Censoring irony October 20, 2008 7:59 AM   Subscribe

My post, Project Censored as censors? was, ironically, deleted for reasons which have nothing to do with the posting guidelines. I complained and was asked to raise it here.

It was apparently too "editorialish". I don't know how you measure that, but I could point to any number of undeleted posts that are arguably just as editorialish. If I'm allowed to post it again, here it is. I think it's concise and to the point (and it doesn't break any guidelines)
posted by internationalfeel to Etiquette/Policy at 7:59 AM (151 comments total) 1 user marked this as a favorite

Related.
posted by Burhanistan at 8:02 AM on October 20, 2008 [1 favorite]


Reposting your post in MetaTalk is really not a great way to make it seem like you're doing anything but aggressively grinding this particular axe. Your post reads like a blog post with original research, not linking to something interesting you found on the web.

You could have taken the same material, or most of it, and made a decent post about it. While I'm happy you decided to take this here after emailing all the mods individually, I really don't think you're going to find that this sort of post is the kind that goes well at MetaFilter.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 8:05 AM on October 20, 2008


It was apparently too "editorialish". I don't know how you measure that, but I could point to any number of undeleted posts that are arguably just as editorialish.

The key word here is "arguably."

The way we "measure that" here at MetaFilter -- which you might know had you been here longer than a week -- is via our trusty moderating staff. cortex thought that your post wasn't a good fit. End of conversation.

For what it's worth, I agree with him. I don't care about your topic or content, per se, but I HATE thread moderating. If it's worth posting here for the discussion, then turn it loose and let other people discuss it. Don't try to control the conversation.

And, nobody asked me, and I can't prove it, but this also has a faint whiff of self-link, to me.

Also, you owe me a donut.
posted by pineapple at 8:07 AM on October 20, 2008


What might have been better would have been to post all that information in the existing discussion about Project Censored.
posted by salvia at 8:08 AM on October 20, 2008 [4 favorites]


cortex thought that your post wasn't a good fit. End of conversation.

Well, not really end-of; the post also had more than a dozen flags on it as well. Feedback from folks by means of the flag system is another key tool here for getting a sense of what's not going down well, and that was a pretty clear signal from the userbase too.
posted by cortex (staff) at 8:11 AM on October 20, 2008


And five out of the nineteen comments in that thread are yours; trying to moderate your own thread is a recipe for disaster.

The best advice I've seen on the subject is to make your post and walk away from it for a couple of hours. Let the conversation evolve naturally, and most of the time, everything will go much smoother.
posted by quin at 8:11 AM on October 20, 2008


The fact that you don't understand why your post was deleted shows that you need to hang around and observe considerably longer before you try posting again. Seriously, that was a crappy post. The deletion isn't even marginal; anybody who knows how MeFi works would have axed it.
posted by languagehat at 8:11 AM on October 20, 2008 [1 favorite]


A doughnut with Cocoa Puffs for pineapple, if you please, internationalfeel.
posted by cgc373 at 8:12 AM on October 20, 2008


The problem with posts involving hot-button issues is that they will always draw a certain amount of noise without signal, but if the post is sufficiently thoughtful and neutrally stated there's room for people to comment on the substance of the post and not on the post itself.

An emotionally-charged axegrinding post ensures largely that the potential for substantive, thoughtful comments is close to nil.
posted by ardgedee at 8:12 AM on October 20, 2008


[I removed the reprint of the post because you already have a link to it in the post]
posted by mathowie (staff) at 8:13 AM on October 20, 2008


Well, not really end-of; the post also had more than a dozen flags on it as well. Feedback from folks by means of the flag system is another key tool here for getting a sense of what's not going down well, and that was a pretty clear signal from the userbase too.
posted by cortex at 10:11 AM on October 20 [+] [!]


Flagged.
posted by pineapple at 8:13 AM on October 20, 2008


It was apparently too "editorialish". I don't know how you measure that

My Editorialometer measured a reading of 52.7 krugmans, far above the recommended safe level.
posted by burnmp3s at 8:17 AM on October 20, 2008 [18 favorites]


internationalfeel, you're completely missing that the tone of your comments in the original thread were confrontational, that your post was filled with your own personal ax grinding, and that almost every other post on MetaFilter doesn't carry with it loads of editorializing about how the posting author feels about the subject.

I've already explained it to you and several people have here as well. Sometimes you should just hang out in a crowd for a few hours if your first joke falls flat -- it takes time to understand the tone and norms of any social group. We can't point to a perfectly literal rule stating precisely where you went wrong (because it's impossible to have A Rule For Every Situation Ever), and you're brushing off our attempts to explain it further, so I don't know how to help you.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 8:24 AM on October 20, 2008 [3 favorites]


Wow... this guy is setting off all my self-link/turf-grass/paid-advocate alarms with all his attempts to work around the no-index/no-follow pushing dissident99's blog which just started this month. Could the mods also check him for connections to "juxtapoz" magazine, the subject of his first fpp?

That said, I'm somewhat sympathetic to the statistical concerns regarding the old Lancet study, I just hate it when it's depicted as conspiracy or propaganda, rather than a live social scientific debate.
posted by anotherpanacea at 8:24 AM on October 20, 2008 [1 favorite]


How did I know this was going to end up here?

You were editorializing. way too hard.

Besides, it's just tacky to argue with people commenting in your own thread.
posted by dunkadunc at 8:24 AM on October 20, 2008


The point, internationalfeel, is you don't present YOUR ideas in a FPP - it's ok to present data and let the members here decide. A FPP should never have the words ME, I, WE, US and ASSHOLE in it when those words refer to the actual poster of the FPP.
posted by bigmusic at 8:26 AM on October 20, 2008 [1 favorite]


1. Your post comes off as axe-grindy.

2. Ending it with a question tends to not go over well. Don't lead with your wording (i.e. editorialize).

3. You attempted to self moderate it.

4. There was a recent project censored post, it would fit better. Generally, the mods here frown on related topics posted to close together.

Emailing all or any of the mods separately about Metafilter stuff is never, ever a good idea. It's not going to do anything, but annoy them, probably. It's rumored they have lives outside of Metafilter and aren't always "on duty" so to speak.

There's a contact link at the bottom of the every page, which all the mods will see and whoever is on duty/around/available will answer you. They almost always answer promptly.




Mods, this bit of advice is in the FAQ, but not the Guidelines page:

Posts shouldn't be terribly long, and they don't have to contain multiple links or end with a discussion-sparking question.

Maybe it should be added there?
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 8:32 AM on October 20, 2008


Besides, it's just tacky to argue with people commenting in your own thread.

Not always; although tone is certainly an important consideration, there is nothing wrong with arguing about the subject of the FPP ("Gary Larson? He sucks and can't draw!" "I disagree - obviously I'm a fan, but have you seen this cartoon?"). Discussion and debate is a big reason why commenting is so much fun, and discouraging OPs from participating is unfair and unrealistic.

Arguing about the FPP itself ("This Gary Larson post sucks!" "No, YOU suck, douchenozzle!") though, is indeed declasse, though.
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 8:40 AM on October 20, 2008


You might want to take this to Ask Metafilter, not Metafilter. Flagged.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 4:38 AM on October 20 [+] [!]

It's a point expressed as a rhetorical question - so I don't think it would fit in Ask Metafilter. I'm providing information, not seeking specific answers (although I welcome comments).
posted by internationalfeel at 4:42 AM on October 20 [+] [!]


