At what point does "Community Policing" become censorship?

November 28, 2001 9:51 PM

At what point does "Community Policing" become censorship? [More inside]
posted by Steven Den Beste to etiquette/policy at 9:51 PM (112 comments total)

A week ago I made a front page post which summarized the contents of the linked article, and then ended with the words "I think this is wrong."

Moz then started a MetaTalk thread objecting to the fact that I included an opinion in the FPP, and a lot of other people piled on. I didn't participate in the thread.

Now, today, I see the following on the front page:

What's up with this Iraq stuff? No more formal way of putting it, sorry. Can anyone say what the hell is going on here, exactly, when bin Laden hasn't even be found and the Taliban is still putting up a fight? Is Bush, in saying Saddam will "find out" how the U.S. will respond to its refusal to allow inspections (again), just throwing a small bone to the hard right? Is the national press on too much of an adrenaline rush, or bored with Afganistan already? Or are the Dr. Strangelove wannabes talked about here really taking over?

Loaded to the gills with opinions, to say the least. Understand that I'm not objecting to this. I don't think there is anything wrong with it. But if my five word opinion was bad, surely this was far worse. But there was not a peep about it in MetaTalk.

What's the difference? The MetaFilter Posting Police agree with the attitude expressed by this post, but didn't agree with mine.

But rather than arguing my post on the merits, Moz and others decided to use MetaTalk as a way of attacking the poster (me). In an attempt to suppress my opinion, they objected to the style of my post rather than to its substance.

They don't feel the need to do that about raysmj, however, because they don't disagree with him.

In other words, MetaTalk has become a political weapon. It's no longer a place to talk about MetaFilter, it's become a place to hound those you don't like. The Posting Police have ceased to be a community effort to try to maintain the spirit of MeFi, and instead have become a cabal to try to channel its course.

The lunatics have taken over the asylum.


Matt, I'm aware that you don't agree with me on a wide variety of subjects, but you've always valued reasoned disagreement and a wide variety of viewpoints. And when I express a point of view I try to back it up. But there are now a large number of people on MetaFilter who share a certain political point of view who are engaged in a campaign to drive away everyone they disagree with, simply because of the disagreement. I don't seem to be able to post anything even slightly controversial these days without being attacked personally and directly insulted.

Is this really what you want MetaFilter to become? Or MetaTalk?

You have a policy of never deleting MetaTalk threads, and I think people have figured this out and are abusing it.

But this is part of a more basic problem: community policing has become censorship. The Posting Police are no longer trying to maintain order, they're trying to enforce orthodoxy and right-thinking. MetaTalk is no longer concerned with style or etiquette; it's become about substance. Community policing has become a way to run out of town those whose opinions are heretical.
posted by Steven Den Beste at 9:54 PM on November 28, 2001

Being wet behind the ears here, Steven, I don't want to put my foot in it here, and as I am often guilty of the same format sins--but do all your comments come Bible length?
The 'attacks' and ''insults' cited seem so much weak tea from I've seen in my short time here. Gosh, I may be way out of line here, but taking offense at the slightest sign of irritation from others after posting a three screen comment possibly come across as self-importance. I don't think it's your politics but your style. People around here take offense at very little. It's the thought that counts: Omit needless words. Perhaps having a thicker skin and being much more concise sometimes?
posted by y2karl at 10:13 PM on November 28, 2001

It is worth noting that the controversial post that you cite, the one which garnered personal attacks and direct insults, also ended up cited on the sidebar (a position of high honor and great esteem) with the label A good summary of the US gov't reasons for a possible military action in Iraq.

Would that we all got such high recognition while our ideas were discounted by a select few.
posted by iceberg273 at 10:23 PM on November 28, 2001

Steven, I would agree about the opinion angle. I always find it weird that every once in a while it comes up in MetaTalk or on MetaFilter itself that people should be completely objective when they post.

People are interested in others' opinions, and devoid of that, things are boring. I try to post things I think are "good" and I often say right in the post that something is a "great, new thing," inserting my opinion of it before the first comments are made.

I tend to think objections to posting behavior follow an unwritten moderation rule. People like things on the site when they are done in moderation. When someone is posting too much, it might come up here. When someone is posting once a week, you won't hear a peep about them. When people go outside the bounds of normal behavior, they often appear here as a topic of discussion because it doesn't fit the pattern of normal use.

Now, the curious thing about the thread moz started is that SDB's opinion wasn't that harsh, and several posts a day typically express more opinion from one side or the other in regards to a thread's subject. If it's too strong, a thread can turn into a situation where it is everyone vs. the thread poster, and perhaps in SBD's case, his opinion was strong, but I don't see how someone who disagreed with it would be inclined not to post their thoughts.

I don't know about the censorship angle wrt to current accepted opinions, I don't think SBD's stated opinions were that far off the mark of what most people think here.

Overall, it's a point worth considering.
posted by mathowie at 10:25 PM on November 28, 2001

Steven - I agree with you that there's nothing wrong with opinions on front page posts, either in your case or raysmj's. Opinions are part and parcel to the charming, bloggish nature of Metafilter, after all. However, your opinion came as a statement and his as a question, and while the difference between an outright profession of belief and a thinly-veiled one is marginal at best, the difference in the way it is perceived is pretty noticeable. All else being equal, that's one explanation for what we're seeing here.

posted by Hildago at 10:31 PM on November 28, 2001

Oh, and I pointed to SDB's summary of current military thinking because I thought it was a nice condensed version of what's currently going on. I noticed afterwards, people took him to task personally, as if he was the one making up US policy.

Steven is just a guy that reads the news and gleaned what the gov't is currently thinking, and I think his analysis was spot on. I don't agree with the US gov't position 100%, and I'm not sure if SDB does either, but it seemed like people dumped on him on that thread, as if he somehow personified US gov't policy.

I probably should have said something in the thread, but I noticed it early that day and thought it was odd.

What if I posted a summary of recent decisions of an indonesian gov't that included several unsavory things? I'm just a guy posting a summary of their activity and based on that, speculating on what they wil probably do next, I'm not condoning their activity.

When I see things like this, I'm starting to think that maybe some people have a slight dislike for SDB and tend to give him a bit more crap than he deserves. Is that an unfair observation?
posted by mathowie at 10:39 PM on November 28, 2001

certain opinions annoy me in FPP text. it's a pet peeve of mine that's followed me from slashdot to here; i dislike when people add quips and snarky opinions at the ends of their posts, such as "microsoft released some interesting program today; of course, nothing beats linux :-)" (bonus deduction for annoying smiley emoticon). this example bothers me much more than steven's actual post did, but the post did inspire me to bring the subject up.

i will not post to metatalk every time something similar happens, something which is subjective of me and certainly open to bias, i agree. i don't feel that i need to constantly restate my opinion, nor do i feel harping on the subject to be any solution: indeed, there really isn't any solution, other than should matt add a rule (which probably will not happen given the wide range of feelings on the subject) in the posting guidelines.

of course, the question is should there be a solution? there was some discussion on the topic in meta, and if nothing else people fleshed out their thoughts. what i read was a full spectrum: some people agreed with me that they dislike opinions in FPP text, some people disagreed, and most likely don't care. i'm not sure there's anything left to discuss about it, but if you'd like, feel free.
posted by moz at 10:48 PM on November 28, 2001

Folks, you're missing the point.

I'm not trying to reraise the question of opinions on the front page. I'm trying to ask the question whether "community policing" has become vigilantism, and whether the "community" has become a kangaroo court.

Moz, if you jumped on me for posting an opinion (that you disagreed with) on the front page, why didn't you jump on other people (whose opinions you agreed with) for doing the same?

Could it be that it's not that you object to opinions in FPP posts, as much as opinions that you dislike?

And it's not just you. There are a lot of people here who have taken to jumping on people they don't like and degenerating to name calling and personal insults.

The two I linked to were not very harsh; but I've been the subject of much worse abuse. It's just that those were the most recent cases of it, that was all.

Let's not talk about whether we should post opinions on the front page. Let's talk about how people are beginning to actively try to suppress those they disagree with by harassment. And let's talk about how people are using criticism of form as a way of attacking people when they cannot disagree with the substance.
posted by Steven Den Beste at 11:05 PM on November 28, 2001

> I'm starting to think that maybe some people have a
> slight dislike for SDB and tend to give him a bit more crap
> than he deserves. Is that an unfair observation?

Perish the thought.

But say it were possible. I know this is getting into Stephen Hawking territory, but just speculate with me for a minute. Say some people don't like him. (As for me, I don't particularly have an SDB opinion, though I think I remember him once supporting some loony "theory" about local gravitational anomalies making cars roll uphill. Was that you, Steven?)

