# Applaud or smite?



## thepancakeman (Dec 16, 2011)

I'm kinda curious what criteria or philosophy people use in choosing to applaud or smite someone?

Personally I try to go easy on the smites limiting them to those who post with personal attacks or vulgarity. There are times I'm tempted to smite someone who has such a polar opposite opinion from me, but as along as the discussion is kept productive and not personal I try to refrain.

Applauding for me is for people who make a particularly useful or insightful post or make me laugh.

Also, what would people thing about an "audit trail" for applauding and smiting, such that people have a level of accountability for their social interactions?


----------



## candyman (Dec 16, 2011)

I have to admit that I don't use it often. But it really makes sense to use the applaud on all 3:

applaud someone who makes me laugh
applaud someone that provides good technical info
applaud someone that makes a good point

I don't like smite. But it makes sense to use a smite on someone that is rude or insulting. I think in that case the smite is better rather than to respond on the rude post. Because that will only cause the thread to go down in the wrong direction.

Just my 2cents


----------



## distant.star (Dec 16, 2011)

Honestly, I don't like the whole setup. I don't see the point. I also don't understand why the number of posts you've made on a particular forum have any meaning.

And the idea of tracking how people judge others seems like a GDR nightmare scenario to me. DPReview does that to some extent so I don't participate there.

I read what everyone here has to say -- and take it for what it's worth.

Thanks for asking.


----------



## unfocused (Dec 16, 2011)

candyman said:


> I have to admit that I don't use it often. But it really makes sense to use the applaud on all 3:
> 
> applaud someone who makes me laugh
> applaud someone that provides good technical info
> ...



I applaud you.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Dec 16, 2011)

Here is my opinion

The smite should be used sparingly, perhaps for someone who does not contribute or continually makes inane worthless posts. Just be cause you do not agree with someone is not a reason to use it.

The applaud, on the other hand should be used to indicate helpful and intelligently thought out posts, not again just because you agree with it, but because the poster is contributing in a positive way to the forum, even if you do not agree, if its a well thought out contribution, encourage it!.


----------



## JR (Dec 16, 2011)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> Here is my opinion
> 
> The smite should be used sparingly, perhaps for someone who does not contribute or continually makes inane worthless posts. Just be cause you do not agree with someone is not a reason to use it.



Then again isn't subjective sometime whether or not someone contributes to a discussion? A particular comment might be useful to some and useless to others since we all come from varying level of understanding of technology and photography...

I understand and agree notionally with your suggestion, but I have not seen this situation very often in the CR forum, after all, it is an open forum and everyone is intitle to participate .

That said, I am totally for smite when someone is rude or disrespectful...


----------



## AprilForever (Dec 16, 2011)

I got a lot of smites from the 5D mk III thread... it seems people get smitten sometimes for disagreeing...


----------



## AG (Dec 16, 2011)

Agreed. Smitten for disagreement, posting a spec list someone doesn't like or voicing a personal opinion is kinda wrong.

Smiting a blatant troll, eg someone who comes into a 5D thread and just goes on about how much better the Sony or Nokia is without contributing to the discussion at all, i see as justified.

Although there are people that don't even add to the discussion that see the thou have posted and will smite out of past disagreements.

Maybe make it that you have to pass XXX posts or Applause before you can smite or Applaud. That way if someone does something good or bad its recognised by their piers and not just someone that has 50 posts.


----------



## thepancakeman (Dec 16, 2011)

AprilForever said:


> I got a lot of smites from the 5D mk III thread... it seems people get smitten sometimes for disagreeing...



Yeah, that's kinda what I'm trying to understand. One of the reasons I joined this forum is because in general it seems to be less contentious and have fewer trolls that most forums. However just today I have 2 new smites and I have no idea why (nor do I know the reason for my today's applaud), but I can guarantee you that I'm not insulting anyone.