Heh.
posted by Artw at 8:40 AM on October 20, 2008


Thanks for the feedback. It's difficult to defend myself against accusations such as "aggressive" and "controlling", when no specific examples are given. All my comments responded politely and informatively to questions/points raised by others. "Aggressively moderating"?!
posted by internationalfeel at 8:41 AM on October 20, 2008


Please continue to aggressively moderate this MetaTalk post. I want to see if it implodes in a dimension-rending spiral of inescapable incomprehension...
posted by WinnipegDragon at 8:48 AM on October 20, 2008 [2 favorites]


userbase
posted by cortex at 8:11 AM on October 20

*delicate shivers down spine*

ooo i'm a userbase ;p
posted by infini at 8:52 AM on October 20, 2008


Here's a possible compromise. Would you allow me to repost the first paragraph (which contained all the useful research links, etc) if I refrain from posting any comments at all (on penalty of banning me, if you like).

Note that the first paragraph was less "editorial" than the following two - it consisted entirely of links to research articles that were of interest to others.

Would that remove the elements that people are unhappy with - the style, tone, editorialising etc?
posted by internationalfeel at 8:54 AM on October 20, 2008


Your post reads like a blog post with original research, not linking to something interesting you found on the web.

There's the goalposts right there
posted by KokuRyu at 8:55 AM on October 20, 2008


It's probably not in any of the guideline (not that I've read them), but before making a post I suggest taking a moment to imagine what the ensuing thread is going to look like. If the majority of that thread will, in your estimation, be variations on "fuck that asshole", or "fuck those assholes", OR "fuck you, asshole" really, why bother?
posted by dirtdirt at 8:56 AM on October 20, 2008 [1 favorite]


btw, internationalfeel, I don't normally pipe up about what's appropriate and what's not on MeFi and I've been here three and a half years, not a week. I saw your post adn the first thing I did was check your number. There's a sense of something about the post, the poster and the situation that nobody can find the right words to use to explain to you why all our red flags went up.

But arguing with mathowie on what he wants or doesn't want on HIS blog.... tsk tsk... that's so not done, my boy.

imho, that's enough for me not to give your arguments a fair consideration. Asking the mods why is one thing, I've done that before, but arguing with the owner of the sandpit why you can't pee in it? didn't you ever learn anything in kindergarten?
posted by infini at 8:57 AM on October 20, 2008 [1 favorite]


I am a useracid. An Arrhenius useracid, not some "Brønsted-Lowry" thing.
posted by Eideteker at 8:58 AM on October 20, 2008 [5 favorites]


It's difficult to defend myself against accusations such as "aggressive" and "controlling"

I think you're looking at this wrong. You don't have to "defend" against "accusations," but you should seek to understand why many in the community found your post objectionable.

"Aggressively moderating"?!

Yeah, once you've made your post, let people comment as they will. This isn't a strict per se, it's ok to correct wrong impressions or make a point clearer, but you crossed the gray line into defending it too much with your first comment which reads as pedantic answer to the previous comment.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 8:59 AM on October 20, 2008


> All my comments responded politely and informatively to questions/points raised by others.

That's more or less what thread moderating is. If your post (or your post's links) don't provide sufficiently complete information, provide a link that does in-thread and more or less leave it at that. If you're asked something directly, reply. Responding to others opinions with your opinions looks like defending your turf, whether or not your opinions are better-informed.

Since your original post was so emotionally charged, your comments in it were interpreted by others as also being emotionally charged, regardless of whether they actually were.

There's a balance between engaging with others and thread modding that's difficult to explain. You have to put up with people continuing to disagree with you despite your best initial effort.
posted by ardgedee at 9:00 AM on October 20, 2008


Regarding "aggressively moderate" ...

After posting, you spent a lot of time arguing your point of view on this issue (which was already obvious just from the post). This leads many on MeFi to see you as attempting to "moderate" the post -- in other words, force the discussion in the specific direction you want it to go, versus presenting the information in the original post and letting the discussion evolve naturally.

Moreso, the level to which you have done it has caused some to label it as "aggressive" moderation -- not necessarily based on the tone of the comments (though you are certainly forward in your refutation of anyone disputing your editorial bent), but based on the volume of posts you've dedicated to reinforcing said bent. Nearly 25% of the comments are from you, the person who posted the thing in the first place. That's not a good thing.

So, that's why people are using those words to describe your behavior. But, really, that doesn't even fully get to the bottom of why most people here aren't all that keen on this post. Let me put it bluntly:

It looks like you're trying to use MeFi to have a public conversation with yourself, in the hopes of pushing an agenda. You are attempting to do this without allowing the rest of us to participate in said discussion. That's not what MeFi is for, and neither the mods, nor the userbase, takes very kindly to it.

If you want your posts to not be deleted, step one would be to editorialize less, and step two would be to leave your posts alone, and let any conversation that is going to happen happen, without interference.
posted by tocts at 9:03 AM on October 20, 2008 [4 favorites]


You have to put up with people continuing to disagree with you despite your best initial effort.

“First they ignore you. Then they laugh at you. Then they fight you. Then you win.” ~ Mahatma Gandhi
posted by infini at 9:06 AM on October 20, 2008


Would you allow me to repost the first paragraph (which contained all the useful research links, etc) if I refrain from posting any comments at all (on penalty of banning me, if you like).

Note that the first paragraph was less "editorial" than the following two - it consisted entirely of links to research articles that were of interest to others.


How about this: skip the blogspot.com link entirely, and just post the relevant articles and studies. Also, make sure to post responses by the studies' authors, as well, who do a good job responding to critics while noting aspects of the research in need of improvement. A lot of this conversation has already happened here and here and here and here, when the studies and criticism were originally released.
posted by anotherpanacea at 9:08 AM on October 20, 2008 [1 favorite]


you're brushing off our attempts to explain it further

arguing with the owner of the sandpit why you can't pee in it? didn't you ever learn anything in kindergarten?

I didn't understand what mathowie was referring to (he certainly hasn't brushed anything off in this thread or the deleted thread AFAIK), but figured Matt was talking about something that was said over email. But now infini, who presumably has not seen the emails, is berating him for it too. Did internationalfeel have a comment deleted in thread?
posted by and hosted from Uranus at 9:10 AM on October 20, 2008


This post could have been better with a tighter focus on one of the two topics that you are confusing. Either focus on Project Censored's censorship practices, or focus on the Iraqi war deaths question. To do the first, you would have to talk about several incidents of censorship on unrelated topics. To do the second you would compile all the interesting new information you can find, with at least passing acknowledgment of both sides of the issue and past MetaFilter posts, and with minimal personal opinion injection (let the links do the talking).



The way we "measure that" here at MetaFilter -- which you might know had you been here longer than a week -- is via our trusty moderating staff. cortex thought that your post wasn't a good fit. End of conversation.

Ugh!! That's not the MetaFilter I'm familiar with! Self policing has been dead for a long time, I guess..

Personally, I think the way this editorial thing is measured is by the GYOB factor, or sometimes the Axe Grind factor. You will find lots of discussion about those two issues in the MetaTalk archives. It doesn't actually require appeal to authority to figure this out..
posted by Chuckles at 9:12 AM on October 20, 2008


FWIW The post would work absolutely fine as a comment in the thread salvia mentioned, and is a bit doublish of that thread.
posted by Artw at 9:12 AM on October 20, 2008


I tend to agree with Artw. I didn't actually flag the post as it was 'deleted' by the time I got there, but the other Project Censored post is only 10 days old...why not take the data there?
posted by JaredSeth at 9:21 AM on October 20, 2008


I didn't understand what mathowie was referring to (he certainly hasn't brushed anything off in this thread or the deleted thread AFAIK), but figured Matt was talking about something that was said over email. But now infini, who presumably has not seen the emails, is berating him for it too. Did internationalfeel have a comment deleted in thread?