If they know SDB only through what SDB posts, the SDB they dislike is just a series of impersonal mefi posts. By disliking SDB-the-poster, they're just editorializing on the posts. Perhaps they are editorializing a bit unfairly, given that they are letting a broad view of the SDB posts color their opinions of the latest SDB post, but I suspect that everyone does that. Based on the mefi ID of the poster, people start to like or dislike a post before they even open it. "Oh, hell, here comes another..." They can't help it.


[Strip extraneous line breaks at the end of posts.]
posted by pracowity at 11:21 PM on November 28, 2001

sdb:

Moz, if you jumped on me for posting an opinion (that you disagreed with) on the front page, why didn't you jump on other people (whose opinions you agreed with) for doing the same?

had you researched, you would have seen that i did mention several sites, in the original thread about your posting an opinion on the front page, which i felt included editorializing. beyond that, i just explained why i did not post any more followup. if you don't buy my explanation, say so and have your peace; don't ignore what i wrote. as to your suggestions that i did not call people out for opinions which i agree with, again: obviously, you did not do your homework.
posted by moz at 11:27 PM on November 28, 2001

(I'm sticking to only linking things I agree with... slyly avoiding the freakin' mefi police)

Oh, and SDB, it's how insecure people get, but it's not censorship. The (ludicrous, small-minded, flawed) suggestion was to frown on editorialising in front page posts and you could avoid that by posting directly underneath with your idea. If they dare suggest that a comment not have opinion then I might be with you but until then I can't help but hear your "censorship censorship" spoken by a Monty Python...

(...wearing a silly hat, or something)
posted by holloway at 12:56 AM on November 29, 2001

Is it just me or is everyone missing the point of why Steven started this thread?

posted by Zool at 1:13 AM on November 29, 2001

MetaTalk has become a political weapon. It's no longer a place to talk about MetaFilter, it's become a place to hound those you don't like

You know, I think MeTa is only as dangerous as you let it be. In a kangaroo court, to use your example, the hackneyed group of judges can decide things that are very important to you -- your life and/or liberty may be at stake. In MeTa, all that may happen is some people may dogpile on the "SDB is a punkass" thread, and so what? If people disagree, and you believe firmly in your convictions, you can just say "screw those guys" and post away. You can still post to MeFi and most people don't read MeTa anyhow.

The only censor is [and can be] Matt, everyone else is just the peanut gallery. If I think you're an idiot, I have a right to holler that as loudly as I want to. You have a right to holler back. Freedom of speech and all......

Me personally? I guess I don't even know you but it seems that it's easier to engender discussion if you leave it a bit open-ended how you stand, then people don't have to feel that they're picking a fight with you if they disagree. People can also sense contentiousness in the same way squid can sense fear, and they react to it. Unfair or no, have you tried using a gentler approach to see if it gets you better results?
posted by jessamyn at 1:32 AM on November 29, 2001

It's just you. MetaTalk has partly been about hounding people you don't like. For example, I was dragged in here a year ago (to the day, huh) to answer to charges of a greater issue (trolling). These wackos have only been allowed to beat their chests and Matt seems sane enough to keep it that way. Huzzah for Matt - may his loins be potent and his smile wide.
posted by holloway at 1:37 AM on November 29, 2001

What Hidalgo said. As for the question of personal attacks or purported "hounding", Steven, I refer you to the proverb that begins "sticks and stones", note your position on the superior efficacy of sticks and stones over the past couple of months, and suggest that you install the Irony Plugin.
posted by holgate at 5:46 AM on November 29, 2001

Folks, this isn't about me. It's about mob tactics and the fact that certaiin members of the MetaFilter community are trying to reduce the diversity present here by using intimidation to chase away those they disagree with.

It's about how Metafilter is becoming like SlashDot, where nearly everyone agrees with a standard party line.

Look; I'm not here bitching about how I'm being treated. I didn't even want to post this; rather, I mailed it to Matt and he suggested that I do post it because he thought the general issue was an important one.

The issue is decreasing diversity among the users of MetaFilter and the way that the tactics of certain ideological groups are deliberately trying to reduce diversity.

Let's talk about that, OK?
posted by Steven Den Beste at 6:04 AM on November 29, 2001

The issue is decreasing diversity among the users of MetaFilter and the way that the tactics of certain ideological groups are deliberately trying to reduce diversity.

Let's talk about that, OK?

Okay.


Are you saying that there is an actual group out there out to kill diversity on MeFi? Because if there is, let's get that out on the table.

If you are saying that there is a de-facto group out there (consisting of folks who don't communicate with one another, but have a shared ideology of some sort), then you are probably right. If you (qua MetaFilistine) think a certain way and see someone else of a conflicting ideological stripe saying something else, chances are, you will be tempted to use any tactic to gain argumentative superiority. Is this right? Hell no, but it happens, and we ought all to be vigilant about it, and I think that you have a good point and ought to bring it up.

That said, I think that when someone uses constructive criticism and involves you in some way, you tend to see the "criticism" part more than the "constructive" part. (I do not mean to try to analyze you, but that's the impression that I get, and it is hard to separate that from your actual argument. Because you are a prominent member of this community, you will get more than the average MeFite's share of criticism and kudos. That's life for the MeFi celebrity.)

Ought we not to self-police? I don't think so, and from what I gather, you don't think so either. I do think that we need not be as nit-picky as we have in months past, whilst still trying to maintain a high level of discourse, otherwise we will descend to shouting-match levels.
posted by Avogadro at 6:28 AM on November 29, 2001

The issue is decreasing diversity among the users of MetaFilter and the way that the tactics of certain ideological groups are deliberately trying to reduce diversity.

I agree with Steven 100%! It's a crying shame that people ran off Sudama because of his political views!

Steven, it seems obvious to me that a great many people on MetaFilter disagree with the oppressive pacifist, Berkeley-liberal MetaCops that you're postulating. What's the "standard party line" here? If anything, MetaFilter seems more politically diverse now than it was when I signed up; I can no longer name every single right-leaning or vocally Christian poster, for instance.
posted by snarkout at 6:42 AM on November 29, 2001

By the bye, there are all sorts of de-facto groups out there consisting of folks with shared ideologies, spanning the spectrum of thought on MeFi, not just the one that Steven cites.
posted by Avogadro at 6:43 AM on November 29, 2001

I can no longer name every single right-leaning or vocally Christian poster, for instance

But snarkout, there were less than 1000 registered users when you signed up, ratios and all that....
By the same measure, there are now a lot more self-appointed police now than when you or I signed up, and the 'pile-on' effect seems to have increased with the number of users. But it should be looked at with an eye on the number of members here these days.
Step back a little and look at the relative scale of things, you soon realise that a MeTa thread which garners even 50 'yeah, you have no right to say that, poopyhead' replies is still representative of only a very small proportion of the entire userbase, but back in the days of 1000 users it would represent a strong opinion.
posted by Markb at 7:16 AM on November 29, 2001

Steven has a valid point. While it is true a lot of members have come and gone, many I know personally have limited their travels here or just stopped posting all together because of the mob mentality that springs up.

Me, having a thick skin and not really caring what a bunch of anonymous online people think about me because it doesn't affect anything in my real life, of course still comes around now and then. (more in quick bursts.. I'll probably disappear to your delight in a month or so and come back a month or two after that. Or something like that).

I mean, I've been called an ignorant slut. For expressing an opinion. Somewhere else. Not on Metafilter. Because that opinion differed (drastically) to the common acceptable principals of the majority in charge.

I agree with snarkout that there may be more variation in political views, they still tend to congregate on the far ends of the fence, with the moderates getting slammed.

I think in non-political thinking, Metafilter has slowly become more homogeneous over time. Maybe this is because of the slow immigration as people abandon slash dot and plastic but try to recreate those styles here. Who knows. But I think it has been an issue people are aware of through the symptoms, but don't know the root of it, which this thread seems to be trying to get to.

more blah blah blah. Continue on with the show.
posted by rich at 7:18 AM on November 29, 2001

But snarkout, there were less than 1000 registered users when you signed up, ratios and all that....

Fair enough. I was actually thinking of the 3000-4000 user level, but your point still stands. I do think that as MetaFilter has gotten more known outside its original audience of webloggers and weblog readers, the viewpoints among the user base have grown more diverse, although I'm not sure how one would go about easily proving or disproving this assertion.
posted by snarkout at 7:22 AM on November 29, 2001

The issue is decreasing diversity among the users of MetaFilter and the way that the tactics of certain ideological groups are deliberately trying to reduce diversity.

Okay, let's talk about that. I just don't buy it; and even if it were true, such groups would have no hope of success. For the month after 9-11 MeFi was seething with right-wing and left-wing posts either for or against going to war, and the occasional squawk about it on MeTa - from whatever ideological stand-point - did bugger-all to stop the noise: only Matt's prominent request on the posting page, and a general sense that we had worn ourselves out, did anything to return the place to relative normality.

