|
in reply to unreaping , reversing reaped, resurrecting a node
Yeah, I don't know why OGB called it spam, but I concur with the reaping. PM is not and cannot be a place where people drop bare links to offsite content, particularly if that content is simply code without any explanation or discussion. PM is capable of hosting code just fine; there is no need for pastebin or the like.
(Of course, there's a limit, a threshold; it would be absurd to duplicate CPAN modules here, for example. Where that threshold is, exactly, is up to the community -- the moderators, specifically.)
I reckon we are the only monastery ever to have a dungeon stuffed with 16 ,000 zombies.
|
Re^2: unreaping , reversing reaped, resurrecting a node
by beech (Parson) on May 03, 2016 at 23:20 UTC
|
seems weirdly odd and hostile/unwelcoming to me, why purposeful discourage participation?
if you can do the the consideration and voting, you could just as easy copy/post the code from the link
| [reply] |
|
|
A link offsite to any kind of paste-bin style code is guaranteed to be broken eventually and probably soon. The link was future garbage. It pointed to 25 lines of code that could have been placed here easily. Also, anonymonks get no benefit of the doubt with this kind of thing. If an even slightly well known monk had posted the link, it would not have been reaped.
| [reply] |
|
|
A link offsite to any kind of paste-bin style code is guaranteed to be broken eventually and probably soon. The link was future garbage. It pointed to 25 lines of code that could have been placed here easily. Also, anonymonks get no benefit of the doubt with this kind of thing. If an even slightly well known monk had posted the link, it would not have been reaped.
FWIW, its more than a pastebin, faq says it runs the code and the code will live forever ... website has been live since 2009
Its even listed in sitefaqlet Miscellaneous Off-site Resources since 2013
I'm reminded of IRC Considered Harmful
Cheers
| [reply] |
|
|
|
|
We don't discourage useful participation. However, a blind link accompanied by a cryptic one-liner generally fails to qualify as "useful".
| [reply] |
|
|
| [reply] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
| [reply] |
|
|
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] |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
