instead of persistent_args = list(options & set(sys.argv)), now persistent_args = sys.argv because there's no case I can see where I don't want my command line arguments persisted
I have to agree that they are reparable wrt. the obvious wording that triggered the detections. However, it appears that the base intent is to be rude/disrespectful of the topic. I'd lean towards custom mod-flagging and allowing the site to deal with it as they please.
@quartata Reasonable to edit the second paragraph of that one to say, "I suggest you just disregard this, though..."? Or should it be left alone and for mods to decide?
It's not obvious to me that all religion-oriented sites would prohibit posts disagreeing with widely held views of the religion. I think that's something for those communities to decide. I would hope they'd accept--in the sense of not regarding as automatically NAA--sincerely written posts that express a disagreeing view. I guess whether or not those particular posts qualify for that is unclear.
@EliahKagan Generally the scope of the sites is within the context of the religion. They're not there to debate the overall truth or merits of their religion, any more than SO users are there to talk about whether we should bother with computer programming.
I accept that they should be able to decide to limit it that way. I don't think the comparison makes sense. "Don't do that, because..." is a perfectly good answer to numerous programming questions, and sometimes there's no other programming task that ought to be done instead.
"Do this completely different thing instead" is only a reasonable answer when it's reasonable to expect that the OP would be well-served by the alternatives. If someone wants to know how to do some vector operation in C++ then telling them to use array slicing in python isn't an answer. If someone wants to know how to handle a life situation within the context of Islam, then telling them to try not-Islam is not an answer.
Considering that in real life people selectively follow their religions all the time, I really think that's something for each site's community to decide.
You seem to be saying that answers that advise that people not follow accepted doctrines should be universally regarded as not appropriate for sites about religion. I would urge you to consider if it makes sense for you to impose that view on each site's community. Especially if your goal has something to do with respecting religious communities, then I would strenuously urge you to consider that different religious communities have different views about unorthodoxy.
I'm not imposing anything. I'm describing what has been generally decided by religion sites, and suggesting that it is not in fact all that qualitatively different from the way other sites' scopes are restricted.
That seems like a better discussion to be had on that site, not in this room. CHQ isn't going to decide those things for that site. On IPS, if someone says "I'm a practicing Jew and I keep kosher how can I ___" and the answer is "don't keep kosher", we're going to delete that answer.
Yeah, I agree that these are issues that should be figured out per site, by the people who use each site, rather than assumed for them by others. That's my entire point.
Yes. I think it is possible that I have misunderstood you. I'm not sure if you're overgeneralizing about what religion-oriented sites' policies actually are or not, but I can see that what I've been saying may not have been altogether justified, given what you were saying. In any case, I didn't actually mean to start a debate here and distract from the main purpose of this room. I am sorry about that!
@Zoe Among a variety of other things, metasmoke doesn't handle character classes (e.g. \W) in regex. Thus, many regex have to be rewritten in order to be functional on metasmoke.
@ArtOfCode Yeah, that's how I'd expect it to be implemented, but it's certainly much easier than having to remember to manually construct each class each time one is used.
@ThomasWard I don't know why it was initially banned (blacklisted), but from those that I recall seeing recently, the posts (answers) have not been actual answers to the questions on which they were placed. Usually, they are posted on questions to which they are only tangentially related. The answers are short and clearly there just to promote the link to the site.
@SmokeDetector A moderator handled this with spam flags declined. It's possible it was an actual attempt at a question, with bad formatting and poor content choice. OTOH, it's also possible it was spam, under the cover of presenting a question. It contains much of the content commonly in spam: e.g. Full business information, with description, full contact info (address, phone and email), & located in Nigeria (à la Nigerian Prince scam). Assuming good faith would have us categorize it as not-spam.
OTOH, there's a line in there somewhere. I find myself going back-and-forth as to would we want a system level block on it. Frankly, I'm not sure. As it was, it was clearly not useful and was de-facto spam, even if not intended that way.
in the space of 8 tweets i have formed an emotional bond
are you sure you didn't accidentally mail squidge with the stickers and the reason why it hasnt arrived yet is because it didnt have enough postage for it