As for your specific examples of threads policed and not-policed: (a) isn't it a bit rich to protest that 'this isn't about me' when you're the one who raised moz's previous thread in the first place? and (b) leaving aside whether or not opinions in FPPs are objectionable, the raysmj thread cropped up when the supposed 'MeFi police' were focussing on Zach's 'what are you thankful for' thread, which may explain why it supposedly slipped under 'their' noses.

Which brings me to:

The MetaFilter Posting Police agree with the attitude expressed by this post, but didn't agree with mine.

Steven, I've admired the rigour and careful argument in your posts and comments over the years, even when I haven't always agreed with your conclusions, but if there's one thing that undermines them it's a tendency to generalise about people and their opinions: 'the' Left; 'the' anti-War position; 'the' MetaFilter Posting Police. There is no 'MetaFilter Posting Police': there isn't some official organisation that meets in a smoke-filled room and votes on who to hound outta town this week. There's simply a subset of the MeFi membership, all of whom have decided that rather than watch silently as their favourite hangout slides into chaos, they'll instead speak up about behaviour they find objectionable.

But the definition of what is objectionable differs from member to member. There is no unanimous position. There isn't even consensus; even in last week's SDB MeTa-fest, there wasn't consensus - you had some very vocal supporters on those threads. Why do you assume that they are any less representative of 'the' MetaFilter Posting Police than those whose opinions and tactics you dislike? By posting in MeTa we all put on the badge of MeFi cop, and I sure don't see widespread consensus in MeTa on all subjects, least of all this one.

'We, the people' are not 'the' people; we're just people.

Qualify. Equivocate. Recognise when you are making sweeping generalisations. If you had written 'some MetaFilter members agree with the attitude expressed by this post, but other MetaFilter members, possibly including some of the same people as in that first group, didn't agree with mine', would you have felt as strongly about this? Would you even have bothered emailing Matt, or posting it here?

If you must complain about 'The MetaFilter Posting Police', complain about specific MeFi cops whose behaviour you find consistently, persistently objectionable. If their ranks amount to more than one percent of the people who read MeFi each day, I'll be surprised.
posted by rory at 7:28 AM on November 29, 2001

SDB, the point here about you is that your posts weren't policed because people disagreed with any views you expressed, but because you don't invite discussion. Rather, you make definitive claims and implicitly draw lines in the sand. Your aggressiveness and belligerence have been talked about here, too.

No one's trying to censor your views. If anything, people here appreciate someone who can express themselves clearly and say something worth talking about. But you insist on a combative style, and you make definitive, sweeping claims that set threads up for arguments more than discussion.

Look at the tone of the FPP you compare yours to. The difference is obvious. Why don't you look to yourself for understanding of what's gong on, instead of assuming everyone's out to get you?
posted by mattpfeff at 7:29 AM on November 29, 2001

I remember a time when discussions on MeFi were not simple he said, she said argument pieces based on one or another's personal opinion. I remember a time when, if you wanted to put forth an opinion on MeFi, you had better be damned ready to back it up, links and all. I don't know if this has anything to do with this particular thread, but... I do know that the discussions at that time were more informed and informative, with less opportunity for ad hominem and general unpleasantry due to the work involved in actually defending your position.

As for censorship, I've seen way too many intelligent individuals with varying viewpoints be blasted of the scene in recent months. And I don't think it's just coincidence that a number of defining voices have disappeared due to a lack of acceptence or frustration with the direction in hich MeFi is headed. What we can do about it, tho, I'm really not sure.
posted by dogmatic at 8:18 AM on November 29, 2001

The issue is decreasing diversity among the users of MetaFilter and the way that the tactics of certain ideological groups are deliberately trying to reduce diversity.

Well, picking out another article for your post today that explicitly attacks a certain ideological group -- the nebulous "Berkeley academic left" that you now appear to be moulding into your counterpoise -- suggests that you're adopting just such a tactic, in trying to polarise things along thick ideological lines. If that's the case, it's to be regretted, not just because it undoes months of developing a more nuanced discussion across the community, but because it involves resorting to pieces like today's: a hoary old troll from the School of Horowitz, with none of the intellectual discipline that would be found in one of your own blog posts.

Oh, fuck it. Never mind. I'm outta here.
posted by holgate at 8:24 AM on November 29, 2001

Nowhere did I state "opinions." I asked questions. There's a difference between a question and an opinion, although a question can be informed by an opinion.
posted by raysmj at 8:38 AM on November 29, 2001

snarkout writes: Steven, it seems obvious to me that a great many people on MetaFilter disagree with the oppressive pacifist, Berkeley-liberal MetaCops that you're postulating. What's the "standard party line" here?

Good question. I've also been a rather conspicuous supporter of the action taken in Afghanistan, I think it's safe to say. So no need to lump everyone together in one group. But that didn't stop Paris from telling me to "wake up," as if I just got off the turnip truck, as my grandmother used to say. So it goes.
posted by raysmj at 8:47 AM on November 29, 2001

Holgate, that's interesting.

I posted no opinion at all. None. I linked to an article and quoted a couple of lines from it. But you, and several of those who responded to it, assumed that I had some specific attitude about it.

There's a great actress name of Susan Lucci. (I'm not a fan, but I've read about her.) She's been consistently snubbed by the Emmies, partly because she works in the soaps and party because she plays a villain. So far as I know, in her real life she's a very nice woman, but the character she plays and has played for something like 20 years is a real bitch.

But indirectly one time she got a testimony to the power of her work: an old woman walked up to her on the street, and with a very fierce look slapped Lucci on the face. The woman confused Lucci for "Erica".

Holgate, please quote somewhere in that thread where I indicated what I thought.

No -- it was because I posted it that you automatically assume you know what I was feeling. You may even be right. But I didn't say anything; I just linked and posted.

If anyone else had posted exactly the same link, would the reaction have been the same?

There was another thing about that thread: Again, notice that I said nothing whatever; I just quoted and linked. Several of the respondents immediately projected that I was generalizing to the entire left with this and made various other assumptions about what I intended through it. For instance: Now may I start quoting creationists as typical of the Right's views? Please?

I was struck by how defensive -- and hostile -- the responses were.


Avogadro, of course I don't think there's an organized conspiracy. What has, rather, happened is the development of a habit. People see other people do it, and get in on the act. It's a disorganized conspiracy, if you will.

But the effect is the same: to try to impose uniformity of thought, to drive out heretics, to attack speakers instead of what they say, and to selectively use MetaTalk as a form of ad hominem.


Snarkout: I later apologized.
posted by Steven Den Beste at 8:49 AM on November 29, 2001

Certainly, raysmj, you recognize how opinions can be implied by questions? Are you really so dense as to believe otherwise?

(um, see, I'm using questions here to imply an opinion. Just an example, folks, not casting aspersions on raysmj.)
posted by MrMoonPie at 8:55 AM on November 29, 2001

Well, I hate to be the one to say it, but it has to be said:

For the record, Susan Lucci has won at least one Emmy award for her portrayal of Erica Kane (or whatever her last name du jour is/was) although that Emmy was a long time coming.

Also, her being passed over had nothing to do with her being a soap actress since she competes with other soap actresses for a daytime Emmy award.
posted by anapestic at 9:18 AM on November 29, 2001

Several of the respondents immediately projected that I was generalizing to the entire left with this and made various other assumptions about what I intended through it. For instance: Now may I start quoting creationists as typical of the Right's views? Please?

Who projected what? People were responding not to you but, quite rightfully, to the tenuous logic of the article you posted. I don't see a single mention of your motivations in posting that link in the thread. I see one here in MetaTalk -- I won't speak to whether or not Holgate is drawing a legitimate inference -- but over in that thread people are attacking the link, not the poster. Isn't that what we all, you included, want?

My point in posting the Sudama MeTa thread was not to embarass you, Steven, and I'm sorry if you took it that way. I should have been more clear, as I wanted to point out that there's no universal, unified party line floating through MetaFilter or even through the group of people you think want to restrict your use of MeFi; a conspiracy, even an unintentional conspiracy, of politically-minded wannabe censors that opposes both Sudama and yourself requires us to accept a great deal on faith.

Your weblog debate opponent, ZachsMind, got taken to the woodshed in MeTa yesterday. Are the MetaCops anti-pacifist? In the MeTa thread that seems to have triggered this, Moz also called out what he saw as similar unwarranted FPP editorializing in a pro-Clinton, anti-Washington Times post by BarneyFifesBullet. Is Moz anti-Clinton?

I think it's a laudable thing to say that the self-appointed MeFi police should be careful in the phrasing of their criticism and that they should perhaps err on the side of caution in criticizing something that they also disagree with, but I'm still unswayed by the central theme you're hitting here.
posted by snarkout at 9:20 AM on November 29, 2001

I posted no opinion at all. None... I was struck by how defensive -- and hostile -- the responses were.

