Re^5: unreaping , reversing reaped, resurrecting a node

At least its not anti-participatory, like deleting/disappearing content

Now you're confusing participation with moderation & administration. What the moderators do is kind of "meta" relative to the main purpose of the site.

How would an anonymous poster know about ...

The same way we all learned these things. And the fact that this anonymous poster chose to "participate" in a way that is not generally acceptable to the community is prima facie evidence that they haven't bothered to learn how this community works. Which is why I feel less bad about supporting the reap call than I might.

Destroying content ...

We didn't destroy content. The content was off site, and it's still there. Presumably.

placing higher level of onus on actual content contributors rather than content destroyers

Exactly. The participants bear the entire onus for content contribution.

The moderators, whom you call "content destroyers", have a different responsibility: to keep this place clean of crap, such as unexplained links to unexplained offsite content.

I reckon we are the only monastery ever to have a dungeon stuffed with 16,000 zombies.

Comment on Re^5: unreaping , reversing reaped, resurrecting a node

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^6: unreaping , reversing reaped, resurrecting a node by Anonymous Monk on May 05, 2016 at 22:45 UTC
We didn't destroy content. The guy who asked the question cannot see the response , doesn't know a response is missing, what do you call that?	[reply]
Re^7: unreaping , reversing reaped, resurrecting a node by LanX (Saint) on May 06, 2016 at 00:27 UTC
> what do you call that? Hiding. Cheers Rolf _{(addicted to the Perl Programming Language and ☆☆☆☆ :) Je suis Charlie!}	[reply]
Re^7: unreaping , reversing reaped, resurrecting a node by jdporter (Paladin) on Nov 13, 2023 at 14:16 UTC
The guy who asked the question cannot see the response , doesn't know a response is missing The "guy" who "asked the question" never bothered to check back here for a response, as far as anyone can tell. If it had been you (and it could have been you, given that you have done almost all your posting anonymously for years now), you would have responded with some kind of complaint about your "content" being "destroyed" "for no reason". (It's not lost on me that that is exactly what you're doing in the OP. Nonetheless, I don't think you posted that junk, because you know how this site works, and you were posting as yourself mostly back in those days.)	[reply]


"be consistent"
	PerlMonks