Why is this AskMe anonymous?

February 5, 2006 7:10 PM

Anonymous questions in AskMe, as I understand it, are for those questions which are of a delicate nature, could cause serious embarrassment, result in legal trouble, or cause some sort of other harm.

So how is a question about what tattoo to get deemed worthy of anonymization? [MI]
posted by dirtynumbangelboy to Etiquette/Policy at 7:10 PM (70 comments total)

Embarrassing? No; the poster already has tattoos. Legal troubles arising therefrom? Not presumably. Causing harm? Only by the broadest definition of harm--and it's self-inflicted art, so that doesn't usually count.

Sorry, I just don't really see how this question needed to be anonymous. Almost every single other one is pretty clear, but this is like anonymizing "How should I get my haircut?"

(Unless, of course, the poster is asking b/c of wanting to surprise someone. In which case, feel free to ignore this.)
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 7:10 PM on February 5, 2006

cough.
posted by booksandlibretti at 7:12 PM on February 5, 2006

It seemed like a weak reason to use the anon feature and I was on the fence about approving it, but I figured they probably didn't want everyone on the site/google to know they have tattoos.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 7:14 PM on February 5, 2006

Why does it matter?

It doesn't.
posted by konolia at 7:14 PM on February 5, 2006

Well, i disagree with not questiong reasons for anonymity (clearly), and.. oh bugger, the thread got mentioned there.

Sorry.
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 7:14 PM on February 5, 2006

What if his or her mother reads MeFi and would be unhappy to learn about the potential tattooing of her offspring? Or, hey: What if the poster simply wanted to be anonymous?

Ultimately, what does it matter? What's the difference? Answer the question or don't answer the question. No need to get indignant about it.
posted by Dr. Wu at 7:15 PM on February 5, 2006

MeTa has been exceptionally whiny lately.

It's just a website, y'know.
posted by cribcage at 7:16 PM on February 5, 2006

Fair enough, Matt.
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 7:16 PM on February 5, 2006

I would defend dnab but I took my meds today.
posted by mischief at 7:22 PM on February 5, 2006

This still makes sense.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 7:28 PM on February 5, 2006

It seems like some people here would only be happy if every anonymous question had to justify why it was anonymous.
posted by smackfu at 7:58 PM on February 5, 2006

Heck, make em all anonymous.
posted by konolia at 8:03 PM on February 5, 2006

i disagree with not questiong reasons for anonymity

Why?
posted by Gator at 8:07 PM on February 5, 2006

Here's my summary of the two arguments:

Pro-Anonymity: Why question anonymity? A person may have their own reasons we cannot know even though, on the surface, it may seem something for which anonymity may not be required.

Anti-Anonymity: Anonymity is essentially anti-community. We don't know who we're helping or why - they can't followup on the question either in-thread or later. I understand why anonymity may be necessary in some cases but it should be more the exception, not the rule, and thus have a valid reason behind it.

I don't really fall on either extreme. Like in most things in life, the answer is a middle-ground that most people can agree is "reasonable" but just thought I'd summarize.
posted by vacapinta at 8:16 PM on February 5, 2006

The easiest solution is not to answer anonymous questions.
posted by Rothko at 8:18 PM on February 5, 2006

Unless, of course, the poster is asking b/c of wanting to surprise someone. In which case, feel free to ignore this.

dirtynumbangelboy, you actually had a plausible explanation for the question's anonymity when you called it out. Show more restraint, man.

Unrelated: I always read your nick as something like "dirtynumberbagelboy" and I don't know why.
posted by cortex at 8:33 PM on February 5, 2006

Depending on what country you live in, some companies may not employee you if they know you have tattoos.
posted by Bugbread at 8:41 PM on February 5, 2006

Maybe the poster wants to be buried in a Jewish cemetery.
posted by StickyCarpet at 9:13 PM on February 5, 2006

Maybe the person asking is an Orthodox Jew.
posted by orthogonality at 9:13 PM on February 5, 2006

The easiest solution is not to answer anonymous questions.

