Corrected link

July 12, 2007 8:26 PM

As I was previewing the corrected link for this post, the post was deleted. Of course Jessamyn had no way of knowing, but it's emphatically not a "snuff film". Perhaps it wouldn't have been deleted with such alacrity if someone else had posted it.
posted by orthogonality to Etiquette/Policy at 8:26 PM (66 comments total)

I think a combination of things led to the deletion. I highly doubt who you are was one of them.
posted by carsonb at 8:29 PM on July 12, 2007

Everyone knows Numero Deux is a tool of the Chicago PD.
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 8:32 PM on July 12, 2007

A one-link broken youtube video post to what is supposedly an on-camera homicide and/or murder with a cheeky title thrown in for good measure just in case we don't grasp the gravitas of the situation? I'd say it would be a crappy post no matter who made it.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 8:33 PM on July 12, 2007 [1 favorite]

Police brutality is certainly worth discussing. Too bad.
posted by wierdo at 8:37 PM on July 12, 2007

Is there no version shorter than 10 minutes? Where in the clip does the shooting come in? (No, I never learned to download, edit and repost Youtube videos, sorry.)

And Jessamyn, what if it was retitled and non-broken?
posted by davy at 8:37 PM on July 12, 2007

Interesting that you decided to post the corrected link here, in MeTa. As if, because it was deleted in MeFi, posting it here would somehow be okay.
posted by SeizeTheDay at 8:38 PM on July 12, 2007

We really actually don't have a special "orthogonality just made a post" alert system. Said system was not going WHONGAWHONGAWHONGA at 8:15 PM server time.
posted by cortex (staff) at 8:40 PM on July 12, 2007 [6 favorites]

So, this alert system, it vibrates?
posted by oneirodynia at 8:44 PM on July 12, 2007

SeizeTheDay, the subject is a cop killing ("allegedly") murdering somebody and getting rewarded for it. Did you miss that part?
posted by davy at 8:45 PM on July 12, 2007

I missed the part where MeFi became someone's personal soapbox and how brazenly breaking the rules (not using MeTa as a "minor league" for MeFi) suddenly became okay.
posted by SeizeTheDay at 8:48 PM on July 12, 2007

We really actually don't have a special "orthogonality just made a post" alert system. Said system was not going WHONGAWHONGAWHONGA at 8:15 PM server time.

If you don't have it, then how can you tell us what sound it makes, hmmmmm?
posted by spiderwire at 8:49 PM on July 12, 2007 [2 favorites]

It would have been a better post with more backstory. As it stands, the YouTube clip is interesting but certainly lacking in useful substance or context.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 8:50 PM on July 12, 2007

SeizeTheDay: Funny, I saw a question, but maybe I need glasses.
posted by wierdo at 8:50 PM on July 12, 2007

I missed the part where MeFi became someone's personal soapbox and how brazenly breaking the rules (not using MeTa as a "minor league" for MeFi) suddenly became okay.

Wait, MeTa isn't the "minor league" for MeFi? You don't tell a pitcher to "take it to the MLBA!" when they hit the batter.

Well, maybe you do. But it ain't right!
posted by spiderwire at 8:51 PM on July 12, 2007

STD, I bet somebody was going to repost it to the Blue ASAP anyway.

And Blazecock, wasn't this post of a bankrobber blowing up any better? All it said besides the link was "Erie bomb victim was the dupe in a greedy plan. This story has always freaked me out...and now it freaks me out in brand new ways." They seem equivalent to me.
posted by davy at 8:59 PM on July 12, 2007

This is not a typical one-link youtube post. Watching the video is a chilling and fascinating experience. Frankly, its power would be diluted by including other sources, which certainly would have emerged in the comments anyhow. Seems like a hairtrigger deletion, though probably not for the reason ortho implies.
posted by mzurer at 9:02 PM on July 12, 2007

What mzurer said. I doubt the deletion was personal against orthogonality.
posted by davy at 9:05 PM on July 12, 2007

you'd think a rarin' lirarian would know what a snuff film is.
posted by quonsar at 9:06 PM on July 12, 2007

They seem equivalent to me.

