in reply to Re^2: unreaping , reversing reaped, resurrecting a node
in thread unreaping , reversing reaped, resurrecting a node

why purposeful discourage participation?

A bare link to unexplained offsite code is hardly more participatory than actual spam.

if you can do the the consideration and voting, you could just as easy copy/post the code from the link

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.

I reckon we are the only monastery ever to have a dungeon stuffed with 16,000 zombies.
  • Comment on Re^3: unreaping , reversing reaped, resurrecting a node

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^4: unreaping , reversing reaped, resurrecting a node
by beech (Parson) on May 05, 2016 at 08:33 UTC

    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    How would an anonymous poster know about this unpublished not-a-rule (What is consideration?)?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

[reply]
      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.
[reply]

        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]
      > Destroying content

      Reaping doesn't destroy it's just limiting readability for readers without login ... like bots.

      Cheers Rolf
      (addicted to the Perl Programming Language and ☆☆☆☆ :)
      Je suis Charlie!

[reply]
        or the guy who originally asked the question, an anonymous monk
[reply]

In Section Perl Monks Discussion