Beefy Boxes and Bandwidth Generously Provided by pair Networks
Just another Perl shrine

No CB comment is serious, and should not be reproduced in a node without research

by jptxs (Curate)
on Nov 14, 2000 at 20:00 UTC ( #41589=monkdiscuss: print w/ replies, xml ) Need Help??

I'll make this short. The title says most of it. In an attempt to end what I started (god, I can't say how sorry I am for causing all this), let's just have short responses from everyone to say they agree or do not. Sort of an informal poll I suppose.

Let's make a monk's deal that:

  • The Chatterbox is a pub, anything goes and there is no expectation that what is being said should be thought of as completely serious.
  • There will be no reproduction of logs made of Chatterbox discussion posted to this site or used in any other public forum (usenet, your next book, etc.). Make them for your own benefit if you want, just don't post them.
  • If you do feel compelled to quote something from the Chatterbox, confirm it's validity with the person quoted first (they may hav been kidding, or the comment might be out of context).

I've distilled these three things from everything I've read on this. I think they capture everyone's thoughts. Of course, they are guidelines and there might be exceptions to everything EXCEPT the part about clearing what you do with the people quoted. Just say if you agree or not. After this, assuming these are acceptable to all, monks can refer to this node as the de facto standard of CB logging if and when it comes up again.

this makes me wish we had a secret handshake, it would be appropriate to use it after this...

<myExperience> $mostLanguages = 'Designed for engineers by engineers.'; $perl = 'Designed for people who speak by a linguist.'; </myExperience>

Comment on No CB comment is serious, and should not be reproduced in a node without research
Download Code
Replies are listed 'Best First'.
RE: No CB comment is serious, and should not be reproduced in a node without research
by chromatic (Archbishop) on Nov 15, 2000 at 10:49 UTC
    I've been here just about as long as anyone, months before there was a Chatterbox or a Voting/Experience System.

    Instead of making pronouncements, I would rather emphasize the design intent, history, and evolution of the current mechanisms and culture surrounding them.

    The Chatterbox came about to build a sense of community -- a way for users to get to know each other, making small talk and sticking around, giving simple advice. It's publicly viewable, but messages only stick around for five minutes by design.

    Nodes, on the other hand, last until the heat death of the universe or vroom has to sell the server to pay for heating oil. If you want your words to have a sense of permanence, post them in a node.

    By all means, take advice from the Chatterbox when possible and from nodes as often as you can. But leave the chatter light, and treat your other monks with respect.

      I wish I could ++ that more then once. It encapsulated by entire views on this matter. People have compared the Chatterbox to a pub or streetcorner. But always a verbal media, where unless you are being recorded, it's transient. And that feeling - sponeniety, the ability to be serious or lighthearted, the community atmosphere, is what I would like to preserve.

      If people have a problem that they do not feel that they can talk because their words might be recorded, doesn't that hurt us all as we loose the benefits of their comments, wisdom, jokes, thoughts, and participation.

      I've heard people argue both sides about the legality of recording the chatterbox. But when people talk about what they WANT, I've only heard one side. I haven't heard anyone championing "I want to be able to record the chatterbox and repost it". From that I can only assume that while people may want to protect their rights (either to be able repost or not to have their words reposted), from a PerlMonks community perspective, the vocal people want to keep it light and unrecorded.

      That's good by me.

      =Blue might be eaten by a grue...

      You hit the point there with respect.

      We all (I hope) know all that stuff about "do unto others", "would you want to be treated that way", and such things.

      If we all keep that in mind, things will go smoothly.

      Roy Alan

RE: No CB comment is serious, and should not be reproduced in a node without research
by neophyte (Curate) on Nov 14, 2000 at 20:10 UTC
    I agree.
    If a majority agrees, this node could be linked to in the Perl Monks FAQ for future reference.


RE: No CB comment is serious, and should not be reproduced in a node without research
by FouRPlaY (Monk) on Nov 15, 2000 at 00:32 UTC
    Hmm... I must have missed the whole "Chatterbox Archieve" discussion...

    These seem like resonable guidlines, however. A Chatterbox Pub, where stressed out Monks coding late into the night strung out on cafine can let off some steam. Sounds like the last thing someone should take seriously.

