Re^2: Additions to the FAQ and a Community Statement

a) Co-Rion: your changes seem OK, (however IMHO not needed) so go on and do them

b) Ya'akov I am very concerned about your post. You claim you are a kind of police having the right to control everything that is written related to Perl. And that this is only the best for us, as you would only oppose things that violate your understanding of what is acceptable for our community.

I am especially concerned that you (as the self-imposed higher ethic instance) blame and insult the anonymous monk. I felt unconfortable by many of the posts of that thread. That included anonymous posts, as well as posts by some named monks and by some using throw-away-accounts. So nothing special there.

The discussion inside perlmonks was in no way special than any other discussion on public forums: a questionable remark lead to many counterattacks, the involved parties called their allies, the amount of trolling and personal attacks increased, Godwin's Law was invoked and few days later the discussion ceased. And the community of monks provided their feedback by up- or down-voting the nodes.

You claim that this discussion painted the Perl community in a very bad light. I strongly disagree to this. The only thing that might have painted the community in bad light were some people carrying one side of this discussion to their blogs outside (to a place where discussion and voting is not possible).

You write There is no legitimate basis for interfering in this [the perlmoks} culture. So keep to this. We don't need no police. Nor new rules by someone not interested being part of the community.

Rata

Comment on Re^2: Additions to the FAQ and a Community Statement Download Code

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^3: Additions to the FAQ and a Community Statement by LanX (Saint) on Apr 16, 2013 at 11:17 UTC
Hei Rata, keep cool! =) He's new and he doesn't know the rules and he's no threat. > And the community of monks provided their feedback by up- or down-voting the nodes. Well I actively ignored it and I hope I wasn't the only one. Let's stop feeding all this ... Cheers Rolf ( addicted to the Perl Programming Language)	[reply]
Re^3: Additions to the FAQ and a Community Statement by Ya'akov (Initiate) on Apr 16, 2013 at 12:08 UTC
Hello, Rata. With respect, you seem to have misread my post. I don't claim to be any sort of police, nor that I have any right to "control anything that is written related to Perl". If somehow I managed to convey that, I apologize. Re-reading my own post, I can't see how you draw these conclusions, but let me make it clear, I am here to appeal to the PerlMonks community, not to govern it in some way. I have said repeatedly that I have no basis for the latter. I singled out the anonymous posting because it contained the worst of the invective. It also did so without risk to the person's reputation here, which is cowardly. Of course, it could have been some troublemaker who wandered by and decided to post something, but I don't think you believe that. I certainly don't. As far as blame goes, I don't know how many times I have to say that there is blame on both sides before people notice it. I will say it again, though, as I did in my original post: misbehavior knows no ideological bounds. This is not a zero sum game, people on both sides of this polarizing issue have responsibility for level of discourse. Why do I deserve such a harsh response? Am I a threat? I have repeatedly said that I am here as part of the greater Perl community of which PerlMonks considers itself a facet. I am here for a discussion about these things, not to somehow force PerlMonks to do any particular thing. If change comes, it will be internal, not external. I respect your strong defense of PerlMonks as it stands, and I respect your right to disagree with my opinions. But, I would ask you actually consider my opinions before rejecting them. I feel, from what you have written, that you see me symbolically, not as a fellow member of the greater Perl community. Nothing I have written here is intended to be dismissive of your opinions, beliefs, ideas, or feelings. I am interested in them because they are informed, and relevant. I don't know that I can make this clear, but I am not the person you are concerned about above.	[reply]