The Evolution of Perl Monks: Chapter 714
(of an ongoing saga)
Primary Points
- That personality conflicts are an inescapable element of a
community, and
- That a community needs rules before it is justified in punishing
its unpopular or seditious elements, and
- That princepawn's departure is a failure on the part of the
Perl Monks community, not on the part of princepawn
Point One: Where are you, Solomon?
Communities are constructed from the complex relationships
of people with, in the case of Perl Monks, shared interests.
A community of one person is unlikely to have "politics", a
word with dirty connotations. A community with two or more
people experiences politics in short order. The holier-than-thou
often openly disdain politicking. But community politics are,
at the basic level, nothing more than the resolution of
conflicts between individuals.
It is most often the case that individuals will
aggregate into factions weighing in on either side of an issue.
This creates the advantage of numbers -- in an era or place
without formalized government, a larger faction will have more
success in whacking other factions upside the head with sticks.
Under a formalized government, a large and powerful faction
can wield their sticks against a dictator (a revolution) or a ruling faction (a different
kind of revolution).
The second order effect is that it is unlikely
that all members of a faction will agree wholly on anything,
including whatever issue is at hand (providing they even
remember the issue, what with all the smacking and bonking
people about the head). A faction is a community within a
community, and differs somewhat in that the members of a
faction usually agree to present a united front during the conflict over a particular
issue. Factions tend to be unsustainable unless
there is a mechanism in place such that members are willing
to give up several degrees of freedom over the long term.
Perl Monks is more of a community than a faction itself, but
has suffered from personal conflicts and conflicts between
loosely knit groups over a number of issues. The latest source
of friction has been between princepawn and a number of
monks acting out their individual consciences. It would be
entirely acceptable to dismiss princepawn as chaotic element
who refuses to conform to what is commonly accepted as
proper conduct. It is more appropriate though to examine
the existing practices, the roles of different members of
the community, and the aforementioned codes of conduct.
Question 1: Is Perl Monks a strong
community in its own right, a faction of the Perl community at large,
or both?
Points to consider:
- Perl Monks provides an alternative resource to places like #perl,
with a higher level of tolerance for ignorant questions (or so the story goes).
- Perl Monks uses the metaphor of a monastery as a model for
behavior, etiquette, preservation of knowledge. Monasteries are
often hierarchical organizations with strict rules for membership
and protocol enforcement mechanisms.
- The Perl community has no qualifications
for membership, no particular goals (just the shared interest of using
and bettering perl), and no overarching metaphor or behavioral protocol enforcement.
- Perl Monks the group does not have a great deal of influence over
the development of Perl the language (or does it?), which is the only
power in the Perl community worth having (or is it?).
Question 2: Does Perl Monks have its own internal factions of people
easily swayed by emotion or awe or demagoguery, or is
every member an individual who forms fluid alliances based
on his/her ethical stances and ability to reason?
Points to consider: An Innocent Post degenerates
Point Two: Perl Monks Municipal Code HC344-b: Thou shalt not refer to Perl as PERL
The codes of conduct and community roles have been shaped so far with a
powerful concept, the concept of metaphor. But the Perl Monks
community cannot grow and evolve forever fueled only by the monastery metaphor.
The first problem with using a metaphor as a means of framing a community is that
it is difficult to find a really effective metaphor that does not break down on
close examination. The second is the danger that the line between
metaphor and reality will start to blur in the minds of community members. Examples
of both these points are easy to find.
In the case of the first point, for instance, the hierarchical organization
of a Christian monastery follows naturally from the proposition one, that its residents are
all in service of God's will, and proposition two, that God is in the
monastery and everywhere else as well.
Thus, the need for at least two levels of authority (God and
!God) in the monastery makes sense. But Perl is not God, Larry is not God,
and vroom is not God (neither of the latter ever having made the claim).
One can argue that we must have many levels
of monks at PM, instead of equality for all, but we do not find God when
we reduce the argument here.
In the second case, one doesn't need to read very many posts to realize that a
few members have lost track of the fact that Perl Monks is not actually
a monastery*.
All of the preconceptions that one has about monasteries are not necessarily correct
or applicable. They are useful for conveying a great deal of community
philosophy in a single word to a new user. The word is pregnant with thousands of years
of history and precedent, and acts as a marvelous clue-stick for supplicants and
applicants alike. The metaphor should be retained because of its power. The power
of connotation though is such that the rules of actual monasteries are
taken to be the case in Perl Monks. (For example, exhibiting humility before God because God is
greater than the individual does not translate to exhibiting humility before Perl.)
