Just The Facts, Ma'am

January 10, 2008 7:48 PM

If you don't know the answer, don't answer the question. It's that simple.

The etymology thread brought up an aggravating and infuriating tendency people have in Ask MetaFilter: answering with a guess without indicating it as such. People who ask specific questions to which there exists a correct answer are looking for exactly that: the correct answer, not a guess. Guesses do nothing to help, they're just noise, and they do not help people find answers.

For example, Steven C. Den Beste has admitted he posts guesses that are incorrect, and since we have no way of knowing which of his answers are just guesses, we cannot trust or use any of his answers in Ask MetaFilter. So I ignore all his answers, because I can't trust them, so I consider his answers to be just noise in the thread, and I suspect I am not alone.

People need to either stop answering questions to which they do not know the correct answer, or stop posting answers to questions. Like wisecracks, guess answers to specific questions do not help people find answers. Stavros said it best: "The best answer is always the correct answer. The skill comes into play in knowing which questions are the ones that can actually have a correct answer. Many questions on Ask Metafilter cannot be answered with anything other than anecdote, opinion, or advice. Some questions can be answered correctly. If you don't know the answer to a question of the latter variety, DO NOT ANSWER IT."

Please stop answering questions to which you do not know the answer. Thank you.

posted by fandango_matt to etiquette/policy at 7:48 PM (350 comments total)

note: Ask MetaFilter is as useful as you make it. Please limit comments to answers or help in finding an answer. Wisecracks don't help people find answers. If you don't know the answer, don't answer the question. It's that simple. Thanks.
posted by R. Mutt at 7:55 PM on January 10

Reading the above-the-fold description you posted, I thought "huh. Wonder if this is about SCDB again." I look inside and hey-presto.
posted by boo_radley at 7:55 PM on January 10 [3 favorites]

I don't know the answer to this. But I will suggest one anyway: cattle prods.
posted by Astro Zombie at 7:56 PM on January 10 [2 favorites]

To refill your Zippo with butane, combine sulfuric acid, bleach and ammonia in a styrofoam container and mix thoroughly with your arm (since you show clear symptoms of Asperger's, it'll fall off in a couple of weeks anyway). Then, find a doctor for yourself and a lawyer for mathowie.

Oh, and dump the bastard.
posted by Krrrlson at 7:56 PM on January 10 [5 favorites]

Reports that say that someone is just guessing in AskMe are always interesting to me, because as we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns -- the ones we don't know we don't know.
posted by "Tex" Connor and the Wily Roundup Boys at 7:56 PM on January 10 [7 favorites]

I just don't know.
posted by yhbc at 8:00 PM on January 10 [3 favorites]

...or help in finding an answer...

Sometimes an educated guess can help lead to the answer.

I do agree that just random guesses can be noise.
posted by The Deej at 8:01 PM on January 10

toot.
posted by Stynxno at 8:02 PM on January 10 [1 favorite]

^ sorry. random noise.
posted by Stynxno at 8:02 PM on January 10 [1 favorite]

I guess you're right.

haha get it "guess"? hahahaha
posted by SassHat at 8:07 PM on January 10

Please stop answering questions to which you do not know the answer.

AMEN! You know what else I'm tired of? People who think they can answer a question after 2 seconds on Google. No. Knowing how to use Google.com does not make you qualified to answer every question on every subject.
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 8:08 PM on January 10 [10 favorites]

My impression is that "hey, fuck it, let's take a guess" has been a prevalent attitude on AskMe since day uno.
posted by MLIS at 8:10 PM on January 10 [1 favorite]

"A modal logic formulation of self-defeating challenge-response knowledge systems, or: STFU you damn morons", by Emmett A. Philtor, University of Liffe. Lecture Notes in Computer Trivia vol. 666, Spring Rolls Verbiage, Beltin' / Heyderebub 2008.

When citing this thread, please include reference to DOI 10:1337uSUX.
posted by Iosephus at 8:10 PM on January 10 [2 favorites]

Oh man, there was this guy I was talking to, real smart professor from a name brand college. And I mentioned how I would have to go and wikipedia something someone mentioned, sort of as a joke. He went off for like 20 minutes about how wikipedia is wrong. Well no shit, SCDB is like wikipedia. If you are an expert and correct SCDB please do so in thread. He's not being a troll, he just answers things in ways that sound reasonable to an educated person.

So don't be a dickhead professor in some esoteric topic. If he is wrong, correct him. I've never seen SCDB terrorize an AskMetafilter thread and demand that his answer is the best.
posted by geoff. at 8:11 PM on January 10 [5 favorites]

Well, after 2 seconds on Google, I'm still not sure what the emoticon for "shrug" is. Oh well.
posted by R. Mutt at 8:12 PM on January 10

I think the idea is that AskMe should be useful without the knowledge that SCDB is just making stuff up that sounds reasonable (and not indicating it as such)
posted by 0xFCAF at 8:13 PM on January 10 [3 favorites]

posted by geoff So don't be a dickhead professor in some esoteric topic. If he is wrong, correct him. I've never seen SCDB terrorize an AskMetafilter thread and demand that his answer is the best.

Here's one example. I am certain there are many others.
posted by fandango_matt at 8:15 PM on January 10

Here's one example. I am certain there are many others.

To be fair, he retracts himself three comments down.
posted by Bookhouse at 8:20 PM on January 10

Well I was trying to make the point that a lot of people make stuff up. Usually there's a variety of cues in the grammar, speech patterns or terminology usage that makes us go, "Oh yeah they're just spouting shit." SCDB actually sounds like he knows what he is talking about, when he doesn't have any more knowledge than a wikipedia mention or google search. I think this is what pisses people off. Let's not fool ourselves and think that we're getting Nature quality submissions here.

There's no way we can police the serial guessers. Hasn't SCDB been called out on this before? Wouldn't this be better in the other thread? What's the solution? It seems to me this is just piling on SCDB and mean-spirited. And there have been times where I've seen his answers and gone, "Ugh, he has no idea what he is talking about." But there's other people I do that to too. There will always be an SCDB, there's no effective way to to police this. In light of this I think this is kind of a mean pile-on.
posted by geoff. at 8:20 PM on January 10 [6 favorites]

You know, I'd add to what I said before that I think there's nothing wrong in the case of a question that does have a 'correct' answer in saying 'well, based on my experiences X and Y, I think Z may be a good answer to your question', because certainty is both rare and overrated. As long as it's clear that you're trying to help find an answer to a question that has a correct answer, but that you're not 100% sure.

For my part, there aren't many things in the world that I'm 100% sure about.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 8:21 PM on January 10

I hadn't read the MeTa you posted, fandango_matt. Reading SCDB's replies in there is really, truly baffling.
posted by boo_radley at 8:27 PM on January 10

More examples of SCDB being called on his bullshit:
http://ask.metafilter.com/58530/this-is-not-a-trap#879953
http://ask.metafilter.com/42777/More-sand-or-stars#657687
http://www.metafilter.com/66000/Im-in-ur-city-burnin-ur-church#1891991
http://metatalk.metafilter.com/14361/Offensive-noise#422028
http://ask.metafilter.com/78112/I-loved-being-sincerely-welcomed-to-the-jungle#1160244
http://ask.metafilter.com/78249/Normal-poisson-with-a-twist-of-outliers#1162327
http://ask.metafilter.com/70682/How-to-Sanitize-HTML-Javascript-Security#1054409
http://ask.metafilter.com/79112/What-to-do-for-new-years-in-LA#1174611


What SCDB doesn't understand is that AskMe is about the askers, not the rest of us. It's a great place to learn from and discuss things, but the first responsibility is to the questioner. SCDB is the most damaging part of AskMe and I think deserves a time out. Nothing hurts the discussion more than his air of authority that silences other responses. He says this is acceptable because "he's the decider" and makes decisions, when he should really be shutting the fuck up.
posted by null terminated at 8:29 PM on January 10 [16 favorites]

Has anyone answered more questions than SCDB? He's averaging almost five answers per day since starting around two years ago.

