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] |
Sorry, maybe I'm dense, but I don't see any difference in the levels of "subjectivity" between the two methods of indicating that your post is OT, nor between the two ways a reader can know that a post is OT. All the predicates are binary and unambiguous. (And also -- I think it needs to be stressed -- equally unreliable as gauges of actual off-topic-ness.)
But it is important to consider that the two solutions differ in respect of how the decision made by the OP can be overridden:
- Using "[OT]" in the titles (the situation today), only janitors can effect the change. And they have to do it on every node in a thread, either automatically (in bulk), or, if they prefer to review each note in the thread, then manually -- and perhaps quite painstakingly. Essentially, every note in every thread, because it has its own title field, can have its own independent indicator of its OT-ness. This level of granularity may be a two-edged sword. ;-)
- With a separate OT section, all the moderators -- a significantly larger cadre of users -- have the power to change the OT indicator, simply by moving the root post from one section to another. And in contrast, this method only categorizes the root node; the rest of the thread is carried along with it.
I'll say again that I don't think the latter is better, in the long run, because it represents a perpetuation and further ingraining of a system I feel is already outmoded and inadequate. I think we need a full-blown, modern keyword tagging system.
I reckon we are the only monastery ever to have a dungeon stuffed with 16 ,000 zombies.
| [reply] |
:P Yes, #2. The section would mean: anything goes. So, no, it’s not equally subjective. Mods don’t interfere except in legally relevant matters. Today, off topic is only tolerated if it’s tangentental to Perl or posted by a respected/loved monk and even then they are often considered “reap.” This is subjective; 5 monks, 5 different valid opinions. A brand new monk posting about a chili cooking contest in Calcutta would be completely acceptable in “Off Topic.” This is objective. It’s irrelevant what it is or who posted it; it’s allowed.
Again, I don’t think it’s likely a good idea and I’m not arguing for it. I just see that right now OT is subjective and hard to dodge as part of the node flow if desired and as such… it’s easy to understand why some monks find it broken or not good enough. I know cures are worse than diseases more often than is part of normal human intuition.
Personally, tagging and such is wonderful but I think that ship has sailed for PerlMonks. Either a complete rewrite in a public repo with modern tools, taking cultural lessons from here and UI lessons from SO, or let the dog sleep.
Update: I have volunteered for the rewrite effort before and I do so again. I’m amazed and thankful that other monks have taken care of the current code and the site has worked so well for so long.
| [reply] |
