Re^2: An OT section (again).

"Off Topic" is anything that doesn't fit into PM's current boxes. BrowserUk's proposal of a box for short lived off topic threads seems sound for a number of reasons:

it provides a place for OT threads (which occur currently in any case)
it limits the impact of OT threads on PM's 'core business' by removing OT threads from the main sections
it allows convenient CB style conversations containing useful chunks of code or other material without need to resort to using scratch pads

My take on BrowserUk's proposal is on the lines of an uber CB which uses PM's node technology to provide a forum for extended discussion of anything relevant to Perl monks. Not a replacement for the "flow of consciousness" mode of discussion that the CB currently provides (and would continue to provide), but a side room with big white boards for dealing with bigger discussions than the CB accommodates easily.

DWIM is Perl's answer to Gödel

Comment on Re^2: An OT section (again).

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^3: An OT section (again). by jdporter (Paladin) on Aug 02, 2007 at 13:59 UTC
it limits the impact of OT threads on PM's 'core business' by removing OT threads from the main sections But it doesn't. Another ramification of the given proposal (which, if I'm not mistaken, involves setting up a whole new form of interaction on PerlMonks, which I'm styling "light-weight threads") is that, first, we'd have OT cruft in two places: in the place we've set up for it, and continuing in the places it's always been; and then, why should the new "section" be the exclusive domain of OT discussions? It wouldn't be for long. So, whether we create a new form of interaction for OT stuff or simply make an OT section which works like the existing sections, we'd still end up with discussions — in their usual mish-mash of on- and off-topic content — happening in two different places. Unless the proposal includes a solid idea on how to guarantee that on-topic and off-topic posts are confined to their allowed spaces, it's a non-starter. And this is the heart of the reason why it doesn't make sense to try to segregate threads by topic. Some other criterion which remains essentially invariant throughout the thread (for example, style of discourse) is a better basis for segregation. A word spoken in Mind will reach its own level, in the objective world, by its own weight	[reply]
Re^4: An OT section (again). by GrandFather (Saint) on Aug 02, 2007 at 21:25 UTC
it limits the impact of OT threads on PM's 'core business' by removing OT threads from the main sections But it doesn't. Golly, I didn't know it had been tried already! If just one OT post were made to the proposed section rather than to one of the current sections then it would have "limited the impact of OT threads on PM's 'core business'". The proposed section doesn't do anything about sub-threads that meander off topic. It does remove top level off topic posts from PM's 'core business' sections. DWIM is Perl's answer to Gödel	[reply]
Re^5: An OT section (again). by jdporter (Paladin) on Aug 02, 2007 at 21:36 UTC
So you think reducing n by 1 (or any other number - even a percentage) puts an upper bound on n? What exactly is this limit you're thinking of? Anyway, I don't see the point in arguing semantics. I'd simply rather not have yet another section in which people post a mish-mash of on-topic and off-topic stuff... especially if it's construed as encouraging off-topic posting in PerlMonks. But that's just me. I don't speak for the site policy makers. Golly, I didn't know it had been tried already! Of course it's already been tried. How else could you have said it limits the impact of OT threads on PM's 'core business'...	[reply]


P is for Practical
	PerlMonks