If the idea is that being smitten (smited?) or applauded helps encourage or discourage certain behaviour, not having it tied to a post or having any other feedback with it seems to make it somewhat less than useful. This is especially true when you have a troll show up and just start smiting people and thereby possibly discouraging or scaring off productive members.


----------



## LuCoOc (Dec 16, 2011)

I think having karma and the number of post gives you a good feeling for how much knowlege the user has and how helpfull his/her comments were for other users. I also use applaud more often than smite, but if I smite it's usually because someones rude or seems super stupid.

There's another thread about karma that might be helpfull, especially because scalesusa commented:

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php/topic,1584.msg36052.html#msg36052


----------



## Ryusui (Dec 16, 2011)

I don't see that the applaud/smite function really has much use here.

In regards to a person's "karma" it could be handy to know who around the forum seems to provide mostly useful and productive info and who's just here to troll. Unfortunately, without a moderation and tracking system, anyone can be applauded or smitten for any reason whatsoever and it would completely throw off their apparent worth. Worst of all, when you choose to applaud or smite someone, there's absolutely no filtration system. I think it would help to deter system abusers if when you chose to applaud or smite someone that you had to fill out a short, but purposive survey. I think a person who just wants to mess with someone would be less likely to do so, plus it would provide info for a moderator to refer to in the event that the user who was smitten wants to appeal.
Which is also what's missing - appeals to remove a smite. But that can't happen anyway since there is apparently no way to track them.

I think the karma system in its current state is somewhat handy. To a small degree. But overall it's pretty much useless.


----------



## DanoPhoto (Dec 16, 2011)

I am fairly new to this forum (< 60 days) and did not understand the feature until recently.

I think it is a great feedback device for the site, but like everything, if abused or not used as intended, the outcome is worse that not having it there at all.

I have smited a few times when I felt that the post was mailcious or ill spirited. The threads will inevitably wander off topic, from time to time, but that is also the nature of a forum and open exchange of ideas. I subscribe to the philosophy that honest disagreement is healthy and should not be the sole reason to smite.

I have applauded numerous times when I felt that the post was valuable to me, for whatever reason (humor, insight, knoweledge, etc.) or contibuted to the discussion in a meaningful way.

Unfortunately, there are miserable people out there who have nothing better than to share their misery with others.

Hopefully I will not get too many smites for these "feelings".

Dan.


----------



## dstppy (Dec 16, 2011)

Unfortunately, "smite" is usually used when you express an opinion and someone disagrees with it . . . post an opinion on a polarizing topic (that there isn't really a wrong answer on) and your reputation will go down.

Honestly, I haven't seen anywhere on the internet where it's not really abused. One of my car clubs pages has "thanks" and "groan" -- but you're more likely to get groans for bad jokes than anything else. One self-policing thing is that everyone can see who thumbs-up/thumbs-down posts, and your own avatar has a list of how negative or positive you are.

The deals website has positive only, and 'power' users get more rep points, which seems to work better.

But, as with bigger sites (slashdot, amazon) you get both roving packs of bots and just weird people that give you a real thick skin . . .

I've tried to ignore it lately; look at the admin (lots of smites) and it's amazing that certain *super helpful* posters here have *ANY* negative reputation -- That's at least what I tell myself.


----------



## dr croubie (Dec 16, 2011)

Sometimes the 'smite' button does get used a lot more than the 'appluad' button for certain things, eg I wrote something on the first page of the "c300 announced" thread along the lines of "can canon please get back to making stills cameras for the rest of us who don't care about video". Not a good idea to 'insult' video in a thread likely to be frequented by videographers, 14 smites within about 20 minutes (and it wasn't even meant to be an insult to video, I just don't use it and would rather my engineering r&d money be spent on better stills. Some people just can't take a joke or sarcasm sometimes, anywhere on the net). Still, I don't mind, it's just a number, that day I was actually laughing to myself about it, that people care that much.

