Oh, come on September 1, 2008 2:18 PM   Subscribe

It's an interesting story in its own right. Its surface correspondence to the Palin rumors makes for a a good 'hook', which I used, but I don't think that makes the possible solving of a 260-year old mystery less interesting or worth reading about. The coincidence is amusing, but the post doesn't rest on that, and if anything it makes the post more fun. And it certainly doesn't belong in the existing Palin thread.

I really don't see how this is a bad post.
posted by orthogonality to Etiquette/Policy at 2:18 PM (71 comments total)

Did you not understand the reason for deletion? Sometimes posts don't get deleted just because they're bad.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 2:20 PM on September 1, 2008 [2 favorites]


I really don't see how this is a bad post.

Then wait a month, then repost it. It'll still be a good story, and not have the taint of "HEY EVERYONE LETS TALK ABOUT TODAYS CURRENT VERSION OF THIS STORY INSTEAD"
posted by mathowie (staff) at 2:20 PM on September 1, 2008 [2 favorites]


copy and paste some shit from reddit instead, that'll fly
posted by matteo at 2:25 PM on September 1, 2008


When you were choosing to present it as a political Rick Roll, did it occur to you at all that that was a not-great idea?

Like Matt said: post it again later. Maybe don't frame it as "Palin AMIRITE" when you do. As it is, you had seven comments from seven people going "I see what you did there" instead of talking about the actual substance of the thing you were posting about, and that wasn't a coincidence.
posted by cortex (staff) at 2:31 PM on September 1, 2008 [1 favorite]


As cortex said, you pretty much sank it yourself. Post it in a month.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 2:44 PM on September 1, 2008


Clearly, the post was axed for "A prominent women..." Seriously, d00d, wtf?
posted by Eideteker at 2:51 PM on September 1, 2008


boo hoo, your stunt post got deleted for being a stunt post.
posted by Mr. President Dr. Steve Elvis America at 3:42 PM on September 1, 2008


Metafilter's levees have not yet breeched, but poo is 'sloshing' over the sides and the levees are obviously struggling to contain the wrath of Media Hurricane Sarah, the strongest named media storm of the general election media season so far.
posted by milkrate at 3:44 PM on September 1, 2008 [4 favorites]


Did you really think that that obviously related post would fly? I want some of what you're smoking...
posted by schyler523 at 3:49 PM on September 1, 2008


Whenever the deletion of what are termed "stunt posts" comes into question, I always imagine video would look like this.
posted by cashman at 3:53 PM on September 1, 2008


I really don't see how this is a bad post.

It's a bad post because some people are sick of reading about Sarah Palin, not because of the content, which is fine.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 3:54 PM on September 1, 2008


Absolutely appalling tonedeaf stunt post that encourages only the worst tendencies here, which are rather sadly on open display in the existing Palin hornets' nest. And then you drag it to MeTa for another go-around.

Top move.
posted by Wolof at 3:55 PM on September 1, 2008 [1 favorite]


Maybe the post would have been better if you had added something new, like, "PALIN IS A VPILF"... Oh, wait, that's yesterday's news, just like your post
posted by KokuRyu at 4:03 PM on September 1, 2008


I agree with you, ortho, that was a good post and should not have been deleted.

I also think it was a mistake to force discussion of the Palin daughter's pregnancy into the existing thread.

Mathowie, you've said that your philosophy is to trust the members, and I think you have lived up to that to a surprising degree now that I've seen enough to have a sense of how aggravating and wrong-headed we can be how often.

But I do think you're failing your own vision for Metafilter in the Palin business. Really big things are happening in this country right now, maybe as consequential in their own way as 9/11 (history is a river sourced between the thighs of women, if you will), and I believe people all over the world are going to look back at the Palin nomination as a defining moment for our time. People want to come together and hear what other people think; they want to hear what they think themselves for that matter because they don't know it until they say it and see it looking back at them sometimes.

Ortho's post was perspective, and I think you should have kept it around.
posted by jamjam at 5:06 PM on September 1, 2008 [5 favorites]


"...history is a river sourced between the thighs of women..."

Al Goldstein?
posted by An Infinity Of Monkeys at 5:08 PM on September 1, 2008


I believe people all over the world are going to look back at the Palin nomination as a defining moment for our time.