Oh, yeah, I was referring to a reference made above, that intertionalfeel emailed every mod individually and started arguments with us all offline that most of us answered but everyone got the brush off.

And I disagree with the "never question the mathowie!" notion -- I make mistakes all the time and everyone is fully welcome to call me on my bullshit but I think in this case it's pretty much open and shut.

internationalfeel, you should post the link on the existing thread about the topic instead of making a new post.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 9:23 AM on October 20, 2008


> Your post reads like a blog post with original research, not linking to something interesting you found on the web.

Again, thanks for the feedback. I don't understand that, because my post was rich in links. My first paragraph (front page) consisted mainly of a factual statement containing links to little-seen research.

The "reads like a blog" point could surely be made about a large number of Metafilter posts. They read like very concise blog entries. My post was no less concise.

I take on board the points made (about tone, style, etc), but given that I've not broken any guidelines, are you prepared to give me the benefit of the doubt? Is there any way that I could be allowed to make a post that links to that research? What would I have to change to the first paragraph of the deleted post to make it acceptable?

(By the way, I've been reading Metafilter regularly for years. Did my first post on Juxtapoz/art have the right tone? What about my comments to that thread?)
posted by internationalfeel at 9:23 AM on October 20, 2008


to clarify I was simply (if a tad clumsily) articulating why i don't like arguing on and on about something someone who is a decider has decided ;p
posted by infini at 9:24 AM on October 20, 2008


"Aggressively moderating"?!

I'm reasonably new at posting stuff around here. I quickly realized that when comments arose that I took issue with it was best NOT to respond immediately, that often as not someone else in the thread would also take issue and, again often as not, would deflect the thread off on a tangent I never would have imagined. This is good. This is maybe my favorite thing about MetaFilter.

Relax, internationalfeel, your comments on some other threads show that you do have something to offer to the discussion, and I for one, enjoyed the Juxtapoz stuff. But in terms of your own stuff, I think you need to take a hint from the Beatles. Let It Be.
posted by philip-random at 9:27 AM on October 20, 2008


>>The way we "measure that" here at MetaFilter -- which you might know had you been here longer than a week -- is via our trusty moderating staff. cortex thought that your post wasn't a good fit. End of conversation.

>Ugh!! That's not the MetaFilter I'm familiar with! Self policing has been dead for a long time, I guess..


By all means, let me clarify. Once the users have flagged a post that doesn't meet the guidelines, it's up to the mods to make a decision as to how to handle it. I didn't explain that finer point because that didn't seem to be what internationalfeel was arguing about. He seems to be of the opinion that because he was playing in a gray area, he deserves the benefit of the doubt for something that "can't be measured."

We do have a way to measure it, and it starts with the users and ends with the moderators.

cortex has already gone out of his way to explain that he deleted the thread in response to several flags. Don't hold the mods accountable for my flippant language to a newbie -- one who has shown repeated little interest in getting to know how the place works anyway. I have zero interest in being the new poster girl for "Self-policing is dead at MetaFilter, viz. pineapple's comment on 10-20-08", so let's call that clarified and move on.
posted by pineapple at 9:31 AM on October 20, 2008


For what it's worth, I had not seen internationalfeel's most recent comment when I said, "He seems to be of the opinion that because he was playing in a gray area, he deserves the benefit of the doubt for something that 'can't be measured.'"

But all the later comment did was serve to strengthen my opinion: he is indeed trying to get a pass on the guidelines in order to promote his personal agenda, desiring the public attention of an FPP rather than participating as the site is intended by contributing to the existing discussion.
posted by pineapple at 9:34 AM on October 20, 2008


(By the way, I've been reading Metafilter regularly for years. Did my first post on Juxtapoz/art have the right tone? What about my comments to that thread?)

Posting an FPP in a way that breaks several MeFi guidelines, and then admitting that you aren't a newb, you actually do know how it's supposed to go around here, was a really ill-considered tactic.
posted by pineapple at 9:36 AM on October 20, 2008


i've enjoyed reading the comments in this thread, it could have degenerated but instead has had excellent clarifications and comments on the nuances of 'moderation'...

perhaps this is the kinder, gentler, blogging?
posted by infini at 9:39 AM on October 20, 2008


given that I've not broken any guidelines, are you prepared to give me the benefit of the doubt? Is there any way that I could be allowed to make a post that links to that research? What would I have to change to the first paragraph of the deleted post to make it acceptable?

There is an open thread on this topic and it might be a good idea if you post this there.

Without putting too find a point on it, the degree to which you are pushing this makes it seem like you may be too close to this topic to give it a decent treatment. The blog post specifically has a fishy feel to it that otherwise we'd leave alone (the post was already deleted) but could be seen to possibly be your own blog that you are trying very hard to promote. There's no actual "evidence" of this certainly, but we have a sort of spidey sense about these things and this one sets off alarm bells. Normally I would not bring this up. I'm mentioning it just because it relates to the "can I post this again?" question where my personal answer is "I wouldn't" for the reasons specified by other posters and this reason.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 9:40 AM on October 20, 2008 [1 favorite]


Ooh! Ooh! I finally have an excuse to link to this!
posted by Sys Rq at 10:09 AM on October 20, 2008


dudes internationalfeel is grateful for the feedback. Now let him get on with ignoring us.
posted by bonaldi at 10:15 AM on October 20, 2008


> Your post reads like a blog post with original research, not linking to something interesting you found on the web.

Again, thanks for the feedback. I don't understand that, because my post was rich in links. My first paragraph (front page) consisted mainly of a factual statement containing links to little-seen research.


There's a difference between "here are some links to a topic that may be interesting. Talk amongst yourselves...." and "here are some links to a topic that is REALLY QUITE INFURIATING, if you think about it! Isn't it? It makes ME mad, doesn't it make YOU mad?". The former is a MeFi post, the latter is a blog post.

And in threads: there's a difference between someone sincerely asking, "I can't get the link to work, can you sum up?" and you responding to tell them "it's about blah blah blah", and someone saying "I disagree, I think this is a good thing," and you responding to say "what, are you nuts? Of course it's not a good thing!" The former is the kind of hands-off participation people are looking for. The latter is overly-moderating.

You come across as wanting to force people to reach a particular conclusion, or at least have the post be more about YOUR IDEAS ABOUT a topic rather than THE TOPIC ITSELF.

I'll illustrate with the very first post I made on the Blue: I linked to an article about a little-known social custom in parts of Central Asia, where young women could, for various reasons, simply announce that they were going to henceforth live as men. And the rest of their villages would just go ahead and treat them like men for the rest of their lives. I thought this was interesting, and just posted a link, and let the conversation go where it will. What I did NOT do, though, was couch the post in a statement about how this was a clear sign of the social constructs of gender bias, or how this was a clear sign of the inherant backwardness of that part of Asia, or...all of those points came up in the discussion, but I didn't try to direct the conversation any one particular way myself.

On my own blog, however, I did. Because people who come to MeFi are looking for more of a collective forum, and people who come to my own blog are looking for my specific opinion.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 10:20 AM on October 20, 2008


Perhaps the mods can close this thread? It can't seem to go well from here.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 10:21 AM on October 20, 2008


Perhaps the mods can close this thread? It can't seem to go well from here.

Too late.
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 10:23 AM on October 20, 2008


why not, blazecock pileon, I'd just reached the point where I was going to say that I confess to being guilty of posting link heavy pointless FPP's like this one which definitely had a personal opinion to it if not my drool.
posted by infini at 10:25 AM on October 20, 2008


I flagged this post and wrote a comment there saying pretty much what cortex did in his reason for deletion, and also added a request to please not post a meta-thread about his poor fpp getting deletd on top of it while shouting censorship, but unfortunatly it was gone before I hit Post Comment. I doubt it would have helped though.
posted by kolophon at 10:26 AM on October 20, 2008


Do you guys realize that the number of posts posted in MetaTalk on 17 October is EXACTLY ZERO?

