Re: Restricting Anonymous Monk to SOPW

Relevant topic, of course. Undeniably, there is the tendency for newcomers to make more mistakes in picking the right section for their queries, etc.

But it occurs to me that the converse may also be true. That the monks who have stayed too long inbetween four walls of the Monastery, figuratively speaking, are prone to, um, go bananas from time to time. Allergic reactions, crusader banners, hallucinatory delusions (a ghost of Jefferson stalking you). I believe, tilting at windmills is the generic phrase. I suggest this latter phenomenon may better explain the upsurge of considerations.

So I was thinking, perhaps there ought to be a "Sanitarium" section with a more light-hearted, non-technical content, along with some notes about the Monastery etiquette.

"We celebrate TIMTOWTDI. There is no One True Editor."
"Don't solicit votes or considerations."
"Count to ten."
"Practice what you preach: apply to self the standards you would demand of others."
"Preferably, let others consider nodes in your threads."
"When was the last time you took a vacation?"

But maybe we just need more... fortune cookies?

Comment on Re: Restricting Anonymous Monk to SOPW

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^2: Restricting Anonymous Monk to SOPW by jdporter (Paladin) on May 15, 2017 at 21:57 UTC
perhaps there ought to be a "Sanitarium" section Oh ye gods, no.	[reply]
Re^3: Restricting Anonymous Monk to SOPW by BrowserUk (Patriarch) on May 16, 2017 at 00:25 UTC
Utmost respect JD, but has that policy "Posts are assigned to sections based not on their subject matter but on their type of discourse." worked so well for this place? Too late now of course, but perhaps it's time to see that just cos someone wrote that a decade ago, doesn't mean it is still relevant today. A lot has changed in the interim. With the rise and rise of 'Social' network sites: 'Computers are making people easier to use everyday' Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error. "Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority". The enemy of (IT) success is complexity. In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice. Suck that fhit	[reply]
Re^4: Restricting Anonymous Monk to SOPW by jdporter (Paladin) on May 16, 2017 at 15:13 UTC
Fair question. My feeling is that if we have N sections, we will have e^N arguments (or at least considerations) about posts being in the wrong section. Of course, by this logic, we should have only one section. And indeed, I think we should following Carter's Compass toward having only one section. With posts differentiated by keywords/tags. And, as I've said, the 'title' field serves as our keywords field. Not that this is ideal, but it's fine. And as long as we don't have a true keywords field, with properly controlled vocabularies, we use sections as essentially a controlled vocabulary for one facet of the post. I reckon we are the only monastery ever to have a dungeon stuffed with 16,000 zombies.	[reply]
Re^2: Restricting Anonymous Monk to SOPW by Anonymous Monk on May 18, 2017 at 17:49 UTC
OK Nick! :)	[reply]
Re^2: Restricting Anonymous Monk to SOPW by Anonymous Monk on May 18, 2017 at 18:01 UTC
"So I was thinking, perhaps there ought to be a "Sanitarium" section ..." That's the Chatterbox, grapevine to the Looney Bin.	[reply]


laziness, impatience, and hubris
	PerlMonks