First let me say I think this is a great idea. In the discussion about my recent transgression more than one person cited a tacit agreement to demonstrate that what I had done was improper. Conceding that I should have known to ask permission, how could I have know that there had been some agreement to not do what what I was doing? It is not mentioned in any doc or faq, and can we expect someone to search the monastery thoroughly before each and every post to be sure that what they are about to post is in no way frowned on by some past discussion?
Getting what the majority agrees on out into the open is a good thing. Not so that there can be punishments levied or police squads formed but rather so there can be guidelines cited when someone says "Well how should I have known that?" or "What right do you have to be pissed about that?" "This is why." should be all one has to write (link to nowhere of course). That way we have a quick and easy way to settle any silly disputes. And what can be more fair than majority rule?
All that said, there are two specific point's of Ovid's from above that I would like to respond to. First, I don't see any reason that, after having gathered the consent of all parties quoted, we could not republish dialogues from the CB. I know I am in a minority saying this, but I feel that a good deal of valuable info goes through that little node and it's a shame that it has to stay on the outskirts never for general consumption. Should we log and post every word all the time? Hell no. Should we have any sort of logging mechanism built into the site? No again. Should someone, seeing a really good discussion happening capture it, get permission from the speaking parties and post it where it is appropriate? Sure, why not? And that is the question, why not?
The second point is from the update about repeat offenders, and it's not so much a counterpoint as an opinion. As any idiot or shmoe can tell you, registering a user around here isn't brain science. There is no real way to punish a repeat offender - for that matter, there's not even a way to be sure there is one. They could be a thousand users and one person. The only way to protect ourselves and perlmonks.org from this is to do exactly what we have been doing. Keeping an open-minded, adult dialogue going about a topic we all have things to say about. So long as we do that, and do it as politely as can be done, no one will have a reason to be malicious. And, lacking reason and having time, should someone decide to do something bad, I say we ignore it. Do what this place has proven to be so good at - simply downvote it instead of feeding a fire begging for more flames with wasted strokes from angry fingers on some keyboard that probably doesn't need the extra stress.
I have never been a part of a web community as well oiled and organized as this one, and this is not my first. The experience system is an awesome way to keep things in perspective. Many times, I have gotten a response from someone I've never heard of and wondered if I should heed it. One click and I can see if they're a crackpot or a king. That's awesome. Not that having a lot of experience means you're fool-proof, but, hey, it's gotta mean something, right? The other day seeing a particularly inane post I tried to think of a properly measured response. I couldn't. So I downvoted it (which I try to do as seldom as possible - I'd rather upvote the good), which was a way for me to say "no" without having to be nasty. Which is one of the strengths and advantages the system has over other communities. One can express their opinion without having to litter the DB and possibly be drawn into some sort of war.
Short version: I love this place. Let's just agree on a few guidelines and leave it up to the voting system to enforce them. : )
In reply to Re: (jptxs) Development of the Perl Monks Code of Conduct