Why can't you be more like 17 October?
posted by Mister_A at 10:41 AM on October 20, 2008 [3 favorites]


If you want models for acceptable front page posts, try looking at some of the previous Metafilter posts on the topic that you are posting about: 1, 2, 3.
posted by googly at 10:54 AM on October 20, 2008


If you're really attached to posting something, it's probably a good indicator that you shouldn't post it. Jeez man, let it go.
posted by desjardins at 10:58 AM on October 20, 2008 [1 favorite]


I think Cortex made the right call and he explained himself well in the reason for deletion.
posted by caddis at 11:15 AM on October 20, 2008


I don't understand the continued bulldogging on getting it back on the front page. Post in the live thread and move on.

Surely you'll have another brilliant idea for a post soon, and you can use all of this nifty feedback to make it even better.
posted by batmonkey at 11:23 AM on October 20, 2008


Yes, why can't we all be more like 17 October

thanks Mister_A
posted by infini at 11:33 AM on October 20, 2008


I linked to an article about a little-known social custom in parts of Central Asia, where young women could, for various reasons, simply announce that they were going to henceforth live as men.

Albania is not in Central Asia, it's just west of Greece. Good post, though.
posted by languagehat at 12:52 PM on October 20, 2008


Albania is not in Central Asia, it's just west of Greece. Good post, though.

D'oh. couldn't remember the exact country; thanks.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 12:59 PM on October 20, 2008


Wow! I had no idea about that, infini. I am all for it.
posted by Mister_A at 12:59 PM on October 20, 2008


Thanks for the continued feedback - I've taken some of the criticisms on board, and will bear them in mind for future posts.

I'd seen the previous post on Project Censored, but it was just an announcement of the new list of 25 stories (it doesn't focus on Iraq). My post was an entirely separate issue - to do with the research from leading epidemiologists and demographers which has been excluded/ignored.

I accept the points about over-commenting in my own thread, although I think post deletion was a rather extreme response to that. I don't accept that my comments were "aggressive", "confrontational" or "controlling" in any way (they all politely responded to questions raised, etc).
posted by internationalfeel at 1:10 PM on October 20, 2008


I think it reads fishy because one of the lines in the post is lifted from the blog almost verbatim:

"The person conducting ORB’s poll, Munqith Daghir, began his polling career in 2003, with little in the way of formal training or field experience (according to ORB’s publicity literature)."

vs

"according to ORB's publicity literature [pdf], the person who conducted the ORB poll, Munqith Daghir, started his polling career in 2003, with no formal training or field experience)"
posted by smackfu at 1:11 PM on October 20, 2008


I accept the points about over-commenting in my own thread, although I think post deletion was a rather extreme response to that.

You are right. If we had deleted your post because you were over-commenting in it, that would be extreme. That is not what we did. That was a contributing factor, however, to it being a bad post overall.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 1:49 PM on October 20, 2008


Some kinda weenie roast in here?
posted by Mister_A at 1:53 PM on October 20, 2008


I don't accept that my comments were "aggressive", "confrontational" or "controlling" in any way

Aggressive, confrontational, and controlling are the vibe that is given off when someone over-moderates their own editorial post. Even if you didn't mean it that way, that's how it can come off.
posted by CKmtl at 2:06 PM on October 20, 2008


Fair enough, but talking of vibes, what kind do you think are given off by accusations of "fishy", "promoting an agenda", "axe-grinding", "aggressiveness", etc? Being bombarded with this stuff makes my polite, factual responses look like gentle loving kisses. I think there are some double standards here, with respect.
posted by internationalfeel at 2:18 PM on October 20, 2008 [1 favorite]


It may help you to understand why that was said about you if you think of it this way:

Think of your post as a piece of art that you've hung up in a gallery. People pause in front of it, scowl a bit and mutter "I don't really care for it." You're standing beside your piece and stop each such person to explain the importance of your piece, brilliance of your technique, the perfect juxtaposition of your textures, the ephemeral zeitgeist that you managed to capture and display. The people still don't care for it much, and you start your explanations again. They walk off, suggesting that you used too much orange.

Would you be surprised if other people in the gallery thought you were aggressively trying to control people's art experience?
posted by CKmtl at 2:28 PM on October 20, 2008 [1 favorite]


MetaTalk is not Metafilter. The rules are different here.
posted by nomisxid at 2:30 PM on October 20, 2008


To be honest I got "shill"/"self-link" vibes off of it, especially considering the regdate.
posted by Pope Guilty at 2:42 PM on October 20, 2008


Metafilter is based on trust, right? (I've been reading it long enough to understand that. It also mentions trust in the FAQ or guidelines, as I recall). Trust involves giving people the benefit of the doubt. Jeez, even our shaky legal system still just about runs on the basis of "innocent until proven guilty". And here we are with all these baseless accusations, suspicions, "vibes" and "feelings" voiced against me. It's suspicious that I copied and pasted a sentence from the article I linked to? I'm an agenda-promoting shill, and aggressive and confrontational with it? Only there's no evidence for any of this. I'm sort of wondering what crime I've committed. Admittedly I posted too many polite comments answering people's queries, etc. Guilty!
posted by internationalfeel at 2:58 PM on October 20, 2008


That was a contributing factor, however, to it being a bad post overall.

To quibble a bit, I would say that over-commenting in one's own post would be more of a symptom that it is a bad post overall rather than a factor.
posted by Burhanistan at 2:59 PM on October 20, 2008


lolmartyr!

I'm now convinced this is a troll.
posted by cowbellemoo at 3:04 PM on October 20, 2008


I was one of the flaggers. I flagged it because this is how it scanned to me:

"A group making subjective judgments made a decision that I disagree with. The underlying point of the story (that lots of people, probably between 125k and 500k, are dead) is correct, but I think that the particular number which they cite is incorrect and that they don't go into an involved discussion of other estimates of the number. They picked a big number because it's more impressive! I'm going to link to one blog 3 times, probably because it's mine."

I guess that point would be good for a post about epi in war zones (it's hard), or added to a more general critique of Project Censored. "I think somebody unimportant screwed up on something pedantic" isn't otherwise a good post.
posted by a robot made out of meat at 3:16 PM on October 20, 2008 [1 favorite]


Unless we are trying to get the poster to flame out, perhaps the mods can close this thread? The deletion reasons have been explained and there seems to be little gained from drawing this out.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 3:21 PM on October 20, 2008 [1 favorite]


And here we are with all these baseless accusations, suspicions, "vibes" and "feelings" voiced against me.

Benefit of the doubt means that we presume you didn't actually link to your own content. Otherwise your account would have been banned immediately. Getting a post deleted doesn't mean that you've done something bad in any way, it means your post wasn't right for MetaFilter. That's all.

I felt like it was good to point out, however, that the post had a weird feel to it. You seemed to be unclear about what the exact culture here is like and I wanted to point out that aspect of the entire situation. MetaTalk is where we hash these things out and we're a little more [sometimes a lot more] straight-talking than we are on the rest of the site and that includes suspicions and talking about how things feel.