Man, our time is pathetic.
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 5:25 PM on September 1, 2008 [11 favorites]


I agree that this post is a transparently and slightly disingenuously topical one, on a subject that is already being addressed (to death) in another thread.

Nevertheless, I also think its a fine post. Hell, mathowie said that its a good post - just not timed right. But I don't understand at all the "post it in a month" logic. Its mind-boggling to me that you would advise ortho to wait until the subject is less relevant. How does waiting until stories don't have the taint of topicality make this a better site?

Maybe it is indeed a "stunt post" - but its one that happens to have genuine content that is worthy in its own right. I think that the rules on multiple simultaneous political-filter posts could be relaxed a bit for this one.
posted by googly at 5:33 PM on September 1, 2008


Maybe it is indeed a "stunt post" - but its one that happens to have genuine content that is worthy in its own right.

I agree, but the framing cuts the legs out from under it in such a way that the content would not be the main focus, nor would it if an amended version was immediately reposted.
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 5:49 PM on September 1, 2008 [1 favorite]


Needs more secretly preggers Pope.
posted by Artw at 6:11 PM on September 1, 2008


ANSWER HAZY, ASK AGAIN LATER
posted by blue_beetle at 6:18 PM on September 1, 2008


Its mind-boggling to me that you would advise ortho to wait until the subject is less relevant. How does waiting until stories don't have the taint of topicality make this a better site?

By removing something as questionable as "topicality" as an incentive for posting? I don't believe there's any argument to be made that topicality makes a good post, only that it makes a post that's likely to get more current-events chatter in the comments.

Newsfilter is a more or less unavoidable part of Mefi, and we're a far cry from locking it out, I think. But it's not what Mefi was designed for and it's usually not something we're great at, and topicality is not a word that I would ever have used to describe why I like this place.
posted by cortex (staff) at 6:18 PM on September 1, 2008


personally I would have zero problem, and would probably welcome, a situation where nothing less than say (arbitrarily) a year old could be posted. And yes, I'm a participant in the train wreck of a thread there, but like some others, I'm trying to walk through the sewer therew/o adding to it.
I think pretty much everyone would agree that that thread in no way represents the 'best of the web'.
also sorry if I participated in dooming that thread othog, I kinda thought it was a foregone conclusion to be honest.
posted by dawson at 6:30 PM on September 1, 2008


People want to come together and hear what other people think; they want to hear what they think themselves for that matter because they don't know it until they say it and see it looking back at them sometimes.

It's not as though discussing Palin is banned on Metafilter. The deleted thread was obviously going to turn into a Palin thread, but there's already a Palin thread. Go talk about Palin in the Palin thread. There's no need to make a new one.
posted by Mr. President Dr. Steve Elvis America at 6:37 PM on September 1, 2008 [1 favorite]


jamjam, dude, you can't praise my long term vision for the site despite popular news of the day and in the same paragraph try to equate an election news item that is barely 12 hours old with the importance of 9/11.

If you believe I have a long term vision for the health of MeFi, trust me when I say this isn't a landmark bit of news and isn't good for MeFi despite it seeming important today.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 6:50 PM on September 1, 2008 [3 favorites]


jamjam: ... I believe people all over the world are going to look back at the Palin nomination as a defining moment for our time.

Oh, damned right. That cynical bastard John McCain knows very well that the only way for him to win this election is to make it petty, small, and meaningless. He picked as running mate the one person most likely to make that happen, a big, happy ball of tabloid-bait, complete with a child who has a previously-unannounced pregnancy.

The selection of Sarah Palin as VP candidate was a defining moment; it was the moment when John McCain realized he could win. He has a great chance as long as he continues to play to the urge that every human being has to be petty and small. Democrats are not immune to that urge. This will be a test of their patience. My only real hope here, though it's a big one, is that Barack Obama seems to be above this shit.

Either way, I don't run a community blog, but if I did, then the only reason I'd want to talk a whole lot about Sarah Palin would be if I was getting a check from John McCain.
posted by koeselitz at 6:56 PM on September 1, 2008 [2 favorites]


I don't believe there's any argument to be made that topicality makes a good post, only that it makes a post that's likely to get more current-events chatter in the comments.

