi-logins is wrong, but it's difficult at best to enforce. Multiple people from one location and people with multiple IPs are both fairly common.

Chatbox: Prohibiting logging of chatbox is hard to do. As long as the guideline says that the contents of the chatbox can not be used, that should offer as much protection as can be had.

Profanity: Depends on the context, but I would say any directed at people shouldn't be done. That goes with the anti-assault clause as well, but can be subjective. Except for certain posts as ovid pointed out.

Voting and experience: I said this a different node, but I think a karma system would be good. If you -- more than you ++ in a day, you may lose experience.

Published source: Tough one. Easily identified code should be sited, but I'm pretty sure a lot of people have snippits of code in their head that other people have used or even been published. Before File::Find, I had a directory walker that probably looks similar to what other people would throw together.

Enforcement: Since none of this is really enforceable, we can have the guidelines (Off the FAQ?) published and when someone trangresses send them there as vroom suggests. Otherwise, it seems self correcting.

I've learned a lot from the short time I've been at perlmonks and the sense of community is something I hadn't seen since I was involved on a forum in the early 80's. Thank you vroom and everyone else.

[reply]