I'm happy if there's one question a week I can answer - and I know a lot of shit.

I hate though, that I often find myself rushing to post an answer so I can get it in before the bullshitters/guessers get in there. I would often love to spend more time researching/gathering links.

It is unfortunate that the earlier answers seem to carry more weight with the question askers.
posted by davey_darling at 8:29 PM on January 10

Please stop answering questions to which you do not know the answer.

AMEN! You know what else I'm tired of? People who think they can answer a question after 2 seconds on Google. No. Knowing how to use Google.com does not make you qualified to answer every question on every subject.

Do people really have a problem with this? I tend to do quick Google searches for new AskMe posts that interest me and post my results if I find anything interesting. Examples would be this, this and this. I didn't think most people would mind someone posting valid answers that they found on Google.
posted by burnmp3s at 8:31 PM on January 10

Knowing how to use Google.com does not make you qualified to answer every question on every subject.

You can fake it surprisingly well though. The key is to include specific details, to be verbose, and to have total confidence in your answer. It helps to mock someone else's answer as being an amateur who shouldn't be answering. Never link to the Google result or mention Google.
posted by smackfu at 8:41 PM on January 10 [5 favorites]

What's even more fascinating to me is people who answer simply by telling you that they don't know the answer, e.g. "I don't know what to tell you," or "Do some research." If that is all you have to offer, then please choose between not answering and killing yourself.
posted by bingo at 8:49 PM on January 10 [5 favorites]

The key is to include specific details, to be verbose, and to have total confidence in your answer. It helps to mock someone else's answer as being an amateur who shouldn't be answering. Never link to the Google result or mention Google.

In all fairness, that's the paulsc method, not the Stephen C. Den Beste method.

The Den Beste method is to state authoritatively things that a two minute google search would demonstrate to be incorrect.
posted by dersins at 9:00 PM on January 10 [13 favorites]

To add another datapoint, someone asked about IP-aware webcams just the other day, looking for a webcam that could be plugged directly into Ethernet, or a wireless network, without an intervening PC.

SCDB's response? "You're basically asking for a TCP/IP-aware webcam, and such a thing doesn't exist!"

I'm pretty sure they've only been around, in one form or another, for about a decade or so, now...

Anyway, that one irked me. Carry on.
posted by Jimbob at 9:02 PM on January 10

I think there's value in educated guesses, as long as the Answerer is clear that they are speculating. I'm a research scientist and much of my work is driven by educated guesses: we make a hypothesis based on a guess/hunch/previous-kinda-similar-experience, then we do an experiment to test it. Sometimes we guess right, sometimes we guess wrong, but if we stopped guessing altogether we'd be dead in the water most of the time.

We don't do experiments on AskMe, but by providing educated guesses we can perhaps steer the Asker towards some testing/reading/inquiring/thinking they can do on their own.

Random noise not identified as such? Agreed, pretty useless.
posted by Quietgal at 9:02 PM on January 10

I didn't think most people would mind someone posting valid answers that they found on Google.

It's not that bad. What's bad is if:

a) The Asker has already seen this stuff on Google and it's not actually what they're after, because you didn't read the question properly.
(b) You heap abuse on the asker because they couldn't find this stuff on Google themselves.
posted by Jimbob at 9:04 PM on January 10 [1 favorite]

From : Steven C. Den Beste

Even when it's called MeMail, it's not cool to post private messages.
posted by smackfu at 9:06 PM on January 10 [2 favorites]

Yeah dude, I don't have a dog in this fight but that seems to cross the line. Seems like you should have thought that through before posting it in here.
posted by nola at 9:08 PM on January 10 [2 favorites]

Even when it's called MeMail, it's not cool to post private messages.

Not cool, but it seems that it's pretty much par for the course here in Metatalk. Note to self: don't say anything in MeMail you wouldn't want posted in Metatalk. Take all nasty, juicy gossip where it belongs: e-mail.
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 9:11 PM on January 10 [1 favorite]

Yeah. This is a bad pattern.
posted by cowbellemoo at 9:12 PM on January 10

Messages on a largely anonymous online forum stop being private the moment you click the send button.
posted by Krrrlson at 9:13 PM on January 10

Uh, the point of MeMail is to let people communicate outside of the normal site. If SCDB wanted what he sent to fandango_matt out there for everyone, he would have put it here. It isn't fandango_matt's right to make that decision for him.
posted by MadamM at 9:15 PM on January 10 [4 favorites]

Messages on a largely anonymous online forum stop being private the moment you click the send button.


No they really don't, unless the online forum tolerates it. Online, offline, it doesn't change anything.
posted by nola at 9:17 PM on January 10

...the ones we don't know we don't know.
y'know?

Take all nasty, juicy gossip where it belongs: e-mail#bunnies.
Fixed that for me.

And the moral of this story is: some "Mr. Know-It-Alls" should be renamed "Mr. Know-It-Some".
posted by wendell at 9:17 PM on January 10

"^"
posted by nola at 9:17 PM on January 10

What the fuck, fandango_matt?
posted by scrump at 9:18 PM on January 10 [1 favorite]

you're losing the crowd, fandango_matt.
posted by boo_radley at 9:19 PM on January 10

I just sent the following MeFi Mail...
From : wendell
To : fandango_matt
Subject : Don't Post This Message to MetaTalk
Message : Well, maybe just this time.
posted by wendell at 9:21 PM on January 10

Reposting a MeMail without permission is absolutely not cool, as long as we're discussing guidelines here...and, in this case, it actually undermines your argument for me.

I generally try not to answer things unless I'm pretty sure of the answer, but some things are just not that cut and dry. For instance, "I am having trouble getting my laptop to boot" could be caused by any number of problems. Answers, both correct and incorrect, are sometimes useful in troubleshooting problems like these.

That being said, SCDB does seem a bit trigger-happy, and his threshold for answering is certainly a bit lower than most.
posted by dhammond at 9:22 PM on January 10

Fuck you guys, I think fandango_matt was in the clear — the message is neither particularly confidential nor embarrassing. It's a good defense of his actions.