Unlike physical monasteries, Perl Monks does not yet have formalized protocols with an
accompanying set of enforcement mechanisms.
This brings us to the question of Perl Monks rules and enforcements thereof. Nowhere
is it written that monks must be polite, have a sense of humor, and like Perl. There
are implicit mores and written "suggestions", and sure it would be silly for someone
who didn't like Perl to want to be a Perl Monk, but the fact
remains that there is no formalized code of conduct.
Instead, we have the accompanying half in place: an enforcement mechanism (voting) for monks to use,
and without rules, to abuse with impunity. Rules must have teeth and teeth must have rules.
Certainly voting was not originally envisioned as a
mechanism to punish the unpopular. But it is tremendously naive to think that no one
would ever be influenced to vote based on the writer of the post rather than the content.
Perl Monks has several thousand enforcers running around with the ability to enforce
completely arbitrary rules at the whim of their individual motivations.
Even the most thoughtful person rarely takes the time to face their own motivations
in enforcing rules, such as "Am I following my principles?" or "Have I ever questioned my own
principles to make sure they weren't blindly inherited?".
Expand these questions about
individual motivations to a vast web of community motivations and you will encounter
weaknesses. One weakness is that if there are no formalized
rules and we rely on the good judgment of the average monk, there is room then for
the demagogue who can influence monks (through words, prowess, or other means)
to subjugate their internal sense of principle. S/he can then control their
collective enforcement power to either shape their vision of the rules, or merely
punish threats as they arise in a chaotic system. A community may, as a whole,
prefer to risk this possibility rather than implement written rules.
If there are formalized rules, an altogether different but common system
failure occurs: the failure of most communities to recognize that the seditious and
unpopular element that merely questions the existing rules is not, in fact, dangerous.
These are the people who prevent the fossilization and institutionalization
of codes that over time lose meaning or relevance to a community.
Question 3: Would you say that Perl Monks
actually is a monastery?
Point to consider: Languages and words evolve to fit their times...
Question 4: Would retaining voting on nodes but getting rid of XP negate the
opportunity for the power-hungry to make up the rules by putting
together factions of votes?
Points to consider:
- XP whoring would be harder
- Group-shunning would have to be done verbally, not with mass downvoting
- People might stop voting completely if there is no "reward"
Question 5: How did the practice of banning white shoes after Labor day finally go
out of practice, and why did it exist in the first place?
People to consult: a certain master of trivia
Point Three: What Do You Call a Group of Camels?
Princepawn is unpopular. That is not really up for debate. Personality perhaps
comes into play, but also the content of his posts and the danger that is perceived in them.
He has questioned
informal community practices (mass downvoting), arbitrary actions by people with
power (refusing a request for a picture in the monk rotation), and the very center
of the community's existence: Perl. As an outsider and a person who will say out
loud what others do not, his actions are not just valuable but are an
ongoing necessity.
Without a gadfly type of element who forces the community
to defend its reasoning, the reasons may themselves be forgotten, though the rules
go on. A gadfly has a difficult path, because s/he must be part of and apart
from a community. It is not for the author of this post to say that princepawn
is the "right" person to take on this role, or that any one person should do so.
But the role itself is valuable, and
though princepawn's personality may grate, many of his questions deserve abundant
respect.
Though it may be the decision of the community to do otherwise, it is
the opinion of the author that a formal set of rules is necessary. Why?
the number of new users registering every day leads to a conclusion based on
practicality -- that the popularity of the site and the need for its services
will overwhelm a delicate unwritten system based on deep personal respect, graciousness,
humility, and learning. One doesn't need to look far
to see a formerly close-knit community of the smart and computer-literate
overwhelmed by popularity.
The most resilient community will be the one that embraces the seditious
voice and allows it to prune away the dead or useless bits. Whether it is just
one lone voice or a occasional note in every monk's voice does not matter.
Perl Monks is not any different from any other community -- its denizens will herd
instinctively to protect the interests of the community. The question that matters is
not whether it is resilient enough to withstand attacks on Perl, but whether it
is resilient enough to understand its own best interests, to transform itself as
necessary, and to thrive as a result.
Question 6: Is Slashdot a grand failure or a notable success as
an online community of self-described nerds?
Question 7: Would you question everything? Or do you
believe that some questions go too far and it should be incorporated into
the rules that certain things should be left unsaid?
Consider the following:
- Is it acceptable to be harsh with new users? Is it acceptable to be harsh
with people who are harsh? It is acceptable to set any rules at all?
