This is new, right? I don't like it. March 23, 2006 10:23 AM Subscribe
note: Help maintain a healthy, respectful discussion by focusing comments on the
issues, topics, and facts at hand -- not at other members of the site.
This is new, right? I don't like it.
issues, topics, and facts at hand -- not at other members of the site.
This is new, right? I don't like it.
The sentiment is one with which I'm sure we all agree. But the way it's written there below the comment box just feels condescending. It's not the sort of democratic, mature tone I usually associate with MeFi.
posted by rxrfrx at 10:24 AM on March 23, 2006
posted by rxrfrx at 10:24 AM on March 23, 2006
It's kind of insulting.
posted by StrasbourgSecaucus at 10:32 AM on March 23, 2006
posted by StrasbourgSecaucus at 10:32 AM on March 23, 2006
(insert snarks about lack of maturity here)
It's no fun when you pre-empt us like that.
posted by juv3nal at 10:34 AM on March 23, 2006
Shouldn't that be "add-homonym?"
posted by Pollomacho at 10:34 AM on March 23, 2006
posted by Pollomacho at 10:34 AM on March 23, 2006
Yeah, it's kind of condescending. Too bad that proved necessary, huh?
posted by cribcage at 10:34 AM on March 23, 2006
posted by cribcage at 10:34 AM on March 23, 2006
For example, I have the greatest desire to paean ParisParamus and Witty after reading thread 11550 [grey].
posted by mystyk at 10:35 AM on March 23, 2006
posted by mystyk at 10:35 AM on March 23, 2006
rxrfrx writes "It's not the sort of democratic, mature tone I usually associate with MeFi."
What browser do you use, 'cause I think I see less of that tone than you do.
posted by OmieWise at 10:47 AM on March 23, 2006
What browser do you use, 'cause I think I see less of that tone than you do.
posted by OmieWise at 10:47 AM on March 23, 2006
If the message doesn't show up in MetaTalk, can I call rxrfrx a dumbaclot?
posted by chunking express at 10:49 AM on March 23, 2006
posted by chunking express at 10:49 AM on March 23, 2006
I find it jarring too - even though, yes, I agree with it. I think I know why...it feels like my mom wrote it!
(mom! what are you doing here at mefi??)
posted by vacapinta at 10:51 AM on March 23, 2006
(mom! what are you doing here at mefi??)
posted by vacapinta at 10:51 AM on March 23, 2006
I doubt I would have ever noticed this if it weren't for this post.
posted by mischief at 10:54 AM on March 23, 2006
posted by mischief at 10:54 AM on March 23, 2006
Yeah, it's kind of condescending. Too bad that proved necessary, huh?
posted by cribcage at 12:34 PM CST on March 23
.
posted by dios at 10:55 AM on March 23, 2006
posted by cribcage at 12:34 PM CST on March 23
.
posted by dios at 10:55 AM on March 23, 2006
Frankly, I'm shocked so many of you actually read it.
posted by crunchland at 10:56 AM on March 23, 2006
posted by crunchland at 10:56 AM on March 23, 2006
I haven't read it. What does it say?
posted by Astro Zombie at 11:01 AM on March 23, 2006
posted by Astro Zombie at 11:01 AM on March 23, 2006
I agree with the sentiment, but think it should be rewritten in a more positive, less condescending way. Right now it's a little 'guilty until proven innocent'.
posted by driveler at 11:01 AM on March 23, 2006
posted by driveler at 11:01 AM on March 23, 2006
I don't think it's a terrible thing to be reminded of, you fucking fuckers. whom I love. you bastards.
posted by loquacious at 11:01 AM on March 23, 2006
posted by loquacious at 11:01 AM on March 23, 2006
Note: You read the guidelines, right? Because linking to your own site or a project you worked on in this space will result in a deletion and your account will be banned. Post it to MetaFilter Projects to announce your work instead, which was designed especially for this purpose.
How do you feel about that, or other guidelines?
Frankly, it seems mathowie cannot win. He's excoriated for light modding, heavy modding, having guidelines, not having rules, implementing shit, not implementing shit...
If you don't like the guideline, it isn't that intrusive - it's right at the bottom of that page. And in all honesty, the lack of the sort of democratic, mature tone I usually associate with MeFi of late has been the impetus behind the new phrasing.
Dear Mefites, don't ignore it - I hope this long overdue and reasonable piece of advice will be a reference point in future 'discipline'.
I applaud it.
posted by dash_slot- at 11:12 AM on March 23, 2006
How do you feel about that, or other guidelines?
Frankly, it seems mathowie cannot win. He's excoriated for light modding, heavy modding, having guidelines, not having rules, implementing shit, not implementing shit...
If you don't like the guideline, it isn't that intrusive - it's right at the bottom of that page. And in all honesty, the lack of the sort of democratic, mature tone I usually associate with MeFi of late has been the impetus behind the new phrasing.
Dear Mefites, don't ignore it - I hope this long overdue and reasonable piece of advice will be a reference point in future 'discipline'.
I applaud it.
posted by dash_slot- at 11:12 AM on March 23, 2006
Maybe if they added a 'please' to the front of it.
Hmmm... maybe a pretty please with sugar on top.
posted by goodnewsfortheinsane at 11:18 AM on March 23, 2006
Hmmm... maybe a pretty please with sugar on top.
posted by goodnewsfortheinsane at 11:18 AM on March 23, 2006
Actually, maybe we should switch to an incentive-based system. For every comment I make that doesn't attack another user personally, mathowie will send me a sugar cookie and a nickel.
posted by Gator at 11:21 AM on March 23, 2006
posted by Gator at 11:21 AM on March 23, 2006
My mother calls this the "pay you to stay out of jail" approach.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 11:22 AM on March 23, 2006
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 11:22 AM on March 23, 2006
Yeah, it's kind of condescending. Too bad that proved necessary, huh?
