Comments on: Screen shots featured in Computer Games Magazine

Screen shots featured in Computer Games Magazine

thanotopsis — Fri, 09 Dec 2005 17:44:14 -0800

As a followup to this post back in October, I thought you all should know that my little blog featuring said screen shots was further featured in the most recent Computer Games Magazine. I was so excited, I posted about it again in my blog, making the circle complete. I've heard, through sources, that the editor's attention was bought over by mentions on Mefi and Quarter To Three. Thanks for the exposure, Metafilter!

By: stavrosthewonderchicken

stavrosthewonderchicken — Fri, 09 Dec 2005 17:51:44 -0800

I'm sorry, I just just woke up, but are you telling us that the original Metafilter thread was a self-link, and while doing that, you're taking the opportunity to link to your own site again?

Impressive, if so.

By: stet

stet — Fri, 09 Dec 2005 17:55:11 -0800

Ummm. That's how I read it, too. It's... interesting, I guess.

By: banished

banished — Fri, 09 Dec 2005 18:09:06 -0800

Blast! "nark on this user" is not an option when trying to flag this post. You win this time... thanotopsis.

By: mathowie

mathowie — Fri, 09 Dec 2005 18:24:06 -0800

uh oh. Yeah, it looks like it was a self-link. Oh well, people enjoyed the post, the magazine got the story. All's well that (started poorly) but ended well.

By: snsranch

snsranch — Fri, 09 Dec 2005 18:26:03 -0800

I'm confused, "Self-linker Narcs self out?" Is that it, pretty much?

thanotopsis, can you explain?

By: snsranch

snsranch — Fri, 09 Dec 2005 18:27:41 -0800

No pitchforks eh? Oh, well, at least he/she was gracious about it! Yea!

By: sciurus

sciurus — Fri, 09 Dec 2005 18:53:48 -0800

Shit, 14ks get away with everything.

By: xmutex

xmutex — Fri, 09 Dec 2005 18:54:59 -0800

BAN HIM!

By: stavrosthewonderchicken

stavrosthewonderchicken — Fri, 09 Dec 2005 18:55:34 -0800

thanatopsis, in case you're confused: the one absolute rule around here is that self-linking on the blue, as part of a post (as opposed to a comment inthread), is verboten. Your post apparently slipped through the cracks.

mathowie's letting this thread stay, it seems. Not sure why.

By: xmutex

xmutex — Fri, 09 Dec 2005 18:57:20 -0800

jeeeezus. BAN HIM!

*froths*

By: crunchland

crunchland — Fri, 09 Dec 2005 19:14:48 -0800

So much for the collective detectives.

By: atrazine

atrazine — Fri, 09 Dec 2005 19:23:14 -0800

crunchland: it's no fun when the suspect confesses before we even begin to sodomise him with a truncheon.

By: edgeways

edgeways — Fri, 09 Dec 2005 19:24:26 -0800

October 21, 2005: the day Metafilter stood still

By: graventy

graventy — Fri, 09 Dec 2005 19:45:54 -0800

So....are you thanking us for something that you did?

Uh...yeah.. You're welcome.

By: Falconetti

Falconetti — Fri, 09 Dec 2005 20:05:50 -0800

Delete this thread and the previous one and ban him. No mercy, no retreat.

Seriously this is like a Mobius strip of self-linking.

By: snsranch

snsranch — Fri, 09 Dec 2005 20:40:45 -0800

Please don't delete! Let the evidence stand as is, so that Saturday Morning Drunken Mefites can set about having a really decent lynching.

By: panoptican

panoptican — Fri, 09 Dec 2005 20:45:44 -0800

Maybe (s)he's just trying to nicely state that METAFILTER GOT P4WNED!

By: loquacious

loquacious — Fri, 09 Dec 2005 22:02:03 -0800

How much did you get for Metafilter at the P4WNSHOP, anyway?

By: Duncan

Duncan — Fri, 09 Dec 2005 22:58:19 -0800

Metafilter: Thanks for the exposure!

By: xmutex

xmutex — Sat, 10 Dec 2005 00:42:47 -0800

I go out for dinner and to see a movie and come back and he's still not banned?!?!?!??!

By: hototogisu

hototogisu — Sat, 10 Dec 2005 01:33:09 -0800

what movie?

By: Marquis

Marquis — Sat, 10 Dec 2005 05:10:58 -0800

An example to self-linkers everywhere!

By: languagehat

languagehat — Sat, 10 Dec 2005 06:22:34 -0800

All's well that (started poorly) but ended well.

Are you fucking kidding me? You're just going to let it go, pat him on the back even? So let me get this straight: self-linking is bad, bad, bad if it's caught by another MeFite, but if not, then the self-linker gets to crow about it, get a double dose of MeFi linkage, and get compliments from #1. OK, now we know.

By: Smart Dalek

Smart Dalek — Sat, 10 Dec 2005 07:15:02 -0800

Where will it end? If enough well-respected MeFites decide to designate one day out of the year to self-link, and it's done cleverly enough, will that get excused as well? How well would the joke last if it becomes a weekly deal, even against Matt's better intentions? Or what if he shrugs again and laughs? We might as well drop the pretense about this "community" business and admit the site's a web-based bulletin board sans the blinking avatars and sig files.

