basic site guideline violation November 21, 2007 1:00 PM   Subscribe

I'll be the first to admit that it was a weak post and an unknown double. However, I'm unclear as to what 'basic site guideline' I violated.
posted by malaprohibita to Etiquette/Policy at 1:00 PM (56 comments total)

It was a weak post and a double.
posted by ORthey at 1:06 PM on November 21, 2007 [8 favorites]


The basic guideline is that, barring unusual circumstances, single-link newsfilter posts are often not very good. Or, put another way "If you're making a single link newsfilter post, make a bit of an effort to explain why it shouldn't be treated like a weak single link newsfilter post" is the usual routine.

Drawing attention to the fact that you're making a post like this in both your title and your post without somehow explaining why it should stand while others don't, seems to me to be a sort of thumbing your nose at the whole idea that we should try to make decent posts around here.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 1:06 PM on November 21, 2007 [3 favorites]


Thanks for the feedback, jessamyn.
posted by malaprohibita at 1:08 PM on November 21, 2007


sure thing.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 1:19 PM on November 21, 2007 [1 favorite]


Keep in mind, too, that it's just a guideline; done well, a single link to a news article might be a good post. It's just something that usually doesn't work, but it's certainly not malaprohibita.

sorry, couldn't resist
posted by koeselitz at 1:24 PM on November 21, 2007 [2 favorites]


Drawing attention to the fact that you're making a post like this in both your title and your post

MetaFilter means never having to say you're sorry.
posted by KokuRyu at 1:29 PM on November 21, 2007


Metafilter: You know it's weak, you have no excuse
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 1:30 PM on November 21, 2007 [2 favorites]


As an aside: with something as developing as this was, it's not a bad idea to let it chill for a day or two, regardless—helps avoid hiccups like the "wait no Bush was INNOCENT" gotcha, in this case.
posted by cortex (staff) at 1:35 PM on November 21, 2007 [1 favorite]


well, that's that. time for pict---

I want the img tag back.
posted by shmegegge at 1:37 PM on November 21, 2007


Also, malaprohibita, you forgot to mention that every book sold comes with a free vial of Scotty McClellan's flop-sweat.
posted by Fuzzy Monster at 1:44 PM on November 21, 2007


Jessamyn, I would ask that if you are going to edit the thread to where my comment makes no sense, that you just go ahead and delete my comment while you are at it.
posted by ND¢ at 1:47 PM on November 21, 2007


Ah, cortex. Good point.
posted by malaprohibita at 1:48 PM on November 21, 2007


ND¢, wasn't me, but I removed your comment, Sorry about that.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 1:50 PM on November 21, 2007


Not a big deal at all. Sorry to blame you unfairly.
posted by ND¢ at 1:52 PM on November 21, 2007


I don't think it's really a double when the original was deleted for being a mess, not for the content of the link. Same with this one. Can't someone make a decent post about this. It is actually a significant admission on the part of a former Bushie, even if it is ass covering. It is one of the first true linkings of Bush to Plamegate. I could care less though if anyone makes the post. It's the holiday for me now and I would prefer charming amusements to heavy political posts.
posted by caddis at 2:03 PM on November 21, 2007


The basic guideline is not to post news stories. There are plenty of sites for discussing politics, Metafilter is for the best of the web.
posted by LarryC at 2:04 PM on November 21, 2007 [1 favorite]


caddis, you might want to read this.

It looks like McClellan will actually exonerate Bush for his role in Plamegate. But yesterday McClellan and his publisher posted a carefully selected excerpt designed to persuade everyone that he was going to implicate the President in it. Note the weaselly way the original statement says that Bush was "involved" in McClellan's misleading of the public.

It's very hard not to conclude that McClellan and his publisher deliberately played the media for chumps with the too-cute-by-half excerpt they posted yesterday. And it worked.

posted by Fuzzy Monster at 2:10 PM on November 21, 2007


caddis, part of the problem here is that it's not even clear what the hell McClellan might be admitting to in the book that won't be out for several months and for which this whole thing appears to be a publicity stunt.

