Beefy Boxes and Bandwidth Generously Provided by pair Networks
Don't ask to ask, just ask
 
PerlMonks  

Re: unreaping , reversing reaped, resurrecting a node

by Arunbear (Prior)
on May 04, 2016 at 10:05 UTC ( #1162171=note: print w/replies, xml ) Need Help??


in reply to unreaping , reversing reaped, resurrecting a node

Leaving the node in it's current state (reaped for being spam) makes us seem intolerant at best and capricious at worst, because we aren't practising what we preach i.e. the justifications for reaping are at odds with what is documented in How do I use the power of consideration responsibly?
  • Comment on Re: unreaping , reversing reaped, resurrecting a node

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^2: unreaping , reversing reaped, resurrecting a node (useless)
by tye (Sage) on May 05, 2016 at 04:01 UTC

    Yeah, I don't quite understand the (seems to me) allergic reaction to links to things that should just be pasted here. The rather minor flaw of "should have pasted it here" slightly lowers the value of the node. It does not make the node harmful and in need of removal. It doesn't even come close.

    My best guess is that it is a mis-applied immune response to actual spam. We should not be reaping a node because some people find it almost useless!

    All of the flaws pointed out in this thread are things that should have been addressed via replying to the node (or just waiting for somebody else to have the eloquence to do so).

    - tye        

Re^2: unreaping , reversing reaped, resurrecting a node
by jdporter (Canon) on May 05, 2016 at 19:13 UTC
    makes us seem intolerant at best and capricious at worst

    I don't know if I'd say one is "best" and the other "worst"; but it's hardly debatable that we are indeed both. These are the consequences of having not rigorously defined policies and rules and rather letting the community decide for itself what it tolerates or not, and the makeup of the community being in a constant state of flux over time.

    I reckon we are the only monastery ever to have a dungeon stuffed with 16,000 zombies.
Re^2: unreaping , reversing reaped, resurrecting a node
by oiskuu (Hermit) on May 06, 2016 at 16:19 UTC

    What is consideration? gives the test: Don't consider a node unless you feel strongly that something specific should be done. That seems to be inherently somewhat subjective and capricious.

    What makes one brief note with a link (say a pointer to some news) okay, while another rubs us the wrong way? Could it be we find shameless plugs deplorable? Could it be we dislike deliberate attempts to make us click and play fetch? Nay, methinks the "spam" designation was not far off the mark!

    Furthermore, the repost does not strike me as a quality node either. Section of code that does not run. Link to identical content, offsite. Do you want me to click some external links, do you?

    There is no substitute for editing. Not editing your nodes is disrespectful to your peers. Anybody interested in testing the code will need to fix it first. Not only are you delegating secretarial duties, you have everyone duplicate the effort.

    What is spam?

      "Section of code that does not run."

      Which section and why does it not run? (Isn't this statement a worse violation than anything else you're claiming.)

Log In?
Username:
Password:

What's my password?
Create A New User
Node Status?
node history
Node Type: note [id://1162171]
help
Chatterbox?
and the web crawler heard nothing...

How do I use this? | Other CB clients
Other Users?
Others about the Monastery: (6)
As of 2020-09-21 19:39 GMT
Sections?
Information?
Find Nodes?
Leftovers?
    Voting Booth?
    If at first I donít succeed, I Ö










    Results (127 votes). Check out past polls.

    Notices?