|Problems? Is your data what you think it is?|
Re^4: unreaping , reversing reaped, resurrecting a nodeby beech (Parson)
|on May 05, 2016 at 08:33 UTC||Need Help??|
A bare link to unexplained offsite code is hardly more participatory than actual spam.
At least its not anti-participatory, like deleting/disappearing content , in this case actual code answer to question asked
I'm sorry, but now you're just being ridiculous. It would be at least as easy for the OP to c&p the code, and the onus is entirely on the OP to do so. Maybe, if there were already significant discussion around the code, i might, as a moderator, be inclined to suggest to the OP that he c&p the code rather than link to it offsite. But even that tenuous standard is very far from met in a case like this.
How would an anonymous poster know about this unpublished not-a-rule (What is consideration?)? That his answer would be deleted/disappeared unless he C&P the code?
All that happens is the guy who asked the question doesn't get to see the answer
Destroying content because it doesn't meet your high standards of .... not answering the question, that's whats ridiculous, placing higher level of onus on actual content contributors rather than content destroyers -- thats anti-learning/anti-discussion/anti-perlmonks
:) I avoid moderation when I'm having have a bad hair day