If McClellan releases an unequivocal statement about the involvement of Bush folks in the Plame scandal, that'll be something else, but for now it looks like it's all ghost farts on the PR circuit. I'm not sure there's anything to post about.
posted by cortex (staff) at 2:10 PM on November 21, 2007 [1 favorite]


That has never stopped me.
posted by ND¢ at 2:14 PM on November 21, 2007


You people just can't shut up about this crap, can you?

Shouldn't you be catching planes or turkeys or something?
posted by timeistight at 2:19 PM on November 21, 2007 [4 favorites]


ghost farts on the PR circuit.

Ghost riders in the sky.
posted by Fuzzy Monster at 2:22 PM on November 21, 2007


Can't someone make a decent post about this.

If I were being more snarky that might be what my reason for deletion would be.

However the issue is it's one of those topics that is evolving over time and each revelation seems to be the OMG part of the whole thing where it gets split wide open. I can see people being very vewry exicted for the day Bush and his pack of jackals get their asses firmly handed to them.

But, each time we think it's coming there are always mitigating circumstances why it doesn't work out that way. A decent post on the topic would be more than "this is what JUST HAPPENED" and more than "look at these assholes" with maybe a smidgin of "won't get fooled again" so that those "Haven't we been here before?" people don't get confused.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 2:26 PM on November 21, 2007


Whatever, I still want pleasant amusements.
posted by caddis at 2:27 PM on November 21, 2007


No, Ghost Riders in the Sky
posted by pupdog at 2:28 PM on November 21, 2007


The basic guideline is that, barring unusual circumstances, single-link newsfilter posts are often not very good

For example, the September 11 attacks were an unusual circumstance that led to a good single-link newsfilter post (due to the comments).

helps avoid hiccups like the 'wait no Bush was INNOCENT' gotcha

It'd be more accurate to describe it as "former administration official spills the beans, then retracts under pressure," which has happened several times before. Also, President Bush said he would fire anyone involved in the leak, so I'm sure he'll be firing Cheney and then himself any minute now.

There are plenty of sites for discussing politics, Metafilter is for the best of the web.

Out of curiosity, has the phrase "best of the web" ever appeared in the guidelines, new user message, or FAQ?
posted by kirkaracha at 2:30 PM on November 21, 2007 [1 favorite]


The only posts worse* than single-link newsfilter and single-link YouTube (which can be good posts actually), are posts that call themselves "single-link newsfilter" or "single-link YouTube" unapologetically. Don't apologize, just make a good post.

* Not including the stuff beyond the pale, like self-linkage.
posted by grouse at 2:31 PM on November 21, 2007


Hey look, a MetaTalk thread that should have been closed after the second comment!

Quick, everyone get naked and run around screaming!
posted by blue_beetle at 3:06 PM on November 21, 2007


Flag it and remove from activity.
posted by grouse at 3:08 PM on November 21, 2007


The basic guideline is not to post news stories. There are plenty of sites for discussing politics, Metafilter is for the best of the web.
posted by LarryC

No, that's a LarryC fantasy guideline. It has no force on MetaFilter.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 3:14 PM on November 21, 2007


Mmmm...tell me more about these LarryC fantasy guidelines.
posted by Kwine at 3:39 PM on November 21, 2007


This comment breaks the site guidelines, yet should stand because, well, just because.
posted by The Deej at 5:03 PM on November 21, 2007


The basic guideline is that, here at MetaFilter, evil is prohibited. There is a legal term in Latin for this prohibition, but I forget what it is.
posted by Astro Zombie at 5:21 PM on November 21, 2007 [2 favorites]


caddis, part of the problem here is that it's not even clear what the hell McClellan might be admitting to in the book that won't be out for several months and for which this whole thing appears to be a publicity stunt.

If McClellan releases an unequivocal statement about the involvement of Bush folks in the Plame scandal, that'll be something else, but for now it looks like it's all ghost farts on the PR circuit. I'm not sure there's anything to post about.
posted by cortex at 5:10 PM on November 21 [1 favorite +] [!]