This is not about crime and the mods and the entire community are not the police. I appreciate that you have strong feelings about this particular issue but it's still not entirely clear to me whether you don't understand the way the site works or you do understand how it works but are choosing to disregard what you know.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 3:21 PM on October 20, 2008 [1 favorite]


The accusations of being aggressive, confrontational, and controlling aren't being thrown at you, but at the way you were over-moderating. They were thrown at the way you were acting. There's a difference; you aren't a bad person, you just acted poorly in this instance.
posted by CKmtl at 3:27 PM on October 20, 2008


I'm sort of wondering what crime I've committed.

No one infringed on your civil liberties here. It's a website full of assertive people with strong opinions (nevermind the lurkers). It's not personal. There is no one outside your door with a pitchfork (and if there is, it's not one of us.)
posted by desjardins at 3:45 PM on October 20, 2008


Only there's no evidence for any of this. I'm sort of wondering what crime I've committed.

What a coincidence, as that's exactly what I am wondering too. What are you so scared of, internationalfeel, what have you done? What are your crimes? Where have you done with the evidence, what are your crimes? There's only one person here that seems so concerned about downplaying deaths in Iraq, and that's you. Tell us what you've done.
posted by Meatbomb at 4:11 PM on October 20, 2008 [2 favorites]


Just wanted to weigh in here, I looked at your post this morning and knew it would be deleted. Not because of content but because of the editorial style, that has never been ok with regard to FFP. Even if you agree with what you're posting, and often one would, you should always simply offer it as is. Like folks have said hang out get a feel for the site alittle more and then bear that in mind when you post again. I'm only commenting to let you know that as a user I understood your post wouldn't fly here, not to pile on. Good luck in the future.
posted by nola at 4:14 PM on October 20, 2008


Sometimes you should just hang out in a crowd for a few hours if your first joke falls flat

Hours!? Most of the people around here have been doing that for years
posted by spiderwire at 4:19 PM on October 20, 2008


There is no one outside your door with a pitchfork

All they had were these chainsaws
posted by spiderwire at 4:25 PM on October 20, 2008


internationalfeel: And here we are with all these baseless accusations, suspicions, "vibes" and "feelings" voiced against me. It's suspicious that I copied and pasted a sentence from the article I linked to? I'm an agenda-promoting shill, and aggressive and confrontational with it?

See, this is where an innocent if slightly confused person would most likely say, "Just so you know, I have no connection to any of the content in my post." And internationalfeel says...

Only there's no evidence for any of this.

Hmm. internationalfeel, do you have any connection to any of the content in your links?
posted by Kwine at 4:30 PM on October 20, 2008 [3 favorites]


...a dimension-rending spiral of inescapable incomprehension...

Hey, wasn't that a line from a 13th Floor Elevators song?

Well, it should've been
posted by flapjax at midnite at 4:38 PM on October 20, 2008 [1 favorite]


Meatbomb wrote:
There's only one person here that seems so concerned about downplaying deaths in Iraq

I suspect this might be the real reason for the hostility - the idea that I'm "downplaying" deaths in Iraq. Is that what the IFHS researchers were doing? After all, they criticized the Lancet study and produced a much lower figure. So they must be "downplaying" the slaughter in Iraq, right? Forget that IFHS team members, like Lancet team members, risked their lives to do the research. Forget that one IFHS researcher was shot and killed.

And what about Iraq Body Count? They produce an even lower figure (an incomplete count, not an estimate). So I guess they are probably war apologists even though they claim to be anti-war? Forget that they've dedicated their spare time, as volunteers, for 5 years documenting every death they can trace (and not just in the "Western" media as one misinformed myth claims). Sometimes it can take them hours looking for corroboration of a single death. They've now documented close to 100,000 deaths. (Lancet 2006 documented approximately 300 reported deaths by comparison).

So I guess we can say that IBC are very, very committed to "downplaying" deaths - at least by the logic that those whose research contradicts the highest figures are "downplaying" deaths. And IFHS, CRED, ILCS, and all the other leading researchers whose work I linked to - they've all spent a lot of time/effort in producing lower figures and criticizing the studies with the highest figures. "Downplaying" deaths. And obviously war apologists, all of them - just like I must be. Of course.
posted by internationalfeel at 4:40 PM on October 20, 2008


GYOBA

Please.
posted by pineapple at 4:43 PM on October 20, 2008 [1 favorite]


So, remind me, why did you bring this to Metatalk?
posted by ddaavviidd at 4:44 PM on October 20, 2008


I suspect this might be the real reason for the hostility - the idea that I'm "downplaying" deaths in Iraq.

ahaahahaha axegrinding. Mods, please close this.
posted by desjardins at 4:46 PM on October 20, 2008 [1 favorite]


I have to second Kwine when he asks "internationalfeel, do you have any connection to any of the content in your links".

Can you please answer the question internationalfeel?
posted by dirty lies at 4:53 PM on October 20, 2008


I suspect this might be the real reason for the hostility - the idea that I'm "downplaying" deaths in Iraq.

First of all, I'm pretty sure Meatbomb was ironically riffing on those insane Scientologist What Are Your Crimes motherfuckers, so don't forget the doublepinch of salt there.

But that aside, this sort of falls into the territory of what I was trying to say when we were corresponding earlier: I get this feeling that you are presuming that there must be some hidden, true motive for the deletion of your post. I guess in this case it'd be hostility toward the idea of inaccurate body counts or the discussion of same? As something that influences administrative action here?

It's a weird and recurring pattern: person starts taking a stab at posting on mefi for the first time, posts about something they're passionate about, gets post deleted for reasons orthogonal to the subject of the post, and tries to make the deletion about the subject of the post. It's a goose chase, and it's not going to get you any closer to settling in to the posting groove here to convince yourself that there's more than meets the eye here.

I appreciate that you put a lot of work into your post. I sympathize with the bumpiness of cutting your teeth on this stuff. But please try to accept that there is no conspiracy or lurking political agenda involved, no secret desire to Hide The Truth for whatever specific value of truth you happen to be invested in. Mefi is not a political blog, none of us mods want it to be one, and trying to manage an agenda on that front is just about as laughably far from how we want to spend our time and energy here as you can get.
posted by cortex (staff) at 4:56 PM on October 20, 2008 [3 favorites]


Where's Perry Mason when you need him?

Maybe Paul's out on the street, asking questions. But... where's Della?

Della was fine. Smart, too.

What were we talking about?
posted by flapjax at midnite at 4:57 PM on October 20, 2008


Kwine wrote:
internationalfeel, do you have any connection to any of the content in your links?

Yes, I'm Jon Pedersen's second cousin, Mark van der Laan's drinking buddy, the IFHS team chef, Beth Duponte Osborne's fiancee, a researcher for CRED, Dissident 93's technical adviser, Paul Spiegel's secretary, Stephen Fienberg's friend, Olivier Degomme's ghostwriter, Seppo Laaksonen's translator and Fritz Scheuren's plumber.

No, I have no connection to any of them. My only associations on this issue are brief email correspondences with some of the leading figures (Gilbert Burnham, Les Roberts, Jon Pedersen, IBC). That's it. But I'm well-informed on the issue. Test me on it if you like - I'm very far from being a "troll" (yet another of the accusations heaped on me). And I don't "downplay" deaths - a suggestion I find offensive.
posted by internationalfeel at 5:00 PM on October 20, 2008


Seriously dude, if you have any desire to be apart of the site in the future, without setting a tone that will have people assuming you're not worth listening to, you should take a breath and step away from the keyboard for a while. I'm not saying you're a bad person, I'm not saying what you wanted to post here had no merit. Just the form of the post was off for the site. When you're a member here for a while you'll have a better view of what is and isn't a good post. I don't always agree with what people say or post here, but there are some solid guides for making a FPP, that I'm sure if you have corresponded with the mods you can read over and learn from what they had to say. I for one would like to see you take your licks from this and learn from it, and come back better prepaired next time, then to watch you swing at folks you don't even know or understand in here. Take a break, and re-think things.
posted by nola at 5:10 PM on October 20, 2008 [2 favorites]


Sounds a lot like the answer is "yes" or at least yes-ish, TBH.
posted by Artw at 5:22 PM on October 20, 2008 [1 favorite]


Also, I do not fawn over mods. For the most part I think they are fair, and if I thought cortex yanked your post for any reason other than what he has stated I'd be the first to cry foul. I've agreed and disagreed with moderator calls, and said so in the past. To me fairness matters, and I see cortex's call on your post as fair baised on this sites history and guidelines. cortex works his ass off for this site, as do matt and jess, if I thought otherwise I'd say so.
posted by nola at 5:23 PM on October 20, 2008


My only associations on this issue are brief email correspondences with some of the leading figures (Gilbert Burnham, Les Roberts, Jon Pedersen, IBC). That's it. But I'm well-informed on the issue.

