in reply to Seemingly-inappropriate reaping of nodes

Your posts in that thread lacked Perl content and their tone invited heated responses. (They did in fact receive heated responses.) Whether the newest monk or the highest saint made those posts, the posts can be judged along those lines. Perhaps more experienced posters do get some leeway -- but the system does not protect any one person from legitimate criticism.

Discussing the rightness or wrongness of a political, religious, or ethical situation is off-topic and otherwise fraught with peril. Several different people must agree to trip automatic reaping -- that happened in this case.

In the future please keep your posts on topic and tone down your tone or restate your positions.

  • Comment on Re: Seemingly-inappropriate reaping of nodes

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re: Re: Seemingly-inappropriate reaping of nodes
by Anonymous Monk on Mar 21, 2003 at 14:15 UTC
    Whether the newest monk or the highest saint made those posts, the posts can be judged along those lines.

    I think I agree with your overall point, but it is worth considering the effectiveness of systems that do differentiate between users on the basis of their contributions. Meta-moderation works extremely well in my opinion (it almost makes slashdot readable) and it's just assigning more power (if you can call it that) to certain users.

[reply]
Re: Re: Seemingly-inappropriate reaping of nodes
by dragonchild (Archbishop) on Mar 20, 2003 at 20:53 UTC
    I was not complaining that my posts were reaped. I am complaining that my posts were reaped without my being asked to restate what I was saying. Maybe, bring it back to being topical. (For example, in that thread, restating my feelings as an extension of the original poetry.)

    I was not asked to do this. I bring up my position in the monastery because I feel that as a longtime member, I should've been given the opportunity to discuss the matter and take corrective action myself. If I chose to disregard the consensus of those who can consider nodes, then, by all mean, reap away! But, don't treat me like a known troll. I have not shown that I deserve that.

    ------
    We are the carpenters and bricklayers of the Information Age.

    Don't go borrowing trouble. For programmers, this means Worry only about what you need to implement.

    Please remember that I'm crufty and crochety. All opinions are purely mine and all code is untested, unless otherwise specified.

[reply]

      That is how reaping has always worked. It only cares about the reputation of the post and the consideration status and pays no attention to the overall reputation or standing of the poster.

      Are you suggesting that the author of a reaped node be given the chance to rephrase his post? That's an interesting idea, and I quite like it in some ways.

[reply]
        Are you suggesting that the author of a reaped node be given the chance to rephrase his post? That's an interesting idea, and I quite like it in some ways.
        I think it's a great idea! Giving the author a chance to rephrase the post allows for teaching and learning, not just rejecting. It also means the ongoing discussion of why the post was reaped could take place away from the rest of the on-topic posts. Sounds like heaven, to me ;) And if the node can't survive purgatory (say by getting voted out?), it gets reaped 'permanently.'

        Maybe along the lines of the "Nodes to Consider" line, there could be a "Nodes in Purgatory" area that holds reaped nodes authored by named monks (i.e. not Anonymous Monk)?

        --Solo

        --
        Keep your distance though, Chewie, but don't look like you're trying to keep your distance. (Chewie barks a question.) I don't know. Fly casual.
[reply]
      A reply falls below the community's threshold of quality. You may see it by logging in.

In Section Perl Monks Discussion