Let's get the most important point out of the way first.

It is more important for the node reaping system to be capable of reasonable responsiveness than for it to be incapable of action until after a lengthy process of notification and waiting for a response has been invoked. Nodes can be unreaped (and any visitor can still see the original contents of a reaped node with a single click).

The reaping system will never be perfect. There are reasonable checks and balances in place before the reaping takes place but it is intentional that no lengthy processes like giving the author a chance to respond are required before action. Infrequent adjustments to the pre-action checks and balances will certainly continue to happen.

Notification when one's node gets considered would probably be a good idea (though I don't think it will be an unmixed blessing). Notification when one's node gets reaped is already in place.

Some facts: All of the nodes in that thread got considered. Most of them got more 'keep' votes than 'delete' votes. A few got reaped, all with 5 'delete' votes and no dissenting votes at all.

I unconsidered severel that had more 'keep' votes than 'delete' votes because they were all considered as simply 'off topic' (by jasonk) which doesn't qualify as a useful consideration reason based on a great deal of discussion on this topic that I've seen. I've unconsidered a lot of nodes that jasonk has wanted reaped (usually for that reason, IIRC) because they got more 'keep' votes than 'delete' votes. I notified him (via /msg) of this the first few times but have yet to see any response so I didn't /msg him this time. Note that getting more 'keep' votes than 'delete' votes is a clear indiciation (once enough votes have been cast) that the node should be kept. It is no accident that it takes a lot more 'delete' votes to reap a node than 'keep' votes to prevent reaping.

I unconsidered them in part because I think that too many new Friars see such casual (careless?) considerations and take them as good examples to emulate. Since this is a fairly common consideration reason, I keep paying attention to see if the mood is shifting or if On Responsible Considerations still resonates with the community.

I didn't particularly want any of the nodes in that thread reaped, in no small part because I figured someone would make a ridiculous claim of "censorship" or at least use it as an excuse to extend the flame war. My worst fear was that the flame war would be propogated to multiple threads as a result.

Yes, I called a claim of censorship "ridiculous". The moving of your words to a slightly less visible location is not censoring.

Part of the purpose of reaping is to allow people to express their desire that the topic be dropped. Considering a node is also meant to do this. This is why the consideration reason is displayed to everyone when they view the node directly (It would be nice if you could also see that a reply has been considered and if you were informed that you were replying to a considered node). That appears to be too subtle to prevent replies. So reaping is not subtle. It appears to do a reasonable job of disuading replies.

The second line of your node invokes Stalin. And now you are not only surprised that your node got reaped but you are offended and think you are being censored? I'm not sure what to say about that. Your first node in that thread looks a lot more like flamebait/trolling than reasoned argument, in part because this is a Perl site. You make a big point about how long you've been at PerlMonks. That just makes me more puzzled by your inability to predict that your node would be considered and likely reaped.

Perhaps you should take a break or find a more appropriate forum for expressing yourself in that manner on that topic.

Yes, I generally do consider nodes that I think are completely off-topic, if people would prefer that I just ignore the off-topic junk then I'll stop. I'm assuming the reason I didn't get the /msg's was because there is no delivery mechanism for them other than the chatterbox, which I don't find interesting so I took it off my sidebar to leave room for more useful stuff.

---

We're not surrounded, we're in a target-rich environment!

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.

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.

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.

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.

Enlil and tall_man have been reaping nodes in the UnitedStates::agenda thread. I feel that their stated reasons behind the reapings border on censorship. I understand that discussing possible motives for the Bush administration war activities has extremely little bearing on Perl. However, neither does the voluminous thread on the WTC bombings. Not much was reaped there.

Two of my nodes were reaped. I was not contacted or consulted in any way. In particular, I was not asked to tone it down or restate my positions.

While I can appreciate your dislike for how your nodes were handled, I think it'd be best to not let this weigh on your chest. I really dislike the idea of perlmonks as a hotbed for international political debate, even if someone could craft a witty and informed script, let alone an invective-filled one.
Also, I'd like to point out that on this topic, I don't represent any of PerlMonk's administrative groups that I am member of -- this is just me giving my own opinion on the subject. And no, it doesn't matter if I'm pro- or anti- anything; I don't want my response to be colored by the politics of war. I would like to see you get beyond these actions so we can get back to our regularly scheduled show. Go to your happy place, dragonchild :-)

If questions regarding Javascript, SQL syntax, or the impending demise of perl in the light of the overwealming superiority of <i>flamebait language of choice</i> are considered 'too far off-topic' for retention here, whatever made you think that your--or anyones--opinions on the subject of war, and the mental health or otherwise of the US president would add to the technical social or humour content of Perl Monks?

Please note that I neither agreeing nor disagreing with your or anyone elses opinion. I have my own opinion like most people, but can see no merit in expressing it here.

I, for one, grow extremely tired of not being able to go anywhere without being bombarded with people's opinions on the war. I come here to read about perl, and will happily vote to reap nodes that have nothing to do with perl. (Like this one).

I, for one, grow extremely tired of not being able to go anywhere without being bombarded with people's opinions on the war.

Shame on those who bombard you with opinions. People should never bombard other people. I am enormously sympathetic.
Antonio

I, for one, grow extremely tired of not being able to go anywhere without being bombarded with people's opinions on the war.

As far as I know, this node and the poet's are the only ones involving the war. I agree that reaping them is censorship; if you disagree, don't read the node, nobody is forcing you.


-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.1
GPA/P/S d+ s++:+ a--- C++ UL++ P++>++++ L++ E W++ N o? K? w-- !O M- V?
+ PS++ PE- Y PGP- t 5- X+ R* tv-- b++ !DI D---(+) G e- h-- r++ y? 
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
[download]

I think the main point is that this is a site meant for discussion of Perl. More to the point, I don't think that discussion of the war should be permanently etched in nodes that will still be around in the years to come. For the past several hours, the chatterbox has been filled with talk about the war. This I don't mind at all. The chatterbox is temporary: these discussions will be wiped out after a few mere minutes (except of course for personal chatterbox logs people are keeping). Furthermore, each user can do a /chatteroff if they really do not want to listen to what is going on in the U.S. and overseas.

If anyone is looking for more in-depth discussion topics on the war, I am quite sure there must be a few newsgroups that are focussed on just that. PerlMonks is a place for Perl, newsgroups are for news. Simple :)

If the above content is missing any vital points or you feel that any of the information is misleading, incorrect or irrelevant, please feel free to downvote the post. At the same time, please reply to this node or /msg me to inform me as to what is wrong with the post, so that I may update the node to the best of my ability.

I do respect your right to your opinion. I simply questioned whether PerlMonks is the right forum for it.

And I have always thought Perl was Political Explanations Rapidly Listed!

CountZero

"If you have four groups working on a compiler, you'll get a 4-pass compiler." - Conway's Law

PerlMonks is about Perl, not about politics. End of story.

Implicit in this common opinion seems to be the belief that a programming language escapes ideology by virtue of its technical nature. Nothing could be further from the truth. In other words, PerlMonks could never be just about Perl.

As Larry Wall said -- no computer language is an island.