Agreed. I didn't mean to imply that topicality makes a good post - just that it doesn't necessarily make a bad one. mathowie's argument seems to be that this is an otherwise good post that is rendered deletion-worthy merely because it is topical. My point is that if a post is good enough to be posted a month from now, I can't really see why it shouldn't be posted now.
posted by googly at 6:56 PM on September 1, 2008


The deleted thread was obviously going to turn into a Palin thread, but there's already a Palin thread. Go talk about Palin in the Palin thread. There's no need to make a new one.

The possibility that it might become a mere Palinpsest of a previous thread doesn't necessarily mean it should be deleted.
posted by googly at 6:57 PM on September 1, 2008


jamjam: "history is a river sourced between the thighs of women, if you will"

No, I won't, but thanks for the offer.
posted by The corpse in the library at 7:13 PM on September 1, 2008


if a post is good enough to be posted a month from now, I can't really see why it shouldn't be posted now.

Context matters. If there have already been two or three single link youtube posts in a given day, the fourth one, especially if it's posted with a wink and a nod to the other three will meet the same fate as this post did. Each post doesn't exist in a vacuum. This has been a long exhausting day that I hear a lot of people had off from work. The first however many comments in the post were all "I see what you did there" lulzy comments. Posting in a month means that the topic of the post, you know the actual topic, might be what people talked about instead of more Palin topic creep.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 7:22 PM on September 1, 2008


No, dammit its important NOW. NOW, NOW, NOW, NOW, NOW.

And my jokes are ALL funny and should NEVER be deleted even when they're OBVIOUSLY inappropriate.

In other words, ortho, I feel your pain, but we are all special snowflakes on this bus.
posted by yhbc at 7:31 PM on September 1, 2008


Inappropriate jokes are generally the best.
posted by Artw at 7:33 PM on September 1, 2008


Oh, and good post orthogonality. I can se why it was ditched, but it's a great shame that it was.
posted by Artw at 7:44 PM on September 1, 2008


jessamyn writes "The first however many comments in the post were all 'I see what you did there' lulzy comments."

I've mentioned this before at greater length, but I'll say it again: an otherwise acceptable post shouldn't be deleted because one or more people lulz or thread-shit or intentionally derail in it. But that's what happens here. And it's a problem, because posters put some amount of work into posting, work that's undone by thread-shitters doing nothing but breaking the guidelines. The shitters get rewarded by seeing their expectations met, the poster who did the work gets his work trashed.

Now in this case, I expected some "lol Palin", at least one "I see wht you did there", sure, but I also expected some real discussion of Lady Jane and her twins, and of how laws of primogeniture made male heirs overly important and baby-fraud lucrative. So this post isn't the perfect example of rewarding shitters and trashing workers.

But regardless of that, as I've also mentioned before, the mods' idea that shitted-in threads should be deleted (rather than deleting the derails and shit) incentivizes shitting while discouraging good posts. Which means fewer good posts, fewer cutting-edge posts. And that's bad all around, for the site, for the posters, for the users, and for the non-member readers.
posted by orthogonality at 7:48 PM on September 1, 2008 [2 favorites]


But regardless of that, as I've also mentioned before, the mods' idea that shitted-in threads should be deleted (rather than deleting the derails and shit) incentivizes shitting while discouraging good posts. Which means fewer good posts, fewer cutting-edge posts. And that's bad all around, for the site, for the posters, for the users, and for the non-member readers.

But it's far from a black-and-white, definitely-delete/never-clean-up policy. Limited resources (is the site really busy already?) and timing issues (do we see it, and the trouble in it, soon enough to save it?) both play into it, and realistically we need to make that call on a case-by-case basis.

There are many, many posts in which we've gone in and done what cleaning up we can to de-shitbox a thread because the post seemed decent and we had the time and patience and damn-fool optimism to try and swim upstream. Generally speaking, we'd rather keep a worthwhile post than can it, if we're reasonably able to do so.

