Comments on: Chatfilter and consistency in moderation

Chatfilter and consistency in moderation

Pressed Rat — Tue, 04 Apr 2006 06:49:50 -0800

I'm sure this invites a pile-on, but I thought this question in askme was thought provoking and was looking forward to discussion and comment, but it got deleted as "chatfilter." How much more worthy were this or this?

By: monju_bosatsu

monju_bosatsu — Tue, 04 Apr 2006 06:57:19 -0800

They're not any more worthy. Moderation is inconsistent.

By: blue_beetle

blue_beetle — Tue, 04 Apr 2006 06:58:07 -0800

Inconsistency is moderation.

By: jacquilynne

jacquilynne — Tue, 04 Apr 2006 07:03:11 -0800

Uh, well, the cookie one is basically an oddly phrased 'I don't ever get the amount of cookies suggested, what am I doing wrong?' question, which is pretty much dead on target for the sort of thing Ask.Me answers best.

The door one is a little broader, but at it's heart there's still a question that can be answered - 'Why is there an expectation that men hold doors and does it exist in non-Western societies?'

But the deleted question is just chat. There's not going to be a right or wrong answer to that, because it's a question of philosophy and ethics. All there can ever be about it is discussion with no conclusion. That sort of thing has been deleted pretty consistently.

By: grumblebee

grumblebee — Tue, 04 Apr 2006 07:04:20 -0800

I wrote a long response just before the thread was deleted. I tried to email it to the original poster (using the email address in his profile), but the email bounced back to me.

By: mcwetboy

mcwetboy — Tue, 04 Apr 2006 07:07:05 -0800

I thought this question in askme was thought provoking and was looking forward to discussion and comment

Discussion and comment is not what AskMe is for; when that question showed up in my RSS reader I thought, "Intellectual wankery."

By: monju_bosatsu

monju_bosatsu — Tue, 04 Apr 2006 07:10:53 -0800

But the deleted question is just chat.

It's not just chat, in the "what's your favorite color" vein. Instead, the question is, essentially, "Is Justice zero-sum? If so, what are the ethical implications?" It's not a poll of user opinions, it's a question about specific philosophical and moral questions. A proper answer probably would have linked to philosophers who have written on the subject, particularly Rawls and those that followed him.

By: jessamyn

jessamyn — Tue, 04 Apr 2006 07:14:22 -0800

grumblebee, the users email in his profile ends in "comcast.ent" so you might want to make sure you corrected for that. I sent him an email explaining the deletion and did not get a bounceback. The question looked to me like an essay on the philosophical idea of justice with an unanswerable question leading off. It's a classical philosophical conundrum and, as such, unlikely to be answered in Ask Metafilter.

There are two kinds of chatty questions. "Whats your favorite color?" types and "What is the meaning of life?" types. Asking if something is "worth it" in a moral sense falls into the latter category.

By: dios

dios — Tue, 04 Apr 2006 07:19:42 -0800

It's not a poll of user opinions, it's a question about specific philosophical and moral questions.
posted by monju_bosatsu at 9:10 AM CST on April 4

It's a question about specific philosophical and moral questions which do not have any definitive answers, and therefore is a poll of user opinions about which philosopher's views they prefer.

(I'm not an AskMetafilter champion, but that question as asked doesn't really seem to me to be consistent with the purpose of that sub-site.)

By: found missing

found missing — Tue, 04 Apr 2006 07:22:27 -0800

Everthing in moderation--including moderation.

By: monju_bosatsu

monju_bosatsu — Tue, 04 Apr 2006 07:25:19 -0800

It's a question about specific philosophical and moral questions which do not have any definitive answers, and therefore is a poll of user opinions about which philosopher's views they prefer.

That's just ridiculous. It's not about preferences, and it's not reducible to a question about "the meaning of life." It's about specific philosophical answers to a question relevant to societal and governmental organization. Sure, it could have been worded better, but answers needn't include uninformed opinions, but instead links to relevant and informed writing on this very question.

By: monju_bosatsu

monju_bosatsu — Tue, 04 Apr 2006 07:26:32 -0800

And, I might add, your objection reveals an interesting thought: do you really think that answers to moral questions are mere preferences?