You're too close to the issue to be objective. There is an inverse proportion to the values of "how strongly Person X feels about Issue Y" and "whether Person X is going to be able to make a quality FPP about Issue Y."
posted by pineapple at 5:28 PM on October 20, 2008 [1 favorite]


Unless we are trying to get the poster to flame out, perhaps the mods can close this thread?

Flame out? That's the third time I heard that phrase within the last week (in three different threads). I've heard of "flaming"...but "getting the poster to flame out"? Please don't tell that it is accepted here to provoke OPs. I kind of got that vibe when I created my mt post last week, but thought I was imagining things. I don't think so anymore.
posted by sixcolors at 5:37 PM on October 20, 2008


This is were I start ranting about newbies sixcolors. Really, welcome to metafilter, now get the fuck out. It's a joke, laugh a little you'll live longer.
posted by nola at 5:41 PM on October 20, 2008


Please don't tell that it is accepted here to provoke OPs.

It's not.

We have to draw a line between letting the OP [or whoever is reacting strongly in a thread] have their say and get their questions answered, and the weird fucked glee (yeah I said it) that some people get at the expense of other people having a hard time.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 5:41 PM on October 20, 2008 [4 favorites]


But please try to accept that there is no conspiracy or lurking political agenda involved, no secret desire to Hide The Truth for whatever specific value of truth you happen to be invested in.

Unless you question the motives of the Trilateral Commission in any way huRRRUKgrrrffarggg
posted by spiderwire at 6:16 PM on October 20, 2008


Please don't tell that it is accepted here to provoke OPs.

Oh, c'mon sixcolors, show some more passion! Get your ire up! ;)
posted by caddis at 6:18 PM on October 20, 2008


I don't accept that my comments were "aggressive", "confrontational" or "controlling" in any way (they all politely responded to questions raised, etc).

You are mistaken in the belief that you should respond to questions raised in your thread. Metafilter is not about users giving a presentation and then facilitating a guided Q & A session about it. Your repeated defenses of your post give the impression that you have a stake in its content, which you should not. Furthermore, when you repeatedly step in to argue in favor of your post's point, it comes across as bullying. You post a link because you think it's interested, not because you want to convince the reader of its accuracy.

I feel like this has been explained to you in many ways by many people, and can't help but wonder if you're being purposely obtuse in not understanding it. Just by reading other posts (many of which are also on controversial or newsworthy matters), you ought to be able to tell that it is unusual for the creator of a post to repeatedly step in and defend it. Metafilter moderation rules above all else are about enforcing community norms, written and unwritten. If you don't like that, Metafilter may not be the place for you.
posted by The Eponymous Pseudonymous Rex at 6:21 PM on October 20, 2008 [3 favorites]


No, I have no connection to any of them.

Ok, I believe you. You're right; no one has presented any evidence otherwise, and I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and so should everyone else. I think that you should go back and reread each post by a moderator in this thread; they're all really rather good humored and reasonable, and I think that you could learn something about how the community works. Otherwise I wish you the best and hope that you continue to try to contribute to the site in a positive way in the future.
posted by Kwine at 6:38 PM on October 20, 2008


I think of the problems underlying certain threads as being like those 3D posters where you see the dinosaur only if you can force your eyes to not look at the individual splodges of color so much as the crazy picture going on with them all together. So when I flagged this, it wasn't so much the editorializing setup alone or the directing of the discussion, although those are problems on their own. It was the big axe and grindstone. Possibly a great blog post, but a terrible Mefi post.
posted by Tehanu at 7:25 PM on October 20, 2008


did someone snark on fawning over the mods? hmmmm



*weeps, silently, behind screen* goodbye cruel world, you simply don't understand me
posted by infini at 11:26 PM on October 20, 2008


>The way we "measure that" here at MetaFilter -- which you might know had you been here longer than a week -- is via our trusty moderating staff. cortex thought that your post wasn't a good fit. End of conversation.

>>Ugh!! That's not the MetaFilter I'm familiar with! Self policing has been dead for a long time, I guess..


I just wanted to highlight this exchange. jessamyn and cortex and of course mathowie do a great job, but a flat 'end of conversation' as the default response to administrator decision is not a good way to approach these things, no matter how annoying 'why did my precious post get deleted' (or whatever) threads can become. Down that road, danger lies, here and elsewhere.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 1:42 AM on October 21, 2008 [3 favorites]


Unless we are trying to get the poster to flame out, perhaps the mods can close this thread?

BP, if you're really interested in having the OP avoid embarrassing himself further, you might want to consider metamailing him to offer him some advice rather than running your very own version of Project Censored here on Metatalk.

The OP has already solicited and rejected the advice of all three mods on this issue. He is clearly seeking to get the advice of the community by posting here. Nobody has been unreasonable or out of line so far, so a desire to preempt a possible flame-out by closing down the discussion seems way over the top at this stage.
posted by PeterMcDermott at 3:52 AM on October 21, 2008


"Emailing all or any of the mods separately about Metafilter stuff is never, ever a good idea. It's not going to do anything, but annoy them, probably. It's rumored they have lives outside of Metafilter and aren't always "on duty" so to speak."

Seriously? Mods have outside lives? They seem to always be quick about deleting the crap I try to post! I kid, I kid. The mods here do an excellent job of keeping everything interesting and not a personal blog space for the members. If you want one of those, I'm sure there are site that can help. But in my limited experiences with trying to post something I have found out that you cannot make it emotional, personal, or editorial. Basically you cannot say anything that is an opinion. Just post the link and walk away. If people find it interesting they will make the editorial remarks and something will start. I know how it feels to want to post the next 1000+ commented post. Just next time post a single link that you like and say "I saw this link and thought it was cool." Hope this helps.
posted by Mastercheddaar at 6:17 AM on October 21, 2008


Two quick things in an attempt to rephrase:

1) Responses can be aggressive in aggregate simply by virtue of their quantity even if individually they're completely kosher.

2) We don't care about the Iraq war deaths. Or transgenderism in Albania. Or the US political system. Or any of a hundred thousand other topics. We care about what our generally interesting members find generally interesting. If you have a single topic that you just can't let go of you're likely not interesting, hence the placement of axgrinding and self linking near the top of the Metafilter Circle of Sin™.

In other words, post about things you found, not things that you're fired up about.
posted by Skorgu at 6:34 AM on October 21, 2008


Please stop calling them 'mods.' They are normarators. Thanks.
posted by fixedgear at 6:37 AM on October 21, 2008


Emailing all or any of the mods separately about Metafilter stuff is never, ever a good idea. It's not going to do anything, but annoy them, probably. It's rumored they have lives outside of Metafilter and aren't always "on duty" so to speak.