All of that stands aside from the question of the lousy framing and timing on this one, to be clear. We didn't nix your post today because the first few comments sucked; the first few comments sucked for the same reason we nixed the post: it was really poorly done under the circumstances, and you knew better to boot.
posted by cortex (staff) at 8:37 PM on September 1, 2008


an otherwise acceptable post shouldn't be deleted because one or more people lulz or thread-shit or intentionally derail in it

We agree. Your post wasn't otherwise acceptable for reasons we have already outlined. We've actually stepped up some of the thread-shitting removal and it seems to have made a big difference. I can only remember one or two threads on decent topics that were rendered unsalvageable because of people hellbent on destroying them. You're arguing against a guideline that doesn't exist.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 8:38 PM on September 1, 2008


jessamyn writes "We've actually stepped up some of the thread-shitting removal and it seems to have made a big difference. I can only remember one or two threads on decent topics that were rendered unsalvageable because of people hellbent on destroying them. You're arguing against a guideline that doesn't exist."

Well, I didn't say it was a "guideline", I said it was a consequence. And I'm not arguing, I'm pointing it out. I'm pointing it out (both here and on previous occasions) because I've seen it more than one or two times -- admittedly over the course of several years -- and because I didn't know it that you'd stepped up addressing it. But if you are now addressing it, good work, that's great news.
posted by orthogonality at 8:55 PM on September 1, 2008


James II's queen, Mary of Modena, faced accusations that her son (James III or the Old Pretender) was a changling who had been smuggled into the palace in a warming pan, though the rumours couldn't agree whether the prince had died or if she had just never been pregnant. Even his own sisters disputed his legitimacy. Poor kid, but all a moot point since William III was the one with the army.
posted by jb at 9:47 PM on September 1, 2008


I'm maybe gonna be the lone defender here, but I think that this was a good post, and while maybe not an A++ super post (which is a bullshit metric anyway), it was a post that does something I think Metafilter is good at: giving a larger context to new stories.

It was a historical analogue that, to me at least, encouraged stepping back from the current Palin engagement. Sure, it used Palin as the hook—that's what good historical features do, is use current events as the lede. But it also abstracted and encouraged analysis (perhaps facile, perhaps deep), which is something MeFi can (and does) excel at.

I do think that ortho's personality here, and perceived propensity toward the Me(t/T)a point scoring worked against him, but I think that deleting this post rather than moderating it heavily was a victory for the worst here at MeFi.
posted by klangklangston at 11:34 PM on September 1, 2008 [3 favorites]


Tom Eagleton lasted 18 days before withdrawing from the McGovern ticket in 1972. My money says Palin doesn’t last that long.

So indeeed one month from now you can repost....
posted by DreamerFi at 11:43 PM on September 1, 2008


There are a surprising number of people in this thread who don't seem to understand what Metafilter actually is. Or what it has been trying to be, for years, despite constant pressure from those who want to post a randomly chosen link to the latest news as an excuse to argue about it.

Not that that's precisely what orthogonality was doing, but you know, who gives a shit?
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 11:43 PM on September 1, 2008


Would it have been a better or worse post if you'd pointed out the familial relationships between Palin's ancestry and the Douglas clan?
posted by BrotherCaine at 1:43 AM on September 2, 2008


Not really, I'm makin' shit up.
posted by BrotherCaine at 1:44 AM on September 2, 2008


I'd actually like to see this posted again with different framing to make it clear that you are talking solely about Lady Jane Douglas. The traditions involved with isolating pregnant noblewomen in a vain attempt to assure paternity and uncontested dynastic succession are fascinating and weird. The topic of paternity/succession fears and open homosexuality related to Richard I and other nobles could also make for interesting discussion.
posted by BrotherCaine at 2:05 AM on September 2, 2008


She's been dead for almost 250 years -- another month isn't going to make the story stale. Then I'm sure we can all have a lively discussion about the fascinating Lady Jane Douglas story. And someone with a particularly sharp memory may even recall the big to-do with Bristol Palin, and we can all remark on the really, really interesting echoes to the famous Lady Jane Douglas scandal.
posted by pardonyou? at 6:48 AM on September 2, 2008


"I'd actually like to see this posted again with different framing to make it clear that you are talking solely about Lady Jane Douglas."

I realize that I'm clearly arguing against the data here, but I'd hope that MeFites could be trusted to see the post, read the links, then discuss Lady Jane instead of Palin because they'd realize that though Palin was the hook, the links are about someone entirely different. It's what intelligent people can and should do.
posted by klangklangston at 6:55 AM on September 2, 2008 [1 favorite]


Ah klang, I love that you're such a pollyanna at heart.

