Re^2: RFC: Review of "Seekers of Perl Wisdom" descrition?

[ww]

in reply to Re: RFC: Review of "Seekers of Perl Wisdom" descrition?
in thread RFC: Review of "Seekers of Perl Wisdom" description?

"if a question is left entirely unanswered the OP will surely get the message."

1. "...will surely...?" Really? I suspect, more likely, the OP will advertize the node in the Chatterbox.
2. "...left entirely unanswered...? And the last time that happened was when?
3. "...tolerance of the unwary beginner is what sets this place apart" Seems to me that's neither desirable nor factually true. c.f. StackOverflow and (far worse) those dime-a-dozen, run-of-the-mill sites that purport to provide reliable answers to questions (on almost any subject you care to name). The questions are bad and what good answers appear are -- at best -- difficult to distinguish from the dreck.

One other observation about the "unwary beginner:" If you want to master an avocation, you study the masters... at their sufferance; if you want to succeed at a game, you learn the rules; and if you want to post a question here that's not a reflection of your laziness, read the PerlMonks FAQ. Yes, I know some won't bother... but giving them a precis or a reference has to be better than a deafening silence.

[BrowserUk]

if you want to succeed at a game, you learn the rules;

Your rules?

[ww]

Games have rules; and an analogous set of directions for PM should not be hard to conceive. See jdporter's Re: RFC: Review of "Seekers of Perl Wisdom" descrition?.

[BrowserUk]

I don't see anything in JD's post that suggests we need rules for this:

I don't think that having one "RTFM" type answer among the several that a querent receives is necessarily a bad thing.

As usual, just a very fair minded: one amongst others does no harm.

But the moment you make a rule that the OP has to prove due diligence before they may expect anything other than a RTFM/LMGTFY/WHYT reponse, you open the flood gates to the race to see who can post it first.

[tangent]

"...tolerance of the unwary beginner is what sets this place apart" Seems to me that's neither desirable nor factually true. c.f. StackOverflow...

Not sure what you mean here, that Perlmonks should not be tolerant and, in fact, is not tolerant? StackOverflow is like a fairground attraction where newbies are set up like ducks to be shot down by the local bullies.

giving them a precis or a reference has to be better than a deafening silence

Yes, but that is not the comparison I was making - silence is better than abuse.

[ww]

When "tolerance" comes to mean "anything goes" tolerance has gone too far.

and as to "silence," that may not be the "comparison" intended, but my comment does address the inference your remark invited.

[ramlight]

One of the things that attracts me to PerlMonks is that anything does not go here.

Flame wars do not go here

Rudeness does not go here

Insulting behavior does not go here

Instead, this is an island of civil discourse in an ocean of juvenile behavior. Disagreements are argued, sometimes passionately, but don't (usually) descend into ad hominum attacks.