By: dios

dios — Tue, 04 Apr 2006 07:36:49 -0800

monju_bosatsu: you arguing a question that wasn't asked. The poster wasn't asking "Help me find writers about 'justice'." The poster was asking a question about justice as a pretext to share this important thought on it as if he had stumbled upon some novel and deep insight that gifts unto human thought something that may help us derive an answer that is an absolute philosophical and moral truism.

And in the end, his question--if it is one--is inherently unanswerable. Different writers have said different things about it. And in the end, it comes down to personal preference about which philosopher one prefers: orange, blue or green. But the question doesn't read as if that is what the person is looking for. It reads much more like someone thinking they have discovered The Answer and offering it up as their answer to an unanswerable question. The "best answer" he was looking for was "you are right."

By: dios

dios — Tue, 04 Apr 2006 07:43:37 -0800

Do you really think that answers to moral questions are mere preferences?
posted by monju_bosatsu at 9:26 AM CST on April 4

Moral questions do have an absolute answer, so in the end, different people will prefer different philosopher's views on them. There is no right answer. Rawls isn't right on justice. He has a theory of it. His theory isn't objectively more right than, say, Aristotle's. One may have a preference for one over the other, and that is all that can be said.

That is distinct and different than "what is the minimum cooking temperature for chicken?" or "How do you make an infinite loop using the programming language Basic?" Those questions have answers.

Note: I'm not saying that moral questions can't have a level of acceptance that approaches uniformity ('do not kill'), and certainly, practical application of morality through politics can render some answer to moral questions. But when one is asking for a definitive, objective, and provable answer to a moral quandary, there isn't going to be one.

By: dios

dios — Tue, 04 Apr 2006 07:44:43 -0800

Moral questions do have an absolute answer

That should, of course, have a 'not' in there. But those that are used to reading what I write surely are used to such omissions that are obvious in light of the context in which they occur.

By: monju_bosatsu

monju_bosatsu — Tue, 04 Apr 2006 07:48:00 -0800

But when one is asking for a definitive, objective, and provable answer to a moral quandary, there isn't going to be one.

And so people should never ask these kinds of questions on AskMe; is that the implication of your argument? I can ask about user's preferences in cameras, mp3 players, and condos, but not in moral theories? That seems kind of silly.

By: cortex

cortex — Tue, 04 Apr 2006 07:48:44 -0800

I agree with parts of what both of you are saying, but I think dios has it with the lookit-me-I'm-deep vector.

(And if answers to moral questions aren't in some sense mere preference, how do we account for contradictory answers? Are morals inherent, gene-like attachments to a person's psyche, inflexible and unchanging from infancy on?)

By: cortex

cortex — Tue, 04 Apr 2006 07:52:23 -0800

And so people should never ask these kinds of questions on AskMe; is that the implication of your argument?

The argument that I would make is that those sorts of questions should be dealt with with the same caution as other modes of chattiness.

It's not that a meandering philosophical question will alone destory all that is good and decent on AskMe -- the green would survive had it been left undeleted, certainly -- but that apparent free and unchecked license to ask every damned unanswerable question that flits into one's head would dilute the utility of AskMe for the answerables.

By: dios

dios — Tue, 04 Apr 2006 07:55:36 -0800

I can ask about user's preferences in cameras, mp3 players, and condos, but not in moral theories? That seems kind of silly.
posted by monju_bosatsu at 9:48 AM CST on April 4

Well, if the question was: "what writer on justice should I read?" then I think you would have a point. But the question at issue here is not equivalent. The poster posited an unanswerable question, offered his answer to the question as a gift unto mankind, and then kind of sought feedback on whether his answer is right or not.

By: delmoi

delmoi — Tue, 04 Apr 2006 07:59:47 -0800

I was really disappointed that this was deleted as 'chat filter'. It was a really good discussion.

By: occhiblu

occhiblu — Tue, 04 Apr 2006 08:03:28 -0800

Delmoi, it was also, I'm pretty sure, a double. I think we already had that discussion on AskMe.

As for the post at hand -- I agree with the deletion, and I really think that if intellectual discussion is the goal, then pull up some links and put it in the blue. AskMe doesn't have to cover every thought that pops into people's heads.