I do think that ortho's personality here, and perceived propensity toward the Me(t/T)a point scoring worked against him, but I think that deleting this post rather than moderating it heavily was a victory for the worst here at MeFi.

We did not have the time to moderate it heavily on this particular day. The reason we did not have the time is because of the specific MeFi context that the post appeared in. Because of the type of post, the timing of the post, and ortho's particular personality and reputation on the site -- we have a most-flagged of all time list, he is on it; it is possible he is misunderstood, yes -- all three of us made the decision that we made.

If this were something that were happening frequently and totally blindsiding posters of links to neat stuff on the web, we'd have to give careful thought to whether we needed to, say, add more staff to handle this sort of thing coming up time and time again. As it is it only happens when there's already a monster hot topic thread on the blue (or the grey) over a holiday weekend. That happens more often that I'd like but not really that often. That's not sekrit data, that's something everyone on the site knows is happening (maybe not all over the world, but definitely in the US) and can adjust expectations appropriately.

This post, framed differently, would have also been totally fine even if posted yesterday. It would have also gotten a small handful of comments and slowly rolled off the front page. None of us are saying that it was a bad post. We are also saying sometimes just the lack of badness of a post isn't enough.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 7:29 AM on September 2, 2008


it was a neat post. A bit cheeky maybe considering whats going on at the centre of the world in the USA but nevertheless an interesting subject. Some of us even know who Lady Jane Douglas was; however this is not inconsistant with MetaCensor.
posted by adamvasco at 7:58 AM on September 2, 2008 [2 favorites]


Stunt post got stunted.
posted by Pronoiac at 9:05 AM on September 2, 2008


I never heard of Tom Eagleton until the Sarah Palin thing broke, and then I heard of Tom Eagleton right here on the MetaFilter!

Yay MetaFilter.
posted by Mister_A at 9:15 AM on September 2, 2008


Pronoiac, I just read "Lobsters", a story by Charles Stross, in which he uses your name. Just sayin'.
posted by Mister_A at 9:16 AM on September 2, 2008


Let me tell you about snuff.
posted by boo_radley at 9:52 AM on September 2, 2008


I notice from reading over the thread adamvasco links that jonson is gone.

His last searchable activity was June 17, 2008.

However, he had a thread deleted on June 20.

jonson was well-liked and an important part of the site, I thought, and circumstances could be construed to indicate he might have left because he was offended that a post had been deleted. People put a lot of work into FPPs, and I would imagine it is almost impossible not to feel some resentment and a sense that respect for one's efforts is lacking when a post is deleted.

I have no doubt mathowie, cortex and jessamyn consider this factor when contemplating a deletion, but I think respect for the efforts of members is important and could stand to be re-emphasized from time to time.
posted by jamjam at 9:56 AM on September 2, 2008 [1 favorite]


We talked to jonson when he closed his account, because we were worried that it might have had something to do with that. He assured us it wasn't; he'd just been thinking about stepping away for a long while and decided it was time. Hopefully he'll be back in the long run.

We never want to ruin someone's day with a deletion (well, SEO dickweeds excepted I suppose), but that stuff will sometimes be deleted is part of the same social contract here by which we let folks post right to the front page of this site without having to go through a moderation queue or otherwise explicitly vet a post with us ahead of time. And we do consider it, especially in the case of posts that are problematic for one reason or another but clearly took a great deal of effort to compile—but the vast majority of deletions don't land in that territory at all.
posted by cortex (staff) at 10:12 AM on September 2, 2008


jonson was well-liked and an important part of the site...

Agreed, he certainly is missed.

... circumstances could be construed to indicate he might have left because he was offended that a post had been deleted

"jonson disabled for your sins, mods!" is a pretty disingenuous, not to mention tacky, argument.
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 10:17 AM on September 2, 2008


"jonson disabled for your sins, mods!" is a pretty disingenuous, not to mention tacky, argument.

Agreed, Alvy.

Perhaps you'd care to explain, then, why you are choosing to make it.
posted by jamjam at 10:29 AM on September 2, 2008


Sorry if I construed your construing the wrong way.
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 11:12 AM on September 2, 2008


Sorry if I construed your construing the wrong way.

