Beefy Boxes and Bandwidth Generously Provided by pair Networks
Syntactic Confectionery Delight
 
PerlMonks  

Re: Re^2: Are "PM Discussions" only to be technical? (reason)

by dws (Chancellor)
on May 02, 2003 at 08:16 UTC ( #254933=note: print w/ replies, xml ) Need Help??


in reply to Re^2: Are "PM Discussions" only to be technical? (reason)
in thread Are "PM Discussions" only to be technical?

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. :)


Comment on Re: Re^2: Are "PM Discussions" only to be technical? (reason)
Re^4: Are "PM Discussions" only to be technical? (reason)
by tye (Cardinal) on May 02, 2003 at 14:41 UTC

    Ah, yes. I guess I don't see your rule as simpler. My rule is "Is the post substantially about PerlMonks?". (:

                    - tye

Log In?
Username:
Password:

What's my password?
Create A New User
Node Status?
node history
Node Type: note [id://254933]
help
Chatterbox?
and the web crawler heard nothing...

How do I use this? | Other CB clients
Other Users?
Others taking refuge in the Monastery: (6)
As of 2014-09-20 23:10 GMT
Sections?
Information?
Find Nodes?
Leftovers?
    Voting Booth?

    How do you remember the number of days in each month?











    Results (163 votes), past polls