By: delmoi

delmoi — Tue, 04 Apr 2006 08:04:13 -0800

I take it Jessamyn that you do not believe philosophical questions can have definite answers? Or that philosophical discourse is "Just chat"?

Whatever.

By: cortex

cortex — Tue, 04 Apr 2006 08:08:45 -0800

delmoi, why can't it be a question of scale and moderation? She might well believe that philosophical questions (especially depending on their presentation) are markedly less "answerable" in AskMe than many other sorts of questions, without believing that they are actually unanswerable.

Doesn't have to be a black-and-white Whatever-ism.

By: klangklangston

klangklangston — Tue, 04 Apr 2006 08:10:28 -0800

"I was really disappointed that this was deleted as 'chat filter'. It was a really good discussion."

Good discussion should not be the goal of AskMe (or MeFi, though arguably MeTa). Even though I was going to answer it, I realized that it should have been on, say, MeCha.

By: dios

dios — Tue, 04 Apr 2006 08:13:32 -0800

I'm working on a question for AskMetafilter. It is going to be something about why some people are such intolerant dicks. I look forward to arriving at the answer I am looking for.

By: blue_beetle

blue_beetle — Tue, 04 Apr 2006 08:23:08 -0800

Has anyone else noticed that these questions don't really get deleted? They just get answered in the resulting MetaTalk thread? But now there's no way to mark a best answer, so we'll never know who's right.

By: soma lkzx

soma lkzx — Tue, 04 Apr 2006 08:24:08 -0800

Is AskMe a zero-sum game? Is askme justice really worth it if Asking the fight becomes a zero-sum game in which you either make posts that aren't deleted or ask chatty questions?

I would have given it more latitute to be an acceptable question if it wasn't phrased like such one-handed intellectualism. But it was.

By: Skot

Skot — Tue, 04 Apr 2006 08:28:25 -0800

Awesome. I've been wondering when the monju_bosatsu vs. dios road show would finally, finally manage to get to the last third of the site. dios' forthcoming AskMe question about "intolerant dicks" should end the drought. Bring it home!

By: kcm

kcm — Tue, 04 Apr 2006 08:28:31 -0800

If no one can definitively answer it, or everyone can validly answer it, then get some links to back it up and put it on the blue. it's chatfilter.

then again, it doesn't terribly matter, since people are managing to turn questions about cash floats and digital imaging naming into wankfests. I'm not terribly impressed with the green of late either way.

By: monju_bosatsu

monju_bosatsu — Tue, 04 Apr 2006 08:30:29 -0800

Buy your tickets now!

By: shnoz-gobblin

shnoz-gobblin — Tue, 04 Apr 2006 08:39:12 -0800

I'm working on a question for AskMetafilter. It is going to be something about why some people are such intolerant dicks. I look forward to arriving at the answer I am looking for.

Lemmie give it a shot. It has to do with the questioner, and says more about him/her/it than any answer could solve.

By: cortex

cortex — Tue, 04 Apr 2006 08:50:07 -0800

Buy the CD of the show—while you're still at the show!

By: cortex

cortex — Tue, 04 Apr 2006 08:51:03 -0800

"than any answer could solve"?

By: antifuse

antifuse — Tue, 04 Apr 2006 08:55:44 -0800

I'm glad that one was deleted. When I saw it pop up in my RSS reader, the first thought I had was "Umm... where is the question here?" If you want to promote such discussions on AskMe, at the VERY least you need to make it look like you're looking for some sort of answer. But then, I guess I'm not really sure what the standard is since my previous callout appears to have been wrong. In that case, because it was "civil" discussion and not many people had flagged it, the thread got to live. So it seems to be that if a chatfilter thread passes some lameness threshold, it gets deleted, otherwise it gets to live to see another day.

By: dios

dios — Tue, 04 Apr 2006 09:00:09 -0800

Lemmie give it a shot. It has to do with the questioner, and says more about him/her/it than any answer could solve.
posted by shnoz-gobblin at 10:39 AM CST on April 4

Balisong, why are you using a new name if your behavior and trolling of me remains the same?