Exactly. If you'd stop yelling in the library, they wouldn't have to put up a QUIET! sign.
I know, I know, actually they've given in and are allowing people to make noise in libraries so they can compete with Starbucks. I hate that.
posted by languagehat at 11:24 AM on March 23, 2006
Exactly. If you'd stop yelling in the library, they wouldn't have to put up a QUIET! sign.
I know, I know, actually they've given in and are allowing people to make noise in libraries so they can compete with Starbucks. I hate that.
posted by languagehat at 11:24 AM on March 23, 2006
note: Pretty please help maintain a healthy, respectful discussion by not being a total asshole. Thank you.
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 11:25 AM on March 23, 2006
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 11:25 AM on March 23, 2006
I like ad hominems a lot better than "you're all too stupid, but what else can you expect from Metafilter" type whining when an argument doesn't go someone's way.
posted by sonofsamiam at 11:28 AM on March 23, 2006
posted by sonofsamiam at 11:28 AM on March 23, 2006
Gator: "Actually, maybe we should switch to an incentive-based system. For every comment I make that doesn't attack another user personally, mathowie will send me a sugar cookie and a nickel."
A modified version of this just might work. If a user continually provides quality posts and comments, free from editorializing or personal attacks, and is a major site contributor, they can be granted earlier turn-around on posting time-outs on any one of the MeFi sections. Possibly even on all sections.
Make the incentives just as easy to remove, and you may have a viable system. "You get farther using the carrot rather than the stick." -or something like that.
Shit, I just proposed a standard well above my own abilities...
posted by mystyk at 11:28 AM on March 23, 2006
A modified version of this just might work. If a user continually provides quality posts and comments, free from editorializing or personal attacks, and is a major site contributor, they can be granted earlier turn-around on posting time-outs on any one of the MeFi sections. Possibly even on all sections.
Make the incentives just as easy to remove, and you may have a viable system. "You get farther using the carrot rather than the stick." -or something like that.
Shit, I just proposed a standard well above my own abilities...
posted by mystyk at 11:28 AM on March 23, 2006
A modified version of this just might work
Jessamyn already sent me an edited version of the text which sounds tighter and hopefully less condescending. I'm all ears though if anyone has suggestions for text to replace what is there.
Basically I don't want to see members attacking each other and mocking each other on MetaFilter, and instead, remind them the discussions are supposed to be about the links and issues raised, not the person raising them.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 11:33 AM on March 23, 2006
Jessamyn already sent me an edited version of the text which sounds tighter and hopefully less condescending. I'm all ears though if anyone has suggestions for text to replace what is there.
Basically I don't want to see members attacking each other and mocking each other on MetaFilter, and instead, remind them the discussions are supposed to be about the links and issues raised, not the person raising them.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 11:33 AM on March 23, 2006
I know, I know, actually they've given in and are allowing people to make noise in libraries so they can compete with Starbucks. I hate that.
For real?! That's dumb.
posted by desuetude at 11:37 AM on March 23, 2006
For real?! That's dumb.
posted by desuetude at 11:37 AM on March 23, 2006
But the way it's written there below the comment box just feels condescending.
As long as the Hall Monitor approves, that's all I care about.
posted by Armitage Shanks at 11:43 AM on March 23, 2006
As long as the Hall Monitor approves, that's all I care about.
posted by Armitage Shanks at 11:43 AM on March 23, 2006
I thought we were all the hall monitors. These metaphors sure are confusing.
posted by rxrfrx at 11:48 AM on March 23, 2006
posted by rxrfrx at 11:48 AM on March 23, 2006
I have a better idea: implement a sort of captcha (sp?) system that forces people to listen to one minute of Give Peace A Chance before posting. The clip at the end, with the aaall we are saaaaying and the clapping. If people resist the urge to smash their browser and kill their kittens and manage to post a civil comment after that, they pass the test because their coolness is indestructible.
posted by funambulist at 11:56 AM on March 23, 2006
posted by funambulist at 11:56 AM on March 23, 2006
"Allllll weeee are saaaaying, is FOAD!"
posted by five fresh fish at 12:08 PM on March 23, 2006
posted by five fresh fish at 12:08 PM on March 23, 2006
I'm all ears though if anyone has suggestions for text to replace what is there.
How's this?
"Comments attacking other members will be deleted. Members making such comments will receive time-outs. Repeat offenders will be permanently banned."
posted by timeistight at 12:26 PM on March 23, 2006
How's this?
"Comments attacking other members will be deleted. Members making such comments will receive time-outs. Repeat offenders will be permanently banned."
posted by timeistight at 12:26 PM on March 23, 2006
That seems a bit overly negative, though I have always liked Bitch Ph.D.'s "Comments are great; obnoxious comments get deleted. Deal."
posted by occhiblu at 12:30 PM on March 23, 2006
posted by occhiblu at 12:30 PM on March 23, 2006
With a little adjustment, a public swimming pool sign could be adapted to fit, as so:
"This is our community blog. Notice that there is no 'p' in blog, and we'd appreciate it if you kept it that way".
posted by mr_crash_davis at 1:22 PM on March 23, 2006
"This is our community blog. Notice that there is no 'p' in blog, and we'd appreciate it if you kept it that way".
posted by mr_crash_davis at 1:22 PM on March 23, 2006
I think that disclaimer should only be added to the comment boxes of those who have, in the past, been deemed in need of a time-out.
posted by Eideteker at 1:29 PM on March 23, 2006
posted by Eideteker at 1:29 PM on March 23, 2006
How's this?