If you're not being disingenuous, SDB, you're parked in the No Being Disingenuous 8am-Midnight zone. 'Debate me!' - or, er, don't, depending on whether I choose to state an opinion or simply imply it.
posted by rory at 9:27 AM on November 29, 2001

Uh, what's wrong with editorializing a front page post, anyway? Doesn't it help give context to the reason for the link, whereas the link itself may not be as interesting without the context for why it was posted, which is expected to drive a subsequent discussion?

(which, inevitably gets hijacked by people posting about what a stupid link it was, as opposed to the context the link was presented in).

I think instead of being a MiFi cop, I'm more of a MiFi CIA covert agent, baby.
posted by rich at 9:29 AM on November 29, 2001

Lucci won in 1999.
posted by rcade at 9:30 AM on November 29, 2001

Lay off the self-appointed MeFi police already! Sounds like a new self-disappointed, embittered and thoroughly shoulder-chipped MeFi police is closing in on us and, to be honest, I not only prefer the old curmudgeonly lugs I fear the worst from you lot...
posted by MiguelCardoso at 9:32 AM on November 29, 2001

I posted no opinion at all. None. I linked to an article and quoted a couple of lines from it. But you, and several of those who responded to it, assumed that I had some specific attitude about it.

To me, this feels disingenuous.

Lately you've posted several times about your lack of respect for the "antiwar left," and several of your posts and comments have expressed your contempt for the kind of thinking that is (mis)represented in the deconstruction article. It's not a big leap to infer that, while this particular article may not be something you agree with in detail, it still serves your purpose of keeping that discussion going. That's not necessarily a bad thing. But setting off these little cherry bombs and watching everybody run around doesn't feel to me like it's intended to spur serious debate. It seems instead like you're trying to stir things up but maintain "plausible deniability." It feels, frankly, contemptuous: "take this, leftie suckers!" I'm not saying you're the only one that's doing it, or that that's all you're doing, but I think you expect to provoke this kind of opposition and you shouldn't pretend you don't.

That's not to say, of course, that it's right to run to Meta in an attempt to have you silenced. But I also don't see the kind of enforcement of uniformity you see here. I think you should name names, and cite posts, so that people have a chance to defend themselves. Moz's thread was a response to a particular posting practice, not an attempt to silence you. Of the two comments you cite in this thread, one (Holgate's) was a minor snark (which you may choose to view as a personal attack but that doesn't make it untrue or inappropriate) and the other (clavdivs') an unsubstantiated bit of spleen about your post (but I saw no "direct insult" to you in it).

So: (Topic 1) I see people who are bugged by you (and several who support you, like gleemax, who has been quite vociferous about it), but that doesn't amount to a conspiracy. God knows my own feeble postings have generated some hate mail; you, who consistently take strong, unambiguous stands on topics you know people are emotionally and ideologically passionate about, should expect that much more. And (Topic 2) I don't think you can play innocent and say "well, I didn't say I agreed with that article!" People post things here because they agree with them, or disagree, or are not sure and want discussion. I don't see you asking for discussion (and I don't know if I've ever seen you admit unsureness), and in the items in question, it's pretty clear where your general sympathies lie (hmm, would Steven Den Beste most likely be pro-deconstruction or anti-deconstruction? hmm...), so I think people are quite rational in ascribing a point of view to you on them. As you point out, they may be wrong about that, but it seems unlikely.

All advanced very tentatively, as an exploration of this situation and not a personal attack. Please take it in that spirit.
posted by rodii at 9:37 AM on November 29, 2001

I posted no opinion at all. None. I linked to an article and quoted a couple of lines from it. But you, and several of those who responded to it, assumed that I had some specific attitude about it.

And that has been precisely your contrarian tactic of late. Your own blog has indicated your opinion of the "academic anti-war left". You have shown a degree of pique towards the apparent reticence of people to engage you in a "war debate" on the terms you slapped down, even though that reticence is for reasons that rodii and snarkout enunciated pretty well. Your recent posts have dangled straw men in order to tweak the noses of a particular group, and to be honest, that group has jumped to respond. That's the cast-iron definition of trolling, and trolling reflects badly on the poster, no matter whether or not he identifies with the viewpoints on offer. (And yes, trolls usually don't identify with their subject matter. They just know their targets well. And create the conditions of plausible deniability.) Sure, I could trawl for similarly provocative links, all with no specified personal opinions, but I'm not going to play your little games with the site, and really couldn't give a flying fuck about them.
posted by holgate at 9:41 AM on November 29, 2001

Oops, rory's post showed up while I was dithering over wording. Sorry for the repetition (and the prolixity).

However... I'm not done!

Snarkout says: Your weblog debate opponent, ZachsMind, got taken to the woodshed in MeTa yesterday.

MetaPoint: y'know, the is META-Talk, not the MeFi Department of Corrections ("Sorry, it's being-hit-over-the-head lessons in here!"). Having a post discussed in MeTa isn't the same as being take to the woodshed. Zach certainly responded that way, but he could have treated it as a chance to discuss, learn, and teach the Art of Posting and it would have been a far less traumatic thread. I realize it's hard to ignore the shots to one's self-esteem in these discussion, though.
posted by rodii at 9:43 AM on November 29, 2001

Mr. Moon Pie: The question you asked was rhetorical - or, at least, any English teacher would identify it as such, given its phrasing - which is a back-door way of making an explicit statement. Thanks a lot. Anyway, none of my questions were rhetorical. People were free to say it's not a big deal, although I hoped to hear serious reasons as to why. They were free to say whether they knew what was going on, and whether they thought it good or not.

And y'know, Dr. Strangelove is a comedy - the reference, I thought, implied an over-the-top, eccentric sort of hawkish behavior, and not anything black helicopter/conspiracy theory-ish, as someone else noted in a rather hostile response. Saying "people will sing songs about us one day" for going to war everywhere at once, as one of the super-hawks in the posted article did, is over-the-top and peculiar by any standard, no matter whether you agree with the basic gist of what he was saying or not. That guy is definitely a Dr. Strangelove wannabe, and that's where my statement came from - that, and the fact that others agree with him and invite him to formal policy gatherings. Maybe "guys who count among their closest associates a would-be Dr. Srangelove" would have been more accurate, but I can't go back and re-edit.

Anyway, the guys are hawks, obviously, and they surely wouldn't deny it. So why deny it or get all defensive about the matter here? Why's that an "opinion?"
posted by raysmj at 9:50 AM on November 29, 2001

I can see MeTa being used as a tool to censure unpopular USERS, but I don't see it being used against unpopular IDEAS. The post that started all this barely seems controversial. I think people, as mattpfeff touched on, have a bone to pick with you, Steven, because of your tone and attitude.
Which is interesting, because you seem surprised that people make assumptions about your beliefs (todays Deconstructionism thread, as an example). This is a community, and although we don't know you, we know your MeFi persona, and make assumptions based on that. You can't expect people to go into each thread with their opinion of you a blank slate. That is one of the very few incentives to act appropriately here.
Think of Aaron: Attacked constantly, but contrary to what he believes, I don't think it was because of his ideas (which were VERY different than the MeFi "partyline") so much as his demeanor.
Of course, I don't think MeTa should be used against people OR ideas.
posted by Doug at 10:21 AM on November 29, 2001

Good point, Doug.. but why should people really let their personal like or dislike of a person influence the way they respond/treat someone, or color the way they post in a discussion?

Just because you 'dislike' a persona, should that mean you don't contribute the the discussion civily as opposed to making backhanded comments and casting dispersions?

No offense to the people in high school, but are we in high school? Other than civility, I think it might stem from a lack of maturity.

Oh, sure people may get frustrated from someone's obsessiveness in the way they argue a point (as many people do with Zach - hey I still love you Zach - *big kiss* (smirk)), but that shouldn't mean that they going right into the debate saying "your post is stupid", "ignorant slut", or just trying to get the front page post removed by whining to Matt about it.

If you find you can't get through to someone, say your peace and leave it at that instead of continuing the cycle of one-upmanship. Or womanship.


posted by rich at 11:33 AM on November 29, 2001

*I miss Aaron. He'd give us all short shrift for this protracted and incestuous canoodling of ours; that's for sure...*
posted by MiguelCardoso at 11:40 AM on November 29, 2001

Seems to me we're talking an awful lot about SDB lately. Is MiguelCardoso on vacation and Steven is filling in?
posted by briank at 11:50 AM on November 29, 2001

Matt, you were right. Posting this turned it into yet another discussion about me, instead of a discussion about polarization and censorship.
posted by Steven Den Beste at 11:55 AM on November 29, 2001

canoodling

a/s/l
posted by rodii at 11:59 AM on November 29, 2001

I haven't read the comments here yet. I will. Later. I just read Steven's post and his first comment and shot right down here to the comment form. I'm not in the mood now to read 42 more comments.

