in reply to Re: [OT] How about an Off Topic Section?
in thread [OT] How about an Off Topic Section?

Thank you for your thoughtful commentary.

It seems to me that what you've done is argue for allowing off-topic posts -- which is something we already do. We generally don't allow unconstrained topics, as you know. You say you want an OT section not limited in any way; yet then you admit that the moderation system could and should be used to gate-keep the postings.

What you haven't done is argue why we should have a new separate section for OT.

I reckon we are the only monastery ever to have a dungeon stuffed with 16,000 zombies.
  • Comment on Re^2: [OT] How about an Off Topic Section?

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^3: [OT] How about an Off Topic Section?
by Your Mother (Archbishop) on Jun 09, 2015 at 16:33 UTC

    You sort of answer the question yourself. There is ambiguity and day-to-day, monk-to-monk subjectivity in OT posts now. An OT section would fix that. I am not convinced it’s a good idea either and my response, and your musing, sort of answers that: to remove the subjectivity, OT would have to be anything goes and that probably wouldn’t work out well.

[reply]
      An OT section would fix that.

      Help me see how it would. Either way, the poster is faced with the same question: Is this post off-topic? If she answers 'yes', then she puts it in the OT section or puts "[OT]" in the title (depending on which way we go). Moderators/janitors can change (override) the poster's determination. How is one more or less subjective than the other?

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

        The mods don’t change it and it doesn’t have OT in the title, it’s a template prefix. Either there is objectively a wide-open OT section or it would be pointless to pretend it’s different. It would only ever be modded for the usual suspects: pr0n, legality, such. Again, I’m not convinced it’s helpful for the monastery. I feel like OT has worked pretty well so far as is and I know after being here for years that there are plenty of monks who I enjoy immensely as programmer peers and acquaintances but would not get along with in real life where real life is three-nines off topic. :P

[reply]
Re^3: [OT] How about an Off Topic Section?
by salva (Canon) on Jun 09, 2015 at 20:44 UTC
    Currently, OT posts are merely tolerated. I am in favor of a OT section because that would mean they are actually promoted.
[reply]

      Sure, they're currently "tolerated" in the sense that undoubtedly somebody will show up to point out they're OT -- heck i've pointed it out myself

      And I'm sure they'll get plenty of downvotes for being OT

      If there was an official OT section, I agree , it would be promotional, and anyone complaining about it would be OT

[reply]
        And I'm sure they'll get plenty of downvotes for being OT

        Checking the most recent posts marked "OT", we get vote tallies of: 

        +4-6, +4-5, +3-4, +2-4
+2-2
+2-1,  +7-1,  +9-1,  +12-0, +14-1, +15-1, +16-0, +18-0, +18-1,
+18-1, +18-1, +20-1, +24-0, +26-3, +26-3, +28-0, +32-1, +48-0

        [download]

        Only 17% even managed to garner a negative reputation, and each of those just barely so. And I'd guess that 2 of those 4 were down-voted mostly for reasons other than being off-topic.

        Your certainty appears to be unfounded.

        - tye        

[reply]
[d/l]
      But what are you trying to promote? Your politics? Because that is what will happen. A bunch of monks advocating and arguing about political causes.

      We do not need an OT section because we need more posts about Perl. Not less.

[reply]
        Well, I have the opinion that when you get together a group of people with some common interest they would probably have interesting (for them) conversations about things both related and unrelated to that common interest.
[reply]
[reply]

In Section Perl Monks Discussion