And to me, but the admins make their choices as they see fit, and I have had to take a three-day holiday from MeFi, so I can't easily issue rulings from my perch on posts I've missed.

I'd surmise that some vague psychological number of comments imparts upon a post the Automatic Deletion Protection Shield, unless it is clearly a double or a complete fucktastrophe.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 9:07 PM on July 12, 2007

I'm not sure what's controversial about the idea that, when presenting a link to what is described as a "video of [a] shooting", you'd maybe take some extra care to let people know what the hell they're getting into. Quibble about the definition of 'snuff film' you prefer, but that's an awfully hairy set up.
posted by cortex (staff) at 9:10 PM on July 12, 2007

WHONGAWHONGAWHONGA

That was just the amyl nitrate kicking in, man.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 9:13 PM on July 12, 2007

Perhaps it wouldn't have been deleted with such alacrity if someone else had posted it.

This is ALWAYS a good way to approach situations like this.

I don't really get how you can think this was about who you are when there's clearly so many other perfectly valid reasons for deleting the post as it was. Unless they delete every damn thing you post, the logic escapes me.
posted by shmegegge at 9:13 PM on July 12, 2007

Sometimes, I just want to ban everyone.
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 9:15 PM on July 12, 2007 [2 favorites]

Was the title changed? I see today's date now, which doesn't seem cheeky to me.
posted by carsonb at 9:16 PM on July 12, 2007

I'd say it would be a crappy post no matter who made it.

that's because you didn't watch the video ... maybe you ought to before being so certain of that
posted by pyramid termite at 9:16 PM on July 12, 2007

There's a fairly detailed chicago reader article that was linked to in the youtube video that may have been missed. Probably would've been off if that was the focus of the post instead of the video...
posted by yeoz at 9:18 PM on July 12, 2007

This was a interesting post/story. I hadn't heard about it before and only learned about it from this post. Thanks orth.
posted by null terminated at 9:19 PM on July 12, 2007

Watching the video is a chilling and fascinating experience.

It certainly is, but I would have appreciated knowing more about the primary subjects involved before watching. As it stands, to be fair, the post is written as a lurid invitation to watch what appears to be a murder from murky CCTV footage transcoded to a tiny rectangle on YouTube.

Oddly, I had the same misgivings about Metafilter's 9/11 "death gasp" post, which I thought was creepy voyeurism. But that post stood regardless of the sick subject matter and truly disgusting way in which it was presented. Who knows what the decision making process is, really.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 9:19 PM on July 12, 2007

Also, a frame by frame discussion at the chicago tribune.
posted by yeoz at 9:19 PM on July 12, 2007

Ooh, and NPR weighing in on the topic.
posted by yeoz at 9:22 PM on July 12, 2007

As it stands, to be fair, the post is written as a lurid invitation to watch what appears to be a murder from murky CCTV footage transcoded to a tiny rectangle on YouTube.

The video has very clear narration that introduces the characters.
posted by null terminated at 9:22 PM on July 12, 2007

Was the title changed? I see today's date now, which doesn't seem cheeky to me.

There's a bug in the admin post edit form that cuts off titles at a quote mark—I didn't see ortho's title, but I'm guessing it was wrapped in quotes.
posted by cortex (staff) at 9:23 PM on July 12, 2007

The video has very clear narration that introduces the characters.

If you decide to click on the video labeled "video of shooting", sure. "If only you'd clicked blindly through the thing that looked like a really bad idea, you'd understand" isn't a great argument. Presentation matters.
posted by cortex (staff) at 9:24 PM on July 12, 2007

I doubt the deletion was personal against orthogonality.

I think it was. Everyone's out to get ortho. I mean everyone. Either that, or he's paranoid. On second thought, never mind.
posted by justgary at 9:25 PM on July 12, 2007 [2 favorites]

The video has very clear narration that introduces the characters.

Their names, yes, but not much beyond that, other than what is necessary to set up the fatality that is to come. Even the narrator dramatizes the event — if you stick around, he'll be dead in a couple minutes!
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 9:26 PM on July 12, 2007

There's a narration? All I heard was some horror-movie sound-effects garble. Is my 'p00ter THAT old?
posted by davy at 9:33 PM on July 12, 2007

Thank you yeoz for those links.
posted by davy at 9:34 PM on July 12, 2007

Thank you yeoz for those links.
posted by davy at 12:34 AM on July 13 [+] [!]