The reason I shot right down here to the comment form is that what Steven said makes sense, and I agree. A lot of what you say makes sense, Steve. A lot of the time you say exactly what I'm thinking only you put it into words better than I can.

But my point is that a lot of the "self policing" stuff is why I'm backing off MetaFilter. In short, I like MetaFilter, but I don't feel like putting up with the crap anymore. People are more concerned with trolling around, rulebook in hand, than saying things worth while, and that's crap. Sometimes, the overall vibe around here is so very negative, and that's crap. Threads get hijacked, potential discussion gets nixed before it even has a chance to start, and that's crap. MetaFilter reminds me of the point Dreamless was at right before Josh Davis said "this is crap" and shut it down.

I used to be more vocal. But I commently lightly nowadays, and I make it a point to never, ever post. Sometimes I think "now this person is just posting for the sake of it" or "that's a very carefully worded political troll" or "we need a sign that says 'This is not the Fray'".

So I keep my distance because of the crap, but I keep coming back for the good stuff.
posted by tomorama at 12:00 PM on November 29, 2001

what can you suggest, tom, by way of a solution?
posted by moz at 12:09 PM on November 29, 2001

Matt, you were right. Posting this turned it into yet another discussion about me, instead of a discussion about polarization and censorship.

Oh, please. In simplest terms: if you don't want a polarised MeFi, don't post links that might as well have penguins sitting on them.
posted by holgate at 12:19 PM on November 29, 2001

Posting this turned it into yet another discussion about me, instead of a discussion about polarization and censorship.

You say that as if it had nothing to do with how you posted this in the first place. But, from your post here:

What's the difference? The MetaFilter Posting Police agree with the attitude expressed by this post, but didn't agree with mine.

Here, as in your other posts, you are practicing a very objectionable behavior -- starting a thread with a set position that everyone knows you will defend as best you can, and not budge on.

I think people would be open to discussing MeFi police actions on their merits. But this isn't the way to do it.
posted by mattpfeff at 12:25 PM on November 29, 2001

Matt, you were right. Posting this turned it into yet another discussion about me, instead of a discussion about polarization and censorship.

I totally disagree. Unless you're not reading my posts, which I could understand, of course. But holgate, rodii, snarkout and others have been talking to the topic and not to the personal, as well.

posted by rich at 12:34 PM on November 29, 2001

I posted no opinion at all. None. I linked to an article and quoted a couple of lines from it. But you, and several of those who responded to it, assumed that I had some specific attitude about it.

I have to back SDB up here and say I've seen this kind of thing happen to him elsewhere.

It seems like a grudge thing: you believe you know someone's agenda/intentions, so you pile on the simplest remarks.

It wouldn't look good to a first-time Mefi reader.

It puts the subject of the grudge in an indefensible position. If he attempts to restate his position he is being "disingenious".

It isn't good discussion.

It isn't sporting.
posted by Catch at 12:35 PM on November 29, 2001

"penguins sitting on them" 10 minutes i've been sitting here thinking of a joiner, there is none. (I love penguins) as far as i read it, the self being dragged into a contentious issue is making the self the contentious matter and not the issue:"me, instead of a discussion" and on and on...
posted by clavdivs at 12:42 PM on November 29, 2001

rodii: sorry. a/s/l isn't asshole is it? It certainly isn't this. Canoodling is probably too Britspeak for MetaFilter, meaning necking, inconsequential foreplay, jerking about without achieving closure. A bit like this rich tapestry of a thread. But what the living fornication is a/s/l? Please answer!
posted by MiguelCardoso at 12:42 PM on November 29, 2001

miguel: offtopic, but a/s/l = "age/sex/location." for more convenient stalking, i suppose.
posted by moz at 12:47 PM on November 29, 2001

Steven, if you want to discuss MeTa as a tool of censorship, why not give some examples of it being used against other members as well? How can this discussion be about anyone but you with the examples you've given?
Rich: I agree, people shouldn't let personal bias ruin MeFi. It's all a matter of familiarity. There are tons of members that annoyed me in the beginning, but now I feel some sort of weird cyber-affection for them, and look forward to reading their posts. In fact, there's a few in this very thread.
posted by Doug at 12:48 PM on November 29, 2001

Miguel: a/s/l

Not ASL. I think.
posted by arco at 12:51 PM on November 29, 2001

"Steven, if you want to discuss MeTa as a tool of censorship" you see this is where im confused. there is no censorship here, hell im a testament to that. only guidelines and removing redundancies, mistakes or the occasional evil troll" of course this still means a case should be made if it can for censorships existence. ("no Godwin here sir." ok major major on the the next condo made-a- stona)
posted by clavdivs at 12:58 PM on November 29, 2001

clav-clav-clavdivs shall speak clear.
posted by Catch at 1:01 PM on November 29, 2001

clavdivs, Steven is referring to censorship through peer pressure, not outright censorship.
posted by rich at 1:02 PM on November 29, 2001

I agree with Doug. I think the issue is the attack of the person, not the attack of the issue. The "issue" that SDB got called to MeTa for was putting opinions in FPP, when there are plenty of other examples of it. From the comments however, it appears the real "issue" is his attitude and phrasing. However one feels on the subject, honesty calls for admitting that he has been thoroughly discussed for his personality and posting techniques, far less so for his opinions.

By putting a post on the MeTa table for discussion, the posters used as examples are inherently open (for some people) for discussion too. There is a tendency for comments to get personal, when ostensibly the original topic wasn't personal. I think that tendency is something to avoid. If the original topic IS personal, fine. If the original MeTa POSTER is being discussed, fine, but tactfully. But if it's being used as an excuse to point out personal flaws in someone else who didn't invite comment on themselves, I think it's inappropriate. The tendency to turn such threads into witchhunts is bad karma. If the reason for the post is to invite comment on someone, as opposed to a generic action that any number of people have taken, at least be honest about it.

If the reason for the MeTa post is not about a specific person, it shouldn't get specific. If it is about a specific person, it should say so.
posted by dness2 at 1:24 PM on November 29, 2001

I find it very interesting to find sdb complaining that "there are now a large number of people on MetaFilter who share a certain political point of view who are engaged in a campaign to drive away everyone they disagree with".

interesting, because that's pretty much the way I feel, only I feel that a small group of quite vocal members (steven being one) have been quite actively engaged in doing that themselves, to me and those with similar viewpoints to mine. not by using metatalk, but in their behavior on metafilter proper.

anyway, I've given up. I'm not participating in most discussions these days specifically because I feel that I've been bullied off the board, and I certainly have other ways to spend my time. there's no point to working as hard as I do to articulate my thoughts if I'm just going to be screamed down and my thoughts won't even be considered (followed by gloating that my side has been "outreasoned".) I take issue with the new tone I feel has taken over metafilter, and my response is to just remove myself altogether. steven's group wins.

sorry if that's a topic-rout, but this whole discussion has a pot/kettle flavor to me.
posted by rebeccablood at 1:42 PM on November 29, 2001

I take issue with the new tone I feel has taken over metafilter, and my response is to just remove myself altogether.

As one.
posted by J. R. Hughto at 1:50 PM on November 29, 2001

{rcb}

Now look what you've done!

<baby-jessamyn>*cries*</baby-jessamyn>
posted by daveadams at 2:01 PM on November 29, 2001

* cries harder *
posted by baby_jessamyn at 2:12 PM on November 29, 2001

Thanks, moz and arco; I'm now on to the Net Lingo dictionary and will never look back. a/s/l means I'm old, male and European. That's just about right.

rebeccablood: please reconsider. Your hard work, sense, ethical thought and general aesthetics are deeply appreciated by the 99% who don't feel qualified enough to participate in these core issues.
One cannot be "outreasoned". Your voice is one of the few unselfish, un-self-promoting ones here. You're always, kind, fair and innovative. I think some - few! - people just hate that everyone respects you and that you're, annoyingly to lesser spirits, always -well: why mince words? - right.
Of course, by being subtle, sensitive and intelligent you allow yourself to be bullied by the simplistic, point-scoring, mob-mentality loudmouths. But do you sincerely believe anyone listens to their juvenile goading and oneupmanship? Apart from them?And even then I doubt it.
I would say that being ganged-up on by them is a sort of honour. You know, like when someone tells a friend he's gay and the other guy goes "You faggot!"
Without you - and a dozen others who put MetaFilter and the community spirit which makes it great above their particular concerns(as your wonderful website proves)all the real thought that goes into these discussions will have been in vain.
Do, please, stick around, rebeccablood, lest we all lose our way. Only a small, vocal percentage post. I know there's some exaggeration in what I'm saying; but not all that much; I swear.
posted by MiguelCardoso at 2:13 PM on November 29, 2001

rcb:

i'm sorry that you feel bullied, though i must say i do share some of your feelings. i have a tendancy to overreact sometimes when i don't stop and think (i apologized for seeming rude after the poster emailed me), so i grant everyone their belches as well. up to a point.

as for articulating oneself, i understand your frustration at not having one's words considered. beyond a point, i simply refuse to reply; if you're not paying attention, or you're not being considerate, people will see that and they shall judge. my words are unneeded.

if steven wants to set up strawmen for kicks, let him; i think it reflects rather poorly upon him, but that is his choice, is it not? if steven wants to mislead people -- in turn ignoring the actual issue -- then let him.

as i said, some exasperation isn't so bad. it shows in me, and i don't expect that it shall never show in anyone else. but we do need to watch ourselves, and we do need to at times take breaks. in my opinion, steven could use one; hopefully neither steven's nor yours, rebecca, will be for long.
posted by moz at 2:18 PM on November 29, 2001

Apology accepted.
posted by sudama at 2:41 PM on November 29, 2001

I somewhat agree with what Steven is feeling. I have also felt that people are starting to shout down other view points that vary from theirs. It's no longer a steadfastly rule to have a civil conversation.

