in reply to Answering Nodes and Approving them.

Some monks have a policy of only approving nodes they're not answering, in order to avoid any appearance of conflict of interest. It's a bit of a silly thing, really, but there's the idea floating about that if you answer a node and then approve it, you're promoting your own response post with it. If you let someone else approve nodes that you've answered, it avoids that.

I don't think there's any consensus that you necessarily have to do it this way. There are monks who routinely both answer and approve the same node, and nobody jumps on their case for it, as far as I am aware.

"In adjectives, with the addition of inflectional endings, a changeable long vowel (Qamets or Tsere) in an open, propretonic syllable will reduce to Vocal Shewa. This type of change occurs when the open, pretonic syllable of the masculine singular adjective becomes propretonic with the addition of inflectional endings."  — Pratico & Van Pelt, BBHG, p68
  • Comment on Re: Answering Nodes and Approving them.

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^2: Answering Nodes and Approving them.
by polettix (Vicar) on May 18, 2005 at 09:19 UTC
    I feel like this when considering a node for front-paging, because this gives the post much wider audience and it seems to me like I'm trying to cheat. Nonetheless, the right part of my brain agrees with you in considering this a bit of a silly thing.

    I wonder how many Monks check if the approver, or the front-pager, did also answer the node - that would be a really silly thing IMHO.

    Flavio (perl -e 'print(scalar(reverse("\nti.xittelop\@oivalf")))')

    Don't fool yourself.
[reply]

In Section Perl Monks Discussion