Still, I don't much care about my rating, does anyone else though? Would you feel more inclined to listen to the advice of someone with more or less karma? The numbers don't have any bearing on how much I believe what others write, I make my own mind up.
What I'd rather see (and i've already asked a Mod, and they've said it's too much work and not going to happen), would have been to see exactly 'which' posts for which i'm getting applauded/smited, behavioural-reinforcement discipline only works if you know when you're doing good or bad. But yeah, not gonna happen.

As for my doling out, I'll applaud for good humour, i'll applaud when the OP actually gets answered with helpful advice, I don't tend to smite except for blatantly antagonistic behaviour (or for people going way off-topic in saying things like "you should just get a 5D2" in threads asking for opinions between 550 and 600D, for example)


----------



## dppaskewitz (Dec 16, 2011)

> However just today I have 2 new smites and I have no idea why (nor do I know the reason for my today's applaud), but I can guarantee you that I'm not insulting anyone.
> 
> If the idea is that being smitten (smited?) or applauded helps encourage or discourage certain behaviour, not having it tied to a post or having any other feedback with it seems to make it somewhat less than useful. This is especially true when you have a troll show up and just start smiting people and thereby possibly discouraging or scaring off productive members.



+1


----------



## TexPhoto (Dec 16, 2011)

It would be interesting to see a users "ratio" of smites/applause.


----------



## pwp (Dec 16, 2011)

To smite or not to smite...this is the question. Your Applaud/Smite index does effect your CR credibility. 

At first I felt the system was open to unfair reactive usage and there is no doubt a percentage of smites are delivered in a passionate, later regretted moment. I have delivered one smite, and later wished I could take it back. I felt a bit gutless smiting someone behind their back. I guess we could do it with a PM.

However, with the Karma system in place, it definitely plays a hand in the tone of posts & responses, and keeps unregulated "flames" to a minimum. Nobody wants dozens of smites against their names. I've been tempted from time to time to bang out a reactive response to a post, but the smites that may have followed would diminish my CR credibility. So I hold back. I have one mystery smite against me. It would have been nice to know why. 

When I see my applaud number go up it's a little win...someone has benefited in some way from my post.

Changes to the system? How about a second chance before delivering a smite, much the same as a Delete warning on the computer..."Do you really want to Smite this person?"

Paul Wright


----------



## elflord (Dec 16, 2011)

thepancakeman said:


> I'm kinda curious what criteria or philosophy people use in choosing to applaud or smite someone?
> 
> Personally I try to go easy on the smites limiting them to those who post with personal attacks or vulgarity. There are times I'm tempted to smite someone who has such a polar opposite opinion from me, but as along as the discussion is kept productive and not personal I try to refrain.
> 
> ...



I agree with those who think that the feature isn't terribly helpful. 

Some problems with the system: 

(1) you "applaud" or "smite" the poster, not the post. As was pointed out here, this makes the feedback less constructive.

(2) Not only do I think feedback should be tied to a post, I'd like the posts to be scored (as they are on slashdot for example). 

(3) I think there needs to be a cap on how much karma, positive or negative, one can accumulate with a single post. I see way too much of people who make positive contributions on a regular basis and get kicked to the curb over one moderately disagreeable or controversial post. 

(4) I don't think you should be aloud to smite or applaud in a thread in which you post. 

While there seems to be a consensus that "smites" should be used sparingly, the evidence seems to be that they are used quite liberally. For example, most of the respondents in this thread have a substantial amount of negative karma -- posters "uncofused", "Mt Spokane Photography" for example make an overwhelmingly positive contribution here and yet are about 1:2-1:3 smites to applause. 

I don't really see the point of the system -- it does in some sense make explicit which members are "senior" in terms of volume and quality of their output, but pecking orders of this nature inevitably emerge regardless. On the slashdot forum (or similar busy forums), such systems can be useful to simply filter out bad posts (or filter in the highlights). On a smaller forum like this one, it doesn't tell us anything we didn't know already and the excessive smiting adds an unnecessary element of unpleasentness. Is it really a good thing for the forum to provide a way to attack someone elses character anonymously ?