By: crunchland

crunchland — Sat, 10 Dec 2005 07:34:39 -0800

What do you expect us to do, languagehat? Delete an old thread that's already closed? Ban his account? Hunt him down and kill him? There's an old saying about closing the barn door after the horses have gone out. And I would argue that this little tableau indicates that self-linking is bad, bad, bad only if you do it in such a way that we find out about it. If you have an ounce of subtlety (and $5), self-linking is perfectly ok.

By: onalark

onalark — Sat, 10 Dec 2005 07:43:45 -0800

If you have an ounce of subtlety (and $5), self-linking is perfectly ok.

I'm not much of a poster to the blue, but I agree with the rest of the sentiment here that his account should be banned. Rules are rules, and there's no good reason to bend them here just because he was naive enough to brag to MetaTalk about it, (but a 14ker, seriously!)

By: jack_mo

jack_mo — Sat, 10 Dec 2005 08:48:30 -0800

This makes me feel thanotopsy-turvy.

Going by the tone of this post, thanotopsis genuinely didn't know self-linking is verboten? Or he did and this post is a massive two-fingers up to the lot of us?

Explain yourself, thanotopsis!

By: scarabic

scarabic — Sat, 10 Dec 2005 10:35:45 -0800

I'm with the pitchfork committee.

By: vacapinta

vacapinta — Sat, 10 Dec 2005 10:47:24 -0800

He kind of implies they are his in the original thread but I guess nobody in the Scooby squad was paying attention. After somebody remarks on the poor resolution of the photos, he replies:

You can blame it on a bad video card. That card is representative of how good things looked ...3 years ago?

In addition, in order to save space and bandwidth costs, those images are reduced to JPG 25% compression. Originals are 1.2MB TGA files.

Put me on the just-let-this-one-go side.

By: XQUZYPHYR

XQUZYPHYR — Sat, 10 Dec 2005 11:26:12 -0800

Thanks for the exposure, Metafilter!

I think that's the line that makes a lot of us think you're a total asshole right now, thanotopsis. Instead of "thanking us" for not catching your blatant violation of the rules- the one violation that gets you banned without (until today) any exceptions- maybe you should buy an ad or something.

By: languagehat

languagehat — Sat, 10 Dec 2005 11:42:11 -0800

What do you expect us to do, languagehat?

"Us"? When did you become an admin? What I expect Matt to do is ban the asshole and make it clear this kind of thing won't be tolerated.

thanotopsis genuinely didn't know self-linking is verboten?

Give me a break. Everybody knows it's verboten. And everybody who gets caught at it looks all abashed and mumbles about how they didn't check the rulebook or they were out of the classroom that day or some bullshit excuse. Just like cheating spouses: "Honest, I was giving mouth-to-mouth!"

But then I don't approve of juries going easy on defendants because they look cute, either.

By: crunchland

crunchland — Sat, 10 Dec 2005 13:54:42 -0800

All right. Ban him. $5 says he'll be back for his next self-promotional endeavor. Meanwhile, you stay diligent and ferret him out when he does.

By: scarabic

scarabic — Sat, 10 Dec 2005 16:34:29 -0800

languagehat is on fire - I like it

By: languagehat

languagehat — Sun, 11 Dec 2005 07:01:24 -0800

Well, now that Richard Pryor is gone, somebody has to be on fire.

*rimshot*

By: squirrel

squirrel — Mon, 12 Dec 2005 17:41:48 -0800

Must be a friend of Matt's. I can't think of any other explanation. Well, other than that Matt enjoys the occasional gladiatorial thumbs-up to flex his Roman authority: how brazenly Commodus flouts consensus opinion!

Eh, more likely they guy wrote Matt a letter.

By: Kwantsar

Kwantsar — Mon, 12 Dec 2005 21:00:25 -0800

WHAT.
THE.
FUCK.
MATT?

By: soyjoy

soyjoy — Mon, 12 Dec 2005 22:31:48 -0800

Well, now that Richard Pryor is gone, somebody has to be on fire.

Heh. It's funny because it's sad.

By: OmieWise

OmieWise — Tue, 13 Dec 2005 05:56:08 -0800

This is awesome. One way to solve the egg-on-your-face problem is to smear sausage all over it.

By: delmoi

delmoi — Tue, 13 Dec 2005 08:25:49 -0800

Well, he'd only been a new user for a month or so when he posted that link, he might not have known the rules. I'm sure he does now.

By: squirrel

squirrel — Tue, 13 Dec 2005 09:09:31 -0800

Face it, delmoi: it was arbitrary clemency.

By: onalark

onalark — Wed, 14 Dec 2005 07:34:26 -0800

Well, he'd only been a new user for a month or so when he posted that link, he might not have known the rules. I'm sure he does now.

He's been a user for over 3 years. He should have known better.

By: davy

davy — Fri, 23 Dec 2005 15:44:53 -0800

"I'm with the pitchfork committee."
posted by scarabic at 10:35 AM PST on December 10

Uh, I'm with Scarabic again. (I followed Squirrel's link here from a more recent metatalk thread on self-linking and found Scarabic agreeing with me before I'd said anything, so either he's not so always bad after all -- or I've got some MIGHTY mind-rays y'all should ph34r!.)