Deleted threads June 1, 2006 11:20 AM   Subscribe

A dozen or so youtube and video links a day of blog churn? Just fine.
Three SSRN links in two days to thoughtful and academic writing that are new and interesting and that most users have never seen before? Deleted.
posted by dios to Etiquette/Policy at 11:20 AM (216 comments total)

Incidentally, I would point out two things: (1) my only other post from SSRN that was yesterday has 16 people mark it as a favorite. That is extremely high for posts here at Metafilter. And there were lots of approving comments within. But my second post was deleted before anyone even flagged or looked at it, so there was no attempt to see if it was enjoyed. (2) A post that was from the same source after mine somehow wasn't too much and was not deleted.
posted by dios at 11:20 AM on June 1, 2006


why don't you cry about it, baby?
posted by puke & cry at 11:21 AM on June 1, 2006 [1 favorite]


Don't bother looking for consistency in moderation here. Never has been much and probably never will.

It's just where mefi falls on the "standardized protocol" vs. "mod's discretion" gradient.
posted by sonofsamiam at 11:25 AM on June 1, 2006


The problem I see is that these posts seem like vanity posts to me. Only the people who post them are probably qualified to talk about them reasonably. I mean I could offer my opinion, but justifiably so you would shoot me down on not knowing what the hell I was talking about.

If I were to start posting from Phys Rev Lett everyday it would be the same thing. All it would accomplish is to remind everyone just how damn smart I am and how they are so unqualified to discuss physics with me.

I can see why it was deleted, but if it wasn't would I cry over it? No, but it reeks to me of someone trying to make a point.
posted by ozomatli at 11:35 AM on June 1, 2006




I may not be a lawyer, but this stuff is pretty interesting... regardless of my background. Seriously though, "qualified to talk about them reasonably?" Has that stopped anyone from arguing about anything on MeFi.
posted by fet at 11:38 AM on June 1, 2006


CunningLinguist,

I was talking about monju and dios link back to back as they were when I saw them. I am not singling out dios for this at all.
posted by ozomatli at 11:42 AM on June 1, 2006


As far as my post is concerned, a basic civics class should qualify you to discuss the issues.
posted by monju_bosatsu at 11:44 AM on June 1, 2006


I don't understand the deletion.
posted by languagehat at 11:44 AM on June 1, 2006


It's not like this post (or the other ones) took up much front-page space or anything.
posted by sonofsamiam at 11:46 AM on June 1, 2006


Well I think you know most of the answer dios. This place is slanted towards instagratification on the one hand. On the other hand, you could dole out these types of posts with a bit more space in between. You can rant away as to why you should or shouldn't but in a way that is the gist of it.

Not sure that pulling up posts with similar media is the best way to start the argument/base an analogy.

That said, although I haven't looked at the post I doubt I would argue in favour of deletion.
posted by peacay at 11:46 AM on June 1, 2006


I think someone needs to get away from the computer for a while. You seem to think that it matters whether or not your posts get deleted. Do you derive a sense of self-worth from posting to MetaFilter? I'd suggest that there are less emotionally abusive activities than internet discussion boards, like dating a heroid addict.
posted by GuyZero at 11:47 AM on June 1, 2006


I'm with dios, et al, who think this deletion is unwarranted. Quite frankly, I think the YouTube posts bring down the collective IQ of this place, while the SSRN links enlighten people and allow for intelligent discussion. Additionally, YouTube posts are more like FilePile material, just a cool video to share. MetaFilter is more than just a place to swap cool videos and pics. It's an interesting links/discussion community.
posted by SeizeTheDay at 11:48 AM on June 1, 2006


I liked the "Fuck Law" one, but honestly, three single-link posts with no commentary over a few days? Get over yourself.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 11:51 AM on June 1, 2006


Matt is the largest shareholder in YouTube and has turned MeFi into a feeder site for YouTube videos.
posted by caddis at 11:51 AM on June 1, 2006


I think a big problem was that while the Fuck Law link went to the abstract, giving the reader the gist of it, while the Fat Law goes directly to the download part of the page.

For readers who are quick to close windows (I want my context now, dammit!), it's a poor FPP.
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 11:51 AM on June 1, 2006


three single-link posts with no commentary over a few days? Get over yourself.

crunchland used to do this all the time and often his posts were some of the best MetaFilter has ever seen. Why don't you check your anti-dios bias at the door before making ignorant accusations?
posted by SeizeTheDay at 11:52 AM on June 1, 2006


"...and you get cornered by some drunken greengrocer from Luton with an Instamatic camera and Dr. Scholl sandals and last Tuesday's Daily Express and he drones on and on about how Mr. Smith should be running this country and how many languages Enoch Powell can speak and then he throws up all over the Cuba Libres."
posted by Armitage Shanks at 11:52 AM on June 1, 2006


The SSRN links are more substantial and require a greater investment on the part of the reader to absorb than your typical MeFi link. I'm probably not going to read more than one such article a week. Also, once several FPPs have appeared from the same site, people who find them interesting will probably begin following the site on their own.

That said, these were interesting topics and I'm perfectly capable of skipping FPPs I don't feel like taking the time for. I don't see a need to delete posts simply because several in a row came from the same source.
posted by justkevin at 11:53 AM on June 1, 2006


I dunno monju, I consider myself a decently educated guy and I have no working knowledge of the myriad of cases continually cited in these papers. I can understand law at the basic level, but arguments such as these rely on knowing the more subtle aspects of law, I mean there is a reason people have to get a degree to practice law.

I think the deletion of dios's post rather than monju's is puzzling as I equate the two, and I also found it odd they were posted back-to-back as if to make a point to metafilter. Maybe it's all a coincidence I am crazy. An occasional ssrn post is cool with me but everyday twice a day? It seems no different to me than posting a reuters story.
posted by ozomatli at 11:56 AM on June 1, 2006


dios, I know people have been after you to take stuff to MetaTalk, but I also think it might be a good idea to just let some stuff lie. If your point is that's an awful lot of youtube, that's probably right. However if your point was that's a lot of youtube and your awesome (two word) post was removed and that's unfair, I'll have to disagree with you. Your post was not obviously terrible, sure, and if it hadn't been almost the same post as the one you did right before it [the fuck law one] linking to the SAME SITE it might have stood on its own. However, it wasn't and it didn't.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 11:58 AM on June 1, 2006


dios and monju, the SSRN stuff is really dry and not really the "best of the web" when it's a PDF. A PDF is like "the best of Word 2000 for Windows". They have interesting stuff there, but four posts in two days? I dunno, I think we're all hitting our "reading three thousand word abstracts" limit. A youtube link is just a 30 second to five minute video that doesn't require much brainpower and doesn't feel like "work" in the way SSRN posts do.

dios, I deleted your post because there's no context, no explanation, just nothing. The "fuck" thing was really interesting, but a big thing on laws against fat people doesn't stand on its own as interesting and you did nothing to explain the context. I left monju's up because there's a nice quote and description framing the reason for the post.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 11:59 AM on June 1, 2006


MetaFilter: The best of the web, so long as it can be viewed in under two minutes.
posted by monju_bosatsu at 12:01 PM on June 1, 2006


Why don't you check your anti-dios bias at the door before making ignorant accusations?
posted by SeizeTheDay at 11:52 AM PST on June 1


Why don't you read the part of my post where I said "I liked the "Fuck Law" one" before having a fucking hissy-fit? Why dios and monju decided that they are going to post SSRN links every other day, I don't know, but I do know that it's goofy to do so with such regularity. If dios hadn't posted this thread I wouldn't have mentioned it, just like I don't mention it when other dumb posts get sent to the cornfield without being whined about on the gray.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 12:01 PM on June 1, 2006


I'm really divided on this one. On the one hand, it was a good post and should not have been deleted. On the other, when a user whines about a deletion, it is the duty of the rest of us to jump on that user and beat them senseless. Such is our tradition, and it is not to be questioned.

I am going to get a cup of coffee and contemplate this thorny issue.
posted by LarryC at 12:01 PM on June 1, 2006


What about all those crappy videos? When are you going to delete them?
posted by caddis at 12:02 PM on June 1, 2006


As just a general matter of form I don't really like links to pdf downloads – it adds an extra step for the viewer. And when the topic is something that easily degenerates into one of MeFi's standard dumb flamewars, posting something that makes it even less likely that the content of the post will be read by its commenters doesn't seem particularly wise...

...but, this post doesn't seem more wrong than many others that stay. If I were really enforcing a "best of the web" standard, yeah, gone. But... shrug.
posted by furiousthought at 12:02 PM on June 1, 2006


meh
posted by mattbucher at 12:03 PM on June 1, 2006


Interesting content, poor presentation. Not specifically web related other than the fact that it's linked on the web. To me it was similar to <a href="http://www.nbc.com">Hey guys! Here's a cool tv show!</a> Sure, there's a lot interesting stuff, but make a post out of it, don't just flig it at us like monkey feces. What do you think this is, a site for posting pictures of your cat?

please don't answer that last question.
posted by blue_beetle at 12:03 PM on June 1, 2006


MetaFilter: The best of the web, so long as it can be viewed in under two minutes.
posted by monju_bosatsu at 2:01 PM CST on June 1 [+fave] [!]

