I included the reasons behind my opinion in hopes of either hearing opposing reasons or pursuading those with opposing opinions.
I would have thought my reasoning to be self-evident, but perhaps that's a blind spot on my part. When deciding how to categorize (or recategorize) a post, I find that it helps to have a simple rule.
Is the post substantially about either the mechanisms or the overt policies of Perlmonks?
is the simplest, least ambiguous rule I could come up with. Perhaps it's too simple. But the more complex the rule set, the greater the likelihood of meta-argument. We don't have a category for meta-argument. :)