Deletion of crackpot theory fpp called into question

September 7, 2005 4:41 AM

This post was deleted for the following reason: crazy speculation with a source, but no support for crackpot theory.
Okay, we have many crackpot theories to grace the front page, and a good number in recent history have made it without oodles of support. The discussion was good and mostly civil, and honestly, this criteria seems a tish subjective.
Not much of a MeFi gadfly here, but just sayin'.
posted by moonbird to etiquette/policy at 4:41 AM (24 comments total)

I'm not usually the type that runs to MeTa to post about a deletion, and actually in the thread, I wasn't buying the crackpot theory either*. But we have no problem posting Timecube and having our merry way with it, yet those threads stand. I s'pose I'm just curious about the standards of deletion, because honestly,some folks might call this cherrypicking. Again, just sayin'. Roast me away if you will.

*Though now I'm beginning to wonder
posted by moonbird at 4:46 AM on September 7, 2005

Bush made Matt delete it. Probably.
posted by MrMustard at 4:53 AM on September 7, 2005

"Roast me"?
posted by NinjaPirate at 4:58 AM on September 7, 2005

meh.

Crackpot or not, that thread had a fully developed discussion going on.
posted by loquacious at 5:16 AM on September 7, 2005

NinjaPirate: ugh. No!!!
posted by moonbird at 5:19 AM on September 7, 2005

117 comments of (relatively) good discussion and almost zero trolls over 7 hours and suddenly it gets axed? From what I've read there was actually quite a bit of interesting information being debated.

Bad moderation.
posted by sic at 5:33 AM on September 7, 2005

Agreed. Really bad deletion.
posted by Rothko at 6:18 AM on September 7, 2005

Boo! Conversation always trumps link quality.
posted by sonofsamiam at 6:18 AM on September 7, 2005

I could almost see the point of klangklangston's post, almost, but the deletion is really shitty. The original post doesn't even come close to violating the guidelines and the I found the discussion among the most interesting of the day.

Maybe we've reached the tipping point for discussion of Katrina and the moderators are only accepting the absolute most significant threads of the day, a la election/schaivo. You'd expect some warning if that were the case, though.

This just seems incredibly arbitrary (and ruined the return of ortho -- welcome home).
posted by If I Had An Anus at 6:30 AM on September 7, 2005

Conversation always trumps link quality.

Absolutely, diametrically, unequivocally wrong.
posted by gleuschk at 6:38 AM on September 7, 2005

No... You're wrong!
posted by loquacious at 6:43 AM on September 7, 2005

I was disappointed to see this deletion.
posted by muckster at 7:08 AM on September 7, 2005

Eh, I'm glad to see it gone, it was a stupid post.
posted by delmoi at 8:07 AM on September 7, 2005

I read klangston's post and thought everyone was in agreement that the post was linked to a crappy blog entry, by a poster that has posted unsupported rumors before.

I'm tired of the recent streak of DailyKos style posts here by the same posters, looking to take some slight dig at Bush every 24 hours. There are a lot of flimsy excuses to rehash the same discussion in a dozen threads each day.
posted by mathowie at 8:09 AM on September 7, 2005

Maybe. But that was a pretty good discussion going on.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 9:56 AM on September 7, 2005

"I'm just curious about the standards of deletion"

From my perspective, Matt has consistently deleted posts for "Single Link Op-Ed", what I call his SLOE-pokes. The link in that post was to a single blog entry.
posted by mischief at 10:17 AM on September 7, 2005

Eh, I'm glad to see it gone, it was a stupid post.
posted by delmoi at 8:07 AM PST on September 7 [!]


I can see why, although your contribution to the post was one of the reasons I was sorry to see it go.

However, I have read more of the thread now, and I did notice more bad manners than at first glance.
posted by sic at 10:33 AM on September 7, 2005

I can see why, although your contribution to the post was one of the reasons I was sorry to see it go.

I guess the discussion was kind of intrusting, but most people are just going to look at the frong page, and that link was just kind of embarrassing.
posted by delmoi at 1:40 PM on September 7, 2005

mischief writes "what I call his SLOE-pokes."

Nice. I'd never thought of that.
posted by OmieWise at 1:53 PM on September 7, 2005

I agree with Matthowie. Plus, we can all read the goddamn newspaper if we want to, this violates the guidelines in spirit, in that most of us would have found this out anyhow.

And while I'm bitching, I'm sick of all these "why was my FPP deleted?" threads on MeTa (though at least this one wasn't posted by the FPP poster) . If you want to know why your post was deleted, email the admin! If you still think that it was wrongfully deleted, THEN post a thread.
posted by Edible Energy at 2:14 PM on September 7, 2005

This post was deleted for the following reason: crazy speculation with a source, but no support for crackpot theory.

Plus, we can all read the goddamn newspaper if we want to, ... most of us would have found this out anyhow.

Wait a minute, can a post be LoonyToonsFilter and NewsFilter at the same time?
posted by If I Had An Anus at 2:27 PM on September 7, 2005

Sorry, got two deleted FPPs confused in my head ;)
This one and this one.
posted by Edible Energy at 2:35 PM on September 7, 2005

I'm glad to see this post deleted. It didn't really have any meaty content, just some idle, unfounded speculation. Also, I think it just lowers the level of political dialog in our society. To make such extreme public accusations (even in musing), corroboration is 100% necessary.
posted by Edgewise at 4:32 PM on September 7, 2005

Did Matt really delete it?

Or did the USAF, using a top-secret stratospheric high energy weapons system, actually manipulate the Internet itself to wipe it out... WITHOUT A TRACE?
posted by arto at 9:28 PM on September 7, 2005