Yep because we are all dumber than you.
posted by ozomatli at 12:04 PM on June 1, 2006


linking to the SAME SITE it might have stood on its own.

Yeah, one link to SSRN ought to be enough. Who needs anyone to look through the countless papers posted there and point out one or two interesting ones? We've all got the time and inclination to do that ourselves.
posted by kenko at 12:09 PM on June 1, 2006


Fucking? You bet! Fatties, not so much.
posted by boo_radley at 12:09 PM on June 1, 2006


posts get sent to the cornfield

That can NOT be the first time someone has said that. Too funny.
posted by sonofsamiam at 12:09 PM on June 1, 2006


ozomatli, you keep making that argument, but you're wrong. If I thought I was smarter than everyone here, I wouldn't have bothered posting the article. It's precisely because I value the intelligence of many of the other members that I posted it, hoping to have a rewarding discussion.
posted by monju_bosatsu at 12:09 PM on June 1, 2006


I forgot to mention that yeah, there are too many youtube links lately, so much so that I don't even watch more than half of them, but the ones I do see are pretty good. I think the recent glut is just the nature of a new site/tool allowing tons of new content to be viewed online and people are trying to pick out the best of them.

I'll delete lame ones I see, and ones that everyone flags, but lately I'm seeing almost no flagged complaints on youtube posts, so they stay.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 12:10 PM on June 1, 2006


I should also mention that even if I were only interested in discussing the article with other lawyers and law students, that's not a reason to delete the post. There are plenty of both here on MeFi, and appealing only to a subclass of MeFi members isn't a violation of any guideline.
posted by monju_bosatsu at 12:13 PM on June 1, 2006


I typically do not comment in my Meta posts because it does more harm than good as users use it as a pile-on opportunity. But since I have been directly addressed with comments, I will only respond thusly:

dios, I deleted your post because there's no context, no explanation, just nothing. The "fuck" thing was really interesting, but a big thing on laws against fat people doesn't stand on its own as interesting and you did nothing to explain the context. I left monju's up because there's a nice quote and description framing the reason for the post.
posted by mathowie at 11:59 AM PST on June 1


I really cannot begin to understand this point. The lack of context, etc. is obviated if you read the post and decide from *your* personal point of view that the subject is interesting. But if there is not enough context and you read it and decide *you* don't like the topic before anyone has even commented on it (with the exception of one completely ad hominem comment), then you decide it is unworthy? For all you know, lots of people may have found the article completely interesting and it could have been another wildly applauded post. But you forestalled that with your judgment. (Not to mention that the lack of context has NEVER been a criteria by which posts can be deleted. Moreover, it is in fact clear from the two words in the post what the linked to article is about).

As for the fact they are from SSRN and .pdfs, I must have missed those part of the instructions. Furthermore, I sincerely question the problem with that when the one yesterday was great! but now there is something wrong with the location and type of the post. They are both interesting articles from sources that are only available through SSRN. They are not from SSRN. SSRN is not the source of them. They are articles from journals that no one here has access or exposure to and SSRN is just a portal to reach them. I fail to see any objective reason to have problems with them coming from a particular site. They aren't the same topically. They aren't from the same source. The only similarity between the two is that the only access is through SSRN. If there is anything that makes the web great, it is that it permits people like you and me to have access to the these interesting articles that we would not have otherwise had.

(Furthermore, I didn't post 3 in two days as some of have said. I posted 2 articles that are accessed from the same portal in 2 days.)
posted by dios at 12:13 PM on June 1, 2006


waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah
posted by StrasbourgSecaucus at 12:14 PM on June 1, 2006


What about all those crappy videos? When are you going to delete them?

Good question, that. I mean, right after everyone had a laugh sharing their favourite silly music videos in sgt. serenity's silly music video post, someone pops up with... a post about silly music videos. And there where - what? - four fretwanking guitarist video posts in a row?

I suspect that if half these posts were links to text, they'd be gone in a flash. Talking of which, it might be nice if video became the new Flash, as in traditionally confined to Fridays. Or maybe Wednesdays, if we all promised to speak in comedy German accents.
posted by jack_mo at 12:18 PM on June 1, 2006


It's interesting to see that Loituma survive under this curious "lack of context" idea. Did you get requests to delete it, Matt?
posted by boo_radley at 12:18 PM on June 1, 2006


ozomatli, you keep making that argument, but you're wrong. If I thought I was smarter than everyone here, I wouldn't have bothered posting the article. It's precisely because I value the intelligence of many of the other members that I posted it, hoping to have a rewarding discussion.
posted by monju_bosatsu at 2:09 PM CST on June 1 [+fave] [!]

ok that's cool (I was a bit irked at the MetaFilter:blahblah thing really. That was the reason for my dumber comment).

I will just chalk it up to a matter of tastes. I personally find the posts impossible to participate in, I hate talking out of my ass when its all out in public and permanent. (In private convos sure I love it). I cannot differentiate between good and bad legal arguments, perhaps this is my physics background liking quantifiable right and wrong. You and dios have a law degree so you can see things I cannot, I know going in my emotional or first glance opinion has no real merit and would just be noise.

In the end I just don't see how a good discussion can occur when only one side of the table knows what they are talking about. Maybe you and dios are trying to educate us? I dunno.
posted by ozomatli at 12:19 PM on June 1, 2006


also, I agree with jack_mo. YouTube only posts should be constrained to a particular day, mostly.
posted by boo_radley at 12:19 PM on June 1, 2006


we all promised to speak in comedy German accents

Ich kann zis idea behindenget.
posted by sonofsamiam at 12:20 PM on June 1, 2006


dios, you answered your own question.

The Fat FPP was a link to a link to a pdf.
The abstract was a flick of the scroll wheel away, but I closed the window because I didn't see any sort of context because of the #Paper_Download link used.

I - and probably other folks - am not going to invest time and blindly click twice to get a .PDF the contents of which are basically unknown.
Well, aside from the fact that it involves fat and the law.
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 12:21 PM on June 1, 2006


Alvy, couldn't that problem have been fixed with a very minor bit of editing--something Matt and Jess have been know to do--rather than wholesale deletion?
posted by monju_bosatsu at 12:27 PM on June 1, 2006


For all you know, lots of people may have found the article completely interesting and it could have been another wildly applauded post. But you forestalled that with your judgment.

I was going to link this comment to your first-out-of-the-gate "Doesn't this shit ever get old?" comment in the Second Coming! Reload! FPP, but like so many other of your derails, it's been deleted.
posted by Armitage Shanks at 12:27 PM on June 1, 2006


"As for the fact they are from SSRN and .pdfs, I must have missed those part of the instructions."

It's on page 8. Right under the heading "Dios is a cock". Seriously. It's you. You are the lingering faint smell that makes a great apartment just "okay". Deconstruct it all you want. At the end of the day, it's not us, it's you. Much like stinky cheese, some claim to not smell you, others claim your odor is magical. Most would be quite happy to live without it. *Quite* happy. Dress it up all you want, but it stays the same. You. Smell. Bad.
posted by y6y6y6 at 12:28 PM on June 1, 2006 [1 favorite]


Fair enough point, monju.

y6y6y6, not so much.
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 12:30 PM on June 1, 2006


Does anyone else think this was suspicious? Yesterday the one trillionth post "taking the piss out of Thicky McHillbilly and his retarded need for Jeebus" went up, which dios objected to (his comment was apparently deleted or I would link to it), then 54 minutes later monju_bosatsu posts a single link post to ssrn, and then exactly one minute after that dios posts another single link post to ssrn.

So what happened today? Monju_bosatsu posts a single link post to ssrn at the exact same time that dios posts a single link post to ssrn. I think this smacks of a previous spate of law-related posts designed to act as a kind of sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting "la! la! la! I can't hear you!" when people talk about things that you don't want them to talk about. Except now he has a partner in crime.

Tonight I am going to call a mefi-buddy of mine and we are going to plan out wearing the exact same outfit tomorrow. It is going to be great!
posted by ND¢ at 12:36 PM on June 1, 2006


dios, you posted the same site twice in two days, while none of the youtube links were by the same person. I actually doubt anybody has ever posted the same site two days in a row. I think it's pretty obviously a poor technique for filtering the best of the web.

Considering the dozens of times you've called for posts to be deleted, I would have thought you could be a big boy when one of yours gets the axe.
posted by If I Had An Anus at 12:40 PM on June 1, 2006


Crap I messed up one of my links. I was feeling all Sherlock Holmesishly awesome too. "at the exact same time..." should go there instead.
posted by ND¢ at 12:40 PM on June 1, 2006


I really cannot begin to understand this point. The lack of context, etc. is obviated if you read the post and decide from *your* personal point of view that the subject is interesting.

dios, back up a second and take a chill pill. Ready? Ok.

