Beefy Boxes and Bandwidth Generously Provided by pair Networks
No such thing as a small change
 
PerlMonks  

Restricting Anonymous Monk to SOPW

by Anonymous Monk
on May 13, 2017 at 14:25 UTC ( #1190193=monkdiscuss: print w/replies, xml ) Need Help??

I understand the reasoning that new members should be allowed to post anonymously.

But none of the sections except Seekers Of Perl Wisdom is meant for new members, it's acceptable to ask for a log-in before posting there.

Hence reducing AM to SOPW would reduce the amount of needed considerations and moves.

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re: Restricting Anonymous Monk to SOPW
by davies (Parson) on May 13, 2017 at 15:01 UTC

    I'm not sure what your evidence is that "none of the sections except Seekers Of Perl Wisdom is meant for new members". To me, all sections are for all. I don't think, for example, that you should have been prevented from posting in PMD. I disagree with you, but if the gods see it your way, fair enough.

    Nor do I see a huge amount of work involved in moving posts before approving (something I've done often enough) or in considering & voting on those that have carelessly been approved in the wrong area (I suspect I've been guilty of this carelessness, but I can't recall any specific cases). If the janitors think it is too much work too often, I hereby volunteer to help out. I'd prefer to do more work myself than have more restrictions on anonymonks.

    I don't know how much work would be involved as I'm not a pmdev (insufficient skill to volunteer for this), but another possibility might be to make the default for anonymonks to be SOPW, even if they have started from somewhere else. In other words, while they would be able to change the default, they would have to take positive action rather than just clicking on the first link they find.

    In summary, no but ++ (feels like 0 but true).

    Regards,

    John Davies

      We have now already more reaped nodes in 2017 than in 2016.

      More of the reaped ones in 2017 till now were marked "troll" than between 2011 and 2016.

        Even if we blithely assume that this means there are more trolls today than a year ago, it seems unlikely that a rule restricting them to trolling only in SOPW would do anything to change that. I can see the OP's suggestion, if implemented, maybe doing a bit to cut down on posts to the wrong section (...which itself assumes that most AnonyMonk posts are the sort of thing that belongs in SOPW), but that's about it. The content of the posts would still be exactly the same.

        Sometimes I wonder if I'm merely an insensitive pig...

        ... or whether we gotten a lot more PC, and a lot more touchy.

        Frankly, had I been around and had more time to spend here, over the last several week, I most assuredly would have voted "Keep" on some of the nodes which have recently been considered and reaped.

        Princess and the Pea, anyone?

        Spelling correction: thanks chacham

        Come, let us reason together: Spirit of the Monastery
        Quis custodiet ipsos custodes. Juvenal, Satires

        And what is that supposed to prove? More trolls? Nope, just more of them were reaped. And the question of wether anons should be blocked has been asked and answered often enough, sundialsvc4.

      Although I've been a member for a number of years I often ask anonymous questions because I am tired of being critiqued on the inanity of my question. If I knew the answer I would not ask the question.

      In addition to SOPW I enjoy jumping around in the different collations and would not like being restricted in my browsing.

Re: Restricting Anonymous Monk to SOPW
by Your Mother (Chancellor) on May 13, 2017 at 20:14 UTC

    FWIW, I think this was worth bringing up. It’s a new take on the issue. I don’t think it should be done but I certainly don’t think it’s out of order to ask and discuss either.

    Update: s/brining/bringing/. :P Brine it up!

Re: Restricting Anonymous Monk to SOPW
by chacham (Prior) on May 13, 2017 at 18:35 UTC

    Restriction is rarely the answer. Working with people is. If people like posting anonymously, we ought to find a way to direct them rather than restrict them.

Re: Restricting Anonymous Monk to SOPW
by oldtechaa (Beadle) on May 14, 2017 at 03:36 UTC
    I can somewhat see the point, but what worries me is that those who are having trouble logging in or creating an account could not start a thread about it in PM Discussion.
      I think these rare cases can still use SOPW.
        Seems like an unusual place to post PM topics when there is a designated place for such topics.
Re: Restricting Anonymous Monk to SOPW
by Anonymous Monk on May 13, 2017 at 14:26 UTC
    the amount of needed considerations and moves

    What amount is that?