"Comments attacking other members will be deleted. Members making such comments will receive time-outs. Repeat offenders will be permanently banned."
posted by timeistight
Sounds perfect to me. Right now we allow insults to members who aren't even participating in the thread. We hate pp derailing threads yet can't resist a dig even when he's no where to be seen. Pure lunacy (and yes, I flagged it to no avail).
You can put anything you want after the posting box. Only when people are seeing actual action will it have any result.
posted by justgary at 1:29 PM on March 23, 2006
"Comments attacking other members will be deleted. Members making such comments will receive time-outs. Repeat offenders will be permanently banned."
posted by timeistight
Sounds perfect to me. Right now we allow insults to members who aren't even participating in the thread. We hate pp derailing threads yet can't resist a dig even when he's no where to be seen. Pure lunacy (and yes, I flagged it to no avail).
You can put anything you want after the posting box. Only when people are seeing actual action will it have any result.
posted by justgary at 1:29 PM on March 23, 2006
"If a user continually provides quality posts and comments, free from editorializing or personal attacks, and is a major site contributor, they can be granted earlier turn-around on posting time-outs on any one of the MeFi sections."
Or maybe we can give out Slashdot karma!
Okay, here's my editor's take:
Metafilter appreciates respectful comments that maintain healthy discussion. This means you.
posted by dammitjim at 1:30 PM on March 23, 2006
Or maybe we can give out Slashdot karma!
Okay, here's my editor's take:
Metafilter appreciates respectful comments that maintain healthy discussion. This means you.
posted by dammitjim at 1:30 PM on March 23, 2006
Frankly, it seems mathowie cannot win. He's excoriated for light modding, heavy modding, having guidelines, not having rules, implementing shit, not implementing shit...
Anyone excoriating any moderator on any message board or forum for 'light moderation,' ever, ought to be strung up and shot through the lungs.
Yes, I'm talking to you, whoever you are that complained about it. Consider yourself personally attacked and insulted. On Metafilter. In a Metafilter comment. By me.
Dear Mefites, don't ignore it - I hope this long overdue and reasonable piece of advice will be a reference point in future 'discipline'.
Hooray for discipline! We all need to have our asses wiped for us because we can't deal with a little invective now and then!
posted by Ryvar at 1:30 PM on March 23, 2006
Anyone excoriating any moderator on any message board or forum for 'light moderation,' ever, ought to be strung up and shot through the lungs.
Yes, I'm talking to you, whoever you are that complained about it. Consider yourself personally attacked and insulted. On Metafilter. In a Metafilter comment. By me.
Dear Mefites, don't ignore it - I hope this long overdue and reasonable piece of advice will be a reference point in future 'discipline'.
Hooray for discipline! We all need to have our asses wiped for us because we can't deal with a little invective now and then!
posted by Ryvar at 1:30 PM on March 23, 2006
Comments attacking other members will be deleted. Members making such comments will receive time-outs. Repeat offenders will be permanently banned.
That sounds negative and totally unwelcoming to new users -- as if I police the place with a heavy hand and banish people to siberia on a daily basis.
Seriously, anyone got a rewrite that is respectful, upbeat, and honest about what we're trying to do here?
posted by mathowie (staff) at 1:31 PM on March 23, 2006
That sounds negative and totally unwelcoming to new users -- as if I police the place with a heavy hand and banish people to siberia on a daily basis.
Seriously, anyone got a rewrite that is respectful, upbeat, and honest about what we're trying to do here?
posted by mathowie (staff) at 1:31 PM on March 23, 2006
Metafilter appreciates respectful comments that maintain healthy discussion. This means you.
Dammitjim wins. That's perfect. Encourages better comments without implying that the brown shirts are coming to town for a holiday.
posted by Ryvar at 1:31 PM on March 23, 2006
Dammitjim wins. That's perfect. Encourages better comments without implying that the brown shirts are coming to town for a holiday.
posted by Ryvar at 1:31 PM on March 23, 2006
I like the first sentence, but "this means you" makes me wanna puke.
posted by rxrfrx at 1:36 PM on March 23, 2006
posted by rxrfrx at 1:36 PM on March 23, 2006
Encourages better comments without implying that the brown shirts are coming to town for a holiday.
posted by Ryvar at 3:31 PM CST on March 23
That would be nice except for the fact that a number of users show that they can't following the aspirational guidelines on the posting page, so they choose to do what they want. Nor do they heed Matt's request to not argue personalities and only argue issues. Quite simply, some users---the really bad ones---won't listen without fear of "the brown shirts."
posted by dios at 1:37 PM on March 23, 2006
posted by Ryvar at 3:31 PM CST on March 23
That would be nice except for the fact that a number of users show that they can't following the aspirational guidelines on the posting page, so they choose to do what they want. Nor do they heed Matt's request to not argue personalities and only argue issues. Quite simply, some users---the really bad ones---won't listen without fear of "the brown shirts."
posted by dios at 1:37 PM on March 23, 2006
Sounds perfect to me. Right now we allow insults to members who aren't even participating in the thread.
If I had a dollar every time someone took a shot at me when I wasn't participating in a thread....
posted by dios at 1:38 PM on March 23, 2006
If I had a dollar every time someone took a shot at me when I wasn't participating in a thread....
posted by dios at 1:38 PM on March 23, 2006
For me, it's the "healthy respectful" bit that sounds a little condescending. Maybe just:
Comments should focus on the issues, topics, and facts at hand. Please refrain from insulting or attacking other members of the site.
posted by occhiblu at 1:38 PM on March 23, 2006
Comments should focus on the issues, topics, and facts at hand. Please refrain from insulting or attacking other members of the site.
posted by occhiblu at 1:38 PM on March 23, 2006
Comments attacking other members will be deleted.
