Not any argument that hasn't already been presented, I suppose. But I've yet to see any cogent argument in favor of breaking the schema.
Who bears the onus of persuasion?
| [reply] |
But I've yet to see any cogent argument in favor of breaking the schema.
That's because you aren't listening.
The very fact that you can point to a few dozen prior discussions on the subject means that the decision should be reviewed.
And publicly; not just a /msg god1 to god2: Let's nip that idea in the bud.
Arguments for:
- This thread -- along with the many previously ignored.
- That Perlmonks Discussion already broke the schema.
- That even post the relatively recent rationalisations; 7 out of the 10 current sections are essentially unused.
- Because there are Monk's who would like to ask non-Perl related questions;
And there are Monk's who would be happy and willing to answer them;
But they hold back from doing so because there is nowhere appropriate to conduct those discussions that doesn't draw the ire of the "That's not Perl-related" crowd; which for many of whom, is the only 'contribution' they ever make to this place.
- Because life moves on. Yesterday's edicts can be changed.
- Because the Monk's clearly want it.
- Because it might breath new life into this place.
- Because the whole "types of discourse" argument is a crock.
Does your opinion outweigh everyone else's?
With the rise and rise of 'Social' network sites: 'Computers are making people easier to use everyday'
Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error.
| [reply] |
Does your opinion outweigh everyone else's?
My opinion carries very little weight indeed. I'm not a god, I just document the realities as best I can. But having non-topical sections makes eminent sense to me, so I argue in favor of it. But you don't need to change my mind, you need to change the gods' minds; and if you succeed, I will update the site docs accordingly.
I reckon we are the only monastery ever to have a dungeon stuffed with 16 ,000 zombies.
| [reply] |