Re: Restricting Anonymous Monk to SOPW
by Anonymous Monk on May 14, 2017 at 15:34 UTC

    Relevant topic, of course. Undeniably, there is the tendency for newcomers to make more mistakes in picking the right section for their queries, etc.

    But it occurs to me that the converse may also be true. That the monks who have stayed too long inbetween four walls of the Monastery, figuratively speaking, are prone to, um, go bananas from time to time. Allergic reactions, crusader banners, hallucinatory delusions (a ghost of Jefferson stalking you). I believe, tilting at windmills is the generic phrase. I suggest this latter phenomenon may better explain the upsurge of considerations.

    So I was thinking, perhaps there ought to be a "Sanitarium" section with a more light-hearted, non-technical content, along with some notes about the Monastery etiquette.

    • "We celebrate TIMTOWTDI. There is no One True Editor."
    • "Don't solicit votes or considerations."
    • "Count to ten."
    • "Practice what you preach: apply to self the standards you would demand of others."
    • "Preferably, let others consider nodes in your threads."
    • "When was the last time you took a vacation?"

    But maybe we just need more... fortune cookies?

      perhaps there ought to be a "Sanitarium" section

      Oh ye gods, no.

        Utmost respect JD, but has that policy "Posts are assigned to sections based not on their subject matter but on their type of discourse." worked so well for this place?

        Too late now of course, but perhaps it's time to see that just cos someone wrote that a decade ago, doesn't mean it is still relevant today. A lot has changed in the interim.


        With the rise and rise of 'Social' network sites: 'Computers are making people easier to use everyday'
        Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error.
        "Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority". The enemy of (IT) success is complexity.
        In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice. Suck that fhit
      OK Nick! :)
      "So I was thinking, perhaps there ought to be a "Sanitarium" section ..."

      That's the Chatterbox, grapevine to the Looney Bin.

Re: Restricting Anonymous Monk to SOPW
by LanX (Chancellor) on May 13, 2017 at 17:32 UTC
    I doubt this helps, unfortunately creating a sockpuppet is cheap.

    Maybe we'll need to reduce the reap threshold from 5 to 3 soon to speed up the process. :/

    Cheers Rolf
    (addicted to the Perl Programming Language and ☆☆☆☆ :)
    Je suis Charlie!

      Maybe we'll need to reduce the reap threshold from 5 to 3 soon to speed up the process. :/

      It needs slowing down. If there was like a 24 hour period before reaping was enforced, a lot less nodes would be reaped as a lot more of them would acquire the minimum required keep/edit votes to prevent reaping

Re: Restricting Anonymous Monk to SOPW
by sundialsvc4 (Abbot) on May 22, 2017 at 22:06 UTC

    So far as I am aware, no(!) other forum site ... on the entire Internet ... allows “purely Anomymous posts.”

    Aside from the superficial annoyance of “snarky humans,” this algorithm also allows bots “free rein,” absent only the (daily ...) efforts of Forum Gods to counter them.   (And, I am given to understand, “our English friends” now face this chore, each and every day ...)

    In the present era, I consider it quite reasonable to presume that an “anonymous” poster is:   “non-human.”

    However, that being said, “there is also a lingering issue on this site, relevant to this, which remains unresolved.” ... ...

    Even if you are “logged in,” you might find that ... upon “refreshing the page,” you are no longer logged-in.   Thus, an unknown number of “Anonymous” posts might well be the product of individuals who, having finally clicked “Send” on their Magnum Opus, discovered ... too late! ... that their Opus had just-now forever become:   “Anonymous.”   And that they, forever-after, could not do one damned thing about it.

      dude u r bot .. only crappy AI can write like that

Log In?
Username:
Password:

What's my password?
Create A New User
Node Status?
node history
Node Type: monkdiscuss [id://1190193]
Approved by Athanasius
help
Chatterbox?
and all is quiet...

How do I use this? | Other CB clients
Other Users?
Others avoiding work at the Monastery: (6)
As of 2017-08-19 19:09 GMT
Sections?
Information?
Find Nodes?
Leftovers?
    Voting Booth?
    Who is your favorite scientist and why?



























    Results (312 votes). Check out past polls.

    Notices?