It's what SCDB will post here when he finds this thread.
posted by blasdelf at 9:23 PM on January 10

I just sent all but one of you a memail. Please don't anyone post the contents of the memail, because I very much want the person I didn't send it to not to read it. Thanks!
posted by "Tex" Connor and the Wily Roundup Boys at 9:24 PM on January 10 [2 favorites]

jessamyn, you do most of the moderation at AskMe, right? I'm wondering how you feel about Steven's formulation in the other thread:

If I think I know the answer, I say so.
If it turns out I'm right, the OP is helped. WIN
If it turns out I'm wrong, I learn something. WIN
If I post what I think I know, and it turns out to be wrong, it could remind someone else of the right answer and get them to post it. WIN

You and cortex said you don't like it when we attribute opinions to you, so I don't want to do that, but I didn't see you respond to the above. Would you mind clarifying whether you think Steven's approach is a good one for AskMe? I think it's bad for someone to so regularly have to be corrected in threads he knows so little about. That can't be good for the site, and a small nudge or two from the mods - nothing drastic, just an acknowledgment that there does seem to be a problem - might work. I'm curious where you stand on that.
posted by mediareport at 9:25 PM on January 10

From : Astro Zombie 3
To : Astro zombie
Subject : Narf
Message : Narf narf narf.
posted by Astro Zombie at 9:25 PM on January 10 [6 favorites]

Even when it's called MeMail, it's not cool to post private messages.

Yeah, please do not do this. If you want to put someone's email in the clear, ask them. This is not a hard concept, and personal grudges don't obviate it.
posted by cortex at 9:26 PM on January 10 [1 favorite]

Fuck you guys, I think fandango_matt was in the clear — the message is neither particularly confidential nor embarrassing. It's a good defense of his actions.

Irelivent, and fuck you too.
posted by nola at 9:27 PM on January 10

Irrelevant*
posted by nola at 9:29 PM on January 10

The correct answer for this problem is for everyone to be a little more patient, and stick with questions a little longer.

Almost any guess is better than complete silence on a topic. On the other hand, taking a deep breath before spouting off gives others, who might be better informed, a chance to have a say.
posted by Chuckles at 9:30 PM on January 10

Well, after 2 seconds on Google, I'm still not sure what the emoticon for "shrug" is. Oh well.

v'_'v

's about the best i can do. sorry. v'_'v
posted by dismas at 9:31 PM on January 10

Sticking with the questions longer doesn't always work out, since sometimes the questions asked in the morning scroll off the bottom before the day is even over. Can we make the askme main page two or three times as long?
posted by Pants! at 9:34 PM on January 10

The fact that SCDB defends his random ass answer style by warning of blaming analysis paralysis is so fucking ridiculous. This is a huge community. You ask a question that is not insanely specific and someone will know the right answer and will know they know the right answer. Not think they know the right answer, but know the right answer. That's what makes AskMe useful. It isn't a place to stroke your ego by being first or most prolific or whatever. It's a place to either answer the questions you know you know or, if you must answer, tell someone how you would research such a question if you were them (maybe with the results of your research.) SCDB, on the other hand, is so convinced of his own brilliance he thinks pulling an answer out of his ass will give the correct answer 90% of the time, and there's no harm in the wrong answer cause, hey, he's smart enough to be close to right. Guess what: it doesn't; it won't; there is; and he isn't.
posted by aspo at 9:35 PM on January 10 [7 favorites]

fandango should have paraphrased Steven's email, but Steven has a pattern of disappearing from this kind of thread and not coming back, so I can sort of understand bringing his argument out into the open from MeFiMail. It's an argument worth looking at, even if past behavior indicates Steven's not going to show up here again:

So we have two broad categories of answers from me that cover about 90% of what I do post:

1. Cases where I'm sure I know the answer, and turn out to be right.
2. Cases where I'm sure I know the answer, but turn out to be wrong. (Or only partially right.)

Shouldn't the above, which sounds so goshdarn logical, apply to everyone? So why is Steven's case such an obvious outlier? Why is he "sure I know the answer" but wrong so much more often than other members in AskMe? Is it something that's out of sync at his end with the way AskMe works for most members? Or is it confirmation bias, and some of us are only noticing it from him?
posted by mediareport at 9:36 PM on January 10

(Oh and do you have any idea how hard it was to write that without mentioning the imminent threat of France instigating nuclear war against the United States?)
posted by aspo at 9:37 PM on January 10

To : Steven C. Den Beste
Date : Jan 10, 2008 9:35 PM
Subject : Re: Answers
Message :

Let's make something else clear: you're either mistaken, being disingenuous, or lying, because earlier today you said posting a wrong answer is better than not posting any answer, but now you're saying you've never posted an answer you think is wrong. You then went on to give a detailed explanation of why your methodology was appropriate, despite the fact several people pointed out its inherent selfishness and flaws.

You have a long and well-documented history of posting answers that are just guesses--and as I and others have repeatedly said, your guesses do not help people find answers, they confuse the person asking the question, they create noise in the thread, and more often than not they're the beginnings of derails. Your guesses-as-answers are just noise in Ask MetaFilter--I stopped reading your answers lng ago, and I know I'm not alone.

I will offer a suggestion: you might consider prefacing your Ask MetaFilter answers with "This is just a guess, but..." or "I'm not sure, but I think..." rather than the declarative assertions of fact which lead people to think you actually know what you're talking about until someone comes along and proves you wrong. This might help ameliorate the notoriety of your false Ask MetaFilter answers and perhaps people won't be so quick to point out how wrong you areif you state up front that you aren't certain about your answer.

Best regards,

Matthew
posted by fandango_matt at 9:37 PM on January 10 [2 favorites]

I'm going to call you out if you don't stop doing that. Nobody wants to see your memails, sent or received.
posted by "Tex" Connor and the Wily Roundup Boys at 9:40 PM on January 10

All this has been mildly entertaining until about 5 minutes ago. Now it's just gross.
posted by YamwotIam at 9:43 PM on January 10

::tooting elephant::
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 9:43 PM on January 10 [3 favorites]

I have a history of disagreeing with old Steve, mostly along the line of politics (not like that is a rare thing around here) and if I was pressed, I'd say I notice that he tends to spout off a bit more than others in ask metafilter, but he's also in there slogging away, answering questions. I could probably find fault with most or much of what he says, but I also believe that if you ask a question on askme, as much as you deserve the best possible answer, you need to accept the risk that the responses could be wrong. Personally I waver between being amused by Steve's iron-bound conservative answers and his occasionally very informed and always (seemingly) earnest responses, but I read and query ask with a huge grain of salt.

I know this much, if someone sends you mail, as opposed to commenting in public about what you say, you are showing very poor form to publicize their communication to you without permission. That's an issue of manners though, and very subjective.
posted by Divine_Wino at 9:44 PM on January 10 [1 favorite]

Oh boy am I waiting for SCDB to turn up here!
posted by Jimbob at 9:44 PM on January 10

I'm going to call you out if you don't stop doing that.

We may be seeing here the beginnings of a string of MeTa-begetting-MeTas that would be LEGEN... wait for it... DARY!!!
posted by wendell at 9:46 PM on January 10 [1 favorite]

We may be seeing here the beginnings of a string of MeTa-begetting-MeTas that would be LEGEN... wait for it... DARY!!!

I suppose my head would be next on the chopping block, and I've never been called out. I suppose you could say I'm a Metafilter virgin. A fresh-face, doe-like Metafilter virgin. Please don't be too rough.
posted by "Tex" Connor and the Wily Roundup Boys at 9:53 PM on January 10

We may be seeing here the beginnings of a string of MeTa-begetting-MeTas that would be LEGEN... wait for it... DARY!!!