----------



## GDub (Dec 17, 2011)

At what point does one get banned from being smited? I wouldn't worry about the "applaud or smite" thingy unless there's a "you're excommunicated" number attached to the system. I'm new here and got my 11 smites because I made an innocuous joke about winning the current contest--"I won, I won!!" I wrote (including a winky emoticon




). Smite abusers? Yes there are! Therefore, I'm wearing my smites proudly--11 and counting!


----------



## Admin US West (Dec 17, 2011)

GDub said:


> At what point does one get banned from being smited? I wouldn't worry about the "applaud or smite" thingy unless there's a "you're excommunicated" number attached to the system. I'm new here and got my 11 smites because I made an innocuous joke about winning the current contest--"I won, I won!!" I wrote (including a winky emoticon
> 
> 
> 
> ). Smite abusers? Yes there are! Therefore, I'm wearing my smites proudly--11 and counting!



No one gets banned due to the number of smites. We do not see who posted them, and cannot adjust or reset the number of them.

There are a minimum number of posts required before a applaud or smite can be issued, so we do not have new members signing up and immediately issuing "Smites"

There is another option, and thats to set the cumlative total rather than the positive or negative totals. It could be merely shut off as well.

CR guy will be the one who changes this if he thinks its necessary. I occasionally tweak the minimum number of posts required to keep you guessing, and to keep someone from abusing that information. There is also a minimum time between applauds or smites that can is set.


----------



## AG (Dec 17, 2011)

Would it at all be possible to just remove the negative and keep the positive? 

This way people that contribute can be seen as the ones with the better rep/karma.

There is not stigma of negative attached to them then.

Then if someone doesn't like someone they can just use the "ignore" feature*** in the forum instead of smiting every post they make etc. 

[size=14pt]*= yes i know this is the way it should be but lets face it people can be lazy and its easier to smite than to go through the rigmarole of setting up ignoring.[/size]


----------



## Meh (Dec 17, 2011)

I think applauding and smiting each have their place but the smiting is probably abused. Totally agree with everyone who said smiting should not be used simply because you disagree with someone or even think they're just plain wrong on a point. I have smited a couple times for what I see as a personal attack against me or even against another and I have written a reply stating my view and indicated -1 right in my comment, if I'm going to smite someone I have no problem announcing it.

Personally, I think I'm quite thin skinned and it bothers me when I get smited when I believe I've only attempted to make helpful contributions but clearly the smiter didn't think so and they are entitled to their opinion. I may have been smited a few times for opening a technical can of worms which, ok, maybe I deserved it


----------



## DanoPhoto (Dec 17, 2011)

@Meh - keep your positive outlook and thin skin. Don't let others negativity bring you down!!!!!!


----------



## MazV-L (Dec 17, 2011)

When I'm Smited, I'd appreciate knowing why  ???

I'll applaud someone if they make a good point,
I'll smite someone who is just obviously trying to stir up trouble.

There's some posters out there are very smite-happy (I'll probably pick up a few extra for this comment which will illustrate my point perfectly).


----------



## Jettatore (Dec 17, 2011)

Closed mindedness, not being able to ever admit when you are wrong or when the other person might have some valid points even if you don't fully agree, and in general just acting like a child when someone doesn't unanimously agree with you all are deserving of smites. I give out props to people who share information/teaching/skills of the trade, etc.. or just when I see someone do something kind/cool. I smite when people defend marketing decisions because our system is corrupt enough as it is and there is no way to honestly defend 'planned obsolescence'. I don't smite because of the person ever, I smite based only on the post itself and only the specific post in question, but I suspect there are a lot of people on here that are much more petty than that and carry on personal grudges. There's also a lot of cool people on here who have not just taught me a thing or two, but have shown me when I was wrong and didn't make me feel awful for it, or those who I have seen been able to admit when they learned something and didn't throw a fit like a sitcom character.