Whether it rises to the level at which it is credible or not should not be made by the mods. That is just rank censorship. I agree it is dicey, but let the commentors evaluate the strength of the admission. If this were just some dork from nowhere perhaps someone like you should pull it as it is just tin foil hat stuff. However, this is the former press secretary to Bush. It's not your place to pull this on veracity grounds. If it stinks it will take its punishment no doubt. That being said, both of these posts sucked on formatting grounds (the axe just keep being ground) and were pulled for legitimate reasons. My beef is with your comment as to theory as opposed to your practice.
posted by caddis at 5:25 PM on November 21, 2007


*feels the very real pain of a ruler on knuckles for poor proof reading
posted by caddis at 5:37 PM on November 21, 2007 [1 favorite]


What? I'm saying that when something that is as meaty as a plausible implication (or not) of the President in the Plame scandal has only reached the "publisher releases juicy teaser of memoirs" stage, it's probably not the best time to jump on it. Give it a couple days to breath and not turn out to be a stunt, e.g.

I'm not saying a damn thing about the Plame situation not being a big deal, but it sounds like there's nothing here but a rumor, and posting rumors about newsfilter is really stretching the limits of that kind of post.
posted by cortex (staff) at 5:42 PM on November 21, 2007


That's mala en se, Astro Zombie. I know you already know that but I have to show my education was worth something.
posted by puke & cry at 5:49 PM on November 21, 2007


I hear you. However, moderation should be done in moderation. If it isn't true the mob will take care of that. When an issue is important, and this one clearly is (although I agree as to all the other issues) it is better to let it stand and fall on its own merits. The mods, and I mean you you deletion trigger hungry, smiley, bastard (and that is not meant in a negative way) should let that kind of stuff stand. It can take other forms too. It might be controversial and right wing leaning with tons of people calling for deletion as it disturbs their lefty sensibilities. If you were a judge, would you ban it? If it otherwise meets the guidelines it is not the mods' place to pull something because they disagree with the politics or if they think the basis is thin, unless the basis is not just thin but missing. Otherwise it is just censorship. We hate that, even if we agree with your viewpoint, and I frankly think you and I have few if any differences on political viewpoint.
posted by caddis at 5:59 PM on November 21, 2007


Well, if it is going to happen, then we can wait until it actually does happen, otherwise we'll end up in a situation like the "Karl Rove indicted" post, or when the Army/Navy/etc Times called for Rumsfields ouster.

Remember that one, where it was posted like 3 or 4 times, deleted, and then someone posted in MeTa saying "I take it it didn't happen?" bleh.

Anyway, parse the words these guys are using carefully, McClellan is just saying Bush and Rove lied to him after the story broke, which we all already knew.
posted by delmoi at 6:59 PM on November 21, 2007 [1 favorite]




I wish someone would hurry up and invent e-mail so we didn't have to keep going through this.

.
posted by Eideteker at 7:15 PM on November 21, 2007


Do I even wanna know what 'flop-sweat' refers to?
posted by and hosted from Uranus at 7:32 PM on November 21, 2007


Do I even wanna know what 'flop-sweat' refers to?

My understanding is that it refers to the sweat of a performer whose act is failing catastrophically in front of a restless audience. The more you know ~ !
posted by kittens for breakfast at 8:16 PM on November 21, 2007 [1 favorite]


flop sweat
posted by puke & cry at 8:31 PM on November 21, 2007


Out of curiosity, has the phrase "best of the web" ever appeared in the guidelines, new user message, or FAQ?