We've done the subject of "fat" just about a billion times on metafilter and it's a known hot button issue right up there with SUVs and abortion. If you're going to bring another thread on being fat to the table, it better be damn good and you should do a good job describing why it's worth our attention and why it's not just another crappy thread about fat people to toss onto the pile. This is the reason why I deleted it. A two word post to a PDF on the subject of fat people and the law looked like another post destined for the shit pile of fat threads.

A second issue that you and monju are blowing up as the sole issue is that it's on some dry legal site filled with loads of PDFs. I've already stated why I think it's more work for visitors and members here to read thick PDFs versus look at art online or some short videos, but it was also a contributing factor. Four posts to the same site in two days by the same two people is odd. The first two posts were to interesting things, the other two today are borderline and it appears like you two are trying to do some sort of demonstration or trying to prove a point by posting to mefi. Wikipedia has a great guideline about this. Don't (ab)use MetaFilter to make your point. You can just say it in MetaTalk or over email to me, you don't have to test me and jessamyn out by purposely posting borderline stuff to the site to see when I crack (and when I do crack, raise a huge fuss over it).
posted by mathowie (staff) at 12:41 PM on June 1, 2006


ND¢, I didn't read the Second Coming thread yesterday, and didn't see dios' comment in it, so I can assure you that my post had nothing to do with that.
posted by monju_bosatsu at 12:42 PM on June 1, 2006


The last time dios did this, it actually showed a lot of effort. This time, not so much.
posted by smackfu at 12:44 PM on June 1, 2006


Matt, I can assure you that I'm not trying to make any point other than that I find the articles I posted interesting. I read articles through SSRN frequently, and thought that others might enjoy some of the better ones. I don't think that either of my two SSRN posts are borderline. I also happened to IM dios several links to articles on SSRN yesterday, and he decided to post some, as well. There's no nefarious conspiracy, and I find the "partner in crime" description a little insulting.
posted by monju_bosatsu at 12:47 PM on June 1, 2006


Monju_bosatsu, I believe you that you didn't read that thread or dios's comment. I will believe you that you shared some links to the site with dios. However will you honestly say that you and dios just happened by freaky coincidence to post to the same site, in the same manner, at almost the exact same time, two days in a row?
posted by ND¢ at 12:49 PM on June 1, 2006


It did seem a bit much, too soon (especially the simul-post with monju). The "fuck" post never went anywere, no real discussion of the issues, etc. I can see why you wanted people to actually read the article (hence the download) and why you chose something a little less knee-jerk, haha, "fuck is funny." But better to wait a few days, eh?

I get the sense that you could repost next week, with a monju-like recap of the abstract, and no one would mind. It was just bad timing, is all. That's what the admins have said, that's what a lot of others have said. Am I wrong on this?

I don't know if we're voting, but I'm FOR less Youtube. Please.
posted by anotherpanacea at 12:50 PM on June 1, 2006


I think ND¢ is onto something: dios= monju_bosatsu? If, so, their various debates in various threads would make dhoyt's shenanigans look like child's play.

You know, even if it's not true, I'm going to choose to believe it. Who's with me?
posted by MrMoonPie at 12:50 PM on June 1, 2006


monju, I didn't mean to say you guys had some grand plan to turn MeFi into lawfilter but you do admit you IMed dios to share links, and those were posted as well. dios makes a point that there's a ton of youtube links here so a bunch to SSRN should be fine as well. That last point leads me to believe that maybe he did the last one purposely to prove his point.

Four links to the same thing in two days by two people is a total outlier in the 50k posts to date and I'm saying you guys would have both had better threads if they were spaced out with at least a few days between each, so there was one meaty post every couple days to read and mull over, instead of a bunch in a short time.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 12:52 PM on June 1, 2006


Oh for fuck's sake, dios, grow a hide.

Seriously. So few front page posts actually get deleted around here, and when they do it's usually for a damn good reason.

Just because it's yours that was deleted doesn't mean it falls outside of that footprint of usually. Nor does it make it a controversy.

And lastly, griping about your own deletion in MeTa is a major faux pas. The only end result of doing such a thing for anyone is make them look whiny.
posted by loquacious at 12:53 PM on June 1, 2006


ND¢, it's not coincidence. I IM'd dios a link to that 'fuck' article yesterday, and mentioned that I was going to post the director liability article. We both posted at about the same time. So today, the 24-hour waiting period ran at the same time for both of us.

dios= monju_bosatsu?

That would certainly be amusing, but I'm not smart enough--nor do I have enough time on my hands--to pull it off.

...and I'm saying you guys would have both had better threads if they were spaced out with at least a few days between each...

Fair enough, I guess. I read maybe ten of these articles a day, so I guess it didn't seem like much of a burden to me. Nobody is making anybody read these articles, after all.
posted by monju_bosatsu at 12:55 PM on June 1, 2006


Well, maybe he just figured people couldn't hate him any more than they already do, loq. It's the only answer I've been able to come up with.

Also, MrMoonPie, I prefer to think monju is an ogre-zombie dios keeps locked up in his law dungeon and prods to defend him or join in his lame pranks. With something electric, you know?
posted by dame at 12:57 PM on June 1, 2006


If you're going to bring another thread on being fat to the table, it better be damn good and you should do a good job describing why it's worth our attention and why it's not just another crappy thread about fat people to toss onto the pile. This is the reason why I deleted it.

HA! That's amazing, since that's not what you said in the deletion comment... or anywhere else for that matter till just this moment.

ah, after the fact rationalizations. the sign of truly remarkable administration.
posted by shmegegge at 12:59 PM on June 1, 2006


dhoyt's shenanigans

HOLY COW! Look what I miss when I self-timeout!
posted by sonofsamiam at 1:00 PM on June 1, 2006


posted by dios They are both interesting articles from sources that are only available through SSRN. They are not from SSRN. SSRN is not the source of them. They are articles from journals that no one here has access or exposure to and SSRN is just a portal to reach them. I fail to see any objective reason to have problems with them coming from a particular site. They aren't the same topically. They aren't from the same source. The only similarity between the two is that the only access is through SSRN. If there is anything that makes the web great, it is that it permits people like you and me to have access to the these interesting articles that we would not have otherwise had.

Instead of whining in here (which is just another form of your trolling) maybe you could have explained to us what was so cool and interesting about these posts instead of forcing us to guess what's going on in your tortured, misunderstood, and persecuted little mind. Or maybe you didn't want to, in the hopes you could start yet another flamewar. Whatever. Good riddance to crappy posts.
posted by fandango_matt at 1:00 PM on June 1, 2006


dios makes a point that there's a ton of youtube links here so a bunch to SSRN should be fine as well.

Yeah, and here's the thing: YouTube is superior, in that it makes its content more accessible for browsing. If YouTube were a site where it just threw up a link for you to download an unknown video, it wouldn't be nearly as popular and if it were linked directly here it would hover on the edge of deletion the same way SSRN links do. (Probably go over, because the download would be bigger, but nevermind.) Accessibility is important, when linking to things on the web.
posted by furiousthought at 1:01 PM on June 1, 2006


Also, MrMoonPie, I prefer to think monju is an ogre-zombie dios keeps locked up in his law dungeon and prods to defend him or join in his lame pranks. With something electric, you know?

That would be quite remarkable, dame, given that I've been a member here three years longer than dios, and that I mostly disagree with rather than defend him.
posted by monju_bosatsu at 1:03 PM on June 1, 2006


If there are too many of one kind of post in a row, couldn't they be put in some kind of holding pen until a better time, instead of outright deletion?
posted by StickyCarpet at 1:06 PM on June 1, 2006


Well, maybe he had you signed up to entertain you, but then couldn't take your disagreements. But I mistly see the two of you in MeTa, and yeah, you defend him constantly. Ususally when he's being totally retarded.
posted by dame at 1:07 PM on June 1, 2006


posted by StickyCarpet If there are too many of one kind of post in a row, couldn't they be put in some kind of holding pen until a better time, instead of outright deletion?

I believe that responsibility and discretion belongs to the person making the front-page post.
posted by fandango_matt at 1:08 PM on June 1, 2006


Well, maybe he had you signed up to entertain you, ...

I'm not sure what that even means.
posted by monju_bosatsu at 1:09 PM on June 1, 2006


You know, he signed up the ogre-zombie to keep it entertained. Whatever. My point is you may as well be the same person.
posted by dame at 1:11 PM on June 1, 2006


If there are too many of one kind of post in a row, couldn't they be put in some kind of holding pen until a better time, instead of outright deletion?

I suspect that if dios posts this article again in a month, with some supporting context, without the clustering alongside other SSRN articles, it will be okey-dokey.
posted by brain_drain at 1:12 PM on June 1, 2006


ND¢, it's not coincidence. I IM'd dios a link to that 'fuck' article yesterday, and mentioned that I was going to post the director liability article. We both posted at about the same time. So today, the 24-hour waiting period ran at the same time for both of us.