[NOT LACTOSE-INTOLERANTIST]
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 9:54 PM on January 10 [2 favorites]

Sometimes, IMHO, the moderators here are over-eager to delete interactions that appear to be motivated by aggression, even though those interactions may have intellectual value. Many things can be learned by reading arguments. Obviously an argument over whether A is a prick, or it is B who is the prick, or both A and B are both pricks, has no little intellectual value. But moral arguments can be both emotionally provoking and intellectually enlightening. People feel strongly about things. This can, and should, motivate them to explain those things, and hopefully reconsider their own positions. I certainly have reconsidered, or at least thought through in greater detail, positions of mine because of remarks that others have made that I have found annoying at the time, because they were phrased in an insulting or derisive way. Annoyance is a great motivator to do that. As such I'd rather have the annoyance and intellectual stimulation, than neither.
posted by aeschenkarnos at 9:54 PM on January 10 [1 favorite]

Can't we go back to arguing over pointless grammar issues?
posted by blue_beetle at 9:57 PM on January 10

(Of course, I'd rather not have just annoyance, either. We've had "just annoyances" in the past. One in particular: "G-d grant he lie still", as the saying goes. I suspect some of the moderators' intolerance for unpleasantry these days is an immune response to the past infection - him.)
posted by aeschenkarnos at 9:59 PM on January 10

For various reasons I don't answer a lot of AskMe questions and I ask even fewer. But I like to think that if a significant percentage of answers that I do give and am sure are right are called out and proved wrong that eventually I will have the self-awareness to question my assumptions of what is right and how I come to be sure of so many things about which I'm actually mistaken, and then - rather than continue the behavior that repeatedly led me to assert fallacy as fact - learn a new way to learn, and a new way to engage in conversation. I like to think that. But I'm probably wrong.
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 9:59 PM on January 10 [2 favorites]

MetaMeta.

Sidebar: fandango_matt, I like you. A lot. So I'm kind of pissed that I'm having to call you out like this. Come on.
posted by scrump at 9:59 PM on January 10

No, scrump, this thread was already a MetaMeta. You just completed a triple play.

We're all out!
posted by "Tex" Connor and the Wily Roundup Boys at 10:02 PM on January 10

DO I GET A PRIZE owait
posted by scrump at 10:04 PM on January 10

Interesting... :

Languagehat, what you did was to show up and say, "SHADDUP all you people, you don't know what you're talking about and shouldn't be posting."

If you have an answer, post it. But please leave your high horse at the door.
posted by Steven C. Den Beste at 8:26 AM on January 10 [+] [!]

posted by misterbrandt at 10:05 PM on January 10

Congratulations, fandango_matt, you've managed to out-dick Steven C. Den Beste!
posted by dersins at 10:05 PM on January 10 [1 favorite]

But how does that out-dick smell?
posted by Astro Zombie at 10:07 PM on January 10 [3 favorites]

So I'm kind of pissed that I'm having to call you out like this.

Why did you "hav[e] to" post another MeTa? He's already getting chewed out in this thread.
posted by brain_drain at 10:09 PM on January 10

This thread has jumped the LiveJournal shark.
posted by Mikey-San at 10:10 PM on January 10

Oh wait, is that why we are already MetaMeta? Fuck. I am reading through my RSS feeds backwards tonight. Fuck.
posted by misterbrandt at 10:10 PM on January 10

Why did you "hav[e] to" post another MeTa? He's already getting chewed out in this thread.

This thread is for chewing SCDB out. Anyone chewing fandango_matt out in this thread is in violation.
posted by "Tex" Connor and the Wily Roundup Boys at 10:11 PM on January 10 [1 favorite]

The problem with SCBD is not that he post wrong answers, but that he posts answers that he knows are wrong. It is left to other people to either clean up his crap and engage him in debate or leave the answers alone which will also influence the questioner.

SCDB has 3434 answers. Since I've never seen an answer from him that has been correct, let's be extremely generous and say 25% of these are wrong. That's nearly 1000 wrong answers. This is damaging to the AskMe community.

This is not the type of community I want to be a part of. I'm sick of looking at every thread and wondering whether SCDB will ruin it. I do not think he should be allowed to post in Ask Metafilter.
posted by null terminated at 10:35 PM on January 10 [3 favorites]

MetaTalk is very biblical tonight... stupidsexyFlanders' thread begat fandango-matt's thread, which then begat scrump's thread...
posted by amyms at 10:40 PM on January 10 [2 favorites]

But how does that out-dick smell?

Like metatalk, of course.
posted by dersins at 10:45 PM on January 10

MetaTalk: I love the smell of out-dick in the morning
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 10:46 PM on January 10 [1 favorite]

It smells like...
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 10:47 PM on January 10

Insipid questions bother me more - and are more of a detriment to the site as a useful resource - than poor responses, which can be refuted.
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 10:47 PM on January 10 [1 favorite]

It smells like...

...dick-tory?
posted by dersins at 11:04 PM on January 10 [1 favorite]

I have to admit I tend to automatically disregard Stephen's AskMe answers as well. Which presents a 2 fold difficulty... what if a particular answer he gives is really the best answer... and those AskMe-ers who don't keep up on the Meta discussions may never really know his pattern and assign equal weight to the answers.
posted by edgeways at 11:09 PM on January 10

DING DING DING DING!!!

(The judges inform me that we would also have accepted "schween spirit.")
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 11:09 PM on January 10 [1 favorite]

Steven den Beste is just trying to live up to his name.
posted by jouke at 11:10 PM on January 10

Damnit! Quit getting in edgeways!
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 11:10 PM on January 10

(The judges inform me that we would also have accepted "schween spirit.")

Long --> length, wrong --> wrength, schlong --> schlength (quoth King Kength).
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 11:12 PM on January 10

Hmm... I don't have too much to say, other then that SCDB's habit of being wrong about everything is really damn annoying. I don't even get how you can be so wrong so often. It's bizarre.
posted by delmoi at 11:15 PM on January 10 [2 favorites]

stav, when did you last visit Hength Kenght?
posted by wendell at 11:21 PM on January 10

Is there where the dicks are all out? *looks around*

goddammit.
posted by Ambrosia Voyeur at 11:22 PM on January 10

Just let the admins change his account name to Steven den Slechtste.
Then people will be warned!
posted by jouke at 11:22 PM on January 10 [2 favorites]

Sometimes AskMe reminds me of this passage from Herodotus about the ancient Babylonians:

The following custom seems to me the wisest of their institutions next to the one lately praised. They have no physicians, but when a man is ill, they lay him in the public square, and the passers-by come up to him, and if they have ever had his disease themselves or have known any one who has suffered from it, they give him advice, recommending him to do whatever they found good in their own case, or in the case known to them; and no one is allowed to pass the sick man in silence without asking him what his ailment is.

posted by nasreddin at 11:24 PM on January 10 [35 favorites]

I have a bad feeling about this.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 11:25 PM on January 10

That's a amazingly apt quote Nasreddin.
posted by jouke at 11:26 PM on January 10

I bet Heroductus didn't say anything about completely and blissfully ignoring a community and continuing to engage in behavior that will only further undermine his position. I think Livy was the only one who touched that.
posted by geoff. at 11:32 PM on January 10

Best regards,

Matthew

That is one of the most deeply insincere sentiments I've seen expressed on here in a while, fandango_matt.
posted by dersins at 11:32 PM on January 10 [5 favorites]

It's clear that the problem is not enough questions about anime. He'd nail those like nothing.
posted by puke & cry at 11:34 PM on January 10 [2 favorites]

Unless the next post from fandango_matt is the one where he demonstrates he had SCDB's permission several hours ago, it seems like all of fandango matt's comments with his emails should be removed. Leave place markers if they're needed to keep the thread making sense, but why leave the emails up?
posted by jacquilynne at 11:35 PM on January 10 [2 favorites]

I never yet feared those men who set a place apart in the middle of their cities where they gather to cheat one another and swear oaths which they break.