Simple solution is to stop being a bitch about it. No matter how you feel about a certain poster, give them the respect you want afforded to you and be civil about any disussion you participate in without having to resort to little snarky comments, which there have been way to many of.

And as someone else mentioned in this thread, once one person starts others join in thinking it's fun, "look at me i made a joke". It just degrades the site.
posted by Zool at 2:51 PM on November 29, 2001

Steven - I for one reject your premise.

You ask, is the posting police trying to censor divergent opinions, and many people respond no, we welcome a diversity of opinions. We encourage discussion. That post you pointed to as an example of your premise (which unfortunately was about somebody who has a MeFi persecution complex) was looked down upon not because it expressed an opinion that the majority disagreed with but because it seemed to be trolling for a fight that some (many?) of the people here are simply tired of having.

People here are NOT calling you to task for what you're saying but for the way you're saying it. Several people have said this, but your insistence to categorize that feedback as missing the point and turning the discussion to you as opposed to your posting style of late suggests you don't want to or can't hear the truth.

Opinions are fine. If you don't think they are, then find somebody else that is getting the same treatment you think you're getting and use them as an example. To tell you the truth, I'm half beginning to suspect that all of this woe is me, I dare you to come debate me junk is a thinly veiled attempt to get people to click through your profile page to your site. Please don't take that as a strawman excuse to reject the rest of this. I don't know if it's true. It's just the feeling I'm getting from this.
posted by willnot at 3:24 PM on November 29, 2001

I am, sadly, with rebeccablood.

I joined MeFi in April of this year. I was member 5242. Now, there are more than 12,600. A huge increase.

I have posted my fair share of FPPs as well as comments, and I continue to do so (although with far less frequency as of late).

And while I am always one to engage in lively debate, and have even let my emotions get the better of me at times, ever since 9/11 I find it difficult to participate on MeFi. I do believe a shift has taken place.

I will keep coming back for the occasional good link, but a not unsubstantial part of MeFi, in my very humble opinion, has come to reflect much of America at the present time, and increasingly, it does not feel like a safe haven for a free exchange of ideas.

As an aside, I must also say that I was surprised and, yes, saddened to find the Steven Den Beste Iraq comment linked to in the sidebar.

This is the first time I can recall that MeFi itself (the Entity, not the Community) has taken what I believe to be an editorial stance. That comment by SDB is, par usual, well-written, but it is also full of highly debatable (and one might even argue, false) comments. To put a link to it in the sidebar and call it a "good summary..." broke a certain barrier for me. I think it was wrong.
posted by mapalm at 4:31 PM on November 29, 2001

I feel, only I feel that a small group of quite vocal members (steven being one) have been quite actively engaged in doing that themselves, to me and those with similar viewpoints to mine.

this whole post has a pot/kettle flavor to me.
posted by holloway at 4:52 PM on November 29, 2001

We may have a problem here.

I think what we're seeing is a general decline in overall civility. It's not one ideology trying to oppress the other; I can't count the number of times I've seen "asscroft" mentioned this week, for example. What I am seeing is fewer discussions supported by fact and more arguments spouted off of the top of the head.

But the solution isn't to give up, it's to try and lead by example. Emotions are running high right now, I know, and the war tends to be a devisive issue, but I still think that we can improve things. Things will only change if we're willing to put in the time and take the emotional risk necessary to articulate and support our convictions.

Do your part to increase the level of respectful and intelligent discourse around here. Don't let the terrorists win.
posted by gd779 at 5:14 PM on November 29, 2001

The Solution To All Our Problems:

Monday, Wednesday, and Friday: only capitalist-pig gun-nut warmonger posts are allowed.
Tuesday, Thursday, and Saturday: only tree-hugging bleeding-heart pacifist posts are allowed.
Sunday: Only Miguel may post.

Then, everyone can make sure to only read MetaFilter on the day the posts they'll agree with are allowed, and no feelings will ever be hurt again.
posted by darukaru at 5:35 PM on November 29, 2001

darukaru:
great idea, but are you sure that Miguel won't collapse from the withdrawal?
Oh wait...great idea.

Kidding, kidding.
posted by Catch at 5:40 PM on November 29, 2001

What gd779 said, and this part twice:

the solution isn't to give up, it's to try and lead by example... I still think that we can improve things

Rcb, I hope you won't leave; yours is one of the most balanced and civil voices on MeFi/Ta and this newbie (but long-time lurker) would miss you. Could those who value well-thought-out argument, good writing, civil behaviour and all those other old-timey MeFi virtues perhaps just agree to ignore the louts and trolls for a while?


posted by sennoma at 6:30 PM on November 29, 2001

Whoops, hit post instead of preview. Whew, no typos. To continue:

Many of the snarkiest posters, I think, will consider a lack of any response to their posts equivalent to conceding their point - fine, let them think that. I don't come here to score points, I come here to learn and to have my own ideas and opinions challenged by exposure to differing ideas and opinions.

By ignore the louts and trolls I mean, only respond to a post, or that portion of a post, which is worth responding to. Let the rest sit quietly gathering virtual dust, and leave the trolls to their misguided self-congratulation.
posted by sennoma at 6:44 PM on November 29, 2001

Many of the snarkiest posters, I think, will consider a lack of any response to their posts equivalent to conceding their point - fine, let them think that. I don't come here to score points, I come here to learn and to have my own ideas and opinions challenged by exposure to differing ideas and opinions.

By ignore the louts and trolls I mean, only respond to a post, or that portion of a post, which is worth responding to. Let the rest sit quietly gathering virtual dust, and leave the trolls to their misguided self-congratulation.

The obvious problem with this strategy is that when the "trolls" are left "to their misguided self-congratulation" then they multiply. And when that happens, they become louder and louder, and it's difficult to hear more reasoned voices. We may wish that more reasoned posters such as rebeccablood could continue to turn the other cheek, but this flies in the face of human nature. Even if you ignore all the snarky comments, they're still there, and when you're shouted down, it probably makes more sense to leave a place that's uncomfortable than to continue to post nobly while fewer and fewer people care.

This is one of the reasons that self-policing (which is not the same thing as censorship) is a good thing. If someone posts in a loutish manner, he or she should be called on it; otherwise, the meek may inherit the earth, but they won't be heard on MetaFilter.
posted by anapestic at 7:53 PM on November 29, 2001

it probably makes more sense to leave a place that's uncomfortable than to continue to post nobly while fewer and fewer people care.

But that's not the case - more and more people care. The signal to noise ratio may be down, but I'm reading more substantive posts than ever in absolute terms. Why not focus on those and ignore the trolls? I've never seen an online community defeat them head-on - they feed on attention of any kind - but I have seen them starved out.
posted by lbergstr at 8:19 PM on November 29, 2001

Oops: I do think self-policing is a good thing. But there's a difference between self-policing and trying to reform personalities. If someone posts a crappy news link every day, that's one thing. If someone consistently adopts a tone you don't like in arguments...let it go.
posted by lbergstr at 8:23 PM on November 29, 2001

rcb:

When I first started reading MetaFilter, I was initially drawn in by two posters who immediately struck me as particularly intelligent and creative: you were one, and Steven Den Beste was the other. If we lose your voice around here, MetaFilter will be that much poorer. I'd hate to see that happen.

The story's less dramatic, but something similar goes for you, mapalm. I often find myself disagreeing with you, just as I often disagree with Rebecca. But if all of the good, insightful posters of whatever political leaning just up and leave, MetaFilter will become no better than plastic.com. We need your opinions, now more than ever.
posted by gd779 at 8:43 PM on November 29, 2001

Do your part to increase the level of respectful and intelligent discourse around here.