- Should a democratic society such as the United States do away with the
anonymous vote completely? Should Perl Monks?
- Is vroom's demonstrated bias against princepawn warranted?
- Do merlyn, gnat, Dominus etc. deserve to be worshipped as heroes? Does
it damage the community at large to have Saints with power and influence,
or does it give new users a valuable goal to strive for?
- When one person persecutes four entirely
different people to the point that it is a persisten pattern,
should it be noticed and acted on or swept under the rug?
- Will the use of Perl die out in the near future as it becomes bogged down
with bureaucracy at the top levels? Should Perl die out if there is an
as-yet-unspecified language that is more
intuitive, more efficient, and faster to write in? Does that language already exist?
this post brought to you by neshura, faction of one, with the fine editorial
input of jlp, Macphisto, and vroom
About white shoes
by tilly (Archbishop) on Dec 02, 2000 at 08:09 UTC
|
After talking with neshura, she didn't know the answer
to the question about why white shoes were banned after
Labour day, and why the rule disappeared. She just wanted
people to think about rules that continue existing long
after the reason had been lost.
Well I don't definitively know the answer, but I have a
theory.
After wandering around for a while (hitting some
odd
places)
I found enough mentions that the original rule was not just
white shoes, but white (or light colored) clothing in
summer to keep the heat off. Therefore your shoes were
white to match your summer clothes. And the reason for
saying that you only wore them from Victoria Day to
Labour Day was that that was a traditional definition of
summer.
So wearing white shoes outside of that period was admitting
that you either couldn't recognize summer clothes, or you
didn't know what time of year it was!
Well then why was the rule lost? I don't think that there
was any particular reason. Rather, over the last century,
the rules on garb have been relaxing. All sorts of little
rules have been lost, and this is but one of the
casualities. I believe that the first was the spread of
women wearing male pants from riding to general wear. This
was a sight that originally was regarded much as we might
regard men today wearing dresses.
But it isn't just women's clothing that has changed. For
instance shirts used to be underwear. Then it became
acceptable to take your jacket off. Then the undershirt
evolved into today's t-shirt. Anyone who wants some
interesting tidbits and quotes about fashion should take
a peek here.
But enough about shoes. Here are some more rules to show
how things survive long after everyone has forgotten the
point:
- Men's shirt buttons are on the left. Women's on the
right. The reason is that most people are right-handed,
and noble men dressed themselves while women were dressed
by maids. Even then most women dressed themselves, but
everyone likes to think of themselves as being privileged
so today women's clothes are still more convenient for
someone else to put on.
- As children we hear that, London bridge is falling
down, falling down, falling down... Well that is kind
of old news now. It happened in 1666, during the Great
Fire of London. And yes, they built it up with bricks
and stones afterwards so it wouldn't fall down again.
- You think that is a long time? Well there is some
evidence that saying, eenie, meeny, miny, moe..
comes originally from the Picts a couple of thousand
years ago! It meant one, two, three, four.
- To this day there is an association between Jews and
banking. That actually dates back to the Middle Ages.
There is a prohibition in the Old Testament about usery, which meant
lending money for interest. Jews interpreted the
commandment to say that they could not lend money to other
Jews. Christians didn't split such hairs. Therefore the
moneylenders were all Jews until the Italians figured out
the trick of lending money in one currency and arranging
a payment at a later date in another. (The interest being
hidden in the exchange rate - which might shift.) BTW the
curious might want to know what happened to this rule.
The answer is that Martin Luther believed that this
commandment was, like the rules on eating pork, one that
did not apply to Christians. The Catholics agreed as
part of the Counter-Reformation. However the rule still
shows up from time to time in the oddest of places. For
instance it makes doing some kinds of business with Iran
more complicated. (Islam grew out of Christianity.)
- Most people have no idea why we have an electoral
college. Well it is a remnant of the intent of the
Founding Fathers that the US should not be a democracy.
Here is a truly
excellent
history for people who may have heard phrases like
"Jacksonian democracy" but don't know what it refers to.
- In a similar vein, trial by jury was never intended to
be fair. Rather it was intended, like a good chunk of the
rest of the Constitution, to be another protection against
the government since jurors can rule someone innocent
regardless of the law and cannot be overruled when they
do that. This is called
jury
nullification
- The pagan celebration of Samhain has evolved to
today's Halloween. But virtually nobody could tell you
why it is called that. Well in their attempt to put a
Christian veneer over existing celebrations the Church
made November 1 into All Saints Day, making Halloween
literally All Hallow's Eve. And they tried to explain
away the traditional ceremonies in terms of Satan's
hosts trying to spoil the party for the saints.