Does anyone really use that as a rule?
posted by mediareport at 9:56 PM on February 5, 2006

Just trying to offer pragmatic advice: no one is twisting your arm to read anonymous questions, much less answer them. AskMe a community service that succeeds because of trust on both sides: unless the question genuinely warrants secrecy, I stay well away from answering anonymous questions.
posted by Rothko at 10:17 PM on February 5, 2006

Obviously matt or jess thought it did (matt in this case) so wtf is the point of complaning?
posted by delmoi at 10:20 PM on February 5, 2006

I understand why anonymity may be necessary in some cases but it should be more the exception, not the rule, and thus have a valid reason behind it.

but... it is the exception, rather than the rule. does that settle the debate?

I know that vacapinta is only summarizing the viewpoints. I'm not addressing vacapinta alone, but everybody.
posted by shmegegge at 10:23 PM on February 5, 2006

I propose a new MeFI "forced break" feature.

Anyone caught complaining about stuff that is really way too mundane for any normal human being to be irritated by it has his/her IP banned from even reading MeFi for 2 weeks as a sort of "time out - go back to your real life for a bit so you don't take a website so damn seriously"...

Seriously, the things MeFites are getting their panties in a bunch over lately are just ridiculous.

If these things bother you that much - you need to not take a website quite so seriously. I love MeFi, but come on...
posted by twiggy at 10:27 PM on February 5, 2006

So how is an anonymous AskMe question about tatoos worthy of a posting to MetaTalk?
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 12:31 AM on February 6, 2006

I'm looking forward to an anonymous question about a malfunctioning laptop. but askmefi is so entertaining (as in, look-at-that-trainwreck entertaining) that I'd feel bad complaining anyway.
posted by matteo at 12:39 AM on February 6, 2006

metafilter: don't tell mom about my tattoo
posted by quonsar at 5:23 AM on February 6, 2006

Maybe the poster wants to be buried in a Jewish cemetery.

One time when you'll be completely unable to hide such a thing is when you're lying dead on a slab somewhere.

Anonymity is essentially anti-community.

A couple of anonymous questions do nothing worse to the community than the effect that constant, repetitive badgering from nannering knee-jerk control freaks who have nothing better to do than raise objections to every minor irritation here on metatalk.
posted by crunchland at 5:34 AM on February 6, 2006

With all due respect to several of you: fuck you sideways, with a Christmas tree. I was asking for clarification on why a certain question was assigned the way it was. Matt answered. I said 'fair enough'. I wasn't whining, I'm not a fucking control freak. Maybe the tone of my post was a bit off. I was tired. Sue me. But get the fuck off your self-righteous high horses; it's not as if any of you have never 'whined' about something a lot of other people found pointless.
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 6:01 AM on February 6, 2006

well, at least he's respectful.
posted by crunchland at 6:03 AM on February 6, 2006

Yeah, I think he handled the criticism quite well.
posted by smackfu at 6:11 AM on February 6, 2006

Still no insight on the "Why do you care?" front, though.
posted by Gator at 6:14 AM on February 6, 2006

crunchland, smackfu: again, fuck you. Criticism is one thing, pile-on attacks are another. I asked a question, it was answered. Grow up.
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 6:39 AM on February 6, 2006

fuck you sideways, with a Christmas tree

MetaTalk fanfiction writes itself.
posted by sebas at 6:43 AM on February 6, 2006

just thinking about that whole "sideways christmas tree" thing causes a certain amount of pain....
posted by HuronBob at 6:59 AM on February 6, 2006

Dear Mr. Indignant Jackhole : With no due respect, I'm sorry you feel the need to lash out at people criticizing you for posting not only a trivial complaint to metatalk, but one that was already being discussed two messages down. Maybe next time you get an itchy hair up your ass, you'll think twice about making a complaint, or, in the very least, look to see if the subject is already being discussed. In the meantime, consider the fact that "fuck you" is the last bastion of someone supporting an indefensible position.
posted by crunchland at 7:16 AM on February 6, 2006 [1 favorite]

"fuck you" is the last bastion of someone supporting an indefensible position.

crunchland: Is this borrowed from somewhere? Has it been said before? I'm not quoting it and asking about it to rub it in the poster's face - I'm truly interested in the quote itself.. To whom should I attribute this when I reuse it?