That's an even worse excuse - if I were going to post a link to abstrusepdfsonaparticulartopic.org and a buddy of mine were going to as well, one of us would probably say "hmm, maybe I'll hold off on mine until a day or so after you post yours." Say what you will about YouTube links, at least they're not all vomited onto the front page at once.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 1:12 PM on June 1, 2006


They were different articles on different subjects from different authors and published in different journals. I don't see why it matters when they were posted in relation to each other.
posted by monju_bosatsu at 1:15 PM on June 1, 2006


dios= monju_bosatsu?

Oh for fuck's sake, not every two people who agree with each other and have similar interests are a sock puppet and puppeteer.

Anyway, everybody knows that dios is Hama7.
posted by PinkStainlessTail at 1:17 PM on June 1, 2006


By the way, dios, you do bring some legitimate gripes to MetaTalk, but I have to agree with others that this one comes across as little more than "how dare you delete my precious post." It's not a big deal. Save the callouts for the non sequitur dead baby images and such.
posted by brain_drain at 1:18 PM on June 1, 2006


Good: blogs, videos, mindless crap
Bad: content that requires a modicum of intellectual investment

Perfect: A blog entry on the latest Jojo video

Metafilter: Drooling idiots welcome! ;-P
posted by mischief at 1:18 PM on June 1, 2006


I thought the fat law article was interesting, especially after about page 38 when it started to make its fucking point.
posted by fleacircus at 1:18 PM on June 1, 2006


It would be like posting a single link to an article found on arXiv. I always figured if I did that for a few days in a row I would get eaten alive.
posted by ozomatli at 1:19 PM on June 1, 2006


ah, after the fact rationalizations. the sign of truly remarkable administration.

shmegegge, my deletion reason points to too many SSRN posts but dios and other posters often do the lawyer thing of attacking logic on all sides, so I answered as many of those as possible. There are at least 2 or 3 good reasons to delete something that I can't articulate in the few words and 30 seconds I spend reviewing each post in the flag queue these days.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 1:19 PM on June 1, 2006


dame:

monju does what? i mean, i've seen him speak out against dios pile-ons, but i've also seen them fight each other tooth and nail for days in certain threads. man, you folks really need to start seeing that "i don't like pili-ons" as being separate from "i love dios and kiss his ass."
posted by shmegegge at 1:19 PM on June 1, 2006


mathowie writes "I'll delete lame ones I see, and ones that everyone flags, but lately I'm seeing almost no flagged complaints on youtube posts, so they stay."

I know I've gotten much better at recognising a post is going to be to youtube/google video so I can just skip over it.

shmegegge writes "after the fact rationalizations. the sign of truly remarkable administration"

Sometimes your gut feeling is to delete the turd and then figure out why later, if ever. I don't think Matt should feel any obligation to write a mini-thesis everytime he punts a post from the front page.
posted by Mitheral at 1:19 PM on June 1, 2006


FREE DIOS.

Seriously, would this have been deleted if it was posted by another user? Be colorblind, don't be so shallow.

I was looking forward to the Fat Law discussion.
posted by Eideteker at 1:20 PM on June 1, 2006


OK, the coffee shop was closed, and my resulting pissiness has made up my mind for me.

Dios, quit your damned whining. Stuff gets deleted here all the time. Don't jump all over Matt for his inconsistencies, he's human and busy and does a pretty good job overall. He deleted a post that you obviously did not put very much work into in the first place. Suck it up already.
posted by LarryC at 1:25 PM on June 1, 2006


There are at least 2 or 3 good reasons to delete something that I can't articulate in the few words and 30 seconds I spend reviewing each post in the flag queue these days.

in the what? i wonder how many flags that post got in the minute and a half it was up.

don't get me wrong, i have no idea if dios' post should have stayed. i liked it, but what i like isn't the metric for mefi appropriateness.

but let's be honest: you don't need to assault a post from every angle to justify deleting it. you only need one, and you had one. a post doesn't have to fail every criteria possible to get deleted, it just needs to fail one adequately. the nonsense about fat threads needing to meet special requirements? ridiculous. worse than ridiculous, it contributes to the general confusion around here abuot what is and isn't appropriate, because you'll just sort of lump these rationalizations on in meta afterward.

i mean, are you going to make a note about fat threds in the guidelines or faq? something tells me no. so it seems to me like making up new reasons for things just because dios is argumentative might not be the best thing to do. if you kept things simpler, you'd probably get a lot less criticism regarding inconsistent moderation, especially since we all track down every little thing you so to justify whatever suits our mood down the line.
posted by shmegegge at 1:26 PM on June 1, 2006


every little thing you say.
posted by shmegegge at 1:27 PM on June 1, 2006


shmegegge: MeFi is big. I clearly don't read those threads. I do however see many of the dios MeTa threads, and yeah, they just read like you all have your heads so far up dios' ass you can't tell sky from ground anymore. If it's important to you to make it clear that it's the pile-on problem, then please, do so next time you and the rest of the defend dios brigade show up. Till then, monju is pretty much only gonna exist in my mind as the guy who shows up to defend dios because the latter won't do it himself.
posted by dame at 1:28 PM on June 1, 2006


monju_bosatsu writes "That would be quite remarkable, dame, given that I've been a member here three years longer than dios, and that I mostly disagree with rather than defend him"

That's what sock puppets do, they either yes man the controlling user or argue every point they make.
posted by Mitheral at 1:28 PM on June 1, 2006


Also, dude, that fat threads are contentious is pretty much standard knowledge.
posted by dame at 1:31 PM on June 1, 2006


Sometimes your gut feeling is to delete the turd and then figure out why later, if ever.

isn't that the very antithesis to good moderation of a community site like this? shouldn't you have a reason first, and be more than willing to justify yourself?
posted by shmegegge at 1:32 PM on June 1, 2006


dame, you should go read those threads again. we make that distinction every time. of course, the anti-dios army doesn't bother remembering that...
posted by shmegegge at 1:33 PM on June 1, 2006


In argument in favor of the YouTube links: They were almost all excellent yesterday. Uncommonly good. (Even/especially if you discount mine, but I think I only did a YouTube link the day before yesterday.)

While the "Best Music Video Ever" post about Yngwie Malmsteen inherently was not "Best ... Ever!", it contained a dozen-odd gems in-thread that totally redeemed it.

Video on the web is here to stay, with force this time. Especially YouTube. At least until they burn through their funding and all future rounds, 'cause Cthulhu only knows how they're ever going to make any money.
posted by loquacious at 1:34 PM on June 1, 2006


Obviously not well enough.
posted by dame at 1:34 PM on June 1, 2006


FREE DIOS.

Really? Is this a limited time offer? Can I get more than one dios per household?

Can I get enough dios to coat my entire body?
posted by loquacious at 1:35 PM on June 1, 2006


Obviously not well enough.

ha. no, but seriously, the problem is with your reading comprehension.
posted by shmegegge at 1:37 PM on June 1, 2006


Ha, no, really if your audience came away from more than one thread not noticing, then the problem is with your writing. It's okay, we all write poorly sometimes. I get paid for my facility with English and just in this thread people had no idea what I was on about. It's okay. Just try again. A good start might be not whining about the people who hate dios. I admit that I do and that it means things that seemed borderline from others are really offensive in him. I think he earned that rep fairly. But then, I'm not claiming to be impartial.
posted by dame at 1:41 PM on June 1, 2006


Me write pretty all time good.
posted by smackfu at 1:43 PM on June 1, 2006


audience? what are you joking? here's the thing: if a person continually and relentlessly attacks one specific other person, and refuses to hear situational responses saying that a pile-on is uncalled for, then that person is the problem. if you can't turn your hate down enough to chill for a sec and see that one can dislike a situation without being a fanboy, then that's because you have a problem.
posted by shmegegge at 1:43 PM on June 1, 2006


"ah, after the fact rationalizations. the sign of truly remarkable administration."

Well, you're free not to vote for him in the next election.
posted by klangklangston at 1:44 PM on June 1, 2006


I do however see many of the dios MeTa threads, and yeah, they just read like you all have your heads so far up dios' ass you can't tell sky from ground anymore.

Dame, bring up matteo in metafilter and watch how quickly amberglow will be here to support him. Are they the same person? You could say this about any number of 'couples'.

You admit you don't read metafilter much. Maybe that's the source of your ignorance.

Gotta love metafilter liberals. We are open-minded, unless we disagree with you, then we hate you. (not to mention hating someone you've never met is pretty pathetic, though considering the source, not surprising.)
posted by Dennis Murphy at 1:53 PM on June 1, 2006


I hate Matthew Hale I hope that is okay.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 1:54 PM on June 1, 2006


I like entertaining videos. Boring legal papers? Not so much. Having said that, I guess the videos should be posted at videosift.
posted by puke & cry at 1:58 PM on June 1, 2006


shmegegge writes "isn't that the very antithesis to good moderation of a community site like this? "

In the case of a benevolent dictatorship no. Many (most) moderated mailing lists operate this way. The mod(s) filter stuff and people sign up and continue to participate because they like how things are run.