EDIT Meant to mention around here something about
Christmas, and how Santa was originally St Nicholas, whose
birthday is December 6 for anyone who is curious...
- Ever wondered why legal systems descended from the
English have a form that looks like two adversaries in
a form of ritual combat? (Trust me, compared to many
other legal systems it really does.) Well that is what
it evolved out of! The legal system grew out of trial
by combat, and if need be lawyers would fight to the
death! (This last happened in England in the 1800's, a
lawyer in a prominent case knew it was lost but invoked
the old law for a fight to the death. He showed up the
next morning at dawn, the opposing lawyer did not and a
bill was passed shortly thereafter revoking the old law.)
And where does trial by combat come from? Why from the
old Germanic religion, Tiwaz (Tyr to the Norse) was the
god of both war and justice, and trial by combat comes
out of his cult. (This is parallel to Mars in Roman
times, which is why a day named for Mars in all Romance
languages is named after Tyr in English. Yes, believe it
or not, Odin developed out of a deity much like Mercury.)
I could go on, but I think that the point is clear. There
is a lot that we take for granted without having any clue
where it comes from. And often the rules do not, upon
examination, make much sense any more. (Witness the
electoral combat and a legal system based on trial by
combat.)
The same is true in any human endeavour. Not just in the
social rules, but in various other good rules we learn.
For instance in programming you will find many rules
about things like eliminating needless redundancy,
modularity, avoiding goto, so on and so forth. These are
generally good rules. But each one is a good rule for a
reason, and there are limitations to the rule. For instance
if you can find it, Structured Programming with goto
Statements by Donald Knuth (Computing Surveys, December
1974) may cause you to question the received wisdom that
goto is always harmful.
Likewise reduced typing is good
because maintaining multiple documents is a good way to
cause bugs. However Exporter recommends putting things
that you want to export into @EXPORT_OK rather than
@EXPORT. This is true even though it forces you to type
more! Why would they force this? Well because the rule
about typing is far less important than the observation
that you should strive to put things that logically belong
together, together. Most modules should not be by default
setting policy for packages that use them, and if in a
file you see a function, you shouldn't have to go looking
all over to figure out where that function was defined!
And this is what had been the main thing that I disliked
about princepawn's posts. He would consistently take a
good rule - such as eliminating redundant typing - and
apply it to places where it clearly didn't really fit.
Just because a rule is claimed to be good, and good
programmers agree that it is, doesn't mean that it is
always applicable. But to get a sense for when it is and
is not, you need to understand why the rule exists. Else
you may find yourself doing something that really makes
no sense. (Like trying to volunteer information to a
police officer who will then turn the transcript over to a
lawyer who in a literal sense will attempt to destroy you
in ritual verbal combat. Oops.) | [reply] [Watch: Dir/Any] |
Re: Chapter 714: The Long Chapter
by Corion (Patriarch) on Dec 01, 2000 at 14:15 UTC
|
Well spoken !
I've stayed out of the princepawn discussion for a long
time since I saw no good coming out of the personal arguments
flinging back and forth (and I only saw worse coming if I'd
entered the discussion). But I've always found princepawn,
together with mt2k, a bit annoying but still a part
of the monastery. t0mas compared princepawn to Don Quixote,
and I guess it's what I admired, the ability to always
come back and try again (and even gain XP in the process).
Every time somebody leaves the monastery in a spectacular
way (Abigail, mt2k and now
princepawn), this should be a warning sign, as "we"
(as the community) have proven unable to integrate/tolerate
them. And I want to see the Monastery as a community
(and not a faction), so my goal still is to provide
help (and not salvation) even for the heathen - of course, some heathen
get easier help from me than others, but I'm no saint (yet),
so I'm allowed to have stains on my halo.
I always remember the rules of the Fidonet programming
forum asmx86 (x86 assembly language),
which help me stay calm in the face of ignorance everywhere :
- Nobody in this forum is required to give answers to questions.
- Nobody in this forum is required to believe anything
answered to him.
| [reply] [Watch: Dir/Any] |
Re (tilly) 1: Chapter 714: The Long Chapter
by tilly (Archbishop) on Dec 01, 2000 at 18:04 UTC
|
My answers:
- Is Perl Monks a strong community in its own
right, a faction of the Perl community at large, or
both?
I think both. It is a strong community which is fed
into by the larger Perl community. It does not itself
influence the direction of Perl but includes some people
who have an influence on that. Incidentally people who
think that there is just one Perl community should reflect
on why Larry Wall calls his talk the annual State of the
Onion.