It was one of the rotating set of taglines ('The Plastic.com it's OK to like!, 'More addictive than crack!' are two that I can recall) that appeared beneath the Metafilter logo on the blue for years, until Matt unceremoniously did away them for some reason. As far as I can recall, that the only place it's 'officially' appeared.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 9:45 PM on November 21, 2007


Well, I think we all can agree that LarryC is not more addictive than crack.
posted by y2karl at 11:09 PM on November 21, 2007 [1 favorite]


SOMEONE NEEDS TO MAKE THIS POST GODDAMIT CAUSE IT'S THAT IMPORTENT
posted by 31d1 at 11:41 PM on November 21, 2007 [1 favorite]


"Weblog as conversation" was another one of the taglines. I didn't even notice they'd gone, but now that I know, I miss them.
posted by dg at 12:35 AM on November 22, 2007




I'm still looking for the "best of the web" one.

I could have dreamed it. That happens sometimes.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 1:22 AM on November 22, 2007


ghost farts on the PR circuit

This is the most beautiful phrase I have ever heard. It's a verbal smørgasborg that flirts, so saucily, with poetry I'm a little saddened I didn't come up with it myself.

It's mysterious, it's kind of electro-mechanical, and also has some only-for-those-in-the-know abbreviating thrown in. It seems to bridge the gap from the Theosophists all the way to Police's Ghost in the Machine. It's the perfect summation of the 20th century! It's genius!

ghost farts on the PR circuit
It's an entire novel in one single phrase. It's the Sci-Fi novel I will write. Or wait, did Gibson cover flatulence? I don't know, haven't read enough. I will write this novel. I'll start it next week.

And who makes these ghost farts? Ghosts? Oooooh, spooky. Or are they just pretend farts made by real people? Scotty McClellan, for example? Is he a notorious ghost farter and I just didn't know about it? Fascinating! What a scoop!

Is the PR circuit in my computer? Or my car? I gave a friend's car a jump-start the other day, did I use my PR circuit? Could I have damaged it? I should probably consult a mechanic. I wish I spoke the language here. This is going to be tricky.

Or is it that the ghost farts on the PR circuit? The rascally ghost. What a card. McClellan could learn a thing or two from him. Her. It. Whatever. Or did he already, and that's what I'm missing?

Oh, how rich is life! Ghost Farts on the PR Circuit. The eagerly awaited new Novel From Bklyn!

Woo-hoo! Thanks Cortex! I'm on my way!
posted by From Bklyn at 1:59 AM on November 22, 2007


As far as I can recall, that the only place it's 'officially' appeared.

The podcast is "Best of the Web: the MetaFilter Podcast," (making it alpha-sort under "B," unfortunately, where I never fail to fail to look first). That's the most official appearance of BOTW that I'm aware of. Though since the podcast is, in fact, a further distillation of MeFi, it should probably be called Bestest of the Web.
posted by mumkin at 3:11 AM on November 22, 2007


i'm not photogenic
posted by C17H19NO3 at 5:09 AM on November 22, 2007


I'm phototropic.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 5:32 AM on November 22, 2007


to all the nice people favoriting my comment in that thread, i actually lifted it from Krrrlson, and he didn't botch the execution.
posted by quonsar at 6:29 AM on November 22, 2007


If it otherwise meets the guidelines it is not the mods' place to pull something because they disagree with the politics or if they think the basis is thin, unless the basis is not just thin but missing.

I hear you, caddis, but I think this is a little off—not because it's our jobs to be arbiters of the importance of any given political story for its own sake, but because seeing that something is thin-to-nonexistent in general is one of the posting criteria we have to consider. Thin, "that's all there is?" posts about music or a movie or to a nearly contentless website or a site for a thing/event that just doesn't really have any web content despite being an interesting thing, and so on: all of these things get deleted sometimes, because they're bad posts.

To be clear, here, I don't want to convey the idea that there's some super-specific hardline rule we apply about when a developing political story is meaty enough to post—there's no such rule, and we wing it from incident to incident. I only started getting into my take on the McClellan thing as a followup to this aside.
posted by cortex (staff) at 6:41 AM on November 22, 2007


A classic example of flop sweat is Albert Brooks' on-camera meltdown in Broadcast News.
posted by kirkaracha at 9:31 AM on November 22, 2007


« Older Boxing Day Blood Drive 2, Electric Boogaloo   |   Higher quality podcast recording options? Newer »

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