It seems to me, as well, that this is the key. An homogenous Metafilter would be a weak, tepid thing with minimal appeal to any of us. We are not here to AGREE with one another; we are here, one would hope, to be challenged, entertained, informed, teased, provoked, ribbed, questioned, guided, listened to, and welcomed.

It is certainly the case that a shift toward the negative in the tone, timbre or mood of the site tempts us to respond in kind, to speak more sharply, to be less accepting of variation, to react to people rather than ideas. I have succumbed myself, and am not proud of it. Let's not escalate the tension till we are all standing around the crowded room, each holding a little dagger: STAB! POKE! JAB!

I can't speak to the motives or desires of others. I, for one, want to see all manner of links, reactions, ideas, opinions, and perspectives expressed freely here--preferably clearly conceived, considered and expressed, but that's MY bias. Viewpoints are not static, and even those that seem the worst when posted here do not condemn the poster, who may continue to evolve and grow so long as he or she is willing or allowed to continue to participate in the community.
posted by rushmc at 9:10 PM on November 29, 2001

The obvious problem with this strategy is that when the "trolls" are left "to their misguided self-congratulation" then they multiply. And when that happens, they become louder and louder

I honestly don't know whether that's true: I've never seen an online community really try to starve the trolls out, as lbergstr put it. Oh, and I probably shouldn't use "trolls", because I am referring to any poster who routinely contributes to the negative tone and decline of civility noted above. What is certain though, is that they are impervious to the clue stick. There are lots of bright, informed and engaged MeFites contibuting signal to counter their noise; and there's always Matt and the smite button if they do get louder and louder. I think we can probably starve 'em out, and I mean to try it before I give up MeFi.

(Give up MeFi? *sob* No, no! I can't - I won't...)
posted by sennoma at 9:27 PM on November 29, 2001

Sunday: Only Miguel may post.

That seemed a bit harsh, darukaru. I enjoy his posts and comments. I do hope... oh forget it.
posted by y2karl at 10:05 PM on November 29, 2001

mapalm: This is the first time I can recall that MeFi itself (the Entity, not the Community) has taken what I believe to be an editorial stance. That comment by SDB is, par usual, well-written, but it is also full of highly debatable (and one might even argue, false) comments. To put a link to it in the sidebar and call it a "good summary..." broke a certain barrier for me. I think it was wrong.

Sheesh. The sidebar as Matt's personal MetaFilter weblog. Expecting him not to offer his own opinions there from time to time, especially in mild ways like calling something a "good summary," is unreasonable.
posted by rcade at 5:40 AM on November 30, 2001

Hardly, y2karl. I meant that Sunday would turn into MiguelFilter, so his millions of screaming fans can get as much of him as they want. ;)
posted by darukaru at 5:47 AM on November 30, 2001

"Steven is referring to censorship through peer pressure, not outright censorship." im not aware of the varyng degrees of censorship, shall i call the hall monitor...

posted by clavdivs at 7:41 AM on November 30, 2001

To put a link to it in the sidebar and call it a "good summary..." broke a certain barrier for me.

As far as I'm concerned, if mathowie wants to take a dump, then take a picture of it, then post that picture in the sidebar, that's fine with me.
posted by jpoulos at 8:14 AM on November 30, 2001

rcade:
The sidebar as Matt's personal MetaFilter weblog.

I disagree. It is a part of MetaFilter, in my estimation. I equate it with a scenario in which the NYT prints an opinion somewhere other than the editorial page (which, come to think of it, they do all the time, but you get my drift.)

...especially in mild ways like calling something a "good summary,"

Again, I disagree. The post in question was full of controversial statements, none of which I can claim MetaFilter agrees or disagrees with. Nonetheless, by posting the link within the edifice of MetaFilter, a statement was made, however innocently. I would just prefer no editorializing were done on MetaFilter proper. It blurs some line for me.
posted by mapalm at 8:19 AM on November 30, 2001

jpoulos:
As far as I'm concerned, if mathowie wants to take a dump, then take a picture of it, then post that picture in the sidebar, that's fine with me.

Then I guess I am missing the point of MetaFilter.

posted by mapalm at 8:21 AM on November 30, 2001

Mapalm, yes, you are. Matt owns it. It's his to do with as he wants to. You (and I) have no rights, no control, no say. Whatever Matt does is by definition correct.

If you don't like it, start your own.
posted by Steven Den Beste at 8:29 AM on November 30, 2001

I would just prefer no editorializing were done on MetaFilter proper.

Revisiting Matt's post ...

A good summary of the US gov't reasons for a possible military action in Iraq.

... he isn't even stating it is an opinion he agrees with. He says it is a summary of the U.S. government's reasoning.

I don't see why anyone would object to Matt expressing his opinions in the sidebar. He always uses it for personal and self-promotional links and commentary. Why you would begrudge him the personal use of the sidebar is a mystery. Should we ban him from posting too?
posted by rcade at 8:37 AM on November 30, 2001

- If you don't like it, start your own.

- Should we ban [mathowie] from posting too?

All mapalm did was share his reaction. He said he was surprised, and that he thought it was wrong, based on his understanding of MeFi. He didn't request any changes, demand anything be removed, or otherwise act entitled to anything.

And that comment is unusual for a sidebar highlight -- most of the items in the sidebar are about MeFi itself, its members, noteworthy links, or entire threads, and not any one view.

No need to jump all over mapalm just for saying how he felt.
posted by mattpfeff at 8:56 AM on November 30, 2001

If you don't like it, start your own.

Hey, Steven - I thought you objected to that advice! :)
I think mapalm means that it shows favouritism, but it just shows Matt has less rights than anyone here. Everything he does is defended on unacceptable principles - i.e. it's his site, he's master, he can do what he likes - when all the evidence is to the contrary.
We do have a hell of a lot of rights, Steve. And, no jpoulos, if he did post his excretae, it wouldn't be acceptable, because we can't do it either. OK, OK, forget the rate-my-poo thread!
The reason MetaFilter works is because Matt is so generous and liberal. He's probably sick and tired of 99% of us and yet...here we are.
And SDB's summary is good!
posted by MiguelCardoso at 8:57 AM on November 30, 2001

The larger point, Miguel, is that the host of the site should be able to do what he wants with it. Trying to rein in the occasional (and mild) use of the sidebar for editorializing strikes me as an easy way to make running the site more unpleasant for him. What's to gain from doing that?
posted by rcade at 9:08 AM on November 30, 2001

If mathowie does post his poo, can we submit it for rating here?
posted by adampsyche at 9:21 AM on November 30, 2001

Mapalm, yes, you are. Matt owns it. It's his to do with as he wants to. You (and I) have no rights, no control, no say. Whatever Matt does is by definition correct.

My point was not to undermine the authority of the owner of MetaFilter, but merely to say that the link in question appearing in the sidebar somehow altered the flavor of what MetaFilter has always seemed to me to be: namely, a level playing field in which to post and argue and discuss. The link somehow altered that field.

If you don't like it, start your own.

Why do that? MetaFilter is a great thing, and the point of MeTa is to try to keep it that way. All those discontented should leave and make 12614 separate weblogs? That sounds great!

Onward:
From the link in question:
And much to the embarassment of the Europeans, again war [in Afghanistan] did the trick where years of diplomacy failed.

This to me is a very debatable opinion, even within the government.

I say: keeping politics off of MetaFilter the Entity at the very least will avoid the apearance of impropriety...and appearance counts for a lot.


posted by mapalm at 9:23 AM on November 30, 2001

Of the top of my head, I can think of at least two other times Matt linked to a particular comment in a thread: Kristen's advice re not fucking your kids and Carol Anne's anthrax something. I think this is on a par: he alrady specifically said that he wasn't necessarily endorsing the opinions expressed, just that the summary seemed accurate to him.
posted by sylloge at 9:31 AM on November 30, 2001

Miguel, I disliked that advice to me (and you) because it was disingenuous.
posted by Steven Den Beste at 12:12 PM on November 30, 2001

Steven Den Beste:
I disliked that advice to me (and you) because it was disingenuous.

Huh? Now I am confused. Wasn't this your advice to me (namely, "if you don't like it, start your own")?

posted by mapalm at 12:19 PM on November 30, 2001

When it was used with Miguel and me, it was stated as "get your own system so we can read more from you" when the intent was "get your own so you're out of our faces". That's disingenuous.

When I said that to you I was completely serious: if you want to run the show, go buy your own show. This one belongs to Matt, and you are out of line telling him how to run it.
posted by Steven Den Beste at 3:28 PM on November 30, 2001

If we're out of line telling Matt how to run things, then when are we going to shut down MetaTalk?
posted by webmutant at 4:14 PM on November 30, 2001

When it was used with Miguel and me, it was stated as "get your own system so we can read more from you" when the intent was "get your own so you're out of our faces". That's disingenuous.