/loves it.
posted by twiggy at 7:33 AM on February 6, 2006

a). fuck you sideways, with a Christmas tree
b). Grow up

Here we have a dilemma, resulting from two contradictory instructions. If we comply with a), it seems unlikely that we could subsequently grow in any direction but sideways.

Possibly some experimentation would be in order, before issuing this kind of directive.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 7:57 AM on February 6, 2006

It's kind of sad watching this, like watching the kids in middle school pick on the defenseless unpopular nerd until he erupts in a string of epitaphs. The eruption causes much laughter, but then you feel kind of guilty for picking on someone who lacks the skill to fight back.
posted by caddis at 8:08 AM on February 6, 2006

People love to complain here. And discuss fucking each other with strange things.
posted by chunking express at 8:31 AM on February 6, 2006

From my fingers to your eyes, twiggy. But you could probably say it was a paraphrase of Samuel Johnson, who said that "patriotism is the last bastion of a scoundrel."

Fittingly, he also said "Your manuscript is both good and original, but the part that is good is not original and the part that is original is not good."
posted by crunchland at 8:36 AM on February 6, 2006

"fuck you" is the last bastion of someone supporting an indefensible position.

That reminds me of one of the best things my former boss, Henry, used to say. "Profanity is the last resort of a crass mother-fucker."

Personally I'm anti-anon question as well, for the most part. They're difficult to get any clarification for and I think you can say "if you're not willing to be part of the community, don't ask the question" as easily as you can say "if you don't like anonymous questions, don't answer them."
posted by phearlez at 8:46 AM on February 6, 2006

"fuck you" is the last bastion of someone supporting an indefensible position.

Nice, crunchland! I'm with twiggy.. filing that one away for later use.
posted by Marit at 8:50 AM on February 6, 2006

Only on mefi would nerds erupt in a string of epitaphs.
posted by CunningLinguist at 9:11 AM on February 6, 2006

"fuck you" is the last bastion of someone supporting an indefensible position.

I don't mean to pee in crunchland's phraseological cereal, but it's kind of hamhanded compared to the original. Something about that "of someone supporting" that makes it drag a bit. The intent is nice, there's some potential there, but I think it needs some editing.

I'd suggest this:

"fuck you" is the last defense of an indefensible position

but that removes the direct reference to the agent of the defense, which might not have the same feel. Though it'd probably be plenty clear in context.
posted by cortex at 9:17 AM on February 6, 2006

Only on mefi would nerds erupt in a string of epitaphs.

Here lies Erdrick
posted by cortex at 9:18 AM on February 6, 2006

"fuck you" is the last defense of a flounder.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 9:25 AM on February 6, 2006

fuck you, cortex.
posted by crunchland at 9:39 AM on February 6, 2006 [1 favorite]

Funny how the same epithet can (coarsely) describe and act of love AND an act of hate. English is a funny language.
posted by konolia at 9:42 AM on February 6, 2006

Now that's just indefensible, crunchland.
posted by cortex at 9:45 AM on February 6, 2006

a fuckin' funny one, yeah
posted by matteo at 9:45 AM on February 6, 2006

Fuck English, Fuck it sideways with an elm tree.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 10:00 AM on February 6, 2006

next time you get an itchy hair up your ass

wait, i thought it was a perpendicular conifer?
posted by quonsar at 10:23 AM on February 6, 2006

"Fuck you" is what you say when you've already defended a highly-defensible position extremely well, and your opponent is being a prat, not listening to reason, and flicking boogers at you anyway.
posted by scarabic at 10:52 AM on February 6, 2006

MR. CHRISTIAN! FUCK THE MIZZEN-MAST!
posted by jenovus at 11:02 AM on February 6, 2006

I <3 scarabic.br>
I never at any point said I was against anonymous questions. I have a minor gripe against using the anonymous system for such minor questions, but the final decision is Matt's. As I wrote above, I asked, he answered, and frankly, that should be the fucking end of it.

