Beefy Boxes and Bandwidth Generously Provided by pair Networks
Don't ask to ask, just ask
 
PerlMonks  

Comment on

( #3333=superdoc: print w/ replies, xml ) Need Help??
I like it.

Here's one way it might work, one combining the suggestions to date as well as adding a couple of new ones:

  • When the node is assigned to the Reaper, replace the original text with "This node has been reaped. Reason: <Reason given when Considered>.

  • I'd also add the manual link to the original text that tye suggested, but only when appropriate.

  • I would also add a series of links to a set of FAQ's and useful nodes, just in case the mistake was an honest one. This doesn't have to be terribly context sensitive, if at all...just a set of documents that the true petitioner can refer to quickly to understand why the node got reaped. (More than happy to help locate those, if needed, though I suspect most of you can point to the obvious ones.)

  • I like the direction of PsychoSpunk's idea, but wonder if it would be unworkable due to the increased exposure of the offending material (inlining it) and the fact that there might be multiple replies to the original node in question. Seems like it would either lead to more exposure to the offending node (e.g. multiple owners) or would leave other replies in thread limbo.

  • As an attempt to avoid rewarding the obvious trolls (you can probably figure out the candidate I have in mind), I'd also add some sort of "No Mercy" switch in Consider, which would hide the original material as completely as possible. A recent ASCII artwork comes to mind, as does a short-lived attack posted this morning. This would help implement the second point.

    The idea here is to reduce the possibilities of giving certain, uh, folks any reason to think their behavior has caused a commotion. ("Just a simple edit, ma'am. No trouble at all.")

  • When Reaper takes possession of a real monk's node (as opposed to one posted by AM), "he" should /msg the poster, saying something to the effect of, "I have reaped one of your nodes. For details, see <Node Title>."

    I think that could help the original poster learn from the experience, especially if we include the links of suggested reading.

I'm trying to balance the need to educate (and reduce) those making honest mistakes against simple troll prevention. As always, feedback is welcome.

Otherwise, I think it's a great idea. (Also, thanks for your continued efforts, especially the recent updates to Nodes to Consider.)

--f

In reply to Re: Handling Nodes Worthy of Deletion which contain replies by footpad
in thread Handling Nodes Worthy of Deletion which contain replies by vroom

Title:
Use:  <p> text here (a paragraph) </p>
and:  <code> code here </code>
to format your post; it's "PerlMonks-approved HTML":



  • Posts are HTML formatted. Put <p> </p> tags around your paragraphs. Put <code> </code> tags around your code and data!
  • Read Where should I post X? if you're not absolutely sure you're posting in the right place.
  • Please read these before you post! —
  • Posts may use any of the Perl Monks Approved HTML tags:
    a, abbr, b, big, blockquote, br, caption, center, col, colgroup, dd, del, div, dl, dt, em, font, h1, h2, h3, h4, h5, h6, hr, i, ins, li, ol, p, pre, readmore, small, span, spoiler, strike, strong, sub, sup, table, tbody, td, tfoot, th, thead, tr, tt, u, ul, wbr
  • Outside of code tags, you may need to use entities for some characters:
            For:     Use:
    & &amp;
    < &lt;
    > &gt;
    [ &#91;
    ] &#93;
  • Link using PerlMonks shortcuts! What shortcuts can I use for linking?
  • See Writeup Formatting Tips and other pages linked from there for more info.
  • Log In?
    Username:
    Password:

    What's my password?
    Create A New User
    Chatterbox?
    and the web crawler heard nothing...

    How do I use this? | Other CB clients
    Other Users?
    Others musing on the Monastery: (12)
    As of 2014-07-29 18:14 GMT
    Sections?
    Information?
    Find Nodes?
    Leftovers?
      Voting Booth?

      My favorite superfluous repetitious redundant duplicative phrase is:









      Results (225 votes), past polls