That sounds negative and totally unwelcoming to new users
How matt? Why beat around the bush? Attacking members is without doubt something we don't want. That's not asking a whole lot. You could put 'please' in front of the request, but really, you're not dealing with children here.
If an adult reads "you will be banned if you attack others" and then they don't sign up, did you really want that person as a member?
posted by justgary at 1:39 PM on March 23, 2006
That sounds negative and totally unwelcoming to new users
How matt? Why beat around the bush? Attacking members is without doubt something we don't want. That's not asking a whole lot. You could put 'please' in front of the request, but really, you're not dealing with children here.
If an adult reads "you will be banned if you attack others" and then they don't sign up, did you really want that person as a member?
posted by justgary at 1:39 PM on March 23, 2006
dios: you get way too much flak around here because certain people are too into their ideology to bother checking if you're actually right once in a while.
That having been said, I've noticed that a lot more of the type of posters one frequently encounters on Livejournal or computer game support forums are cropping up on Metafilter. Especially in the past three months. Overwhelming verbal hostility towards the unintelligent is the only way to preserve what keeps Metafilter special - and I'm pretty firmly against anything that challenges that, like clamping down significantly harder on flaming.
As regards your personal situation, it's really just the same 3-4 people over and over again. That suggests to me that the proper course of action here is to hand out some timeouts, let everybody roll their eyes at the "MATTHOWIE LOVES CONSERVATIVES" idiocy, and move on.
posted by Ryvar at 1:43 PM on March 23, 2006
That having been said, I've noticed that a lot more of the type of posters one frequently encounters on Livejournal or computer game support forums are cropping up on Metafilter. Especially in the past three months. Overwhelming verbal hostility towards the unintelligent is the only way to preserve what keeps Metafilter special - and I'm pretty firmly against anything that challenges that, like clamping down significantly harder on flaming.
As regards your personal situation, it's really just the same 3-4 people over and over again. That suggests to me that the proper course of action here is to hand out some timeouts, let everybody roll their eyes at the "MATTHOWIE LOVES CONSERVATIVES" idiocy, and move on.
posted by Ryvar at 1:43 PM on March 23, 2006
Overwhelming verbal hostility towards the unintelligent is the only way to preserve what keeps Metafilter special
Wow, a one-sentence summary of the attitude that makes MetaFilter suck!
posted by languagehat at 1:46 PM on March 23, 2006
Wow, a one-sentence summary of the attitude that makes MetaFilter suck!
posted by languagehat at 1:46 PM on March 23, 2006
What occhiblu said. It was definitely the "healthy respectful" that was bugging me - has a new-agey/support-group-speak feel to it.
posted by vacapinta at 1:49 PM on March 23, 2006
posted by vacapinta at 1:49 PM on March 23, 2006
Hooray for discipline! We all need to have our asses wiped for us because we can't deal with a little invective now and then!
posted by Ryvar at 9:30 PM GMT on March 23
My meaning could have been clearer, as you seem to be defining discipline as punishment. I meant it as the ability to control yourself or other people, even in difficult situations. Failure to control yourself, as per community guidelines, would - as always - result in what you may see as punishment, eg, comment deletion, time-outs or banning.
Hope thats helpful.
posted by dash_slot- at 1:50 PM on March 23, 2006
posted by Ryvar at 9:30 PM GMT on March 23
My meaning could have been clearer, as you seem to be defining discipline as punishment. I meant it as the ability to control yourself or other people, even in difficult situations. Failure to control yourself, as per community guidelines, would - as always - result in what you may see as punishment, eg, comment deletion, time-outs or banning.
Hope thats helpful.
posted by dash_slot- at 1:50 PM on March 23, 2006
Overwhelming verbal hostility towards the unintelligent...
Employing the former marks you among the latter.
posted by cribcage at 1:51 PM on March 23, 2006
Employing the former marks you among the latter.
posted by cribcage at 1:51 PM on March 23, 2006
...Says the guy who thinks the proper response to a lunatic screaming obscenities is to scream louder.
posted by cribcage at 1:56 PM on March 23, 2006
posted by cribcage at 1:56 PM on March 23, 2006
Example: while I clearly enjoyed the perfect followup provided me, this kind of comment and the next by the same author is the type of infection I see creeping in these days, and I don't think that that sort of banality should be tolerated, at all, by anyone. The last thing Metafilter needs are comments containing sentences like 'haha dope' or using 'lol' in a non-ironic way.
posted by Ryvar at 1:57 PM on March 23, 2006
posted by Ryvar at 1:57 PM on March 23, 2006
...and the next by the same author...
Heh. Exactly. Some moron posted something dumb, you sank to his level, and he kept coming. You were saying?
posted by cribcage at 2:01 PM on March 23, 2006
Heh. Exactly. Some moron posted something dumb, you sank to his level, and he kept coming. You were saying?
posted by cribcage at 2:01 PM on March 23, 2006
That sounds […] as if I […] banish people to siberia on a daily basis.
That was the idea.
posted by timeistight at 2:06 PM on March 23, 2006
That was the idea.
posted by timeistight at 2:06 PM on March 23, 2006
cribcage: no, I was waiting - had it planned before I even posted the intial rant - for any kind of response along those lines (preferrably by someone with a triple-digit IQ) in order to prompt the followup. I went with what I got.