    Learning Perl or Going To Die Trying
RE: No CB comment is serious, and should not be reproduced in a node without research
by extremely (Priest) on Nov 15, 2000 at 12:01 UTC
    I gotta say your points fairly well sum up how I feel about the CB. I was glad I hadn't been quoted and posted for posterity, since I tend to be even goofier in the CB than I normally am in posts.

    OTOH, these sort of social conventions twist with the times. I'd rather not codify that which doesn't need ossification. Tomorrow vroom might let us checkbox the best lines and then vote on yesterday's favorites... You never know.

    $you = new YOU;
    honk() if $you->love(perl)

RE: No CB comment is serious, and should not be reproduced in a node without research
by jepri (Parson) on Nov 14, 2000 at 20:50 UTC
      jptxs and you seem to have already agreed to call them guidelines, so I will only say: in reality, this is a benevolent dictatorship, since vroom runs it and can do with it as he wills, but other than that, there can be no 'rules,' only guidelines that people can follow or not. Why are they guidelines? Because we, the users, don't have a lot of ways to really enforce them.

      As for your suggestion of pointing people at threads, I'm not in favor of it. Why? Because of conciseness. If it's in the FAQ, it's really easy to point at, instead of pointing at fifteen different threads. Also, new people are far more likely to read only what's in the FAQ or the Guide to the Monastery or the "Need Help??" link at the top of the page than scroll through some fairly lengthy threads full of perlmonks politics that they know nothing about yet.

      Of course, that would require some kind of consensus, which you seem adamantly opposed to. Unfortunately for you, it seems that a majority of the vocal people believe that a consensus is, in fact, needed. I agree with them. No matter what that consensus is, we seem to be headed only to further miscommunication and unpleasantness until we have some idea of what is expected in our interactions through PM1.

      1 I could go on a long rant about sociology here, but I'll limit myself to: what else are mores, taboos, and other unspoken social rules but these types of guidelines? The fact that you (and everyone else) was brought up thoroughly indoctrinated2 into some of these social rules does not mean that they are not the product of social consensus. Far, far better that we state them explicitly than that people try (and fail) to apply their internal consensus, as we are not all the same person.

      2 Ooooh, I get burn-in-hell points for that one!

      they are NOT rules. I even said so in the post. They are at best guidelines. And the reason for this post is so that whenever this may come up again someone can point to one place where the thoughts expressed are summed up neatly and unambiguously. One of the root causes of the problem here is that no one was sure what, if anything, had been agreed on. there had been previous discussions that had not reached any sort of conclusion at all and left some feeling one thing and other something completely contrary. I just one one place that anymonk can point to and say "Last time logging the chatterbox came up everybody decided X".

      so jepri, do the above guidelines seem to sum up what everyone agreed to in the other threads thus far? if you think they do, cool. if not, what's missing? I'm trying to be constructive here...

      <myExperience> $mostLanguages = 'Designed for engineers by engineers.'; $perl = 'Designed for people who speak by a linguist.'; </myExperience>
        You said everything but that they are rules. You ask three times for an agreement, then you suggest that these "guidlines" actually become (quote)standards(unquote).

        What's more you know damn well that if you point things in a bulleted list a whole bunch of people will refer to them as the rules.

        I just one one place that anymonk can point to and say "Last time logging the chatterbox came up everybody decided X".

        That's exactly what I'm worried about.

        This is a good thread to read as well:

        24Hr log of chatterbox

        Update: Instead of a "guidelines" with glib comments why don't you make a significant threads list. That way people can read the threads for themselves and see the community in action. You've decided that a guidelines list is the way to go and you're determined to ram it through. I made a perfectly good suggestion that we refer people to threads rather than giving them a list of rules -sorry- guidelines to agree while they are here.

        Update II: I guess I'm being unreasonable expecting people to read whole threads. But I'll put any others I find here just in case.

        Hack the planet with Physics++

Log In?

What's my password?
Create A New User
Node Status?
node history
Node Type: monkdiscuss [id://41589]
Approved by root
and the web crawler heard nothing...

How do I use this? | Other CB clients
Other Users?
Others drinking their drinks and smoking their pipes about the Monastery: (7)
As of 2015-11-27 10:40 GMT
Find Nodes?
    Voting Booth?

    What would be the most significant thing to happen if a rope (or wire) tied the Earth and the Moon together?

    Results (724 votes), past polls