By: monju_bosatsu

monju_bosatsu — Tue, 04 Apr 2006 09:02:17 -0800

I think you're exactly right, antifuse. The reason this question was deleted was not purely the subject matter; but a combination of the subject matter and the way the question was asked. What if, instead, the question had been: "Is justice zero-sum? If so, what are the ethical implications? What positions have philosophers taken on the problem?" The question almost certainly would have stayed. Other than form, is that question functionally any different? I don't think so. Questions are deleted because they are inartful, not simply because they are chatfilter.

By: languagehat

languagehat — Tue, 04 Apr 2006 09:12:36 -0800

I would have given it more latitute to be an acceptable question if it wasn't phrased like such one-handed intellectualism. But it was.

Exactly. I can imagine a question that would have phrased whatever may have been in the poster's mind succinctly and clearly and invited a focused discussion, but that multi-paragraph mess consisted of incoherent ramblings that invited nothing but endless discussion of what exactly was being discussed (plus, of course, flame wars about each other's moral obtuseness).

By: mullacc

mullacc — Tue, 04 Apr 2006 09:14:08 -0800

What if the question had been "What are the various theories of justice? What is your theory of justice and how does it compare to theories held by leading philosophers?" Is that too chatty?

Alternatively, what if the OP in this case had framed his question as "Here is my brief theory of justice as a zero-sum game, how does it compare to theories held by leading philosophers?"

By: cortex

cortex — Tue, 04 Apr 2006 09:14:25 -0800

(An aside: what's with this use of "zero-sum"? I think of game theory, of fixed resources and no room for the creation or destruction of value in the system—and I'm not sure (and this is a credit to the clarity and focus of the deleted question) how the hell the term is being deployed here.)

By: cortex

cortex — Tue, 04 Apr 2006 09:16:36 -0800

mullacc: your first example has a signficantly higher survivability index (henceforth and forever: SI) than your second, and both have a higher SI than the original, presuming your second example is actually brief and well-written.

By: cortex

cortex — Tue, 04 Apr 2006 09:19:36 -0800

(Much further aside: it pleases me to no end that, should I check My Comments just after posting a comment, the My Comments page informs me that my writings are "fresh". Why, thank you, My Comments. I have always thought you were rather dope, in a phat way.)

By: vacapinta

vacapinta — Tue, 04 Apr 2006 09:29:38 -0800

There's a kernel of an interesting question there, no doubt. I would have phrased it as:

"I'm interested in learning more about how philosophers of justice and morality have dealt with the following bit of situational ethics: blah, blah. That is, is there a notion of "cost" in doing the right thing and how does this affect or excuse moral actions?

Pointers to books would be much appreciated as well as clarification of well-established terms that may be relevant. Thanks."

By: It's Raining Florence Henderson

It's Raining Florence Henderson — Tue, 04 Apr 2006 09:32:11 -0800

Dear AskMe: What do philosophers say about the Justice League of America?

By: klangklangston

klangklangston — Tue, 04 Apr 2006 09:51:26 -0800

"Questions are deleted because they are inartful, not simply because they are chatfilter."

GI, GO.

By: shnoz-gobblin

shnoz-gobblin — Tue, 04 Apr 2006 10:13:32 -0800

It's not for you, Dios. But your egocentrism is showing through.
But since you think I'm trolling you, what answer are you looking for to the question, "Why are some people such intolerant dicks?"
Really, I want to know the answer you are looking for.

By: Witty

Witty — Tue, 04 Apr 2006 10:14:01 -0800

Hey cool... it's one of those Meta threads where several people pretend to not know the rules for making acceptable use of AskMe.

Hip Hip...

By: shnoz-gobblin

shnoz-gobblin — Tue, 04 Apr 2006 10:20:54 -0800

I mean if I asked it, people would probably respond with something like, "That might be someting that you have to look at yourself to see since the questions subject is really, "Why are some people sich intolerant dicks (to me)?" You have to ask yourself what it is about yourself that makes people seem like intolerant dicks (to you)."
That's why I think it has to do with the questioner.
It'a a much better answer than, "It's because they are all bastards." That's not an answer that can lead to anything productive.

So, Dios, which answer were you wanting to get?