----------



## Sunnystate (Dec 17, 2011)

Last time I checked this was just a forum, do we have to be always so seriously pompous about our self? 
Smite/ applaud is nothing more than just a bit of innocent fun, tiny bit of "power" and it should be up to everyone discretion how they are used. 

Sanitizing everything really will make life boring, and internet will lose most important appeal: freedom, spontaneity and independence.

Cheers, and keep smiting and applauding while you still can!


----------



## thepancakeman (Dec 17, 2011)

Sunnystate said:


> ... is nothing more than just a bit of innocent fun, tiny bit of "power"...



Funny, that sounds almost exactly like the response from the teacher in yesterday's news who wrote "stupid" in permanent marker on a student's forehead. 

Yes, it's a forum, and no, people should not take it too seriously. But the reality is that some people do place value/self worth in their on-line reputations, and even that "tiny bit of power" comes with responsibility. Do you choose to do good, or do harm? And IMHO "innocent fun" never involves insulting, tearing down, or belittling someone else.

Or even better, do you take responsibilities for your actions? I love Meh's approach--if you applaud or smite, post it and own up to it. I'm definitely adopting that approach from now on. +1 for Meh!


----------



## KeithR (Dec 17, 2011)

It's all a bit infantile, isn't it?

"_I don't like what he said but I can't win the argument, so I'll "smite" him instead..._"


----------



## unfocused (Dec 17, 2011)

> It's all a bit infantile, isn't it?



It's like any tool. In infantile hands, it is infantile. In mature hands, it's a useful and helpful tool.

Use it to help monitor and manage your online reputation. 

If you have either a small number of both applauds and smites, or a small number of posts, don't worry about it. The sample size is too small to mean anything and likely to be skewed by a single unfortunate post or a small number of "smite-ers."

If you've got a fair number of smites and applauds, say an aggregate total of 50-100, look at the ratio and use it to gauge your reputation. It's like a political candidate's approval rating. At a minimum, you want to be in the positive numbers. Ideally, you might get around a 3-2 or even a 5-3 ratio of applauds to smites. If so, you know you have a pretty decent reputation on the forum.

If you are underwater or at about 50/50, you might want to reflect on your posts. Ask yourself if you are being rude or dismissive to others, are you posting reasoned opinions or solid information? Or, are you making a lot of "drive-by" comments that are either uninformed or denigrate others?

The sample is non-scientific, but the larger the sample size the more accurate the rating is likely to be. I would say that anyone who has a few hundred posts and an aggregate of applauds and smites that exceeds 50 or so can get a pretty good idea how others on the forum feel about him or her. Some people may not care and may even take pride that they are unpopular, but I assume most people want to maintain a good reputation among a group of people that in some ways is a peer group. 

Okay, so for me personally, who do I smite and who do I applaud?

I applaud people who are helpful when I ask a question (that's just common courtesy).

I applaud people who offer unsolicited tips that I find helpful or who seem to go out of their way to help newcomers.

I applaud people who offer reasoned, well-thought out arguments, especially if they are espousing an opinion that is contrary to conventional wisdom.

I am much more generous with newcomers than with old hands, especially if the newcomer is generating undeserved smites.

I smite people who are rude or dismissive to others, even if they are technically correct. There is too much internet bullying and it's my way of sending them a message.

I smite people who express ridiculous opinions solely for the purpose of stirring things up and causing problems.

I smite obvious trolls.

I am more harsh on those who post a lot, because they should know better and, especially, if their incessant posting is aimed at stifling or demeaning newer participants.

_"These are may principles and if you don't like them, I have others."_â€“ Groucho Marx


----------



## wellfedCanuck (Dec 17, 2011)

unfocused said:


> > It's all a bit infantile, isn't it?
> 
> 
> 
> It's like any tool. In infantile hands, it is infantile. In mature hands, it's a useful and helpful tool.