- Does Perl Monks have its own internal factions of
people easily swayed by emotion or awe or demagoguery, or
is every member an individual who forms fluid alliances
based on his/her ethical stances and ability to reason?
Obviously Perl Monks has internal factions. Any group
this size does. However on the whole it seems to do better
than most groups. And I say that despite having
encountered some problems rather early on.
- Would you say that Perl Monks actually is a
monastery?
No. But if it were I think that a Buddhist monastery
would be a better mindset for reasons I
explained elsewhere. Those who don't
know much about Buddhism may also find this
to be interesting. (I am not a Buddhist.)
Another point. Real monasteries under the surface have
tremendous amounts of politicking going on. Therefore
if Perl Monks has that, then it is true to the original.
- Would retaining voting on nodes but getting rid of
XP negate the opportunity for the power-hungry to make up
the rules by putting together factions of votes?
I don't think we currently have problems with such
power-hungry people. We have people concerned that they
may exist, but I don't see them.
The one tendancy that does exist is to vote on the person,
not the post. The current system encourages that pretty
directly. However I think that enough (starting with me)
complain about the practice that most are aware of why
voting on the post is preferable.
- How did the practice of banning white shoes after
Labor day finally go out of practice, and why did it exist
in the first place?
Ya got me with that one! I am looking forward to hearing
the answer...
- Is Slashdot a grand failure or a notable success
as an online community of self-described nerds?
As Yogi Berra said about a restaurant, "Nobody goes there
any more, it is too popular."
- Would you question everything? Or do you believe
that some questions go too far and it should be
incorporated into the rules that certain things should be
left unsaid?
I suggest that there are some things, the saying of which
is unwarranted. However people shouldn't shy away from
questions just because they are hard. You present an
interesting list. Some are real problems, as the Red
Queen told Alice, "Sometimes you have to keep running just
to stand still." Perl is definitely in that position.
However about princepawn. Personally I have never seen
anyone who so consistently misses the point. This was
merely irritating for me. However the reason why I am
personally going to weep no tears was his behaviour in
the CB. Excuse me, but we don't need someone saying that
he thought there are no decent female programmers. And
when requested to not have the sexist remarks, there was
no need for him to come back with graphic sexual imagery...
| [reply] [Watch: Dir/Any] |
Re: Chapter 714: The Long Chapter
by swiftone (Curate) on Dec 01, 2000 at 20:26 UTC
|
1.That personality conflicts are an inescapable element of a community, and
Agreed...
2.That a community needs rules before it is justified in punishing its unpopular or seditious elements, and
That depends on what you mean by "rules". Communities work by social rules, which are more fluid and variable than systematic rules.
3.That princepawn's departure is a failure on the part of the Perl Monks community, not on the part of princepawn
I disagree, for the most part. First, I suspect princepawn has not departed, merely stopped using either the princepawn and metaperl accounts. Read his "conclusion" carefully: he never says he's leaving, only that those accounts will be inactive.
But getting to your central point: Perlmonks is in many ways not new. Online communities have been forming since the early days of Usenet (and I can't say anything about earlier). These communities develop their own customs, traditions, and styles. The constant flow of new members joining and old members leaving allows this community to evolve. Traditionally, a new arrival will show up, and broadly display ignorance of the customs. They will be chastised, and the rules explained. Over the course of further communication, the new arrival will adjust to the community, and the community will adjust to the arrival. A quick glance at the list of saints, pontiffs, and bishops shows many users in our community that followed this example here, and I'm sure many of us have done so elsewhere.
Obviously, this didn't happen in the case of princepawn. Why? Certainly some people developed a grudge against him. He had to fight an uphill battle. This became worse when he continued his unliked behavior beyond the normal "incubation" period for new users. Were we too harsh?
We certainly could have been better, but looking over the threads, I see monks patiently explaining again and again the unwritten rules of social conduct here.
It makes me proud to see how patient everyone has been, far more so than other online communities. (We all know some that flame the newbie mercilessly) princepawn did not face troubles because he questioned...he faced troubles because he refused to comprimise.
In any merit-based community, you have to first learn exactly how muhc merit you do or do not have. princepawn did not learn that.
