The thought was to attempt to head off the (valid) potential counter-argument, that given the nature of the hardware PM runs on (ie. donated), that the extra diskspace consumed by allowing general discussion to take place here would impose too great a burden upon that generosity. But maybe disk space isn't a concern.
Indeed, in the OP I also suggested that rather than XP being accumulated for OT discussion (another possible reason for not allowing it), that votes could be used to cause threads that garner sufficient interest, to be retained. I hereby withdraw that suggestion in favour of no voting at all.
Personally, I like the idea that such discussion should evaporate. Anyone who finds a particular thread of long term interest has the option to save a local copy. In part, the reason for wanting this is, as mentioned above, as a slightly longer lived uber-CB.
A place where off-topic discussion can go and continue to its natural end without concerns for the sensitivities of those who prefer this place to be pure perl. Also, a place where two or more people can go to pursue an extended off-topic conversation without the 255-char /msg limit; the restriction it places on trying to share code samples via each others scratchpads; and all the other general awkwardness that attempting to have off-thread discussions leads to.
A while ago I was trying to work with a couple of other people on something and we moved to emails. Two-way by email is okay, though the delays are annoying. 3-way by email gets really bloody messy, with whomever has the slowest email-path constantly playing: Answer the question before the question before the previous question; compounded by the out of order delivery that inevitably occurs if one persons mail-paths are faster than another's.
Try 4-way and you've got the mailing list scenario of everyone talking at once. All typing furiously to correct the same misunderstanding; or pounding on their CheckMail icons waiting for responses.
That's why I infinitely prefer this place to mailing lists. With the latter, whenever anything vaguely controversial comes up, you get the 'everybody talking and nobody listening' scenario.
But for the same reasons as the CB, some conversations do not warrant being set in stone and retained for all time. Sometimes it's nice to just talk without having to expend time on deeply analytical thought; or worrying about whether it's it's or its; or how ones personal opinions might play to the wider audience.
For all those reasons, I think that it should evaporate once the discussion comes to a close. And if any mechanism was put in place to allow the retention of threads or posts, individual authors should have a veto. Either a blanket veto, or a per-post veto.
This latter notion would complicate things wildly and so my preference would be for no such mechanism. If you see something of interest and wish to retain it--take a local copy.
Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error.
"Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority".
In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice.