Actually, I believe the sentiment involved was something more along the lines of "get your own system so that the people who want to read more from you can do so, while you simultaneously ease up on the proportion of the discourse you carry in this forum." That doesn't strike me as disingenuous or mean; rather, it's quite sensible.
posted by redfoxtail at 4:20 PM on November 30, 2001

Matt owns it. It's his to do with as he wants to. You (and I) have no rights, no control, no say. Whatever Matt does is by definition correct.

If you don't like it, start your own.

Sheesh...little wonder you can't attract the kind of traffic you want to your site! I would suggest you compare Matt's attitude toward his site and his visitors to yours and then compare his number of visitors to yours. It might be quite illuminating.
posted by rushmc at 5:31 PM on November 30, 2001

It doesn't seem as if I can write anything anymore without people seeing my evil side.

Let's try this again. Matt owns this system. Matt makes the rules. Matt can change the rules, because he owns the system. It is logically impossible for Matt to be breaking the rules, because whatever Matt does is the rules.

To try to tell Matt that he should not do something on the system he owns is out of line. He owns the football so he makes the rules. If you want to play with his football, you play by his rules.

If you want to make the rules yourself, then you need to buy your own football.

That is what I meant. When people told Miguel and me to get our own web sites, they were speaking literally. When I told mapalm to get his own system, I was speaking rhetorically. It was not a literal suggestion and not something I expect him to do. I could have phrased it just the same by saying "If you want to make the rules, buy your own football" and by so doing would have communicated exactly the same thing but without any confusion about my objecting to the fact that other people told me to get my own web site.

Mapalm. Please do not get your own server. Please do, however, buy your own football so that you can make the rules.

WebMutant, MetaTalk has never been about "telling Matt what to do." It's always been a place where we make suggestions and requests that Matt is completely free to ignore.
posted by Steven Den Beste at 5:45 PM on November 30, 2001

To try to tell Matt that he should not do something on the system he owns is out of line.

Except that I would make the case that it is not at ALL out of line, so long as it is done civilly and with good intent, as Matt has constructed the system to encourage and benefit from such feedback. If he didn't enjoy and feel he (and the site) profited from the dialogue with his users, it seems to me he would have created a very different, more autocratic system.

Ultimately, of course, he can and will (and should) do whatever he wishes, but if he makes bad choices, the social integrity of the community can be negatively impacted far beyond whatever damage any of the rest of us can do, intentionally or otherwise.

Fortunately for us, his choices seem to be uncannily good thus far.
posted by rushmc at 7:11 PM on November 30, 2001

SDB:
When I said that to you I was completely serious: if you want to run the show, go buy your own show. This one belongs to Matt, and you are out of line telling him how to run it.

Hey, guy: take a breath. Relax. I never said I wanted to run the show, nor did I tell anyone how to run anything. Your paranoia and defensiveness are off-putting. This isn't about you. (I am sure the maven of MetaFilter can fight his own battles, if indeed he sees this as one, which I hope he doesn't, since it isn't.) I stated my opinion regarding MetaFilter and the appearance of partiality (an opinion I stick to). You spun it into something it wasn't. Lay off the heavy-handedness, OK? It is unbecoming.

posted by mapalm at 7:13 PM on November 30, 2001

"When people told Miguel and me to get our own web sites.."

I am having visions of SDB & MEC joining forces here, metaphorical 40-foot killer robots laying mighty mecha waste to the mere mortals of MeFi, and it's terrifying me.

clav, you still working the lasers? Time for some Homeland Defense!
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 11:23 PM on November 30, 2001

I'd just like to point out for historical purposes, that despite the fact my name appears in this thread a half dozen times, I purposefully avoided responding to it for over a hundred posts, until I was pretty sure it had exhausted itself.

"Community policing" is not censorship. It is self-policing by community. This is integral and essential to how MeFi has functioned up until now, and this is how it will continue to function. Nothing's going to change that. However, with the thousands of people who participate, the temperature of tempers will only continue to rise unless something is done to resolve how that policing is to be done fairly and wisely in the future. Preferably sooner than later.

Community policing should not be stopped. In fact it can't be stopped. However, how it is being done, is what is ultimately at issue here.

Matt deleting a thread IS censorship, and by the way that is censorship I totally support. It's his football. This is not a democracy, nor should it be. It is a benevolent dictatorship. Community policing threatens to turn it into an oligarchy. Matt's unimpeachable (thankfully) position is the ONLY thing which has kept MeFi from turning into an oligarchy.

Though I don't know this, I am assuming that Matt has a sort of unofficial "cabinet" of sorts. A small group of people who email him or phone him or talk to him face to face. People who happen to participate in MeFi, but also know him from other projects or interests. People whom he confides in. People whose advice he takes more seriously than someone like myself of Steven (who are the equivalent of unfinanced lobbyists in the political metaphor I describe below). Again, this is wholly common and acceptable. Maybe he even asks his Mom for advice. I have no idea.

Some of these individuals may participate in MeFi in a way that someone like Steven, myself, or Rich, or Miguel, or anyone might perceive as "MeFi Topic Police" and they may even do so with Matt's blessing. Again, I have no idea. This is all backend, y'know? It's not a secretive "cabal." It's an unofficial, appointed committee within the community, which functions as Matt sees fit, either unconsciously or consciously driven to help him make important decisions and choices.

Since Matt's personal body of advice off-site is invisible to the thousands of regular MeFi participants, anyone who operates under self-appointed positions without his blessing must look incredibly amusing to him from his vantage point.

Actually, MeFi's politics remind me of local city politics. There's the mayor, and then there's a city council. The city council bitches and moans and pretends to listen to the citizens, but pretty much does whatever it wants. Then it goes to the mayor and tells the mayor what they think the city needs, and the mayor laughs at them. At least that's what used to happen here in Dallas under the tutelage of Mayor Ron Kirk (who's stepping down to run for senate).

Mayor Ron Kirk would make outward appearances to indicate that he was listening to the city council, but in fact who he was really listening to were the people with whom he surrounded himself. His literal family. His "family" of administrative employees who ran his office for him. The people he appointed to various positions. The economic leaders of the city, who helped him fund various projects. The business leaders who made themselves available to him, and the various lobbyists or particularly loud voices who worked within the system in order to be heard properly.

Here in MeFi, beyond Matt's closest confidants, there is no "city council." There are however individuals who are self-appointed mouths speaking with little to no cohesion or structure. I'm one of them. However, I'm one of the few voices against more structure. Predominantly because I fear that too much structure will destroy this place, just as those who want structure feel a lack of structure will destroy it. As far as I'm concerned, MeFi works for the most part fine the way it is. I don't want there to be more rules or restrictions. However, I'm trying to listen to the opposing side. In fact recently I even suggested a possible way to minimize long FPPs, despite my personal better judgment. I mean I like long FPPs, but other people don't. I suggested an alternative restriction.

My opinion is moot however, because of the way MeFi works. I can be a loudmouth, but it doesn't improve the situation. Any attempt to talk more in order to improve things only proves to exacerbate it, as this very thread I'm responding to proves.

We must seek a common ground.

That's where Matt ultimately comes in. Matt has more power comparatively than the mayor of a large city. Matt IS the leader of this virtual community. He's not elected. He's not appointed. He owns the virtual land and has chosen to allow other people to frolic in it, but ultimately everything depends on his decision.

Whenever an individual, or a group of individuals who happen to agree, attack the post of a single individual, they are (either purposefully or inadvertently) taking advantage of Matt's good graces, as much so as do an individual or group of individuals who participate in a thread which breaks Matt's established guidelines or challenges the more amorphous codes of conduct.

Matt allows people to take advantage of his good graces, within reason. In fact to a degree he needs this, so as to hear the varying opinions of the MeFi community, in order to properly dictate his actions benevolently. He must be able to hear the dissention, and the community's individuals must be able to hear one another.

However at present, using MeTa to question how that dissention occurs in MeFi is not possible, as everyone is too close to it, and we can't get an objective view of it. We're all coming from different vantage points, and the trick is to be able to see the differing views objectively.

I could see when Steven initiated this thread that nothing would be resolved. The heated subjectivity of the topic is why. Steven means well. We all mean well. No one's wrong here. There's no blame here. There's merely misunderstandings.

We need to find common ground, but this isn't how to do it. Perhaps it cannot be done inside MeFi or MeTa.
posted by ZachsMind at 3:01 AM on December 1, 2001

Jaysus. Bring on the forty foot killer robots.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 5:06 AM on December 1, 2001

thats a secret stavros. killer robots belong to us...not them. they are ours. we made them. we will use them. after 110 coments i dont think anyone cares.
posted by clavdivs at 6:05 AM on December 1, 2001

Metafilter History note: This is the last thread Holgate posted to before he quit using Metafilter.
posted by waxpancake at 11:46 AM on January 25, 2002