Quoting T!M:

Quote:
Quoting Astrakan:

Quote:
Point is, I don't think user names should be entered into the contribution comments since they then enter the permanent record of that profile, while the voting comments do not.

I understand that line of reasoning, I just don't see any kind of problem with the user name entering "the permanent record of that profile".

It is when the comments break the Forum rules. The contribution notes section is part of the forum system so should be covered by the same set of rules.

I've got to agree with most on here. You don't need to name the voter to address their vote.
Naming them starts to make it personal, and that's one thing "no" votes should never be.

Quoting T!M:

Quote:
Of course. But that set of rules doesn't forbid addressing a specific user.

I'm wondering whether Ken's statement that we shouldn't call people out for their votes in the forums would also apply to this situation.

Quoting northbloke:

Quote:
I'm wondering whether Ken's statement that we shouldn't call people out for their votes in the forums would also apply to this situation.

Well, he certainly has publicly stated that it's perfecty okay to address no-votes by editing the contribution notes and adressing them.

Quoting T!M:

Quote:
Well, he certainly has publicly stated that it's perfecty okay to address no-votes by editing the contribution notes.

And that's fine - but by naming the person then you're addressing the person, not their vote.

If the voting comments were permanent like the notes I could see some logic in naming users because you can then cross-reference their note with the response. But currently what benefit do we get from knowing that "Northbloke" or "T!m" voted no to a certain submission.

Edit: of course, we'd never get a "no" vote from m.cellophane - he votes "yes" to everything!   

Quoting m.cellophane:

Quote:
It's not IMO a chance to open dialogue with voters.

Well, I for one never intend it as such - if I want to do that, I'll PM the user in question.

Quoting northbloke:

Quote:
But currently what benefit do we get from knowing that "Northbloke" or "T!m" voted no to a certain submission.

On the other hand, I see no downside either. It's not like it's "naming and shaming" or anything - as explained, I only see it as a way to specify which no-vote I'm addressing, which seems practical for both the voters and the screeners. Nothing more.

Quoting T!M:

Quote:
On the other hand, I see no downside either. It's not like it's "naming and shaming" or anything - as explained, I only see it as a way to specify which no-vote I'm addressing, which seems practical for both the voters and the screeners. Nothing more.

Quoting the 'no' vote comments accomplishes the same thing, and in a better manner, than does stating a name.  If, as was mentioned above, the voter changes their vote, then they are being called out for something that is no longer true.  Addressing the actual reason for the vote, by including it in the notes, seems far more practical to me...and has the added benefit of making sure it isn't made personal.

@T!M
Is  it so difficult to answer those questions ? Do you approve those methods, calling name and insulting people ?

Quoting surfeur51:

Quote:

... This is a personal attack, just "naming and shaming", as you wrote. And this attack will remain for ever in contribution notes.

Please can you explain me how this  makes things better ? For whom ? Doesn't it just prove the contributor has not seen the reason of the no vote ? Doesn't it prove that a discussion was necessary ?

Agree with most people it seems - just reply to the vote, not name the voter.

However, if it's a contribution note edit can't anyone can see who the No voter is. Only if the contribution is re-submitted and the voting 're-set' would the annonymity be retained (if i'm wrong I apologise but I think the contribution note editing feature was specifically set up so it wouldn't mean a re-set of the votes which in the past happened if you wanted to change the notes)

Edit to add: Of course after the contribution is accepted/declined the notes will remain so at this point annonymity of whover disagreed is restored so long as the name isn't in the contrbution notes and stored forevermore (which I don't believe is particularly appropriate or useful)