Actually it's fine to contact us individually with a question. However, using the contact form increases the chances you'll get the message to whoever among us is working at any given moment. So I was offline a lot of Sunday. Anyone who contacted me directly on Sunday would have waited a long time to get their typo fixed, question resolved or whatever. If they'd used the contact form mathowie or cortex would have gotten to it earlier. I always wince when I get back from being offline and there's some URGENT issue in my MeMail box. Maybe we should make that clearer in the FAQ.

Sometimes people want one of our opinions specifically and that's fine. However, once an email exchange becomes a back and forth discussion about policy, I'm much more comfortable having that discussion happen here in the open where it's available/useful to the the entire community. There are very few issues that come up where our flat response is "because it's the rules" and if we're elucidating nuance, it's better to have everyone who is interested at the table.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 6:49 AM on October 21, 2008


stavrosthewonderchicken said: "I just wanted to highlight this exchange. jessamyn and cortex and of course mathowie do a great job, but a flat 'end of conversation' as the default response to administrator decision is not a good way to approach these things..."

Wait... I'm having a flashback... didn't we already address this so that I could stop being quoted out of context and people could stop stoning the mods? Hmm... let me see...

Oh, right. We did.
posted by pineapple at 7:20 AM on October 21, 2008


elucidating nuance?

and of course, userbase

aahh, these are some of the most intelligent mods I've ever come across*, more more





* am not brown nosing, was born with one, so there
posted by infini at 9:26 AM on October 21, 2008


Not flawless*, but pretty good.

* They were totally wrong in the case of every post I didn't want deleted that they did delete, for instance.
posted by Artw at 9:30 AM on October 21, 2008


If you've had e-mail correspondence with the researchers behind your post, you are most likely too close to the material to be objective.

It might still be possible to make a post about such a subject, but it would be wise to be sensitive to your inobjectivity.
posted by graventy at 11:10 AM on October 21, 2008


And it would still be a double.
posted by Artw at 11:42 AM on October 21, 2008


Wait... I'm having a flashback... didn't we already address this so that I could stop being quoted out of context and people could stop stoning the mods? Hmm... let me see...

No wait, I'm having a flashback. To the literally tens of thousands of words I've typed out while hashing over this subject over the years here in Metatalk.

With all due respect, my comment had fuck-all to do with you. You are not a unique snowflake. It is the general principle that I am interested in keeping front and center.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 5:57 PM on October 21, 2008


With all due respect, my comment had fuck-all to do with you.

With all due respect, then maybe you shouldn't have quoted me. If you're such a thought leader on this topic, quote some of your own thousands of words.

But by specifically pull-quoting something I said upthread, and which I already stated had been taken incorrectly out of context -- in the exact same incorrect way that you attributed it to me again -- you made me part of your op-ed.

You want to beat an old drum and not have to answer for it, then beat one with your own name on it.
posted by pineapple at 7:38 PM on October 21, 2008


oh look, the playground is back to normal already
posted by infini at 10:00 PM on October 21, 2008


With all due respect, then maybe you shouldn't have quoted me.

I don't even know who you are. I mean, I guess as a 17K user I should recognize your username, but I have no fucking clue. Perhaps that's my fault for having missed your 480 comment Metatalk oeuvre thus far. And why on earth should I 'not have quoted you'? Is this some new rule of which I am unaware?

I will cop to having missed your important clarification of an earlier comment, though. My bad.

If you're such a thought leader on this topic, quote some of your own thousands of words.

I AM PROUD TO BE A METAFILTER THOUGHT LEADER! Look, I invite you to search for yourself if you're interested in the history of discussions about it. You can start here. (As of 14 months ago, I'd written more than 660,000 words on Metafilter, and I haven't slowed much since then. This is not something I'm very proud of -- if only I'd been paid by the word for all that -- but it is simply a fact. But with that much text, much of which I don't even remember typing, hell, you want to go searching, have fun!)

As far as this thread, though, that exchange that I quoted was simply something I wanted to comment on in passing. I am confused as to why you are so exercised about it, and why you were so sarcastic in pointing out that I missed that 'clarification' of yours.

Besides, why the hell would I have quoted myself? I'm scratching my head about that, I must admit.

you made me part of your op-ed.

Oh come on, what the fuck are you talking about? My comment, one of more than a hundred others in this thread, was an 'op-ed'? It was a comment like any other. Tangential perhaps, but that's me all over.

You want to beat an old drum and not have to answer for it, then beat one with your own name on it.

Uh, what? I have nothing to 'answer for' for here. The one thing that Metatalk is consistently about is rehashing old discussions. That creates continuity, and an ongoing context of shared community norms that new users hopefully pick up on in lieu of a stone-tablet set of clearcut rules. This is the way it's supposed to work. It's baked in goodness as a consequence of administration decisions made years ago.

As far as the clarifying comment of yours you linked to goes, I found nothing there objectionable or even all that interesting, until you get to

I have zero interest in being the new poster girl for "Self-policing is dead at MetaFilter, viz. pineapple's comment on 10-20-08", so let's call that clarified and move on.

Again: what? 'Poster girl'? Do you always take yourself so seriously? Are you really so certain that everyone is hanging on your every word?

Trust me: we're not. And nobody's hanging on mine, either. That's the way Metatalk works.

Relax, for christ's sake. I missed one of your posts which explained a previous one while I was scanning the thread, pre-coffee. It's not a pistols-at-dawn kind of situation. You want an apology for missing that comment of yours? Sure, no worries: sorry 'bout that.

But yet again -- my offhand tangential comment had nothing at all to do with you or your opinions, did not mention you, did not condemn you, did not even reference what you had to say other than as something that sparked a thought in my wee chicken brain that I wanted to get out before it burned a fucking hole in my forehead, dropped into my lap, and set my pants on fire. Nobody wants that, least of all me.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 10:13 PM on October 21, 2008 [1 favorite]


Oh, and I'll apologize for the 'tens of thousands of words' thing, too. That was kind of puerile and self-regarding. But can I still be a thought leader? Pretty please?
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 10:24 PM on October 21, 2008


Back in my high school photojournalism class, I learned from the teacher that you could smear a little nose or forehead grease on negatives if there was a little scratch that showed up in development.
posted by Burhanistan at 10:28 PM on October 21, 2008


For pineapple: I got curious and did some archives-mining, and I think this might be the canonical thread where some of these issues were hashed out at excruciating length, thanks at least in part to my occasional monomania and excessive coffee intake. There have been many others, but this one, which I'd forgotten about, was kind of hardcore. Warning: in that thread I got shouty and hurt jessamyn's feelings, which I still feel bad about, even if we're like totally buds now and everything. Warning the second: if you can read some of the longer comments in that thread without your eyes crossing and sleepytime approaching, your constitution is stronger than mine.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 10:40 PM on October 21, 2008


But can I still be a thought leader? Pretty please?

But, but..
posted by Chuckles at 11:17 PM on October 21, 2008


this might be the canonical thread where some of these issues were hashed out at excruciating length, thanks at least in part to my occasional monomania and excessive coffee intake

And I learned how to pronounce jouke!

Eesh, that was one messy MeTa.
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 11:33 PM on October 21, 2008


i had drinks with jouke et al... just found the pix from that mefi bash
posted by infini at 5:33 AM on October 22, 2008


Sure, stav, you win for most words posted at MeFi. Whatever. There'll be an awards ceremony, and they'll be handing out medals. Watch your mailbox.

my offhand tangential comment had nothing at all to do with you or your opinions... did not even reference what you had to say

Well, except for how it did. Verbatim. Cut and paste.

Again: what? 'Poster girl'? Do you always take yourself so seriously? Are you really so certain that everyone is hanging on your every word?