What scares me is the very real possibility that Metafilter might start to attract lots and lots of 13twelves. People like that infect every corner of the Internet that doesn't have a certain level of poisonous disdain for any form of intellectual weakness. The last thing we need right now is a mandate from on high to join hands and sing Kum Ba Yah Or Else.
posted by Ryvar at 2:07 PM on March 23, 2006
What scares me is the very real possibility that Metafilter might start to attract lots and lots of 13twelves. People like that infect every corner of the Internet that doesn't have a certain level of poisonous disdain for any form of intellectual weakness. The last thing we need right now is a mandate from on high to join hands and sing Kum Ba Yah Or Else.
posted by Ryvar at 2:07 PM on March 23, 2006
How about adding a step in the posting process so that folks have to preview at least once and think a bit more about their comment before it goes up and including the gentle uncondescending play nice advice at that point?
posted by Skygazer at 2:13 PM on March 23, 2006
posted by Skygazer at 2:13 PM on March 23, 2006
Yeah, some highlighted text next to the preview of the user's comment that says "Read this. Are you being a douchebag? If so, please edit and re-preview."
posted by dammitjim at 2:16 PM on March 23, 2006
posted by dammitjim at 2:16 PM on March 23, 2006
what can a hundred words say that a nice picture cannot?
though I have to admit occhiblu's warning is probably better...
posted by funambulist at 2:18 PM on March 23, 2006
though I have to admit occhiblu's warning is probably better...
posted by funambulist at 2:18 PM on March 23, 2006
Slightly off-topic but I am the only one who thinks this problem has been made worse by the 'metafilthy style' of quoting where the username is first part of the quote? (example)
It seems to place focus on the commenter more than the comment to me.
posted by If I Had An Anus at 2:32 PM on March 23, 2006
It seems to place focus on the commenter more than the comment to me.
posted by If I Had An Anus at 2:32 PM on March 23, 2006
If I Had An Anus: It seems to place focus on the commenter more than the comment to me.
That's so anal.
posted by Skygazer at 2:41 PM on March 23, 2006
That's so anal.
posted by Skygazer at 2:41 PM on March 23, 2006
Skygazer writes "How about adding a step in the posting process so that folks have to preview at least once and think a bit more about their comment before it goes up and including the gentle uncondescending play nice advice at that point?"
We didn't use to have live preview instant post, lots of people hated it.
posted by Mitheral at 2:48 PM on March 23, 2006
We didn't use to have live preview instant post, lots of people hated it.
posted by Mitheral at 2:48 PM on March 23, 2006
IIHAA, that's interesting, I'd never thought of it like that. I tend to think that that style of quoting directs conversation and makes it more precise. Of course, I use it a lot, so I guess I'm already self-selecting.
posted by OmieWise at 3:05 PM on March 23, 2006
posted by OmieWise at 3:05 PM on March 23, 2006
Are you new? Consider reading what makes a good post.
Are you not new? Consider not hitting that 'post' button if you're angry, drunk, or about to be a dick.
posted by desuetude at 3:11 PM on March 23, 2006
Are you not new? Consider not hitting that 'post' button if you're angry, drunk, or about to be a dick.
posted by desuetude at 3:11 PM on March 23, 2006
Help keep Metafilter fun and interesting by showing respect to other users. No personal attacks.
posted by crunchland at 3:55 PM on March 23, 2006
posted by crunchland at 3:55 PM on March 23, 2006
Eh, I won't ask (so I can just blame ortho in my heart).Shorter dano (who also uses the sockpuppet account if "If I Had An Anus" to contribute this): Any problem is just an opportunity for dano to make a dig at someone on his enemies' list.
posted by danostuporstar 23 March | 13:41
Anus/Dan, you're in your fifties, you're not a little kid. It's time you got over your petty grudges.
posted by orthogonality at 4:06 PM on March 23, 2006
Christ, I hope no one participating in these stupid arguments in in his fifties. It's embarrassing enough that I post here in my twenties.
posted by cribcage at 4:08 PM on March 23, 2006
posted by cribcage at 4:08 PM on March 23, 2006
> It's not the sort of democratic, mature tone I usually associate with MeFi.
Eh, what's that expression the young folks are usin' nowadays? Oh yeah. ROTFLMAO.
posted by jfuller at 4:12 PM on March 23, 2006
Eh, what's that expression the young folks are usin' nowadays? Oh yeah. ROTFLMAO.
posted by jfuller at 4:12 PM on March 23, 2006
Personal attacks are certainly part of the problem but they're not the whole bag. Focusing on the "healthy, respectful" part is exactly what is needed. Man, I'd even throw a 'positive' in there. So, yeah, I vote for that one. Also I vote for cribcage and blue Sundays.
posted by nixerman at 4:18 PM on March 23, 2006
posted by nixerman at 4:18 PM on March 23, 2006
That having been said, I've noticed that a lot more of the type of posters one frequently encounters on Livejournal or computer game support forums are cropping up on Metafilter. Especially in the past three months.
Aye.
What scares me is the very real possibility that Metafilter might start to attract lots and lots of 13twelves. People like that infect every corner of the Internet that doesn't have a certain level of poisonous disdain for any form of intellectual weakness.
Och, aye. Dudester1984 and his ravening hordes are the internet Scourge of God.
Overwhelming verbal hostility towards the unintelligent is the only way to preserve what keeps Metafilter special - and I'm pretty firmly against anything that challenges that, like clamping down significantly harder on flaming.
Well, I love stupid people, if they're nice stupid people. Stupid shouty people, though? Not so much. But I kinda prefer infuriating mockery to verbal hostility when I get my back up, I must say.
That got me in a lot of fights with much older and bigger guys way back in high school. Heh.
Look, though. There was a long discussion at the end of the thread here yesterday that mathowie didn't deign to weigh in on, or didn't notice, and I maintain that slapping bandaids on things is focussing on symptoms, to the detriment of any sustainable solution. Putting a nice little warning to the effect that ad hominem attacks are bad (instances of which way back when were an Egregious Offense Worthy Of Censure and recieved much Metatalk weiner-slapping, but are daily occurences now, and so has MeFi changed) is fine and good, but that sort of behaviour is only one manifestation of the kind of stuff that drags the site down.