When he returns, as I think he shall, the same rules will apply to him. If he uses his princepawn persona, he'll have the baggage he created, if he uses another, he can start tabula rasa. Either way, if he learns to work towards a goal rather than against something, if he learns to not assume the failure is always elsewhere, and if he learns that others don't spend their days plotting to drop his XP, he can still become a respected member of the site. | [reply] [Watch: Dir/Any] |
Re: Chapter 714: The Long Chapter
by AgentM (Curate) on Dec 02, 2000 at 01:03 UTC
|
A very thorough and long post, but I what I have disagreed with, from the beginning, is that the perlmonks are represented by their voting systems and experience points. Sure, when I get advice, I read it differently if the person has 3 XP or 300 XP, but inarguably, this shouldn't matter. I, princepawn, merlyn, and everyone else started with zero XP- even though merlyn wrote a book about Perl. To me, XP is fun game, but otherwise meaningless. If everyone is obsessed with XP ("XP whoring"), then, of course, there will be angry people demanding that their points were wrongfully taken away. But, honestly, your XP, whether -18 or a million, has no bearing on your person. Not everyone has spectacular social skills (especially in the field of computer science :), so a few annoying people can be expected. When these people get the feeling that XP is important in the upkeep of their character here (which I believe is wrong but emanates obviously from some unknown source), then, of course, they will become defensive with it, which I hold to be rather irrational. If you know about XP, then you know that it is about as interesting as the date that the monk was created, since XP increases "naturally" with time (over 48 hour periods). Dominus, a very new monk, has rapidly accelerated the hierarchy with his valuable insights into perl internals, regexes, and more. Is it all that interesting how many points he has? I don't think so. The end result is that XP reflects very little about the character, but I doubt that the newbies catch on since some are quick to becomes "XP whores". I know, because I was one and I worried until my stomach cramped whether or not I would get voted up. I've made several casual friends since and I even met a monk and hope to meet more! It is simply not worth even fighting over points- no matter how many.
Your article focuses alot on this voting issue connected with a monk, and I would like to bring it to your attention that at least one monk, namely AgentM, is not so subjective as to think that this holds anything against the person. bravismore was almost certainly not a bad person- just a monk who became a sort of joke after he copied his homework into a node verbatim. I imagine he's wandering around under a different alias now- perhaps as tye, or Petruchio, or any other monk of arbitrary name. I believe that above all, the votes are irrelevant and I'm sure that you would at agree that one should consider the person (as opposed to XP). Sure, it's exciting to become abbott or saint, but what I'm really here for is to learn more about Perl while at the same time helping others (did anyone else come for a different reason?). I myself, as was mentioned in previous nodes, was the obvious target of similar attacks. I was confronted via /msg by several people telling me they voted my nodes up simply because it was voted down for no particularly obvious reason. While I consider that friendly and I'm certainly not unthankful to these people, I really wouldn't have cared if no one came to me and said that there was a problem- because I didn't see a problem. If someone wants to waste his time downvoting my nodes- then feel free to- because I realize that it has NO impact on me (yes- NO impact).
But I also realize that i did not make friends by condemning Perl, using name-calling, and other annoyances. If a monk cannot conform to a level of decency where he can be respected, then it's fine with me if he leaves or is even removed. I consider the loss princepawn no biggie, even though he left with a big fireworks display. However cult-like we may be, nothing any monk says to me will have such a profound impact on me. princepawn was quick to take everything very personally and it seemed to drop like a hammer on him. Why? Insecurity, I imagine, but I certainly don't know. The preservation of my anonymity is one of the most valued things I hold at PM. When I'm bored, I'm guaranteed some wasteful space in the CB and possibly some responses. I come to PM to be with other folks that I could not normally be with. I find it an excellent medium for learning. There is no school that would hesitate to punish one for bad behavior.
In short, I'd really like to keep PM as friendly as can be, but realistically, this will change as the influx of new monks changes the tide and culture of PM- maybe even in the future, some rules. But am I not afraid of change. I guess my final question is: what's the big deal? Why even bother to respond to stupid comments obviously aimed to provoke? While I think it's important to discuss, most of the attacks from princepawn warranted little attention- certainly less attention than he has received- like this enormous node above.
AgentM Systems nor Nasca Enterprises nor
Bone::Easy nor Macperl is responsible for the
comments made by
AgentM. Remember, you can build any logical system with NOR.
| [reply] [Watch: Dir/Any] |
|
I, princepawn, merlyn, and everyone else started with
zero XP- even though merlyn wrote a book about Perl
Not to nitpick an excellent discussion, but your example
is actually not a good one - merlyn began with 1,000,000
XP. However, he thereafter requested the 1,000,000 be
removed, and earned the rest of his points (excluding the
voting bonuses while an instant saint) the hard way -
namely, by providing good answers to questions and getting
voted up for it.