Well, I don't know -- is this theory somehow confirmed or refuted by the fact that more than one person in this thread has latched on to that one unfortunate "end of conversation" phrase, and turned it into a spleen-venting referendum on how self-policing at MetaFilter is dead and the mods are fascists? I made an off-handed remark, and I don't want it to continue to be the soundbite for The Good 'Ol Days Rocked Harder. That's all I asked, and I don't see why you're so worked up about it, as if I had no precedent for the concern.

That you see zero irony in mistakenly misquoting me, then getting self-important and snippy when I pointed out that you made a mistake, then getting even more ridiculously self-important and snippy over the correction, digging through archives to prove your superior domain expertise and then asserting that I'm the one taking myself too seriously, only reiterates: drink coffee before posting.

If you're bent that I felt a right to be sarcastic in having to point out for the second time that I was being taken out of context (especially to a user of such prolific seniority and renown as yourself, and me being merely a pathetic little 17K-er)... well, to appropriate the verbiage of a great MeFi orator and genius:

My bad.
posted by pineapple at 9:26 AM on October 22, 2008


Underlines AND italics. That's emphasis!
posted by smackfu at 9:32 AM on October 22, 2008


For the record, pineapple, you were never misquoted. Perhaps you didn't intend to convey the meaning that I took from your statement, but you know.. categorical statements are liable to be taken at face value. Hence, my lack of surprise when I became associated with thoughts like "spleen-venting referendum on how self-policing at MetaFilter is dead". I mean, I didn't intend to convey the message that way, but whatever..
(Note that I did not include "and the mods are fascists?" -- you just made that part up, which kind of sucks.)
posted by Chuckles at 9:51 AM on October 22, 2008


(runs in and starts singing to distract everyone)

I’ve got a lovely bunch of coconuts,
There they are all standing in a row,
Big ones, small ones, some as big as your head,
Give them a twist a flick of the wrist
That’s what the showman said - oy!
I’ve got a lovely bunch of coconuts,
Every ball you throw will make me rich,
There stands my wife, the idol of me life
Singing roll a bowl a ball a penny a pitch!

(runs out)
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 11:10 AM on October 22, 2008


categorical statements are liable to be taken at face value.

That's.

Why.

I.

Corrected.

Myself.

Right here. Believe it or not, I do understand that my original statement didn't come across like I meant it, and what I did to cause that confusion.

And it was stavros that I felt turned the conversation into a spleen-venting referendum. I didn't mean you, Chuckles. "The mods are fascists" was hyperbole. (Although, frankly I don't feel it's all that far off from your "self-policing is dead at MetaFilter" line, as hyperbole goes.)

I feel like this thread is totally Bizarro World. Maybe I need some lovely coconuts. Or a martini.
posted by pineapple at 12:15 PM on October 22, 2008


If the mods are such fasicsts why don't they start a bloody civil war, eventually overthrowing the sites democratically elected republican govement and replacing it with a dictatorship? eh? eh? Why don't they do that? They could even drag in George Orwell and Hitler, since they turn up in every thread eventually anyway.
posted by Artw at 12:29 PM on October 22, 2008


can we just build the damn sand castle already?
posted by infini at 12:42 PM on October 22, 2008


Wow, really, pineapple, that's the way you want to roll after I apologized for missing your correction, and was self-deprecating about my own embarrassingly voluminous output to boot?

Well, all I can say is that you shouldn't worry about being the poster girl for Mod Power, but you certainly seem to want to be the poster girl for something.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 11:26 PM on October 22, 2008


Yeah, in fact: the poster girl for "'Do as I say, not as I do' isn't actually a community standard."

For example, now you're pissed that I didn't properly genuflect with credit for a "my bad" tucked into several paragraphs of "You're an asshole."

Be the change you wish to see in the world, stav.
posted by pineapple at 8:00 AM on October 23, 2008


I like you both a lot and am feeling like this isn't going to settle itself, so I wish at this point you could both just let it drop or at least take this to email. The conversation has gotten pretty far away from the site in general at this point and is pretty much about you two, neh?
posted by cortex (staff) at 8:16 AM on October 23, 2008


cortex, this is the first time I've seen "ne"(ね) romanized with an H, and I gotta say, I'm digging it. Is this a thing? Is "ne" (or "neh") entering into American usage? Or is this just your own riff? I'm genuinely curious!
posted by flapjax at midnite at 4:08 PM on October 23, 2008


Sorry, cortex, time me out if you like, but I'm not going to let this stand.

Be the change you wish to see in the world, stav.

What the holy hell are you talking about? You relentlessly taunt and insult me, lash me with sarcasm when I did nothing -- fucking nothing that I can see -- that in any way could have been offensive to you, and then you wind up by saying 'be the change you wish to see in the world'?

For example, now you're pissed that I didn't properly genuflect with credit for a "my bad" tucked into several paragraphs of "You're an asshole."

What?

You are a serious nutball, lady. The change I want to see in the world is that there might be fewer nutballs getting all personally aggro because they want to make some kind of point about something.

OK, I'm done now.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 5:05 PM on October 23, 2008


"You are a serious nutball, lady." stavros, I don't see the relentlessness and lashing you seem so upset about. pineapple isn't deferential, but she's also been made out as personally responsible for a position she doesn't hold. "End of conversation" was a hyperbolic offhand remark, not a statement about policy. And you did the "pulling rank" thing with the 17Ker remark and told her to relax, neither of which goes over well, and neither of which were called for. To me, reading, it seems as if you escalated this thing into a pissing match. Trying to be fair, if you read pineapple's first remarks as insulting, I can see that somewhat, but your response was out of proportion and got worse as the exchange continued.

"Who the fuck are you" kind of stuff just sounds antagonistic, even belittling, in this context.
posted by cgc373 at 5:46 PM on October 23, 2008


I'm not even in the neighborhood of contemplating timing anyone out, I just wish you could have both avoided the last three rounds or so of lastwordism. It's not the end of the world, it's just, ech, why?

flapjax, I picked up from a combination of high school Japanese class and Ender's Game.
posted by cortex (staff) at 6:22 PM on October 23, 2008


OSC OMG TEH CENSORSHIPS
posted by cgc373 at 6:56 PM on October 23, 2008


stavros, lay off pineapple or I'll make sure you get a little extra Backburner next time you're blue and I'm red.
posted by dw at 7:01 PM on October 23, 2008


pineapple, lay off stavros or I'll smack you with an oar.
posted by dw at 7:02 PM on October 23, 2008


And thus, my Meta-MeTa loops are now closed.
posted by dw at 7:05 PM on October 23, 2008


dw, "Maybe eight, or even ten guys in the world could've made that shot."
posted by cgc373 at 7:51 PM on October 23, 2008


the etymology of 'neh' - someone favourite this for posterity
posted by infini at 11:34 PM on October 23, 2008 [2 favorites]


Hey, we can all be thought leaders. Now you all chill out, and I'll break you off a little piece of somethin' somethin'.
posted by Meatbomb at 1:41 AM on October 24, 2008


my thoughts lead to me wonder what meatbomb's somethin' somethin' is and would I want a little piece?




*ponders deeply*
posted by infini at 4:36 AM on October 24, 2008


I would want a little peace, yes.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 8:52 AM on October 24, 2008


I have a sump on my little sumpin' sumpin' pump, chump.
posted by Burhanistan at 9:50 AM on October 24, 2008


Heh. Wait until you get super-censored.
posted by Rafaelloello at 2:26 AM on October 29, 2008


« Older Staunch the bleeding.   |   Happy Anniversary to Me and MeFi Newer »

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