It's a bit like arguing over the wording of an abandon ship order on the Titanic (yeah, yeah, hyperbole... just an example).
Add 'Timeout' 'Hellban' and 'Ban' tickboxes to whatever admin interface you have for thread and commment deletion, Matt (if you have one), with time periods for the first two. Add a css class to grey down the color usernames at the bottom of comments to give a visual indicator of those who are on probation or banned, and an auto-flag in a box on the userpage if someone clicks through, with a link to the comment or thread for which they received the probation or ban, and the time left until they can post or comment again.
And start doling out smacks to the head much more freely. It won't take long until it's not necessary anymore (or rarely), and the bad actors (whose influence is out of proportion to their numbers, so far) will have either learned how to be productive (snarky, angry, ranty, sarcastic all fine too, of course) members of the community, or they'll have fucked off to places where they can act out and disrupt and attentionwhore to their heart's content.
*shrug* Or don't. It's your site to lose.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 4:23 PM on March 23, 2006
Aye.
What scares me is the very real possibility that Metafilter might start to attract lots and lots of 13twelves. People like that infect every corner of the Internet that doesn't have a certain level of poisonous disdain for any form of intellectual weakness.
Och, aye. Dudester1984 and his ravening hordes are the internet Scourge of God.
Overwhelming verbal hostility towards the unintelligent is the only way to preserve what keeps Metafilter special - and I'm pretty firmly against anything that challenges that, like clamping down significantly harder on flaming.
Well, I love stupid people, if they're nice stupid people. Stupid shouty people, though? Not so much. But I kinda prefer infuriating mockery to verbal hostility when I get my back up, I must say.
That got me in a lot of fights with much older and bigger guys way back in high school. Heh.
Look, though. There was a long discussion at the end of the thread here yesterday that mathowie didn't deign to weigh in on, or didn't notice, and I maintain that slapping bandaids on things is focussing on symptoms, to the detriment of any sustainable solution. Putting a nice little warning to the effect that ad hominem attacks are bad (instances of which way back when were an Egregious Offense Worthy Of Censure and recieved much Metatalk weiner-slapping, but are daily occurences now, and so has MeFi changed) is fine and good, but that sort of behaviour is only one manifestation of the kind of stuff that drags the site down.
It's a bit like arguing over the wording of an abandon ship order on the Titanic (yeah, yeah, hyperbole... just an example).
Add 'Timeout' 'Hellban' and 'Ban' tickboxes to whatever admin interface you have for thread and commment deletion, Matt (if you have one), with time periods for the first two. Add a css class to grey down the color usernames at the bottom of comments to give a visual indicator of those who are on probation or banned, and an auto-flag in a box on the userpage if someone clicks through, with a link to the comment or thread for which they received the probation or ban, and the time left until they can post or comment again.
And start doling out smacks to the head much more freely. It won't take long until it's not necessary anymore (or rarely), and the bad actors (whose influence is out of proportion to their numbers, so far) will have either learned how to be productive (snarky, angry, ranty, sarcastic all fine too, of course) members of the community, or they'll have fucked off to places where they can act out and disrupt and attentionwhore to their heart's content.
*shrug* Or don't. It's your site to lose.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 4:23 PM on March 23, 2006
Pettiness has no age limit, cribcage.
posted by crunchland at 4:23 PM on March 23, 2006
posted by crunchland at 4:23 PM on March 23, 2006
jonmc sux
posted by fleacircus at 4:50 PM on March 23, 2006
posted by fleacircus at 4:50 PM on March 23, 2006
Anus/Dan, you're in your fifties, you're not a little kid. It's time you got over your petty grudges.
A perfect example of the problem, of course. You are reacting to the user and not the comment. I believe it's obvious how including the username in a quote may contribute to the problem. You may disagree with the idea, but you may not accuse me of immaturity for posing it, if you wish to be taken seriously.
dano (who also uses the sockpuppet ....)
The handle I use at another site is irrelevant to the thought expressed. Guess what...the name on my AARP card is different than either one. (Your math is completely wrong by the way.) As an advocate of privacy, you may want to consider your previous statements when deciding whether to post someone's personal details.
On preview, sure it did, rxrfrx. There have been several good suggestions as to how the note might be improved.
posted by If I Had An Anus at 5:21 PM on March 23, 2006
A perfect example of the problem, of course. You are reacting to the user and not the comment. I believe it's obvious how including the username in a quote may contribute to the problem. You may disagree with the idea, but you may not accuse me of immaturity for posing it, if you wish to be taken seriously.
dano (who also uses the sockpuppet ....)
The handle I use at another site is irrelevant to the thought expressed. Guess what...the name on my AARP card is different than either one. (Your math is completely wrong by the way.) As an advocate of privacy, you may want to consider your previous statements when deciding whether to post someone's personal details.
On preview, sure it did, rxrfrx. There have been several good suggestions as to how the note might be improved.
posted by If I Had An Anus at 5:21 PM on March 23, 2006
haha, that's why I said "particularly." There were some good suggestions in between the derails. I feel like with all of the interpersonal conflicts and gratuitous whiny callouts and callout-related discussion and conflicts, this place is getting just a little too meta.
posted by rxrfrx at 6:54 PM on March 23, 2006
posted by rxrfrx at 6:54 PM on March 23, 2006
How about it shows up only for users who've been flagged in the last month?
posted by evariste at 8:11 PM on March 23, 2006
posted by evariste at 8:11 PM on March 23, 2006
If I had a dollar every time someone took a shot at me when I wasn't participating in a thread....
posted by dios at 1:38 PM PST on March 23 [!][↑] Other comments (3/3): « ·
You could buy five sockpuppets?
posted by shnoz-gobblin at 8:11 PM on March 23, 2006
posted by dios at 1:38 PM PST on March 23 [!][↑] Other comments (3/3): « ·
You could buy five sockpuppets?
posted by shnoz-gobblin at 8:11 PM on March 23, 2006
But how about "Comments should be of a civil nature and related to the post."
posted by shnoz-gobblin at 8:15 PM on March 23, 2006
posted by shnoz-gobblin at 8:15 PM on March 23, 2006
", or you walk the plank."
posted by shnoz-gobblin at 8:16 PM on March 23, 2006
posted by shnoz-gobblin at 8:16 PM on March 23, 2006
"Help keep Metafilter fun and interesting by respecting other users. No personal attacks."