Herodotus

posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 11:36 PM on January 10

I'd say this thread went waaaay south, but, actually, the south has a lot of good to be said for it. This thread, not so much.
posted by flapjax at midnite at 11:36 PM on January 10

And yeah, the dumbass of the day award goes to fandango_matt. You had everyone on your side here until you decided to republish private messages from den beste. Now you look like the bad guy. Bravo.
posted by puke & cry at 11:38 PM on January 10

Can't you guys just kiss and make up and create some gifs of anime characters having sex with chickens?
posted by brain_drain at 11:42 PM on January 10

To : Everyone
Date : Jan 11, 2008 1:40 AM
Subject : Duuuuuude
Message : This is so freaking awkward, right? I mean, it's not just me, is it?
Yep. Awkward.

Cringingly - but with hugs and kisses and wishes of a great day,
Alvy&
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 11:45 PM on January 10

Not having actually payed attention to SCDB (like banner-ads, I just don't notice anymore) but curious based upon delmoi's above comment:

Is there sufficient signal to simply apply not(SCDB), or is he merely frustratingly random: \bra SCDB | correct | SCDB \ket ~=.5?

(should this be a MeMail to delmoi?)

{and why doesn't an ampersand + lt/gt give me the dirac notation joy I so desperately crave in my preview?}

[and now that it's taken me 15 minutes to compose this, after preview formatting confusion, was it really worth posting to begin with? c.f. 1001 motivations for 'always the lurker and never the lurkee' lamentations]
posted by johnjoe at 11:47 PM on January 10 [2 favorites]

Wow, I've found that I've totally forgotten if this thread had an original point and am now just waiting to see how much of a dick fandango_matt is going to brand himself.

He's off to a good start with the "posting email" thing, but unless he cranks it up a notch he's just going to be known as a very small dick.
posted by tkolar at 11:47 PM on January 10

why doesn't an ampersand + lt/gt give me the dirac notation joy I so desperately crave

*Cackles evilly*
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 11:50 PM on January 10

*Cackles evilly Alvily*
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 11:52 PM on January 10

An 80s Ohrwurm for your enjoyment. Here's the start of the lyrics to help you sing along while you take your beer from the tray.

Ich ziehe durch die Straßen bis nach Mitternacht,
ich hab' das früher auch gern gemacht,
dich brauch ich dafür nicht.
Ich sitz am Tresen trinke noch n' Bier,
früher warn wir oft gemeinsam hier,
das macht mir,macht mir nichts.
Gegenüber sitzt n' Typ wien Bär,
ich stell mir vor: "Wenn das dein neuer wär",
das juckt mich überhaupt nicht.
Aufeinmal packts mich,ich geh auf ihn zu und mach ihn an: "Lass meine Frau in Ruh",
er fragt nur: Hast dun Stich?"
Und ich denke schonwieder nur an dich...

Verdammt ich lieb' dich,ich lieb dich nicht.
Verdammt ich brauch dich,ich brauch dich nicht.
Verdammt ich will dich,ich will dich nicht,
ich will dich nicht verliern.
posted by jouke at 12:15 AM on January 11 [1 favorite]

Unless the next post from fandango_matt is the one where he demonstrates he had SCDB's permission several hours ago, it seems like all of fandango matt's comments with his emails should be removed. Leave place markers if they're needed to keep the thread making sense, but why leave the emails up?

Unless your next post is less pompous and melodramatic, it seems like all of your comments on Metafilter should be removed. There's a rule about that. It's right next to the one that prohibits posting MefiMail messages in the grey.
posted by Krrrlson at 12:19 AM on January 11 [1 favorite]

You know, there is actually negative value to answering a question where you don't know the answer, as if this needs to be pointed out. There is a tab labeled "unanswered" which is there, presumably, on the off chance that you can peek in there to help questioners whose hard-to-answer questions got swept off the front page.

By answering those questions with a bullshit answer, you've taken that resource away from the questioner.

We're not getting five cents per answer and we don't promise to answer all questions.
posted by maxwelton at 12:29 AM on January 11 [2 favorites]

Here's how it works. If you have a question about language, history of language, or linguistic antiquities in general, you turn to languagehat. He's the Indiana Jones of etymology. I once learned on his blog that the work 'shark' comes from a mayan word "xoc". That has to be the coolest string of letters I've ever seen. And it was just some random Thursday. Who the hell opens up a Thursday with 'xoc'? Languagehat, that's who. Languagehat is a guy who knows his linear A from his linear B, if you know what I mean. Because I don't.

But if you have a question about, oh I don't know, maybe orthogonal frequency division multiplexing. You need your orthogonal frequencies divided and thenyou need those motherfuckers multiplexed poste haste near the Nyquist rate. Well, in that case, SCDB is your man. Maybe you simply want to know in general terms how in the hell one can send and receive 1's and 0's over the goddamn ether without accidentally picking up the stray binary digits blasting out of the all-too-close Avril Lavinge wannabe's blinged out RAZR. SCDB has got that shit on lock.

So he posts a wrong answer every once in a while. Big deal. Every single answer to every RelationshipFilter post has been wrong, but you don't hear me complaining. I mean, how hard is it for people to realize the answer to those boy-meets-girl-meets-boy questions is always "You don't deserve love. Only despair."
posted by Pastabagel at 12:32 AM on January 11 [29 favorites]

It seems that my special purpose in AskMefi is to tell cat stories. Lemme always be that person...or I shall bore my cat with even more talk, spiral downward to cat hoarding, and lob felines at people who even think about stepping on the lawn.
posted by bonobo at 1:09 AM on January 11 [1 favorite]

It's really hard for me to believe that SCDB has no way of telling which of his answers are more likely to be accurate than others. At the very least, he should be able to understand his own knowledge the way Pastabagel does.
posted by grouse at 1:19 AM on January 11

Fandango. This is a fucking website. At the end of the day its entertainment, its not life or death. Stephen comes up with decent, intelligent answers. They might not be 100% right, its up to the Asker to make the decision. This shit isn't life or death. This is AskMetafilter. Its right up there with watching bowling on sunday. Welcome to nowhere, champ. If you want integrity, go be Kafka's hunger artist.
posted by cascando at 1:53 AM on January 11 [1 favorite]

MeTa.
posted by flabdablet at 3:02 AM on January 11

Bollocks.
posted by flabdablet's sock puppet at 3:04 AM on January 11

Self linker!
posted by flabdablet at 3:07 AM on January 11

Stephen comes up with decent, intelligent answers.

I thought the point of this thread was that he doesn't come up with decent, intelligent answers. That he sometimes just googles. And that on those occasions, he doesn't tell us, "I know I'm right because google said so."