I don't think it's useful at all. Surely we're all grown up and intelligent enough to guage which posters are worth reading and which aren't. And, most of us should be able to take a hint when others object to our own views and shouldn't need some arbitrary ranking system to give us false feedback.

I collected 6 or 7 smites for linking to the "throw my 7D in the dustbin" video. I didn't make the video, I didn't say that I agreed with the video, I only found it amusing and somewhat informative. Yet, here my reputation is -"under water" because of that one link.

The karma system has become something akin to that famous sociological experiment whereby the university students kept giving electric shocks to their peers. There's no repercussion for being mean, so one can push the button capriciously and maliciously without damaging his or her own reputation. One person with an axe to grind can smite another poster once every two hours. Under this system- ONE troll could destroy one legitimate reputation in 2 or 3 days. 

And that's useful?


----------



## Harley (Dec 17, 2011)

I just gave each of you a +1.


----------



## elflord (Dec 17, 2011)

unfocused said:


> If you've got a fair number of smites and applauds, say an aggregate total of 50-100, look at the ratio and use it to gauge your reputation. It's like a political candidate's approval rating. At a minimum, you want to be in the positive numbers. Ideally, you might get around a 3-2 or even a 5-3 ratio of applauds to smites. If so, you know you have a pretty decent reputation on the forum.
> 
> If you are underwater or at about 50/50, you might want to reflect on your posts. Ask yourself if you are being rude or dismissive to others, are you posting reasoned opinions or solid information? Or, are you making a lot of "drive-by" comments that are either uninformed or denigrate others?



It's of limited use as a source of constructive feedback for two reasons -- one is that the feedback is not tied to a specific post, so it's not always clear where the "bad karma" came from.

It's also of dubious value because it's not representative. For example, someone could write hundreds of constructive posts, and then blow a chunk of it on a single post. 



> The sample is non-scientific, but the larger the sample size the more accurate the rating is likely to be.



One problem is that you it is user responses that are being independently sampled, not the users posts. If all of the feedback for a given user comes from 1% of their posts, that feedback isn't representative of the other 99% of their comments. Large sample size can still lead to bad results if the sampling is biased. 



> I would say that anyone who has a few hundred posts and an aggregate of applauds and smites that exceeds 50 or so can get a pretty good idea how others on the forum feel about him or her.



The admin scaleusa is running at +33/-107 at the time of writing based on 598 posts, yet I believe that he is in good standing here.

Because a single post can draw enough feedback to move ones numbers substantially, the karma number (especially the negative one) is probably not even terribly predictive of its own future values.

It is even less predictive of the information that one might like to gain from it, such as, what is the probability that this poster writes something useful ? Someone could post 99 helpful posts (worth a cumulative 10 or so karma points) and 1 post that is a bit controversial (worth about -20 in karma). If you took the +10/-20 out of 100 posts at face value, you'd reach the wrong conclusion.


----------



## traveller (Dec 17, 2011)

wellfedCanuck said:


> One person with an axe to grind can smite another poster once every two hours.



Tried it have you? ;D

Joking aside, I don't think I've ever used the "Smite" button. If someone posts a comment that I disagree with, either I think their point is worthy of a reply, or I ignore it. On the other hand, I frequently use the applaud button instead of a "+1" post, in order to spare others having to read through long message chains. 

Trolls are best simply ignored as they feed on any kind of feedback! 

P.S. If it's workable within the current set-up, I like the idea of linking karma to posts rather than members to provide genuine people with better feedback.


----------



## Maui5150 (Dec 17, 2011)

I am more of a positive person, so will more likely applaud rather than smite. 

The only posts/people I have smited, and there have only been a few, have been those that seemed, bitter, disrespectful or abusive. 