I actually feel like an idiot because I left out a word in my first comment above...

Probably would've been [better] off if that was the focus of the post instead of the video...

Anyway, if a FPP was recreated with the newsy links instead of single-link-youtube, would it still have been deleted?
posted by yeoz at 9:41 PM on July 12, 2007

A single-link-youtube URL that was unfortunately non-functional so folks had to wonder WTF, is I think the point. A technical technicality? (Sigh.)
posted by davy at 9:48 PM on July 12, 2007

I would've liked to read actual discussion on this topic -- someone else would've probably eventually found this at the chicago suntimes with the following juicy tidbit:

But plenty of new details have emerged since then, especially at Weems' deposition by the Pleasance family lawyers in December. Weems said after watching the video, he realized he misled OPS about what happened on the L platform. No, he was not surrounded, he was not in fear of his life, and, yes, he did have his gun drawn when he approached Pleasance and his friend. "I didn't know that I did -- until I saw it in the video," Weems said, according to a transcript of the deposition. "No, I wasn't in fear of my life. I didn't think he could cause me death." Asked if the shooting was justified, Weems said, "It wasn't justified."

posted by yeoz at 9:51 PM on July 12, 2007

So you deny the release of orthogonality-eating badgers into the area?
posted by blue_beetle at 9:53 PM on July 12, 2007

A single-link-youtube URL that was unfortunately non-functional so folks had to wonder WTF, is I think the point. A technical technicality? (Sigh.)
posted by davy at 12:48 AM on July 13 [+] [!]

The delete reason seemed to imply that it was deleted because it was 'snuff'.
posted by yeoz at 9:54 PM on July 12, 2007

I hope Pleasance's mom wins her suit against the city. At the very least it looks like negligence to me.

And yeoz, I think it might've been different if Jessamyn had actually been able to see the clip pointed to by the malformed URL.
posted by davy at 9:58 PM on July 12, 2007

After all, nobody deleted Wednesday's FPP of the guy blowing up.
posted by davy at 10:00 PM on July 12, 2007

So you deny the release of orthogonality-eating badgers into the area?

Categorically, blue_beetle.

Anyway, if a FPP was recreated with the newsy links instead of single-link-youtube, would it still have been deleted?

If it was done well, I think it'd be okay. One mod's opinion, natch.

After all, nobody deleted Wednesday's FPP of the guy blowing up.

You mean the FPP of the article about the guy who got blown up, which conspicuously lacked a youtube link labled "video of guy blowing up"?
posted by cortex (staff) at 10:06 PM on July 12, 2007

yeoz: "Anyway, if a FPP was recreated with the newsy links instead of single-link-youtube, would it still have been deleted?"

cortex: "If it was done well, I think it'd be okay."

Would it be okay if somebody (say yeoz, who just did a bunch of legwork here) putting up a version on the Blue incorporating the suggested amendments? I think it would be good for a Mefite's first-ever post (better than any FPP I've made yet).
posted by davy at 10:13 PM on July 12, 2007

Yeah, that's pretty much what I'm saying.
posted by cortex (staff) at 10:15 PM on July 12, 2007

Well, I got through about 3:38 of that video. I'm guessing something violent happens? anyone care to summarize?
posted by puke & cry at 1:02 AM on July 13, 2007

At 6:47 Snape kills Dumbledore.
posted by brain_drain at 1:21 AM on July 13, 2007

The smarmy, sarcastic reasons for deletion are really beginning to grate. It's about time some set reasons and phrases were implemented similar to the reasons for flagging.
posted by fire&wings at 3:18 AM on July 13, 2007

"you'd think a rarin' lirarian would know what a snuff film is."