I don't know if that's what's happening, but if it is, then that's not cool. AskMe needs to be more than just an elaborate proxy for google.
posted by robcorr at 4:05 AM on January 11

I don't have any problem with educated guesses in AskMe, but they need to be identifiable as such. Having said that, I like having SCDB around, and have never really understood all the animosity towards him, especially given the condescension and bad-temperedness that some other people seem to get away with.
posted by teleskiving at 4:24 AM on January 11 [1 favorite]

Metafilter: stavros said it best.

Metafilter: more than just an elaborate proxy for google.
posted by flapjax at midnite at 4:42 AM on January 11 [1 favorite]

And my humble vote for threadwinner? Why, flabdablet, of course, with those 3 deft links above. Flabdablet brings home the thread!
posted by flapjax at midnite at 4:44 AM on January 11

You know what drives me nuts? When reporters say that "the smell in here is unbearable." No it's not, you're bearing it ain'tcha?
posted by Skorgu at 4:47 AM on January 11

I'm going to take SCDB's word about his motivations and approach, which I don't think fandango_matt quite gets.

When SCDB says that it's ok to be wrong, he's not saying it's ok to knowingly give a wrong answer. He's saying it's ok to give an answer you believe is correct, and then for it to turn out that it's not.

Other people are saying that you shouldn't give an answer you believe is correct, but an answer you know is correct. These people are misunderstanding the phrase "believe to be correct". "Believing" something is correct is the same as "knowing" something is correct. What they're arguing against is answering something you believe is probably correct. When you believe something is probably correct, you're guessing. When you believe something is correct, you're "knowing" it. Your knowledge may be incorrect.

So, given the explanation SCDB gave to fandango_matt in the mefimail, SCDB is not defending guessing or throwing out possibilities (which is what I thought he was saying in the other thread). He's saying that he gives answers that he believes to be correct, and that sometimes turn out otherwise.

If it makes the difference clear:

I can tell you that my dad's name is Tom. I know it is. I'm not guessing. But, who knows, despite all the baby pictures and family resemblance, I might actually be secretly adopted. If someone asked me my dad's name, I'd say "Tom", because I believe I'm correct ("I know it!"), but I could be wrong. SCDB is saying "If you believe your dad's name is Tom, that is, you know your dad's name is Tom, and someone asks you your dad's name, and you answer 'Tom', and then it turns out that you're actually adopted, you didn't do anything wrong. You answered what you honestly believed to be correct."

BUT!!!!

Where this stops being a defense of SCDB is: this line of reasoning is true. But if you are wrong over and over and over and over and over again, you need to realize that you're not very good at judging when you are correct or not, and thus, even if you believe you are correct, you should not answer, because statistically, you're probably wrong, despite how confident you feel about it.

There's nothing wrong with answering questions based on believing wholeheartedly that you know their answers. There is something wrong with answering questions based on believing wholeheartedly that you know their answers but you also know that your wholehearted beliefs are frequently wrong.

So the reasons SCDB does what he does are good and sound, in my opinion, but that doesn't mean that SCDB should continue to do it.
posted by bugbread at 4:51 AM on January 11 [6 favorites]

"'Here's one example. I am certain there are many others.'

To be fair, he retracts himself three comments down."

To be fair, that wouldn't be possible were his prostate still intact.

I dunno, this sounds like a lover's quarrel to me, what with the broadcasting of private messages and all. I advocate timeouts for the authors of oh, say the first 125 comments in this thread.
posted by Eideteker at 5:00 AM on January 11 [2 favorites]

Dear Bugbread,

There's something Tom and I have been meaning to tell you...
posted by headspace at 5:41 AM on January 11 [1 favorite]

Simple solution:

[mark as best answer][mark as den beste answer]
posted by davey_darling at 5:42 AM on January 11 [11 favorites]

Guesses do nothing to help, they're just noise, and they do not help people find answers.

Wrong, in effect. People like to feel superior to others - Exhibit A: you posting this thread - and proving some numbskull wrong in great detail is often just the extra motivation the knowledgeable answerer needs to spend his or her time on some stranger's technical question. This is the general pattern I've noticed on askme:

1) Someone posts specific question to which there is only one correct answer or solution
2) Someone jumps in quickly with well-meaning but obviously wrong information
3) Someone else knows previous answer was wrong but doesn't know the right answer so posts, "Uh, I don't think that's what the asker is asking" then restates the question, often in more intelligible form than the original
4) Knowledgeable answerer comes in to save the day

and since we have no way of knowing which of his answers are just guesses, we cannot trust or use any of his answers in Ask MetaFilter. So I ignore all his answers, because I can't trust them, so I consider his answers to be just noise in the thread, and I suspect I am not alone.

You can't "trust" anyone's answers on askme. Someone with the right answer almost always shows their work and if you can't distinguish right answers from wrong answers then an anonymous online website is not the place to go with your problem. There are expectations of intelligence on both sides of the exchange, which is why any attempt to save people from bad information strikes some as presumptuous (see the meta about languagehat yesterday). We're most of us smart, free-thinking adults and can take care of ourselves.
posted by otio at 5:53 AM on January 11 [1 favorite]

I don't particularly like SCDB, nor do I think his Ask Metafilter contributions are on the whole helpful, but what fandango_matt did should earn him a time-out. What an asshole move.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 5:55 AM on January 11 [1 favorite]

Is there sufficient signal to simply apply not(SCDB), or is he merely frustratingly random: \bra SCDB | correct | SCDB \ket ~=.5?

Well, I think you would need to take a random sample of SCDB's answers, and see how accurate they are overall. My guess is that he is more correct about some topics then he is about others.

(So the answer is... I don't know :)
posted by delmoi at 6:22 AM on January 11

{and why doesn't an ampersand + lt/gt give me the dirac notation joy I so desperately crave in my preview?}

Well, you need to type < and >. Like this <, >. You were probably missing a semicolon.
posted by delmoi at 6:28 AM on January 11

Yeah, in case my comment in here, the chorus of other people saying likewise, and the followup metatalk post from scrump weren't sufficiently clear:

DO NOT PASTE MEFIMAIL INTO THE CLEAR WITHOUT THE AUTHOR'S PERMISSION.

It's private correspondence. This is not cool. It's especially not cool to keep doing it after being told not to.

You're a smart guy, fandango_matt, and I like you a lot, but I don't know what the hell you were thinking here.
posted by cortex at 6:43 AM on January 11

I must have been blind not to have seen your earlier post, cortex. Sorry I missed that.
posted by fandango_matt at 6:54 AM on January 11

Yeah, in case my comment in here, the chorus of other people saying likewise, and the followup metatalk post from scrump weren't sufficiently clear:

DO NOT PASTE MEFIMAIL INTO THE CLEAR WITHOUT THE AUTHOR'S PERMISSION.

I'm afraid you lost me. What exactly is "the clear" and how would one go about pasting something into it? And who is this "the author" you speak of?
posted by burnmp3s at 6:55 AM on January 11

But if you are wrong over and over and over and over and over again, you need to realize that you're not very good at judging when you are correct or not, and thus, even if you believe you are correct, you should not answer, because statistically, you're probably wrong, despite how confident you feel about it.