That would be my moderation of crunchland's suggestion which I generally liked. I might add "take your beef to email or metatalk" which I sometimes say in AskMe, but so many people don't have email addresses in their profile [still!] that it might not be a good idea.
orthogonality, please remember what I told you.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 8:17 PM on March 23, 2006
That would be my moderation of crunchland's suggestion which I generally liked. I might add "take your beef to email or metatalk" which I sometimes say in AskMe, but so many people don't have email addresses in their profile [still!] that it might not be a good idea.
orthogonality, please remember what I told you.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 8:17 PM on March 23, 2006
zomg i h8 all 34,363 of you especially Ryvar. lol.
posted by exlotuseater at 8:25 PM on March 23, 2006
posted by exlotuseater at 8:25 PM on March 23, 2006
Walk the plank to harsh? How about ", or you may be sent to the happy place with bunnys and pancakes for miles." Then ban the account.
posted by shnoz-gobblin at 8:31 PM on March 23, 2006
posted by shnoz-gobblin at 8:31 PM on March 23, 2006
I don't know; I think anything with "healthy" or "fun" or "interesting" or even "respect" puts things way up for interpretation. As evidenced by this thread, many seem to think that attacking others equals all of the above ("I was respecting him by showing him how wrong he was"). I would still push for a "Stay on topic; no attacks" message -- something more concrete than "be respectful."
posted by occhiblu at 8:35 PM on March 23, 2006
posted by occhiblu at 8:35 PM on March 23, 2006
How about
Beware
Of entrance to a quarrel, but being in,
Bear't that the opposed may beware of thee.
Or maybe that should just be above the posting-box in Metatalk.
posted by exlotuseater at 8:42 PM on March 23, 2006
Beware
Of entrance to a quarrel, but being in,
Bear't that the opposed may beware of thee.
Or maybe that should just be above the posting-box in Metatalk.
posted by exlotuseater at 8:42 PM on March 23, 2006
I like it how it is.
It's kind of like "Trespassers will be shot" sign; I don't plan on trespassing, so it doesn't bother me.
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 9:01 PM on March 23, 2006
It's kind of like "Trespassers will be shot" sign; I don't plan on trespassing, so it doesn't bother me.
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 9:01 PM on March 23, 2006
Unless it was changed to "Trespassers will be shot", 'cuz that would be so freakin' BADASS, man!
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 9:20 PM on March 23, 2006
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 9:20 PM on March 23, 2006
I'd put the "friendly admonition" in a metatag on rollover of the "Post Comment" button or forget it and impose some of the "treat the disease not the symptoms" suggestions by Stavrosthe..err...wonderchicken.
posted by Skygazer at 10:53 PM on March 23, 2006
posted by Skygazer at 10:53 PM on March 23, 2006
And start doling out smacks to the head much more freely. It won't take long until it's not necessary anymore (or rarely), and the bad actors (whose influence is out of proportion to their numbers, so far) will have either learned how to be productive (snarky, angry, ranty, sarcastic all fine too, of course) members of the community, or they'll have fucked off to places where they can act out and disrupt and attentionwhore to their heart's content.
Pretty please with sugar on top?
posted by dg at 12:10 AM on March 24, 2006
Pretty please with sugar on top?
posted by dg at 12:10 AM on March 24, 2006
Metafilter appreciates respectful comments that maintain healthy discussion. This means you.
I like this, but agree that it would be at least as good without the "this means you".
posted by teleskiving at 2:37 AM on March 24, 2006
I like this, but agree that it would be at least as good without the "this means you".
posted by teleskiving at 2:37 AM on March 24, 2006
Metafilter appreciates respectful comments that maintain healthy discussion.
This makes me say to myself 'well, fuck you, nanny'.
Unintended consequences are what this game is all about.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 3:06 AM on March 24, 2006
This makes me say to myself 'well, fuck you, nanny'.
Unintended consequences are what this game is all about.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 3:06 AM on March 24, 2006
All I did was take the words from the current message and reorder them some. Aside from the "This means you" part. I added that, just to make it have a little personality and seem less like a sign posted in the high school library. So take it off.
The big thing that my suggestion did was re-order the sentence so that it began with a positive. Also, I took away the imperative - the verb "help" - to make it sound less like a command and more like a subtle indication of peer pressure.
That's what I initially heard was the reaction to the current message: that it sounded negative and pushy. If the structure of the message works, then we can play with the right words.
Above all, what should this message be saying? Is it trying to establish a social norm, so that later enforcement (whatever that is) seems more justified? Or do we just want to threaten censure?
posted by dammitjim at 6:25 AM on March 24, 2006
The big thing that my suggestion did was re-order the sentence so that it began with a positive. Also, I took away the imperative - the verb "help" - to make it sound less like a command and more like a subtle indication of peer pressure.
That's what I initially heard was the reaction to the current message: that it sounded negative and pushy. If the structure of the message works, then we can play with the right words.
