Why isn't this a double post since it directly references the previous instance?

January 28, 2006 7:46 PM

Just wonderin'... Why isn't this a double post since it directly references the previous instance?
posted by mischief to Etiquette/Policy at 7:46 PM (12 comments total)

The previous instance is a link to the comic's home page, this is a link to a specific story currently running. Think of the difference between a link to HomestarRunner.com and the recent "Trogday" celebration post. The reason it (currently) looks like a double is that in the original post, the link directly to the comic's main page pulls up today's story arc. At least, I believe that's the case.
posted by jonson at 8:37 PM on January 28, 2006

When you say "the previous instance", do you mean the previous comic linked (cf. jonson, above), or the previous thread on the subject of S*P? This is far from the first time a mefi thread has referenced a previous related thread, all else aside.
posted by cortex at 11:22 PM on January 28, 2006

Because it made me cry a little?
posted by jenovus at 12:05 AM on January 29, 2006

It is a double post, just as much as if I were to post the latest episode of get your war on. I thought about calling it out, but the thread was full of people excited and moved by it, so I said "what the hell" and moved on. Just didn't want you to think you were all alone out there.
posted by languagehat at 5:54 AM on January 29, 2006

Hmm, I guess the new Hi and Lois arc is fair game as well.
posted by mischief at 9:36 AM on January 29, 2006

I once wrote a short essay exploring the blatant sexual overtones in a Hi and Lois strip featuring Lois conversing with her naked teenage son in the laundry room.

I have lost the essay, but the strip must be out there somewhere.
posted by cortex at 11:27 AM on January 29, 2006

mischief (and languagehat), if in your example Hi suddenly came out of the closet, or the writer of Get Your War On seriously proposed murdering the President in a new story, would that not deserve a post. Why are your anuses so puckered on this one?
posted by jonson at 1:27 PM on January 29, 2006

No, it would not. It's a comic strip, for chrissake. I realize you like it, but other people like soap operas—how would you feel about their posting Days of Our Lives to the front page every time there was a surprising new plot development? (2003: Brad's dead! 2004: Brad came back from the dead!! 2005: OMG, Brad had a sex change!!!)

And lay off the puckered-anus crap. It broke the rules. Matt's leaving it, and that's fine, it's his site, but it still broke the rules, and pointing it out is not having a puckered anus.
posted by languagehat at 1:34 PM on January 29, 2006

j: Just trying to get a feel for how to break the rules without getting deleted.

OK = new (arcs | chapters | segments ) in (comics | fanfic | Hello Kitty blogs)

posted by mischief at 1:59 PM on January 29, 2006

languagehat - that's a pretty narrow definition of what constitutes a double, IMO. My twin examples (three, if you count the Homestar/Trogday above, which actually was a recent post and did set a precedent) are much more than just plot arcs. A new storyline in Get Your War On doesn't qualify, not does a new storyline in Penny Arcade or Garfield or Sexy Losers or Mary Worth. Something dramatic & noteworthy, on the other hand, seems like it would be worth allowing. Clearly in the case of this post & the Trogday examples, an exception can be made, despite MetaTalk callouts and baseless soap opera comparisons. And for the record, I'm no fan of Something Positive, I'd never heard of it, but I did enjoy the post.

mischief - in:

OK = new (arcs | chapters | segments ) in (comics | fanfic | Hello Kitty blogs)...

you forgot:

... that a certain majority of posters according to demonstrated community norms would find noteworthy.
posted by jonson at 3:43 PM on January 29, 2006

I'd never heard of it, but I did enjoy the post.

That's what people always say about double posts. If it's new to you personally, it's fine! The flaw in that argument is so obvious I'm not even going to bother spelling it out. In any event, Matt apparently agrees with you, so no worries.
posted by languagehat at 5:36 PM on January 29, 2006

no, you misunderstand, I wasn't giving that as my reason for enjoying the post. I totally agree with you about the invalidity of that argument, I was just pointing out that I don't have a horse in this race. You stated above that "I realize you like it" as though my being a fan of SP made it okay for the double, when in fact I'm not a fan at all.

Well, this has been explained and analyzed to death...
posted by jonson at 6:40 PM on January 29, 2006