Vroom still has his million XP bonus, but I'm
catching up:
only 997,328 more points to go! :)
| [reply] [Watch: Dir/Any] |
Re: Chapter 714: The Long Chapter
by neophyte (Curate) on Dec 01, 2000 at 15:49 UTC
|
Thank you, neshura
That was really excellent, I'd multiple++ it if I could.
I've seen some online-communities grow and break up in personal feuds.
If I can help it I try not to become involved in any personal quibbles.
I'm with Corion:
- Nobody in this forum is required to give answers to questions.
- Nobody in this forum is required to believe anything answered to him.
With a good amount of calm and sang froid one can actually read a provocative question and refrain from answering it. If you can't, be prepared that your tone will be echoed. (This also goes for asking: most likely the tone will be echoed, so if you can't stomach provocation, don't provoke.)
neophyte | [reply] [Watch: Dir/Any] |
Re: Chapter 714: The Long Chapter
by Macphisto (Hermit) on Dec 01, 2000 at 13:49 UTC
|
The Evolution of Pie: Chapter 715
Just kidding!
They don't call Me Springfield's fattest because I'm morbidly obese and I don't call neshura the calamity jane of perlmonks.org because she makes bad posts or goes off half cocked. This post took a lot of thought, and probably a case of Yoohoo. So listen up folks, and listen well.
Everyone has their demons....
| [reply] [Watch: Dir/Any] |
(d4vis)Re: Chapter 714: The Long Chapter
by d4vis (Chaplain) on Dec 02, 2000 at 00:34 UTC
|
That princepawn's departure is a failure on the part of the Perl Monks community, not on the part of princepawn
I have to disagree on that one. While a community like perlmonks (or any other) does indeed need members to serve as devil's advocate, or gadfly's as you call them, that role can certainly be filled in a way that is not offensive or unduly annoying. I think princepawn's situation is not an indication of a community that can't tolerate dissent but of one that refuses to allow one strident, shouting voice to drown out an ongoing reasoned discussion.
Varying points of view are tolerated, even encouraged, here. What should not be tolerated is allowing any one person to drown out or dominate the conversation by strength of opinion rather than strength of reason. It seems to me that princepawn largely ignored the (reasonable) wishes of his fellow community members and was therefore ostracized.
We surely must have the right, as a community, to have some say in what the standards of discourse amongst us will be.
~monk d4vis
#!/usr/bin/fnord
| [reply] [Watch: Dir/Any] |
Re: Chapter 714: The Long Chapter
by Anonymous Monk on Dec 03, 2000 at 06:17 UTC
|
I think this is the best place on the web to learn about Perl. I've been hanging around, occasionally asking questions and always getting good answers. Someday I may be good enough to post answers, but I doubt I will, or even get a username. I really don't believe that being honest, polite, and helpful will make me a successful member of the community, especially since I sometimes disagree with some of the adolescents on perlmonks who are just as concerned about proving their power as they are about hacking Perl. I don't think this makes perlmonks any different from the rest of the web. In fact, in this respect, perlmonks is a great place. Over 50% of the posts are substantive and about Perl and not personal attacks, which when you compare with other web sites where user content predominates is pretty awesome. Keep up the good work :| | [reply] [Watch: Dir/Any] |
A Judas Among Us?
by tedv (Pilgrim) on Dec 02, 2000 at 04:44 UTC
|
You seem to imply that Princepawn's relentless discourses
have an important harrowing effect, by constantly forcing
us to reevaluate our position. The implication is that he's
a Judas figure-- someone who does something despicable that
is nontheless necessary.
For another Biblical example, consider the story of David
and Bathsheba. If you don't know the story, King David of
Israel has an affair with another man's wife, gets her
pregnant, indirectly murders her husband, and then marries
her. A prophet brings this fact to life and tells him God
will judge him for these things, by taking away David's
wife, killing the child, and plaguing him with war. It
also turns that Solomon, David's successor and son, was a child
of Bathsheba. Clearly God did not approve of David's
actions, and still used the results to good ends.
The moral is that good things can still come from
the actions of Judas figures, not that Judas figures are
necessary for good things to occur.
-Ted | [reply] [Watch: Dir/Any] |
|
You seem to imply that Princepawn's relentless discourses have an important
harrowing effect, by constantly forcing us to reevaluate our position.
Yes.
The implication is that he's a Judas figure-- someone who does something
despicable that is nontheless {sic} necessary.
Absolutely not. To my knowledge, Perl Monks has zero need for despicable
yet necessary actions. You may find princepawn personally despicable, but
I would be aghast if you or anyone else found it despicable that he
persistently questions
such things as inconsistencies in a language that is undeniably imperfect.