I've seen it many times where a change in moderators has completely killed a vibrant community. Not because the new mods were bad (though I've seen that too) but because they were off putting in some way to the community.
posted by Mitheral at 1:58 PM on June 1, 2006


There are people I disagree with and don't hate (ask jonmc, for instance). And I read MeFi plenty, just not the threads where dios & monju are gonna argue. But I have to leave work now, so rock on.
posted by dame at 1:59 PM on June 1, 2006


Here's something that should make everyone happy: fat law on youtube. Also, fat lawyers.
posted by funambulist at 2:03 PM on June 1, 2006


I like the Judge Judy video, funambulist.
posted by smackfu at 2:14 PM on June 1, 2006


I'm not going to quarrel with the deletion : Matt gave at least three pretty good reasons why he deleted the thread, and I've been on record as favoring more active moderation of marginal posts.

But this relentless piling on dios is so predictable. Doesn't matter if someone starts a thread about him, or he starts a thread. Ultimately they all end up in the same place: People falling all overthemselves to criticize dios personally. Heck, in this thread alone, you find that dios is a "cock," that he's like a bad smell you can't get rid of, and that he's "retarded". Add to that this hilarious "guilt by association" attack on monju_bosatsu (hilarious because it's nonsensical, yet even when confronted with the illogic, people *cough dame cough* keep pushing it), and you've got a shining example of MetaFilter at its finest.
posted by pardonyou? at 2:20 PM on June 1, 2006


The Social Science Research Network (SSRN) is a free, on-line collection of working papers with a slant towards law and business disciplines. A cursory glance turns up some great, provocative work: "Fuck Law," the eating habits of colonial-era militia and soldiers,, and "Open competition in league sports", to name just a few finds in the fully searchable datebase. (warning: articles are PDF)
posted by bardic at 2:20 PM on June 1, 2006


There are people I disagree with and don't hate (ask jonmc, for instance).

Yes. And we call these people "New Yorkers".

Seriously, dame, your attitude sucks. You admit you have an outstanding bias against dios; you admit you don't read threads where monju and dios have substantive arguments; and yet you're comfortable painting (with broad, careless strokes!) monju and any folks willing to dissent against pointless, petty pileons as asskissers and yesmen. It's ugly.

And yet, though I feel like I grow less fond of your mefi style almost every time I see you in an argument on the site, I'd speak up in a second if there was a pointless, petty anti-dame pileon, too. Because it's about the behavior, not fanboyism. That folks feel their dislike for a given user excuses them from basic expectations of civility does not impress me. That goes for dios, his detractors, and anyone else.
posted by cortex at 2:23 PM on June 1, 2006


Gotta love metafilter liberals. We are open-minded, unless we disagree with you, then we hate you. (not to mention hating someone you've never met is pretty pathetic, though considering the source, not surprising.)

As argued ad infinitum in countless of other MeTa threads, people don't hate dislike dios because of his politics.

They dislike him because of whiny self-centered threads like this one, his attitude and tone, and his magically delicious knack at dropping one line derailing bon mots turds in threads that really often have nothing to do with the subject at hand and thereby turning the entire thread into Yet Another Thread About Dios, or trying to refute or even decipher what the fuck it was dios was actually trying to say.

Operating on sheer intuition and pulling figures like so many winged bats flying out of my ass, I'm going to go out on a limb and say that about 40-70% of it seems to be conscious and intentional action by dios, and the remainder would be just dios being dios.

Some people just have a gift or tone that gets under the skin of a statistically improbable number of people. dios seems to be one of these gifted people.

Which makes it nigh impossible to seperate the wheat from the chaff and even harder for many to be objective about it. Matt seems to do a pretty good job, though, even if his tactic might possibly simply be: "Fuck, man. I'm just going to ignore dios, 'cause I'm damned if I do and damned if I don't."

I know that's what I usually try to do - while keeping an eye out for the occasionally non-inflammatory and non-irritating smart things he occasionally says.
posted by loquacious at 2:23 PM on June 1, 2006


Now you're personally criticizing dame. Talk about shining examples.
posted by smackfu at 2:23 PM on June 1, 2006


That was a great example of how it should be done bardic, I encourage you to post it in a few weeks when the SSRN heat dies down.
posted by Mitheral at 2:25 PM on June 1, 2006


The New York Times (NYT) is a free, on-line collection of articles with a slant towards current events. A cursory glance turns up some great, provocative work: "Bush Urges Compromise on Immigration," "Blix Says U.S. Impedes Efforts to Curb A-Arms , and "U.S. to Seek Extra $92 Million From Exxon for Valdez Spill", to name just a few finds in the searchable database.

A post about SSRN generally would be great, but the purpose of my posts was not to highlight the service, but the substance of the articles.
posted by monju_bosatsu at 2:28 PM on June 1, 2006


The SSRN posts didn't bother me too much, but there's a bit of disingenuity in the framing of the posts--from what I can tell, SSRN is weighted heavily towards law- and business-professors, which in itself is fine, but it's not some neutral repository of lily-white academic objectivity. In monju's religious toleration post, I made the point that while interesting, the article itself was quite weak because the author seemed to lack a basic background in theological debates going back to, oh, Kant (his grounding in legal history was admirable though, but presumably it's also his job. I really, really hate it when academics think they're qualified to go off the reservation in the name of "inter-disciplinary studies," because very few are.).

This is just to say, why not a link to SSRN with context explaining who they are and what they do (admirably--making that stuff free and available is cool, although the PDF use is annoying). Mark some highlights as I did as well. Open up the box and share what's inside, so to speak, don't spend 48 hours gaming mefi once again to have the conversation you want to have, as opposed to the one the community does, or for that matter, might not want to.

And to be entirely subjective, I used to read and try to write these types of articles for a living, in a different context--I find them to be incredibly boring or at best deft displays of jargonistic wankery. That's what you do to get tenure in the academy, in law and business school as well as English departments. Fine. Just color me unimpressed--there are other sources for these sorts of articles, and better writers out there trying to start a discussion. To link to them selectively is, IMHO, sheer priggishness.
posted by bardic at 2:33 PM on June 1, 2006


As argued ad infinitum in countless of other MeTa threads, people don't hate dislike dios because of his politics.

Not that it's provable one way or the other, but I humbly suggest that's bullshit. It may be true for you, but it's certainly not true for most of his most vociferous critics. I'll grant you that the pretext for the criticisms isn't political, but I think the disparate treatment of dios versus other users whose behavior is far more egregious is pretty strong evidence of the true motivation.
posted by pardonyou? at 2:35 PM on June 1, 2006


I agree with bardic's presentation—regardless of what has been posted from SSRN in the past, a good overview-introduction to the site would be a Good Thing and more generally accessible than ongoing links to specific discussions (even if those continue to pop along every now and then).
posted by cortex at 2:36 PM on June 1, 2006


I completely agree with bardic.
posted by ozomatli at 2:37 PM on June 1, 2006


monju, either you know I'm right, or your pretending I'm not, which is to say you're being a jerk. Most people know what the NYT is already and don't need an FPP for it.
posted by bardic at 2:39 PM on June 1, 2006


every now and then

wish that applied to YouTube

MeFi is becoming nothing more than a YouTube portal
posted by caddis at 2:41 PM on June 1, 2006


Again, though, my purpose was not to highlight SSRN in any way. It is the host of the articles in question, but that's it. I really wanted to link to and discuss the substance of the articles, regardless of host. As I said, I think that a post about SSRN generally would be great, but that wasn't the post I wanted to make.

[this is off-topic, but I must mention that Brian Leiter, the author of the religious tolerance piece, is plenty qualified to talk about philosophy. Maybe he did a bad job of it--that's certainly possible--but it's not for lack of qualifications.]
posted by monju_bosatsu at 2:42 PM on June 1, 2006


monju, either you know I'm right, or your pretending I'm not, which is to say you're being a jerk. Most people know what the NYT is already and don't need an FPP for it.

Well, a little bit of a jerk, maybe. I thought it was funny. But yes—SSRN is not visible like NYT is, monju. A general post about SSRN would be a useful thing, I think.
posted by cortex at 2:50 PM on June 1, 2006


Which, on posting, I see you acknowledge.
posted by cortex at 2:50 PM on June 1, 2006


my only other post from SSRN...has 16 people mark it as a favorite

I downloaded the article. I browsed it yesterday, and it looks great. I put it on my keychain USB and I'm planning to have it printed next time I'm at Kinko's. I need paper to properly read 78 pages.

Not that it matters to this thread, but don't view the list of people who marked it "favorite" as an absolute tally. I didn't bookmark the thread because I was more interested in the article than the discussion; and now that I've downloaded it, there's no reason for me to go back. But count me among those who appreciated that post. It was definitely "best of the web."