That's also pretty much what I thought was meant by that comment. Was there any other reason to bring it up?
posted by The Light Fantastic at 11:39 AM on September 2, 2008


I tried to swathe my comment in so many layers of conditionality that no accusatory edge could be felt, but I didn't necessarily succeed-- so I must admit there was some justice in your remark.

On preview, damn that phone call.
posted by jamjam at 11:56 AM on September 2, 2008 [1 favorite]


circumstances could be construed to indicate he might have left because he was offended that a post had been deleted.

Could be, but yeah we talked to him about it and that wasn't at all how it went down. There's a lot we do here that doesn't make the MeTa Papers.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 12:05 PM on September 2, 2008


I realize that I'm clearly arguing against the data here

Yup. That post was apparently not deliberately constructed to inspire a shitfest, but it might as well have been, and the deletion was proper. Next time you want to talk about Lady Jane, talk about Lady Jane and leave the wink-wink out of it.
posted by languagehat at 1:47 PM on September 2, 2008


There's a lot we do here that doesn't make the MeTa Papers.

MeFi: Black Ops.
posted by boo_radley at 3:24 PM on September 2, 2008


we have a most-flagged of all time list

Something to aspire to when I become a cranky old man?

posted by BrotherCaine at 3:57 PM on September 2, 2008


Not to further derail the derailing rage thread, but Jonson's gone? Really? That sucks.
posted by nevercalm at 6:57 PM on September 2, 2008 [1 favorite]


Mister_A: Pronoiac, I just read "Lobsters", a story by Charles Stross, in which he uses your name. Just sayin'.

I so wish I could take credit for that. I got my name from there, I think - I remembered the word, but forgot the source. Reading Accelerando, which includes Lobsters, the shock of recognition is pleasant, because, hey, I still like the story & author.
posted by Pronoiac at 3:07 AM on September 3, 2008


I get the same way when I read nuerophysiology papers.
posted by cortex (staff) at 6:18 AM on September 3, 2008


Pronoiac - It's a Tim Laeary and/or Robert Anton Wilson thing isn't it?
posted by Artw at 7:38 AM on September 3, 2008


klangklangston: I realize that I'm clearly arguing against the data here, but I'd hope that MeFites could be trusted to see the post, read the links, then discuss Lady Jane instead of Palin because they'd realize that though Palin was the hook, the links are about someone entirely different. It's what intelligent people can and should do.

That was a pretty misleading post. The apparent reference & lack of context there would make most someone think they knew what the story was about without following the links. It's good subject matter, but not a good post. A previous example from orthogonality is the post about McCain's rape jokes, which lacked context & even quotation marks, leading to a big WTF?! response, myself included.

Though I might be big on context due to working on backtagging, & those frustrating broken links.
posted by Pronoiac at 8:21 AM on September 3, 2008


I'm sad jonson's gone.

you know what I bet it was? I bet it was when we had that "best post" contest for a prize (I forget, was it an ipod? a wii? I really don't remember) and he posted once every damn day, and they were mostly great posts, and he didn't win. there's no justice in this world, I tell ya.
posted by shmegegge at 8:51 AM on September 3, 2008


He was actually just really distraught over having learned that all those "Big Johnson" t-shirts back in the day weren't about him.
posted by cortex (staff) at 8:54 AM on September 3, 2008


Artw: It does sound like them, doesn't it? It's a decent excuse to hit the Illuminatus trilogies again. Last time I tried, I kept thinking I should annotate them on a wiki, & wondering if that was really determinedly missing the point.

And now I'm looking at my last comment, & it seems harsh rather than helpful...
posted by Pronoiac at 8:55 AM on September 3, 2008


There's a lot we do here that doesn't make the MeTa Papers.

I would kill to have a MeTa Papers. Preferably something I could print out at home and then read by a hypothetical fire.

"Huh, that's funny", I'd say as I read it.

"What's funny, dear?" my hypothetical wife would ask.

"Oh, just saw that quonsar got banned again, apparently he went all the way with the fishpants thing this time."
posted by Ryvar at 3:18 PM on September 3, 2008


« Older Central Texas meetup September 2008?   |   Huh? Newer »

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