You mispelled librarin'.
posted by Eideteker at 3:29 AM on July 13, 2007

orthogonality is certainly not alone in the spittle-laden fleet street shocktorialising of obscure posts department, but he is definitely one of the most consistent. It never fails to amuse me how many front page posts do their utmost to alienate the audience. I don't give a bugger whether the content is MUSTBESEENCOMPULSORYOMG, I just can't be arsed most of the time when it's either shot at me out of a rhetoric canon or obscured behind lack of context.
posted by peacay at 3:44 AM on July 13, 2007 [1 favorite]

I also love it when they compound their horrendous posting with a why-me? sort of persecution complex. It is like a pet who knows it is doing something wrong, and that it will not be well received, but does it anyway and then wonders why it gets punished.
posted by Eideteker at 4:51 AM on July 13, 2007

Would it be okay if somebody (say yeoz, who just did a bunch of legwork here) putting up a version on the Blue incorporating the suggested amendments? I think it would be good for a Mefite's first-ever post (better than any FPP I've made yet).
posted by davy at 1:13 AM on July 13 [+] [!]

Eh, after sleeping on it, I've decided I don't even care anymore...
posted by yeoz at 5:51 AM on July 13, 2007

Yeah, I think there's too much suspicion that there is some personal element in post or comment deletions.

There are only 3 people responsible for deletions. It would be too difficult to keep track of all the personal grudges. They'd need a computer or something. Plus, they are too busy monitoring my posts.
posted by The Deej at 7:08 AM on July 13, 2007

Authority File: Snuff films

010 sh 97007942
040 CaAE ‡b eng ‡c DLC ‡d DLC
150 Snuff films
550 Erotic films ‡w g
550 Exploitation films ‡w g
670 Gods of death : around the world, behind closed doors, operates an ultra-secret business of sex and death : one man hunts the truth about snuff films, c1997.
670 Random House ‡b (snuff film: a pornographic film that shows an actual murder of one of the performers, as at the end of a sadistic act)
670 Web. 3 ‡b (snuff: designating or of a kind of pornographic film that shows someone being murdered as the climax of sexual activity)
670 LC database, Oct. 17, 1997.
675 Moving image materials : genre terms
680 ‡i Here are entered motion pictures that show a murder as the climax of sexual activity.

Dewey number is 791.43655
posted by cog_nate at 7:13 AM on July 13, 2007 [2 favorites]

snuff film
posted by pyramid termite at 7:49 AM on July 13, 2007

No pyramid termite, that was a SNIFF film.
posted by davy at 8:24 AM on July 13, 2007

Perhaps I wouldn't have commented in this thread if someone else had posted it.
posted by and hosted from Uranus at 8:52 AM on July 13, 2007

The Sun Times is covering it? Did Ebert give it a thumbs up?
posted by klangklangston at 9:45 AM on July 13, 2007

"It's about time some set reasons and phrases were implemented similar to the reasons for flagging."

Yeah, why don't you form a committee!
posted by klangklangston at 9:47 AM on July 13, 2007

It's about time some set reasons and phrases were implemented similar to the reasons for flagging.

I'm going to have to set you on fire disagree. That this place has a personality is one of the reasons I continue to set you on fire hang around.

Others may view this as not necessarily a good thing. I get that a lot.
posted by Skot at 10:06 AM on July 13, 2007

I think it was a lazy FPP. The Youtube video contained a number of links in the sidebar that would have supplemented the video link by providing vital context and further information. I don't know if it should have been deleted, but in all honesty, ortho, it might've stood a better chance if you had incorporated it.
posted by Pseudoephedrine at 10:48 AM on July 13, 2007

Meh. I'm sincerely not trying to bring up bad blood here, but mathowie has shown that he's perfectly fine with snuff-FPP's. To the site's detriment.

Again, the ideal would be consistency in moderation.

(Interestingly, even youtube pulled the clip in question that didn't bother number One.)
posted by bardic at 1:33 PM on July 13, 2007

(And since nobody asked, I think the CTA footage could be a pretty compelling FPP if some context was worked in. But to say "we don't do snuff" is simply not the case.)
posted by bardic at 1:35 PM on July 13, 2007

But to say "we don't do snuff" is simply not the case.

Good thing I didn't say that. We usually say that video of people killing themselves is beyond the pale for MetaFilter. IIRC that's what we did with the Daniel Pearl video. We're pretty consistent for a site run by humans and that's what we're aiming for.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 4:02 PM on July 13, 2007