As for mathowie's comment that PDFs are disqualified from that distinction: I don't see the difference between PDF and MPEG. Both can be viewed in my Safari browser window; but in both cases, I usually prefer to right-click and download. YouTube. SSRN. I don't browse either outside of MetaFilter FPPs, but "fuck law" was worth two dozen YouTube posts.
posted by cribcage at 3:00 PM on June 1, 2006


I would just like to take this time to say I have never clicked on a youtube link nor one of those ssrn thingies, so there.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 3:05 PM on June 1, 2006


"taking the piss out of Thicky McHillbilly and his retarded need for Jeebus"

I am so happy that phrase lives on.

*slips ND¢ 5 bucks*
posted by longbaugh at 3:07 PM on June 1, 2006


FREE DIOS
with the purchase of a quonsar at regular price

Just remember, when the angry mob come around to kill all the lawyers, they'll be looking for the MeFites who posted links from SSRN, not YouTube.
posted by wendell at 3:17 PM on June 1, 2006


Nah, they'll be too pacified watching videos over the internet to bother with killing, unless their internet connection goes.
posted by caddis at 3:27 PM on June 1, 2006


puke & cry: "why don't you cry about it, baby?"

Say, who's maintaining that list of eponymous comments?
posted by Rhomboid at 3:35 PM on June 1, 2006


That would certainly be amusing, but I'm not smart enough--nor do I have enough time on my hands--to pull it off.
That's exactly what you would say if you were dios, dios.

. o O (They'll never suspect me of being dios now!)
posted by darukaru at 3:40 PM on June 1, 2006


dios= monju_bosatsu?

That's as bad and dismissive as the "echo" chamber nonsense we hear from certain posters...
posted by juiceCake at 3:46 PM on June 1, 2006


"I'll delete lame ones I see, and ones that everyone flags, but lately I'm seeing almost no flagged complaints on youtube posts, so they stay."

When flagging appeared I thought it was a pretty great idea. However, the lack of consistency has made it worse than a bad idea.

I for one decided flagging is pretty useless around here after the American Idol thread and being called a dick (or whatever it was) in the Magic AskMe thread.

Though by no means do I think that all things I flag need to be "dealt with", I most certainly think that the inconsistency of what you delete, Matt, does affect how/why people flag in the future. I don't know whether you take that into consideration or not (or whether anyone else has ever mentioned it or anyone else even agrees with me), but there it is.

In short, no more flagging for me as I clearly have no clue what's appropriate here anymore.
posted by dobbs at 4:03 PM on June 1, 2006


If Yngwie were to create another magnum opus - i will not hesitate to post it.
I see the intellectual elite of mefi are all rising up to criticise the genius that is Yngwie Malmsteen - but thats who he is - an outlaw - a guitar playing Robin Hood and we are his merry men , hiding in the forest of rock.
posted by sgt.serenity at 4:13 PM on June 1, 2006 [1 favorite]


/ Tommy Vance
posted by sgt.serenity at 4:14 PM on June 1, 2006


Anyway, everybody knows that dios is Hama7.

Not likely. hama7 was batshitinsane; dios isn't, apparently.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 4:16 PM on June 1, 2006


16 people mark it as a favorite

you know this how, exactly? ???
posted by amberglow at 4:18 PM on June 1, 2006


Wow, quite a thread - but the SSRN stuff is good.

I don't think it deserved deletion for the reasons dios outlined.
posted by Samuel Farrow at 4:19 PM on June 1, 2006


hama7 also posted unimpeachably kickass links to the front page, so there's that, too.
posted by furiousthought at 4:19 PM on June 1, 2006


16 people mark it as a favorite

you know this how, exactly? ???


Fuck law.
posted by dios (65 comments total) [+ add to favorites] [!]
16 users marked this as a favorite:

I DO NOT KNOW. MAYBE DIOS IS A WIZARD.
posted by atrazine at 4:25 PM on June 1, 2006 [6 favorites]


We could have a compromise where someone posts a youtube link of Andy Kaufman reading the Great Gatsby.
I can't believe you included my Yngwie thread in that youtube Shlockfest Dios - shame upon you , you naughty little man , i've never had a pop at you in my life.
posted by sgt.serenity at 4:31 PM on June 1, 2006


We need to start limiting these dios metatalk threads to 100 comments. I don't have enough hours in the day to keep up with this shit.
posted by graventy at 4:43 PM on June 1, 2006


I for one decided flagging is pretty useless

mathowie maintains the pretence that he and jessamyn are alerted to flags, but really it's just a way to make users feel all powerful like: you get to shout 'I hate you, you stenchy knobend!' at the post and/or poster, without actually expressing that opinion in the thread. Therapy and noise reduction in one fell swoop.
posted by jack_mo at 5:19 PM on June 1, 2006


though there are far too many youtube posts, whoopty, the ssrn posts were ill conceived. the abstracts of the articles don't begin to convey their conclusions, just their topics, leaving mefites to wade through dozens of dry pages just to try to find if there is any point to them. very irritating. which occured to me, that may be what dios and toadies were trying to accomplish. just more noise to test the limits of the system. he's posted from this source before, no? and it was much the same then. kind of a pseudo-intellectual wankfest.

but they didn't need deletion. if this was a system test, the reaction was overwrought. fuck law was a least a little interesting in a scatalogical fashion.

just mark with ssrnfilter in the future and we'll know to skip on by unless there's a better front page explanation.
posted by 3.2.3 at 5:32 PM on June 1, 2006


I DO NOT KNOW. MAYBE DIOS IS A WIZARD.
posted by atrazine at 7:25 PM EST on June 1 [+fave] [!]


Oh man. That made my day.
posted by trey at 5:45 PM on June 1, 2006


What jack_mo said. The flagging system is a good idea in theory, but in practice it's the equivalent of those "How was your meal and service?" cards you get at TGI Friday's.
posted by bardic at 6:13 PM on June 1, 2006


And here is my point: there are clearly threads that should have been deleted. Whether it be the two clear double posts from yesterday, or the single link polemics. There should have been some deletions. But there weren't. And that is what concerns me. When we don't have moderation and deletion of these kind of threads doesn't happen, there is a tacit indication that they are acceptable. And woe be us all if these kind of threads become even more acceptable.
posted by dios at 12:53 PM PST on November 10, 2005


Three SSRN links in two days to thoughtful and academic writing that are new and interesting and that most users have never seen before? Deleted.
posted by dios


~chuckle~

We get it, dios. Single link polemics by others must be deleted. Single link polemics by you should be retained, and when they're not, merit your ownest own MeTa tantrum.

Hypocrisy...and the intellectual consistency of pudding...never fail to amuse.
posted by fold_and_mutilate at 6:24 PM on June 1, 2006


I DO NOT KNOW. MAYBE DIOS IS A WIZARD.

I'm pretty sure that's going to keep me chuckling through the weekend.
posted by cribcage at 6:29 PM on June 1, 2006


when did that favorites thing get put on each post? and why? /seriously
posted by amberglow at 6:41 PM on June 1, 2006 [1 favorite]


I'm pretty sure that's going to keep me chuckling through the weekend.

like some sort of... CHUCKLEHEAD?
posted by Hat Maui at 6:49 PM on June 1, 2006


amberglow: "when did that favorites thing get put on each post? and why? /seriously"

It was added very shortly (like within a day or two) after the favorites system was put in place. I think the idea is that you're supposed to be able to discover people that have similar interests as you, and check out their other favorites.
posted by Rhomboid at 6:54 PM on June 1, 2006


I DON'T KNOW. MAYBE DIOS IS A WIZARD
No, if he'd graduated from Hogwarts, he'd more likely be linking to elaborate Flash sites instead of PDFs... Besides he always struck me as less "Sorcerer's Apprentice" and more "Donald Trump's Apprentice".

hama7 also posted unimpeachably kickass links to the front page
True, but he was more an aficionado of art, history and Oriental culture. The Ming Dynasty political philosophy just kind of grew out of that.

I'm just hoping that Matt adds to the site a feature that gives sgt.serenity a moderate electric shock whenever he tries to type "Yngwie". Any other member behavioral modification can grow out of that.

Therapy and noise reduction in one fell swoop.
No, that should be one swell fo... uh... well... nevermind, I'm just not used to seeing it like that...

the equivalent of those "How was your meal and service?" cards you get at TGI Friday's.
Thanks for reminding me, bardic, I have to go visit that TellJack website to let him know the Grilled Chipotle Chicken Ciabatta sandwich I had for lunch kicked ass... but really needs a shorter name.

f&m: at least pudding IS intellectually consistent. It's a lot harder dealing with someone whose intellect has the consistency of, say, the Grilled Chipotle Chicken Ciabatta sandwich at Jack in the Box...

yeah, I know, lame, but I'm still working off my debt to Jack in the Box for not returning the uniform shirt in '74... long story... it's on my blog, but I won't link it.

One more note for those of you taking advantage of my "FREE DIOS with the purchase of a quonsar at regular price" offer: for obvious reasons, the two will be shipped in separate packages.

