jericson

Copying vs Assignment

Assignment Constructor

The Assignment Operator is when you replace the data with an already existing(previously initialized) object with some other object's data. Lets take this as an example:

// Assignment Operator
#include <iostream>
#include <string>

jericson

Completed

• Add date/reason for absence to the mod page instead of being in the title attribute.
• Network vacations for mods with more than one site.
• Send notifications to community@ automatically.
• Status on meta should inherit from main.

Declined

• Begin and end dates for pre-planned absenses. [Unfortunately, because of the way moderator vacation was been implemented, this was not easy this time around.]

jericson

Moderator vacation

Stack Overflow uniquely requires moderators to operate with a standard of duty. Even so, moderators generally feel a sense of obligation to be around in case of problems. Such voluntary dedication is much appreciated and often means people really enjoy what they are doing. But everyone needs a vacation from time to time.

Currently, we have no good way for moderators to communicate their vacation plans to either to Community Managers (we suggest they email us), other moderators (this usually happens in chat) or other users (more on this momentarily). In addition, the temptation remains to "just handle that one flag" if a moderator happens to browse their site while theoretically off-duty. Finally, I believe "vacation" might be a graceful way for moderators to step down if the job stops being fun and rewarding.

Proposal

Pro

jericson

Keybase proof

I hereby claim:

• I am jericson on github.
• I am jericson (https://keybase.io/jericson) on keybase.
• I have a public key ASBsLTBLKN7ERrdkUfHHQbmbHaKD1-i14NvT7YVv90ksfAo

To claim this, I am signing this object:

jericson

# Moderator vacation
Stack Overflow uniquely requires moderators to operate with a [standard of duty](http://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/287878/should-stack-overflow-moderators-have-a-standard-of-duty). Even so, moderators generally feel a sense of obligation to be around in case of problems. Such voluntary dedication is much appreciated and often means people really enjoy what they are doing. But _everyone_ [needs a vacation](http://jericson.github.io/2015/07/21/vacation.html) from time to time. 

Currently, we have no good way for moderators to communicate their vacation plans to either to Community Managers (we suggest they email us), other moderators (this usually happens in chat) or other users (more on this momentarily). In addition, the temptation remains to "just handle that one flag" if a moderator happens to browse their site while theoretically off-duty. Finally, I believe "vacation" might be a graceful way for moderators to step down if the job stops being fun and rewarding.

## Proposal

Pro

jericson

Text,CreationDate,DeletionDate,Site Name
"""this simple case seems not to be subject to [gotchas of floating point representation]."" A very fast way to find out is to use one of [IEEE 754 calculators](http://www.h-schmidt.net/FloatConverter/IEEE754.html). Enter the desired value, and check the resultant representation. For 2.78 you get `2.7799999713897705`.","2015-12-16 18:53:47","","Stack Overflow"
"(just temporary. wil remove in few mins.)","2015-12-14 21:35:02","2015-12-14 21:40:56","Stack Overflow"
"...............","2015-12-27 08:00:55","2015-12-27 08:04:13","Stack Overflow"
"@Aify - in-house proprietary library (on top of DBI)","2015-12-15 04:03:30","","Stack Overflow"
"@Arronical, I guess the polite thing to do would be get the hat and delete the comment....","2015-12-16 15:17:03","2015-12-16 15:27:43","Stack Overflow"
"@assylias, you just want a hat... Sorry Jon :)","2015-12-15 14:10:43","2015-12-15 16:10:39","Stack Overflow"
"@BenjaminGruenbaum agreed.","2015-12-17 17:14:57","2015-12-17 17:39:45","S

jericson

Good answers respect their questions

If you have a few minutes to be philosophical, take a moment to read A Day at the Park. I find it very useful to the question at hand. A key line:

My favorite kind of answers are those that my questions give birth to.

Both of the original answers to this question are solutions to the same problem: sometimes answers destroy curiousity. Bring your own framework addresses concern that novel approaches may lose their place at the table if room is only allowed for "standard" answers. We would then be left with the answers that have already been accepted by various orthodoxies. Avoid truth assertions contends that answers that fail to qualify truth statements crowd out honest scholarship and alienate other potential answers.

I was more than willing to post both of thos

jericson

Avoid truth assertions
---------------------- 

We want a site with broad appeal that welcomes diverse perspectives. This site focuses on the *text* and the process of interpreting it, using tools such as language, history, archaeology, and science.  None of that is inherently religious, which is what *distinguishes* BH from other Internet sites about the Bible.

One of our core tenets is that hermeneutical process is (or ought to be) open to examination from all sides. Religious claims are often not open to examination. Not only that, but they're polarizing.  Therefore, unqualified statements of religious truth are out of place here; this is a site about hermeneutics, not a site about Truth.<sup>1</sup>

Welcoming assertions of religious truth drives away some key groups of users, to the detriment of the site.  This has been raised on meta by several users.<sup>2</sup>  If the current trend continues we will lose the Hebrew-bible-based, rabbinic persepctive, since few Christian users here have any background

jericson

Bring your own framework
------------------------

We want a site that allows contributors to speak from within their framework. Overall, this broadens the appeal of the site, and it preserves the richness of expression when answers are given in the natural context of the one giving the answer, even if this means expressing one's framework or opinions as unqualified facts.

Our aim is to be 'expert' in the context of the internet. This will not be the best home for those who do not think deeply about the texts or those who cannot communicate clearly and effectively. But it is not our aim to be home only to academics or full-time theologians: that would narrow the user-base too far and not be sustainable.

Under this option is is generally OK to make statements that assert 'truth', omitting qualifications such as 'Group X believes…'.

This outcome is where we are currently heading. This is not a reason in itself for it to be chosen, but it is the least risky option. It's clear our traffic is growing, and altho

jericson

There have been a lot of discussions on meta about different aspects of site direction, but none directly focused on the fundamental question: What kind of site do we want to have? What should our culture be? In particular, what style of answers are we looking for?

This question is fundamentally about **where do we want to be in the end**, and not about *how we get there*.

**We all agree that contributions must 'show their work'. Exactly where and how we draw the line is an implementation detail and outside the scope of this question.**

We've provided answers that capture the main positions we know about. Please feel free to add your own if you have another outcome in mind.

Please up-vote answers you find acceptable, down-vote ones you don't, and abstain if you don't feel strongly either way. Please also up-vote the question no matter which of these you do, so we can gauge participation.