Re^9: unreaping , reversing reaped, resurrecting a node

And not to put too fine a point on it, but it was not really kosher to do; lack of consequence or not, some of us attempt to take the high road regardless. tye seems perfectly amenable to restoring the content since he sees no valid justification whatsoever for the reaping. Your approach here reeks of the social cop / thought police stuff that is the biggest detraction to participation for me personally which leads to a finer point on it: I’m more valuable than some anonymous monk who might be gone forever tomorrow or even be an SEO shill for the off-site resource for all you know. Are you going to consider discouraging my participation a valid concern?

Comment on Re^9: unreaping , reversing reaped, resurrecting a node

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^10: unreaping , reversing reaped, resurrecting a node by LanX (Saint) on May 06, 2016 at 10:19 UTC
We just discovered a new way of trolling: 1. Post harmless content which looks like spam at first glance to provoke reaping. 2. Start a discussion that content was "destroyed" and keep the guards busy discussing if an anonymous monk who dissappeared was probably mistreated. The perfect self regulatory system doesn't exist, we can't employ editors who do a background check for every post. It's like shooting someone who attacks you with a water pistol. It's still self defence if the gun looks real. Probably I also voted reap, because I trusted OGB and this looked weird. Restoring or not won't really change much now. I'd just suggest to stop feeding this discussion. Cheers Rolf _{(addicted to the Perl Programming Language and ☆☆☆☆ :) Je suis Charlie!}	[reply]

Replies are listed 'Best First'.

Re^10: unreaping , reversing reaped, resurrecting a node
by LanX (Saint) on May 06, 2016 at 10:19 UTC

1. Post harmless content which looks like spam at first glance to provoke reaping.

2. Start a discussion that content was "destroyed" and keep the guards busy discussing if an anonymous monk who dissappeared was probably mistreated.

The perfect self regulatory system doesn't exist, we can't employ editors who do a background check for every post.

It's like shooting someone who attacks you with a water pistol. It's still self defence if the gun looks real.

Probably I also voted reap, because I trusted OGB and this looked weird.

Restoring or not won't really change much now.

I'd just suggest to stop feeding this discussion.

Cheers Rolf
_{(addicted to the Perl Programming Language and ☆☆☆☆ :)

Je suis Charlie!}

[reply]