Re^3: Thoughtless voting?

Isn't a gratuitous ad hominem attack "bad?"

It is. But who can objectively judge that a certain node poses a gratuitous ad hominem attack?

And, far more to the point, if a node shows no effort and flies in the face of Monastery guidance, isn't it reasonable to adjudge that node "bad?'

It probably is, but people might still find the replies it spawns very useful, and thus think that the original node still deserves an upvote.

Even if something falls obviously into one category, for somebody from a completely different cultural background it might be not the case.

I agree that it would be nice to have some guidance on how to decide what to vote up or down (or if to vote at all). But we should be very clear that it's only guidance, not rules.

Perl 6 - second systems done right

Comment on Re^3: Thoughtless voting?

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^4: Thoughtless voting? by CountZero (Bishop) on Jan 30, 2011 at 10:11 UTC
I agree that it would be nice to have some guidance on how to decide what to vote up or down (or if to vote at all). Oh noes! That would be so very bad. It makes me think with horror of the "voting suggestions" handed down by priests in their sermons to their flock. A worse situation can hardly be imagined. Voting only works if it is free of all influence, only between you and your conscience. Of course you then get the government, web-site, community, ... you deserve, but that it still infinitely better that getting the government, web-site or community someone else thinks you deserve. CountZero A program should be light and agile, its subroutines connected like a string of pearls. The spirit and intent of the program should be retained throughout. There should be neither too little or too much, neither needless loops nor useless variables, neither lack of structure nor overwhelming rigidity." - The Tao of Programming, 4.1 - Geoffrey James	[reply]
Re^5: Thoughtless voting? by moritz (Cardinal) on Jan 30, 2011 at 11:01 UTC
It makes me think with horror of the "voting suggestions" handed down by priests in their sermons to their flock. Doesn't that depend strongly on how these suggestions look? I mean I agree it's bad if the priests say "vote $particular party", but what's so bad if the priests suggest "vote for the politician who you think will sustain peace and justices and still makes our economy strive"? That's the kind of advice I imagined, that is general advice, not advise particular to a single node. And I fail to see how that's bad. A worse situation can hardly be imagined. I don't have any troubles come up with any number of worse scenarios :-) Perl 6 - second systems done right	[reply]
Re^6: Thoughtless voting? by CountZero (Bishop) on Jan 30, 2011 at 18:00 UTC
Well, if the suggestion comes from a priest it always carries some moral and religious weight and you will be a dammed sinner if you stray from the "straight and narrow" (as defined in their particular religion). Efectively this puts the eye of their god(s) in the voting booth, looking over your shoulder to see if you behave like a good member of their sect should. And thus gets utterly destroyed your freedom of action as a free person and you have become a slave of someone else's belief system. CountZero A program should be light and agile, its subroutines connected like a string of pearls. The spirit and intent of the program should be retained throughout. There should be neither too little or too much, neither needless loops nor useless variables, neither lack of structure nor overwhelming rigidity." - The Tao of Programming, 4.1 - Geoffrey James	[reply]