Thank you. I'll be here all week. Chuckling. Like a chucklehead.
posted by wendell at 7:05 PM on June 1, 2006


you gotta admit dios, those links of yours weren't quite up to the national day of slayer standard.
posted by quonsar at 7:31 PM on June 1, 2006


q-ball, I was trying to use my reputation as a MeFi thread-killer to do something positive...

Just for that, it's now:
HALF-PRICE QUONSAR
posted by wendell at 7:54 PM on June 1, 2006


Paper published online.

I mean... gimmie a reason to care.
posted by scarabic at 7:55 PM on June 1, 2006


I would like to place an order for half a dozen quonsars at the special limited time offer of half price.

I've discovered that if I place a few quonsars on my stoop they make the heads of door to door salesmen and religious missionaries spontaneously explode.

It's pretty nifty. I never knew any body part could emit 10 foot wide fireballs with cute little mushroom clouds and everything.

And usually at least one of the quonsars ends up devouring the remains and licking the area clean, so there's absolutely no muss and no fuss. Though, come to think of it the cat has been missing for about a week.

Also, quonsars taste like BBQ ribs. I just can't help it. I've eaten three of them today alone. Actually, make that an order for two dozen quonsars. I might as well stock up while they're cheap. And tasty.

grrr. fuckoff. get your own. all mine. moocher.
posted by loquacious at 8:28 PM on June 1, 2006


no, seriously, you can't have any. not yours. hands off, halfpint. back the fuck up. no, really. i only have 3 left and i don't re-up until tommorow night. no. put it down! bitch, i'll cut you. i'll fucking take you out like chinese food, cockdrip! that's right. just put it down nice and easy, back in the fridge where you found it and back away slowly. thank you. you know where the front door is, feel free to use it.
posted by loquacious at 8:38 PM on June 1, 2006


thanks, Rhomboid : >

i just found the thread announcing it (i was away)
posted by amberglow at 8:56 PM on June 1, 2006


And the MeFite Store regrets to announce that we are recalling all units of the loquacious model due to a factory defect that may cause it to spontaneously go batshit insane
posted by wendell at 9:03 PM on June 1, 2006


Wendell: It's not a bug, it's a feature. Why would anyone buy a loquacious unit not expecting it to periodically go batshit insane? It's in the fucking FAQ!
posted by Eideteker at 9:12 PM on June 1, 2006


All the units around here have that feature. It's part of the initiation rite.
posted by caddis at 9:14 PM on June 1, 2006


The loquacious model would like to spontaneously announce that the wendell model is a loveably pompous poopyhead who has nightcrawlers in his drawers and a head full of rancid, wormy kumquats. While this are undoubtably fine features, the wendell model should be only used indoors as it may emit purple caustic fumes and dance a hinky, spastic version of the lambada while uttering nonsensical sing-songs that sound suspiciously like Samuel Coleridge filtered through a bucket of warty cocks.
posted by loquacious at 9:16 PM on June 1, 2006 [1 favorite]


The loquacious model would like to spontaneously announce that the wendell model is a loveably pompous poopyhead...

Ok, you two, get a room!
posted by Eideteker at 9:37 PM on June 1, 2006


dios, you're actually whining because your lazy posting strategy got nipped? Get a grip.
posted by mediareport at 9:42 PM on June 1, 2006


dios, you're actually whining because your lazy posting strategy got nipped? Get a grip.

What the hell are you talking about? I think you're in the wrong thread.
posted by Eideteker at 9:43 PM on June 1, 2006


*scrolls all the way back to the top*

Son of a bitch, nevermind.
posted by Eideteker at 9:44 PM on June 1, 2006


i have been scouring you tube for links for my upcoming fpp. it will be glorious.
posted by weretable and the undead chairs at 9:49 PM on June 1, 2006




Were the Herculoids on heroid?

Sorry.

Carry on then.

posted by uncanny hengeman at 10:05 PM on June 1, 2006


Balisong is brilliant.
posted by caddis at 10:19 PM on June 1, 2006


Son of a bitch, nevermind.

Yeah, actually read the whole thing and found my initial thought was still relevant. Go figure.
posted by mediareport at 10:26 PM on June 1, 2006


hama7 also posted unimpeachably kickass links to the front page, so there's that, too.

Hear, hear. I miss hama7.
posted by homunculus at 11:25 PM on June 1, 2006


I miss hama7.

I will never understand people as long as I live.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 11:53 PM on June 1, 2006


Why didn't you just email matt?
posted by delmoi at 11:59 PM on June 1, 2006


Good links, nasty (but terse) comments: I thought it was a win. He still posts at Monkeyfilter sometimes.
posted by furiousthought at 12:24 AM on June 2, 2006


We need to learn core metafilter values.
posted by sgt.serenity at 12:42 AM on June 2, 2006


I missed hamas7 but got him on the backswing so it's all good.
posted by longbaugh at 2:08 AM on June 2, 2006


YouTube only posts should be constrained to a particular day, mostly.

YouTubesday?
posted by romakimmy at 3:52 AM on June 2, 2006


And here is my point: there are clearly threads that should have been deleted. Whether it be the two clear double posts from yesterday, or the single link polemics. There should have been some deletions. But there weren't. And that is what concerns me. When we don't have moderation and deletion of these kind of threads doesn't happen, there is a tacit indication that they are acceptable. And woe be us all if these kind of threads become even more acceptable.

Image Hosted by ImageShack.us
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 3:55 AM on June 2, 2006


I'm sorry, cortex, but dios gets what he deserves. *He* starts these pointlessly whiny threads; *he* behaves like a total dildo at almost every opportunity. I have had people pile on me for starting stupid MeTa threads--you'll notice the incidence of me doing so has decreased. Why? Because I am capable of learning. And it isn't about politics: there are plenty of annoying lefties.

As for monju & dios arguing, that doesn't really mean anything, does it? Sometimes people are good friends because they like arguing (see, again, me & jon). And if people were piling on jon all the time, I'd probably be more likely to show up & defend him. Why? Because he's my fucking friend. Because I am biased. It's not weird that people might think dios & monju were the same person (I don't, but the thought isn't totally out there).

But thanks for letting me know I have a bad attitude. I always forget that I'm a truly rotten person. At least I don't lie about my less savory motivations.
posted by dame at 7:06 AM on June 2, 2006


I don't think you're a truly rotten person, and it's another helping of shitty attitude to suggest I do. I don't know you, dame, and I don't have any reason to dislike you as a person, but from what I've read of them, your comments on Metafilter trend towards Jerk Territory. That is what I think, and that is what I said. That's an artifact of my biased filter of your online personality in the subset of your comments that I read. It's not what I think of you, actual human being on the East Coast, and I wouldn't presume to hold you to it if I met you in person. I'm not starting a vendetta. But we're here, in metatalk, working with what we have to go on, and so if we're sitting around saying people Get What They Deserve, I don't think it's out of line to grouse about the grousers.

As for monju and dios arguing, that does really mean anything: it means the many and varied comments suggesting that they are a case of clearcut asskissing sycophancy are lazy and absurd. It means people should try a little harder if they want to play St. George.

And, yes, likewise the sockpuppet notion: it's possible that one person could be orchestrating the two users, but it's just as possible that someone is running monju and cortex, or cortex and dame—a dedicated, attentive writer could pull it off. Once you take it that far, we might as well declare everyone a sockpuppet and leave the subject off.
posted by cortex at 7:43 AM on June 2, 2006


They are not piling on jon anymore because he has left us. I wish he would come back.
posted by caddis at 7:43 AM on June 2, 2006


And garrr arrrrgh I'm arguing in Metatalk again.

[refocuses chi, and shit]


dame, peace. We have different biases, different modes, and different motivations on the subject here, but I don't really want to spend my morning mixing it up with you. I think we've laid out our perspectives fairly well; much as we may disagree, I think I have a better understanding of where you're coming from, and I hope it's reciprocal.

Either way, I'd rather disengage, if that's fine by you. And the key line in my previous post is the important one: no, I don't think you're a rotten person at all.
posted by cortex at 7:57 AM on June 2, 2006


Incredible.

Although I still believe that it was a justified deletion (And didn't deserve a MeTa post when an inquiring e-mail would have sufficed), I read this thread and come away siding with dios simply because of the petty and irrational self-righteous twattery of his detractors.

Forget about the D-Man, he ain't no malevolent master of manipulative string pulling! You guys are the real puppetmasters!
Bravo!
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 8:05 AM on June 2, 2006


God knows the important thing is that we all pick a side.
posted by sonofsamiam at 8:16 AM on June 2, 2006


Hey mister, picking a side is only bad if you choose the wrong one!


Actually, the more I think about it, the more I suspect that the Anti-Dio Strike Team Force is actually comprised completely of dios sockpuppets!

Think about it:
-Who else has done more to get his name on everyone's lips?
-Who botches their own credibility in an Ahabesque pursuit of a Great White Whale that is, in actuality, a mere minnow like the rest of us in this wacky ol' bait bucket we call MeFi?
-Who has actually caused members to align or at least moderately side with him, if only to distance themselves from the frothing flock of flaming pitchfork wielders?