Let me rephrase that actually -- I have been aghast.
My original point, as you stated very succinctly in the first sentence,
was that much of what princepawn has written has been
valuable and necessary, because languages (and for different reasons, communities)
ought to be kept on the defensive. Any offensive comments against
individuals are a different matter entirely, and I have no problem whatsoever
with verbal condemnation of monks who personally attack other monks (or classes of monks).
I understand the moral lesson behind the two Bible stories you presented,
but I don't think they apply very well in this case, because it is not necessary
for one to be morally bankrupt or personally distasteful in order to bring criticism
to bear.
Update: Good point below by KM. But frankly, I would have
no problem going to a mousetrap community and suggesting
a better one. Use of a hammer analogy instead of a mousetrap
analogy implies that Perl is a fully evolved tool. This
I cannot agree with.
e-mail neshura
| [reply] [Watch: Dir/Any] |
|
My original point, as you stated very succinctly in the first sentence, was that much of what princepawn has written
has been valuable and necessary, because languages (and for different reasons, communities) ought to be kept on the
defensive.
Why? I mean, maybe at a corporate level, but why here? Why do you have to come to a community of Perl people to
then defend Perl? Perl is a tool. Not a religion, not a politcal faction, not a moral, not a lifestyle (except that some of us make
a living doing it). Why would/should I need to defend why a hammer is good for hammering, versus a wrench which is good for tightening? I shouldn't,
and don't expect to go to hammers.com, join a community of hammer lovers/users and defend the hammer. So, I do disagree here.
Perl is a tool. It isn't the be-all-end-all. If someone doesn't like it, they can use another tool.
I have kept out of the whole princepawn thing until now. Personally, I don't care that he is gone. Most of his nodes, IMO, were a waste. But hey, that's me.
I think it was moronic for him to use a second userid to trick us, and to carry on two personas. But, those are my feelings on that, in a nutshell.
PerlMonks has continued to evolve, and will continue to. It has become a good resource, and a fun place.
For the most part, it seems that the concensus of the people here create unwritten rules, and people tend to abide by them.
Spats happen, as they will, and people will leave. We just have to keep truckin along, be ourselves, and share our knowledge of Perl.
Cheers,
KM
| [reply] [Watch: Dir/Any] |
|
My original point, as you stated very succinctly in the first sentence, was that much of what princepawn has written has been valuable and necessary, because
languages (and for different reasons, communities) ought to be kept on the defensive. Any offensive comments against individuals are a different matter entirely,
and I have no problem whatsoever with verbal condemnation of monks who personally attack other monks (or classes of monks).
I agree completely, except that I think princepawn did a poor job in the role of the Questioner. He attacked over agressively and without enough thought. The result
was, then when he actually DID uncover an error, it almost went unnoticed. I did some experimenting and formulated the error into defined terms, and tye
went through the code to uncover it. Dominus reported the error to p5p, and it will be fixed in 5.6.1. All good, right?
Sure, except that it almost didn't happen. Princepawn has become the boy who cried wolf.
I agree that we need to be questioned if we're going to improve, but there are valuable attacks, and there are random attacks.
| [reply] [Watch: Dir/Any] |
|
neshura: I understand why you would not necessarily approve of the post I made in response to princepawn's post. But I did not do that to attack him. I did that to question his behavior. Personally, I have sent messages to princepawn apologizing for "jumping the gun" in judgment. I have also apologized for my role in this entire affair. I'm not happy that I added fuel to the fire. But let's step back and see how princepawn views this:
the very first part of the attack I launched on the discrepancy between ...
He made the above comment in this post. Even princepawn seems to view some of his own comments as "attacks."
He has cried wolf many times. He didn't do this deliberately, but at times he failed to read the documentation and other times the code he used to illustrate a point had bugs. The point that many tried to impress upon him was that he should be more rigorous in his analysis of what he's doing.
The question, then, is what we view as acceptable behavior in the monestary. If someone attacks another monk, that's wrong. Personally, I can see how my own comments have tread close enough to that line that I have erred. However, while I am not happy with how I chose to word my posts, I stand by my intentions. If someone wants to constantly criticize the Perl language and say how bad it is, I don't feel that Perlmonks is an appropriate forum for that, particularly if that someone keeps getting their facts wrong. I realize that you may disagree with me over that and that's okay. Discussions like this are good.
Cheers,
Ovid
Join the Perlmonks Setiathome Group or just click on the the link and check out our stats.
| [reply] [Watch: Dir/Any] |
|
|