Unskilled and Unaware of It: How Difficulties in Recognizing One's Own Incompetence Lead to Inflated Self-Assessments
(PDF)
posted by scalefree at 7:15 AM on January 11 [2 favorites]

Unless your next post is less pompous and melodramatic, it seems like all of your comments on Metafilter should be removed. There's a rule about that. It's right next to the one that prohibits posting MefiMail messages in the grey.

Wow. Apparently that post came off totally wrong. I just don't understand why, given that cortex is reading the thread, and believes that posting private mail in a thread is wrong, he's not removed it from the thread. It wasn't meant to be pompous or melodramatic (err, but I suppose few things ever are, deliberately, I mean).
posted by jacquilynne at 7:21 AM on January 11

So why is posting private correspondence publicly wrong?
posted by ninebelow at 7:23 AM on January 11

So, kids, we've got three lessons we've learned here:

(1) SCDB, like lots of engineers, is sort of a curmudeony stick-in-the-mud, and, while he knows a huge amount of things, tends to act like he knows slightly more. And, if we've ever met such people, we know it's pretty easy to put up with. We just keep it in mind.

(2) fandango_matt is a colossally tremendous prick who pulled at least two asshole moves at once: he posted a metatalk thread and kept commenting in it without apparently reading any of the comments, appearing to feel as though it was necessary to drag the object of his callout into the room before engaging in the discussion and explaining why the fuck he was doing what he was doing; and he continually posted private emails in what it seems was an active attempt to drag the person he called out into the discussion. Also, he seems to be a little dumb, because the emails he posted actually justify the guy he called out pretty well.

(3) Be fucking careful who you call out and how you do it. This is the second time in a row that a callout of one person has turned into a callout of somebody else.
posted by koeselitz at 7:29 AM on January 11 [2 favorites]

I think the problem is that some people are trying to win at AskMefi, either through getting favorite-ed, getting marked as best answer, or by sheer volume of comments. It's not a healthy way to measure contributions and it contributes to the whole "Hell, I'll guess without researching and maybe luck into a best answer."
posted by Alison at 7:32 AM on January 11

So why is posting private correspondence publicly wrong?

Please email me your bank account information for an explanation why.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 7:34 AM on January 11

ninebelow: So why is posting private correspondence publicly wrong?

Because privacy is the expectation that such correspondence carries, especially here, where it was added as a feature primarily so that conversations could be carried on in private rather than in front of the eyes of all. This is emphatically clear in this case, where Steven C. Den Beste did the right thing by trying to carry on the discussion (civilly and respectfully, I might add, and in a way that impresses me) in private, where it wouldn't waste the community's time and where it wouldn't become a circus (like this one). Posting metafilter emails that were purposefully not public is a passive-aggressive move; this is excruciatingly clear from the last one that fandango_matt posted, wherein he demands that Steven C. Den Beste come into the metatalk thread.
posted by koeselitz at 7:36 AM on January 11 [3 favorites]

No, that is why you should be careful who you email and what you email them.
posted by ninebelow at 7:39 AM on January 11 [2 favorites]

I don't know what the hell has been going on here since I went to sleep but what the hell? I removed the MeMail that FM pasted in here. Sorry to those who are now confused by what all the fuss was about, but jesus.

As far as the larger topic, SCDB seems to have a habit of barely on-topic non answers in AskMe and it would be super helpful for me personally as well as probably the site as a whole if either 1. he'd stop or 2. he'd be a lot more carful/qualifying of when he was making more or less wild guesses and when he had some degree of authority on a topic. Most people are good at drawing these lines.

FM, you've got a day off here. MeMail posting is 100% not okay.
posted by jessamyn at 7:40 AM on January 11 [3 favorites]

I, for one, have learned no such lessons, koeselitz.

cortex: (MeMail is) private correspondence. This is not cool. It's especially not cool to keep doing it after being told not to.

I respectfully either disagree or don't care. If the idea is that there is some moral imperative in assuming the good intentions (and necessary protection) of one who mails you a correspondence, then I would like to know what that is. I can't see any. If someone emails me, I own the value of it just as much as the sender. The moral should be, don't email anything you want kept private unless you have absolutely certainty that the recipient has serving your intentions as a goal. den Beste has been around long enough to know that.

If the only argument is that posting email is "uncool", then my response is, "Who cares?". Welcome to the internet. Some of the best comedy out here is from mis-sent or posted emails. Funny that, but I just don't remember the crusade to put an end to all of that frivolity ...
posted by Wulfgar! at 7:43 AM on January 11 [3 favorites]

Yay, now we have someone else to pile on to.
posted by smackfu at 7:45 AM on January 11 [1 favorite]

If the idea is that there is some moral imperative in assuming the good intentions (and necessary protection) of one who mails you a correspondence, then I would like to know what that is.

Common courtesy? Common decency?

Common sense?
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 7:47 AM on January 11

ninebelow: No, that is why you should be careful who you email and what you email them.

All communites are based on some sort of implicit trust. That includes MetaFilter. One of the things that's been a no-no for all the years I've been online is that you don't post an e-mail you have received without the sender's permission (to this rule there are a few exceptions... RIAA C&D letters, for instance). This goes doubly when you belong to the same community.
posted by Kattullus at 7:50 AM on January 11

As you should know, BP, there's nothing "common" about any of that.
posted by Wulfgar! at 7:50 AM on January 11

Wulfgar!: The moral should be, don't email anything you want kept private unless you have absolutely certainty that the recipient has serving your intentions as a goal. den Beste has been around long enough to know that.

Whatever. Fine. I don't mind if you don't have any scruples about this; I know other people I wouldn't send certain emails to, and you're right, that's not necessarily bad. In fact, those emails weren't embarrassing in any way; they were perfectly rational, and Steve came off pretty well.

It's still pretty easy to see what's wrong with starting a callout and thenceforth only commenting by posting somebody else's emails, right? I mean, he could have provided some context. Given that this was a pointless callout to begin with, right?
posted by koeselitz at 7:52 AM on January 11

Oh for pity's sake. We've all had good fun reading FPP at Metafilter solely based on one individual posting the 'private correspondence' of another. But somehow, we're above all this? Hardly.
posted by Wulfgar! at 7:53 AM on January 11

Just paraphrase a little the emails you want to quote. Problem solved for everyone.
posted by mediareport at 7:54 AM on January 11

See, koeselitz, this is the part you're getting wrong. MY scruples have nothing to do with it. There is no moral imperative one way or the other, save that you (and obviously others) are applying your own scruples toa situation with little or no foundation for doing so.

(And no, many here obviously don't agree with your misplaced assumption that this was a "pointless callout".)
posted by Wulfgar! at 7:56 AM on January 11

MORE LIKE DEN WORSTE AMIRITE

[forumlates new askme: "Has SCDB ever correctly answered your question?"]
posted by waraw at 7:59 AM on January 11

One of the things that's been a no-no for all the years I've been online is that you don't post an e-mail you have received without the sender's permission (to this rule there are a few exceptions... RIAA C&D letters, for instance).

So never post an e-mail, unless the sender is bad and evil. Which has generally been the clause invoked here when someone posts a MeMail (or forces the posting of a MeMail).
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 8:07 AM on January 11 [1 favorite]

I respectfully either disagree or don't care. If the idea is that there is some moral imperative in assuming the good intentions (and necessary protection) of one who mails you a correspondence, then I would like to know what that is.