I like the fact that people will have differing opinions, as their should be, because as technical as photography is, it is also an art. I remember when I was first learning and hearing about "correct exposure" one of the next comment was about personal preference and whether it over or under exposing made the image "better"

I am just happy to discuss with passionate people so that I can not only learn but share.


----------



## wellfedCanuck (Dec 18, 2011)

Harley said:


> I just gave each of you a +1.



Thanks, but I also collected 2 more smites for expressing that opinion.


----------



## Ryusui (Dec 18, 2011)

wellfedCanuck said:


> Harley said:
> 
> 
> > I just gave each of you a +1.
> ...


Unfortunately, you'll never know if it was actually for that, or any of the other 53 posts you have.


----------



## distant.star (Dec 18, 2011)

I didn't smite you for expressing your opinion.

I smote you for spilling gravy on the table cloth!!

See -- you never know!





Ryusui said:


> wellfedCanuck said:
> 
> 
> > Harley said:
> ...


----------



## Ryusui (Dec 18, 2011)

Dang it! But I told you it was an accident! The dog bumped my leg!


----------



## wickidwombat (Dec 20, 2011)

wellfedCanuck said:


> Harley said:
> 
> 
> > I just gave each of you a +1.
> ...



Dont worry i think i got 15 smites for saying i didn't like overprocessed HDR 

so if you fear smites dont mention it...


----------



## bycostello (Dec 20, 2011)

necer used it.. wouldn't take either too seriously though...


----------



## K-amps (Dec 20, 2011)

Great posts!

1 )Perhaps when smiting (or applauding) the "judger" needs to assign a reason; that's how feedback becomes constructive.
2) The smite/applaud should be linked to a post; this way we all know what was objectionable or worthy.
3) There should be a tracker of how we as anonymous people leave smites or applauds for others (just a simple karma like counter of how we judged others behind their backs).

My personal rule(s), 

1 smite for every 10 applauds... and not more!
Never smite for a disagreement of a point of view provided it was done respectfully
Always smite bullying!


----------



## Edwin Herdman (Dec 21, 2011)

Quick, somebody smite me for voting without carefully reading all the options 

I voted the second last option but I should have voted for the last option (oops)...I've said before that I resist smiting somebody just because they're being a jerk while disagreeing with me (it happens occasionally), though there has been an exception to that.


----------



## thepancakeman (Dec 22, 2011)

Edwin Herdman said:


> Quick, somebody smite me for voting without carefully reading all the options



Should we ask the mods to allow for self-smiting? (While obviously disallowing self-applause...)

???


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 22, 2011)

Edwin Herdman said:


> Quick, somebody smite me for voting without carefully reading all the options



Rather, I applaud you for voting like a typical American... :-X


----------



## mark millar (Dec 22, 2011)

Isn't the entire system a little like Bentham's prison, the Panopticon. Be good, you never know when you're being watched. Applied utiliatarianism philosophy in a Canon forum, fantastic!


----------



## juwi (Dec 22, 2011)

wickidwombat said:


> Dont worry i think i got 15 smites for saying i didn't like overprocessed HDR
> 
> so if you fear smites dont mention it...


I just applauded you for saying that.


----------



## wellfedCanuck (Dec 22, 2011)

neuroanatomist said:


> Edwin Herdman said:
> 
> 
> > Quick, somebody smite me for voting without carefully reading all the options
> ...


The site is owned by a Canuck, therefore no vote is legal unless it's published in both official languages... bien sur.


----------



## unfocused (Dec 22, 2011)

mark millar said:


> Isn't the entire system a little like Bentham's prison, the Panopticon. Be good, you never know when you're being watched. Applied utiliatarianism philosophy in a Canon forum, fantastic!



Exactly! You get an applaud for begin concise and insightful. (I've give you two, but it's not allowed) Not surprisingly, you summed up in three sentences, what I tried to say in a massively long post.


----------

