Law of the Hammer
In time long past the Citadel was new and innocent. As the years went on much was added to include the ability to vote and comment. Ever since then there has been prosperous periods where the votes and comments were just a tool and the Horde was happy. But subtle battles raged, sides were taken and votes were interpreted as acts of aggression. Much dread and drama followed these battles and authors were lost. So was birthed the Law of the Hammer.
Besides obvious spam, admins at the Citadel rarely, if ever, delete anything off these pages. We value our freedom and respect one another a great deal. None of that has changed, however, there is a need to be brutal with a certain type of comment.
"dude, you like totally vote low on stuff, why are you hatin on peoples subs man?"
"I notice you didn't really like this sub, how come? Is there something about it that you feel needs improving?"
When something is hammered, send valadaar's words og wisdom to The author of The sub Being hammered
Not Registered Yet? No problem.
Do you want Strolenati super powers? Registering. That's how you get super powers! These are just a couple powers you receive with more to come as you participate.
- Upvote and give XP to encourage useful comments.
- Work on submissions in private or flag them for assistance.
- Earn XP and gain levels that give you more site abilities (super powers).
- You should register. All your friends are doing it!
? Responses (16)-16
This article is scary. The name, the tone. The message, intent and application aren't, but damn. Reading this gave me a sense of impending doom, fear of the Hammer's retribution. I'm curious though, with articles such as Silv's and Mourn's and a few others about how to vote and act here, will we be allowed to discuss voting practices when the subject is so blatantly brought up or are those types of submissions now discouraged?
In any case, I'm not sure if this is a neccesary implementation. Only because it sounds harsh compared to how lax the Citadel has always been. Just remember what old Unlce Ben said, with great power comes great responsibility.
I won't say it isn't heavy handed or harsh. The fact remains that I know of a small chunk of great authors that have left or took an extremely long break because of the outcome of these type discussions.
As mentioned, the hope is that there won't be much need for it. Your tangible fear :) of the message is warning enough that most will comprehend. It is more of an acknowledgement of what has happened in the past and what will not happen in the future. This also now serves as a tool to link to in order to dissuade any of these types of discussions. As far as those articles, I am still undecided and much will depend on the Strolenati. Emotion in these things are the enemy, not necessarily the topic. However, many are unable to separate the two and that is the danger in these types of topics.
Bottom Line: It will be up to the Strolenati to determine if the Hammer is required. If the Hammer becomes necessary to maintain peace and tranquility, this rule serves as the justification.
((The fact remains that I know of a small chunk of great authors that have left or took an extremely long break because of the outcome of these type discussions.))
A request for clarification: is the commentor him/herself allowed to mention why they voted they way they did, as long as it is voluntary? If I give a low score to something that needs obvious improvement, I may be tempted to include a statement like "I normally vote a 3 or less on something with this many grammatical errors" -- in addition to any suggestions I might have to improve the submission itself. It's OK with me if that is now a Hammer Offense, but I would like to know in advance.
Commenters can volunteer whatever information they want when it directly relates in some way to the submission they are commenting on. This is really aimed more at the Author responses that start questioning the commenter's way of doing things. Although voting low for grammar is a bit taboo so that might be a bad example anyway. ;)
It probably is, but don't question my methods, man! (I kid, I kid)
FYI: I did indeed take a long break from Strolens at one point, so long I am reading my own subs and it seems a different voice wrote them than my own, however, it was not due to any voting and/or arguments. I started a family and was busy. Now I'm struggling to keep my house and busy, but strangely less busy than I was before. I may not pick back up my former level of activity, and am unsure of my voice, but I am back, and glad to be here.
Every site needs a Banhammer and I trust you not to smite me-I don't make such comments about my subs,I hope.
Strolen, am sure these aren't fun things to post and that people must look to you full fill a role that you didn't ask for or imagine when you started this site. Thanks, seriously, for stepping up and asking for a higher standard of the site that carries your name. I
Whilst the idea itself isn't bad. It is still open to abuse. Effectively giving someone the "I'm going to low-vote your submission just because I can and I won't have to explain myself" card.
In the words of Queen Victoria "I am not amused"
It also allows those few with grudges against others, to use this law to commit low vote retaliations on their foes subs without fear of persecution.
Something of an irony here. I was poking my head in, mulling over whether to start activity here again, when I read a comment from - ironically - one of the editors complaining above, about me low-voting two of his subs ... and who, backed by the timestamps, promptly went and low-voted two of my top ones. One of those was a 5 before the low-voting started (that editor not being the only one who decided on retaliatory voting) and now is at 4.2.
Sorry. I've just had confirmed to me why I left in the first place, and at this point, I'd just as soon take all my contributions down. If we are at the mercy here of any egotistic crybaby with a grudge, there are many places where we can present our works for public consumption without the galling nonsense.