Above all, what should this message be saying? Is it trying to establish a social norm, so that later enforcement (whatever that is) seems more justified? Or do we just want to threaten censure?
posted by dammitjim at 6:25 AM on March 24, 2006
> I would still push for a "Stay on topic; no attacks" message -- something more concrete than "be respectful."
I agree.
But, I have to say I also don't much see the point of any such warning, no matter how worded, after all, if someone wants to engage in attacks they would continue to do so, a short phrase stating the obvious is not going to stop them. And the others don't need a phrase to know the obvious...
If you want to have a warning, then I think you need to write a much longer one, one that users would have to agree with at registration (for existing users, make them agree to it once when they log in after it's implemented), something like you read on message boards. The whole "You agree, through your use of this forum, that you will not post any material which is false, defamatory, inaccurate, abusive, vulgar, hateful, harassing, etc" (see this instance of the whole malarkey).
If that is the direction you want to go, I'm not saying it should. It still won't stop any of the behaviour you don't want, but at least something like that spells it out clearly. Just modify it and decide what is ok and what isn't, including any copyrighted content issues or whatever, and what are the grounds for deletion and what for banning and so on. So people know beforehand. To me, it makes more sense that way.
Otherwise, leave everything as is.
posted by funambulist at 7:03 AM on March 24, 2006
I agree.
But, I have to say I also don't much see the point of any such warning, no matter how worded, after all, if someone wants to engage in attacks they would continue to do so, a short phrase stating the obvious is not going to stop them. And the others don't need a phrase to know the obvious...
If you want to have a warning, then I think you need to write a much longer one, one that users would have to agree with at registration (for existing users, make them agree to it once when they log in after it's implemented), something like you read on message boards. The whole "You agree, through your use of this forum, that you will not post any material which is false, defamatory, inaccurate, abusive, vulgar, hateful, harassing, etc" (see this instance of the whole malarkey).
If that is the direction you want to go, I'm not saying it should. It still won't stop any of the behaviour you don't want, but at least something like that spells it out clearly. Just modify it and decide what is ok and what isn't, including any copyrighted content issues or whatever, and what are the grounds for deletion and what for banning and so on. So people know beforehand. To me, it makes more sense that way.
Otherwise, leave everything as is.
posted by funambulist at 7:03 AM on March 24, 2006
shnoz-gobblin: "You could buy five sockpuppets?"
You seem to be doing that just fine.
posted by monju_bosatsu at 7:28 AM on March 24, 2006
You seem to be doing that just fine.
posted by monju_bosatsu at 7:28 AM on March 24, 2006
While we're whining about stuff, can we include in the green a plea to read all the little words in the questions before snarking off?
posted by desuetude at 8:52 AM on March 24, 2006
posted by desuetude at 8:52 AM on March 24, 2006
if someone wants to engage in attacks they would continue to do so, a short phrase stating the obvious is not going to stop them. And the others don't need a phrase to know the obvious...
True. The people who are most likely to follow this little guideline are the ones who don't really need to be reminded of it in the first place. The ones who want to be abusive will probably continue to do so, guideline or no guideline, unless they get the sense that hey, there are consequences in play now, better cool it a little.
posted by Gator at 9:58 AM on March 24, 2006
True. The people who are most likely to follow this little guideline are the ones who don't really need to be reminded of it in the first place. The ones who want to be abusive will probably continue to do so, guideline or no guideline, unless they get the sense that hey, there are consequences in play now, better cool it a little.
posted by Gator at 9:58 AM on March 24, 2006
"Lasciate ogne speranza, voi ch'intrate."
It's got a nice ring to it.
posted by cortex at 11:25 AM on March 24, 2006
It's got a nice ring to it.
posted by cortex at 11:25 AM on March 24, 2006
Well, I can tell you that I've self-edited myself more since Matt's directive was added. I've been thinking twice before I hit the post comment button, and I've rephrased some of the things I've written so they haven't come off as an attack against anyone in particular. But you're right. The smedleymans of Metafilter won't be disuaded by anything but banning.
posted by crunchland at 8:30 AM on March 25, 2006
posted by crunchland at 8:30 AM on March 25, 2006
You know what would be sweet? A bigger comment box to compose in. One that doesn't require horizontal scrolling when you insert a big ass link and that gives a better idea of what the comment will look like w/o previewing. That would make me insult people a lot less.
posted by Skygazer at 11:47 AM on March 25, 2006
posted by Skygazer at 11:47 AM on March 25, 2006
Skygazer,
It's a bit of a roundabout approach, but if you're using Firefox, the Metafilthy extension allows you to specify the width of the comment box. Very nice.
posted by Bugbread at 5:40 PM on March 25, 2006
It's a bit of a roundabout approach, but if you're using Firefox, the Metafilthy extension allows you to specify the width of the comment box. Very nice.
posted by Bugbread at 5:40 PM on March 25, 2006
jessamyn: I might add "take your beef to email or metatalk"...but so many people don't have email addresses in their profile [still!]...
When MetaFilter adopts a policy of encouraging trolls and losers to deliver their rantings via email, I predict you'll see a lot of folks removing emails they've previously listed. Count me first.
posted by cribcage at 10:21 PM on March 26, 2006
When MetaFilter adopts a policy of encouraging trolls and losers to deliver their rantings via email, I predict you'll see a lot of folks removing emails they've previously listed. Count me first.
posted by cribcage at 10:21 PM on March 26, 2006
It took me almost a month to notice it, because I don't really visit MeFi much anymore, because conditions have been such that Matt would consider adding something like that. It makes me sad.
posted by gohlkus at 12:18 AM on April 20, 2006
posted by gohlkus at 12:18 AM on April 20, 2006
You are not logged in, either login or create an account to post comments
posted by Saucy Intruder at 10:24 AM on March 23, 2006