That's right, the ADSTF!!!

It makes sense, people!

posted by Alvy Ampersand at 8:20 AM on June 2, 2006


They are not piling on jon anymore because he has left us. I wish he would come back.

.
posted by Eideteker at 8:35 AM on June 2, 2006


why is everyone always harshin' on fatties?
posted by blue_beetle at 8:36 AM on June 2, 2006


Well-played
posted by briank at 8:58 AM on June 2, 2006


MetaFilter: simply because of the petty and irrational self-righteous twattery of its detractors.
posted by Rhomboid at 8:58 AM on June 2, 2006


They are not piling on jon anymore because he has left us. I wish he would come back.

Whoh, whoh, whoh... When did he leave? Did I miss something?

'Cause I'll find a way to make a Ramones post if I have to.
posted by Cyrano at 9:33 AM on June 2, 2006


dios, back up a second and take a chill pill. Ready? Ok.

...you don't have to test me and jessamyn out by purposely posting borderline stuff to the site to see when I crack


How many timeouts he has received? Why he is still here? His day will come, and mathowie will crack like he's never cracked before. To the moon, dios!
posted by prostyle at 10:05 AM on June 2, 2006


God knows the important thing is that we all pick a side.

Jawohl, dude! You're either with dios or you're with the... Youtube-linking alien Islamoterrorist gay Mexican fiesta. This is not a time for blase indifference and fence-sitting! The fate of Metafilter civilisation hangs in the balance. Unless Iran gives up the nukes and the admins apologise profusely to dios & monju for the tyrannical deletions, there will be more dios-themed Metatalk threads like this and mathowie will crack.

The oracle predicts that if nothing is done to avert the coming metapocalypse, at exactly 06:06:06 on 06/06/06, the nukular fury of the so-far benevolent dictator will be unleashed. All threads will be deleted in one go and all users permanently banned. Woe be upon us!

Ahem. Let's all join hands and pray.
posted by funambulist at 10:34 AM on June 2, 2006


Hey, another one.
posted by Bezbozhnik at 10:59 AM on June 2, 2006


At least he put some effort into the new one, although I don't know why he bothered.
posted by smackfu at 11:07 AM on June 2, 2006


Because the new link looks intersting.
posted by sonofsamiam at 11:08 AM on June 2, 2006


Yes, monju's post is very good, although it's clearly intended to be a rebuttal to many of the points made in this thread. The giant sushi image in particular is a nice touch (oooh, pictures!).
posted by brain_drain at 11:22 AM on June 2, 2006


Honestly, it's not intended to be a rebuttal of anything, or to make any point other than that the Tsukiji market is fascinating.
posted by monju_bosatsu at 11:25 AM on June 2, 2006




...you don't have to test me and jessamyn out by purposely posting borderline stuff to the site to see when I crack


One-two! One-two!
His vorpal laptop snicker-snacked!
Dios was PWNED!!11!!
Mathowie groaned-
His LCD screen had cracked.
posted by oneirodynia at 12:29 PM on June 2, 2006


oneirodynia, you should expand on that!

Although, when it comes to Carroll poems that are fit for meFi, it's hard to do better than "The Hunting of the Snark."
posted by robocop is bleeding at 1:51 PM on June 2, 2006


just another happy coincidence eh monju? Those seem to follow you around a lot.
posted by puke & cry at 3:15 PM on June 2, 2006




i think metafilter should just ban all the lawyers.
posted by empath at 3:34 PM on June 2, 2006


*changes fake profile*
posted by Optimus Chyme at 3:37 PM on June 2, 2006


WatUC, I laughed until I stopped. Thx.
posted by five fresh fish at 4:21 PM on June 2, 2006


I'm sorry, puke & cry, did my latest post remind you of a bad sushi experience?
posted by monju_bosatsu at 4:45 PM on June 2, 2006


Yes actually. Although I've never actually had a good sushi experience. bleh.
posted by puke & cry at 4:51 PM on June 2, 2006


I thought the posts were good, but Matt's reasons for deletion are also good (if something takes a long, long time to get through, it needs more framing to convince people to read it. For example, not much explanation is needed for a 3 minute YouTube video, but if someone posted a link to a one hour YouTube video with no framing/explanation (no abstract, as it were), I think it would probably get axed).

However, the thing I don't get is the people complaining that "you posted this to make a point, because you didn't like what was being posted". In general, yeah, that's a bad thing. However, in this case, the point was presumably "There's more interesting and intellectual stuff on the net, like this". That's usually referred to as "If you don't like the posts, don't complain, post something you think is better". I hear that refrain all the time, but telling people "If you don't like it, post something better" and then complaining "You only posted something better because you didn't like what was on the blue" seems really hypocritical.

So, yeah, I support the deletion, but I don't support one of the reasons that people are giving for it.
posted by Bugbread at 8:11 PM on June 2, 2006


Matt's reasons for deletion are also good (if something takes a long, long time to get through, it needs more framing to convince people to read it

Huh? You're usually an extremely sensible guy, but I don't understand this at all. So what if "it needs more framing to convince people to read it"? How is that a problem for MetaFilter, something so drastic it warrants deletion? It may be a problem for the poster, and when he gets hardly any comments he may want to frame his next post better, but how on earth can you say it justifies deletion? If you went back through the history of MeFi and deleted all badly framed posts and posts where people didn't feel like reading/viewing whatever was linked, what percentage of posts do you think would be left standing?
posted by languagehat at 6:10 AM on June 3, 2006


So...what'd I miss?

Like dame says, we all have our biases and prejudices around here, cause we're only human. And to be fair, I think there's something of a symbiotic relationship going on between dios and those who so vehemently dislike him. But the key to dealing with one's own biases is to recognize them for what they are, and try to look past them, since you never know what somebody is capable of. Otherwise we get big ol' pileons like this one where my sympathy usually winds up going to the pile-onee. I can't plead innocence, I've carried torches and pitchforks in MeTa myself, but, you know what, I never ended up feeling good about it. And the whole Thunderdome For Nerds routine (along with the condescension and faux-jaded snark of some members) is a big reason I don't come around anymore.
posted by jonmc at 6:14 AM on June 3, 2006


"Huh? You're usually an extremely sensible guy, but I don't understand this at all. "

Eh, I can understand his point so long as doubles are deleted. In that case, a bad post about a good site isa detriment to the community as it can't be posted again. And longer or richer links tend to need a bit more context to turn them into good FPPs.

I thought the post was fine and that that deletion was dumb, but whatever. It's not like I'm losing sleep over it.
posted by klangklangston at 6:24 AM on June 3, 2006


jon!! Welcome back!

So...what'd I miss?

The first thing that comes to mind is this. You'll love it, trust me.
posted by languagehat at 11:50 AM on June 3, 2006


languagehat : "I don't understand this at all. So what if 'it needs more framing to convince people to read it'? How is that a problem for MetaFilter, something so drastic it warrants deletion?"

I think your surprise at what I say is perhaps based on the fact that we consider "deletion" to be at different levels of severity. Deletion, in my opinion, doesn't necessarily mean something is evil evil evil. It very often means that, but there are some times when something is deleted just because it isn't up to snuff. For example, a link to a site that it turns out only rendered well in the poster's odd browser, but can't be viewed from Firefox, IE, Safari, or Opera. Or a link to a site which then goes down. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that it's always used when stuff isn't up to snuff, but just that it happens from time to time. In fact, this particular kind of problem (possibly good post, but extremely long, and therefore needing more framing) happens so seldom that it's hard to draw a rule of thumb.

Also, I think I may have expressed myself poorly, in that I'm not opposed to the deletion, but I'm not advocating the deletion either. When I said "I support the deletion", I didn't mean "I think it should be deleted", but "I could understand if Matt decided to leave it, and I could understand if Matt decided to delete it. I support either/both in this case." I suppose "support" isn't the right word, but I don't know what is. It isn't quite neutrality.

And, lastly, to be really clear, the light in which I am supporting the deletion extends only to the extent that the framing is lacking. If dios reposted the exact same site today, with good framing (and by 'framing' I'm not talking about that annoying "pointless links to other pages" shit that is all the rage with the SingleLinkIsBad clan, but a basic, short explanation of what the link is to, and a hint of what might be interesting in it), and Matt deleted that, then I would be in no way supporting of the deletion.
posted by Bugbread at 6:00 PM on June 3, 2006


I can't believe this post got 200+ comments. You'd think the topic was naked chicks or lesbian sexual predators.
posted by Mitheral at 6:13 PM on June 3, 2006


I love me some LSP's
posted by Dreamghost at 10:16 PM on June 3, 2006


Although most vides posted to the front page stink, it is possible to make a great post to a video.

Exhibit A
posted by caddis at 7:56 AM on June 4, 2006


« Older Archiving chosen content from Metafilter?   |   I think this post is really inappropriate Newer »

You are not logged in, either login or create an account to post comments