But no. Whilst crunchland et alia go on about me using MeTa for a minor gripe, while they say that no one is forcing me to read or respond to the question, they're missing the glaring fact staring them right in their beady little eyes: nobody is forcing them to read or respond to a given post on MeTa. I ask you, crunchland, who's the bigger waste of space: someone complaining about something you find minor and not worth wasting bytes on, or the person who responds to that, repeatedly?

That's what I thought.
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 11:04 AM on February 6, 2006

Hey, beats doing my lab report.
posted by jenovus at 11:08 AM on February 6, 2006

nobody is forcing them to read or respond to a given post on MeTa

Yeah, except some off us have absolutely zero problem with the anonymous use as it stands, and you seem to be essentially asking that the community agree to change the standards. And we fear (if I may be so bold as to assume) that if dissenting opinions are not aired, Matt will consider making a change that would be detrimental to the site.
posted by mzurer at 12:13 PM on February 6, 2006

Or maybe this place could be renamed MetaListen, and only posts that agree with the original post would be allowed.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 12:31 PM on February 6, 2006

I asked, he answered, and frankly, that should be the fucking end of it.

If you don't want to hear what other people think, and run the risk of having people disagree with you, maybe you should just email Matt next time.
posted by Gator at 12:39 PM on February 6, 2006

Wtf? At what point did I ask the community to change its standards? I asked for an explanation of the standards as they are.

And, Gator, it's not having people disagree with me that's the problem. It's people disagreeing with me, and belittling me for my opinion. That's the fucking problem.
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 12:46 PM on February 6, 2006

More irony, please.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 1:02 PM on February 6, 2006

dirtynumbangelboy, your post didn't contain the literal phrase "The tattoo question is not fit for anonymity, and if the community standards say otherwise then they should be changed" so in that sense you are right -- you didn't ask the community, explicitly, to change its standards.

But the fact that you brought the question to Metatalk implies that you have some objection to what happened. And that is, in part, what I think everyone has been reacting to. If that's an implication you didn't intend, and folks have been reacting to a flawed inference, that might explain both their barbs and your seemingly strong reaction to those barbs.

If you were in fact on a value-neutral quest for insight as to what is and isn't going to make the cut as an AskMe question, I can understand your frustration with the pile-on. As you said, maybe the tone of your post was a bit off. You could have phrased this as a simple request for folks to best characterize what is and is not a good fit for anonymity, without bringing in (and thus seeming to rail on) exactly one specific arguable example.

That people act like super-critical asshats in Metatalk threads should not have surprised you, though. You're no stranger to the section; you should know full well that it's grab-your-balls-and-jump-in territory.
posted by cortex at 1:29 PM on February 6, 2006

"Fuck you" is what you say when you've already defended a highly-defensible position extremely well, and your opponent is being a prat, not listening to reason, and flicking boogers at you anyway.

Amen. dirtynumbangelboy should know what to expect here, but that doesn't make prats flicking boogers at someone who's been reasonable any less wrong.
posted by mediareport at 1:43 PM on February 6, 2006

I love it when a flameout comes together.
posted by blue_beetle at 2:03 PM on February 6, 2006

Obviously matt or jess thought it did (matt in this case) so wtf is the point of complaning? - delmoi

Matt in every case. Jess has said multiple times that she doesn't see anon questions until the rest of us do, and that she never sees the name of the original poster.
posted by raedyn at 7:14 AM on February 7, 2006

For the record, I apologize for belittling dirtynumbangelboy opinions about anonymous posts. They're obviously very, very, very important to him. When I made my original comment, I was speaking more generally, but since I made it in this thread, it might have seemed as though I was speaking especially about dirtynumbangelboy. I wasn't. My other post, about why people might want to pick on him, especially after his indignant and profane suggestion about a conifer still stands, though.
posted by crunchland at 11:45 AM on February 7, 2006

crunchland, the funny thing about apologies is that if you mock whilst making them, they're utterly meaningless. Nice try, but apparently you failed kindergarten. Seriously. You're an adult. Behave like one. That means not picking on people.
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 6:55 AM on February 8, 2006 [1 favorite]

Whatever.
posted by crunchland at 7:28 AM on February 8, 2006

~FIN~
posted by cortex at 9:35 AM on February 8, 2006