There's a social imperative: the reasonable expectation of privacy. There's nothing new or challenging about the idea that respecting the privacy of personal correspondence; it's pretty much the norm, just about everywhere.

That you someone can post your private comments doesn't mean it's socially acceptable for them to do so. It's a violation of that expecatation of privacy; it's come up every once in a while before, and been pretty much roundly condemned every time. So if you don't like "not cool", use "wrong" or "fucked up" or "bizarre and antisocial and basically shitting on the community you're ostensibly part of" instead.
posted by cortex at 8:12 AM on January 11 [2 favorites]

Wulfgar! writes "If the only argument is that posting email is 'uncool', then my response is, 'Who cares?'."

I'm gonna guess "the people saying it's uncool".

The question "who cares" lobbed into a debate/argument has always baffled me. The people arguing that position care. That's why the discussion is taking place.
posted by bugbread at 8:13 AM on January 11 [6 favorites]

As you should know, BP, there's nothing "common" about any of that.

I think publishing someone's private correspondence publicly and without permission has always been commonly understood to violate expectations of privacy (and, yes, common courtesy, decency and sense) across most if not all cultures, on- or off-line.

You are asserting that Metafilter or "the Internet" somehow permits different expectations of privacy with respect to private communications, but it's not clear why, other than a weak defense that "it happens". I think it is reasonable to say that the onus would be on you to explain why Metafilter/Internet is an exception.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 8:15 AM on January 11

Wulfgar! writes "The moral should be, don't email anything you want kept private unless you have absolutely certainty that the recipient has serving your intentions as a goal."

There are multiple, non-contradictory morals here:

Moral #1: "Don't email anything you want kept private unless you have absolutely certainty that the recipient has serving your intentions as a goal. Some people are assholes, and will post your email."
Moral #2: "Don't post other people's private email. It makes you an asshole."
posted by bugbread at 8:15 AM on January 11 [1 favorite]

So never post an e-mail, unless the sender is bad and evil.

No, it's a bit more complicated than that:

1. Posting an e-mail or other private comment/correspondence is a violation of a pretty commonly-held expectation of privacy.
2. Sometimes, private corrspondence contains something of perceived public importance that the sender, when asked, won't give the receiver permission to reveal publicly.
3. If you're going to violate (1) because of (2), it had really better be worth it. It'll still be a violation of the expectation of privacy, and will still undermine the social contract that that represents.

I don't get anything like the idea that f_m and SCDB's correspondence was something that needed revealing. It was a mild sidebar to the conversation, and there was nothing in the contents that was so important for us to see that it justified the bullshit move of posting it.
posted by cortex at 8:17 AM on January 11 [4 favorites]

Wulfgar! wrote
There is no moral imperative one way or the other, save that you (and obviously others) are applying your own scruples to a situation with little or no foundation for doing so.

Ah, I see. The community is not establishing its "morals", it's establishing its "scruples".

There are no "moral imperatives" at all without a community. When enough members of a community are squicked out about something, not doing it becomes the standard of behavior. Violating those standards becomes .... wait for it... immoral.


I am interested in your apparent belief in the existence of objective "moral imperatives" that aren't based on the community, though. Do tell.
posted by tkolar at 8:19 AM on January 11

I think the problem is that some people are trying to win at AskMefi, either through getting favorite-ed, getting marked as best answer, or by sheer volume of comments. It's not a healthy way to measure contributions and it contributes to the whole "Hell, I'll guess without researching and maybe luck into a best answer."

Hmm, I sort of don't agree with this. "Sheer volume of comments" is a shit way to play AskMe -- it reeks of "I just lurve to hear myself talk, don't you?" I also believe that "I think I'm right when I post it and therefore I have no further obligation to the community to improve that metric. I thinks it, I answers it!" is a totally shit way to answer questions.

But AskMe is where I'm most active here, and frankly, I do strive to get marked as Best Answer. I look at a question and the answers already posted, and I think, "Do I need to post just for the sake of posting? Or do I really have something unique and helpful to contribute? Is what I want to say something that is actually helpful to the Asker?"
[ ] Y [ ] N
"Or is it to hear myself talk or to brag about my awesomeness or to castigate the Asker because I don't like his actions or to belittle another poster?"
[ ] Y [ ] N

[If Y+N, proceed to post. If N+Y, close window, exit website]

To me, Best Answer is a totally subjective metric ("I asked a question, and of the answers I received, here were the ones I felt to be most helpful"), and yet it's also really the reason that AskMe exists, to my thinking. They've got questions, we've got answers™^{I can't remember who}.

Without feedback from the Asker, AskMe would be lousy with "I posted first! Here's what I cut from Google" and "IANAD, I don't really have any experience at all with this but you might try thalidomide, my mom said it's great for headaches".

So, using Best Answer for stroke value is bad (one reason I'm glad that Best Answers don't aggregate somewhere like favorites)... but using Best Answer as a way to keep an eye on the value of one's own contributions seems fine to me. (I can allow, though, that maybe the two are the same and I'm just trying to justify my participation.)
posted by pineapple at 8:20 AM on January 11

I think ThePinkSuperhero summed up the great weight of your "social" imperative quite nicely.

Put more politely, obviously there is something extremely challenging about the idea of respecting privacy in electronic media. What is normal isn't that we all do it. What's normal is that we all agree to do it, unless we think we have reason not to. Given that weak projection of mandate, I think jessamyn's temp-ban of FM was over the top.
posted by Wulfgar! at 8:21 AM on January 11

As you should know, BP, there's nothing "common" about any of that.

Jesus fucking christ on toast.

Of course common sense, commone decency, and common fucking courtesy are going to be increasingly uncommon if we all act like this.

...obviously there is something extremely challenging about the idea of respecting privacy in electronic media.

Obviously, there isn't or there wouldn't be so many people right here right now saying that repsecting someone's privacy by not posting their emails without permission is not cool.

It's simple. Don't be an asshole. Just because someone is an asshole to you does not require you to be an asshole back.
posted by rtha at 8:25 AM on January 11 [1 favorite]

Put more politely, obviously there is something extremely challenging about the idea of respecting privacy in electronic media.

What's the challenge?
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 8:26 AM on January 11

"What exactly is "the clear" and how would one go about pasting something into it?"

It goes with the cream, and makes our postings SUPER POWERFUL. Before the cream and the clear, I had trouble posting even five MeTa comments a day, and they'd hardly get any favorites. Now, with the cream and the clear (mostly flaxseed oil, I hear), even comments like "Huh huh, you said 'butt'" get hundreds of favorites! Enough to make it to the MeFi Hall of Fame in upstate Vermont.
posted by klangklangston at 8:31 AM on January 11 [1 favorite]

I can't remember who

Radio Shack. Just remember the alternate version: "You've got questions, we've got batteries."
posted by cortex at 8:32 AM on January 11

rtha, for the record, I don't post private emails. But then I've never been solicited to perform plagiarism through email, or requested to repay half the cost of a dinner date, or received emails from a rejected potential date telling me how awesome the person I rejected is, or any of the other circumstances where posting private email is the rage and celebration among this community that reviles the posting of email.

Consistency, BP. That's the challenge.
posted by Wulfgar! at 8:39 AM on January 11