But that's not what you said in 2007!

February 2, 2010 7:00 AM

Checking through previous AskMe posts: proper etiquette?

I sometimes feel a little bad for people when they ask a question and in a response, someone goes through their previous questions and comments and picks out some quotes or earlier questions to throw in their face, albeit in an attempt to be helpful. It's totally legit but it often involves catching them in some contradiction or pointing out that they might be part of the problem.

I'm not proposing any change, especially because I think the background information usually is actually enlightening -- I'm just curious if I'm alone in my feelings toward this practice in general.

posted by Strudelganger to Etiquette/Policy at 7:00 AM (33 comments total)

This is sort of being discussed in the other thread, but this is a totally different aspect of what I think is the same question.

Generally it's okay to look up someone else's AskMe questions and mention them. But you need to not be a jerk about it. And it's a pretty fine line. And it sometimes gets messy because people sometimes ask us to anonymize an old question and this sort of cross-linking can mess that up.

So, commenting in some sort of "Aha!" way, not so great. Commenting "I know you say you want to be exclusive but I notice before that you were committed to an open relationship. What changed?" is okay. Harping on it, in any case, is not great.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 7:05 AM on February 2, 2010 [1 favorite]

I see you've covered your own tracks quite nicely, Strudelganger.
posted by gman at 7:06 AM on February 2, 2010 [5 favorites]

But you need to not be a jerk about it. And it's a pretty fine line.

Yeah, exactly. It's pretty much up to the person going diving back through a poster's history to display good judgement both about what they're bring back out (is this old question pretty neutral stuff or does it seem especially sensitive? is bringing this into the thread likely to inflame the current thread in a counter-productive way?) and about how they go about presenting it (does this have a gotcha sort of feel? is their or could their be perceived a negative intent in bringing this up?).

It's understandable to want to understand where a poster is coming from, and to want to have a clear picture (and help other answerers have a clear picture) of what sort of context a question is coming from, but it needs to be done with care or it can end up making a mess or creating some hurt feelings unnecessarily.
posted by cortex (staff) at 7:11 AM on February 2, 2010

There's also a really big difference between just referencing older questions, and making a pointed deal about linking to all of them. Mentioning past questions is usually fine [with the caveat that dragging people's personal stuff into a thread that has nothing to do with a thread is still not okay] doing a lot of aggressive hyperlinking, much less so.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 7:15 AM on February 2, 2010

Have you really paid $5 just to ask this question?
posted by idiomatika at 7:22 AM on February 2, 2010 [1 favorite]

I see that you were looking, gman, to try to use this ploy against me!

No, I think you can see that I started this account a while back and just decided to use it today, idiomatika, intentionally, because I just wanted to ask the question on its own.

Thanks for the clarifications, mods. Sorry that I missed the other discussion.
posted by Strudelganger at 7:39 AM on February 2, 2010

A petty inconsistency is the ravenous demon that gnaws at your soul. Gnawing, chewing, thrashing inside you, destroying your organs, weakening your muscles, destroying your will and self-control.

Or it's a petty hobgoblin. Almost the same thing.
posted by ardgedee at 7:58 AM on February 2, 2010

what if its more than an inconsistency in thought--what if it points to the possibility that the asker is actually trolling? As in: an old question of theirs says they're X but the new, highly controversial one claims they're Y. Is this best pointed out in the thread or directly to the mods or what.

(this happened once and now ive forgotten if i ever asked about it)
posted by Potomac Avenue at 8:31 AM on February 2, 2010

As in: an old question of theirs says they're X but the new, highly controversial one claims they're Y. Is this best pointed out in the thread or directly to the mods or what.

Well, many people are X but then are later Y.
posted by Jaltcoh at 8:39 AM on February 2, 2010

what if it points to the possibility that the asker is actually trolling?

If it's just an inconsistency between two questions, bring it up in the thread in a decent "I'm trying to help..." way. If you think the person is truly trolling [i.e. this is backed up by a lot of their comments and/or behavior on the site or something else you know about them] let us know. Any sort of "gotcha!" in an AskMe thread is pretty unwelcome, even if you're right and the person is being a tremendous troll. Unless you think they're trying to actually... do something criminal [like get money from people] there's no harm in people getting caught up in made up drama for a few hours while we figure out how to deal with it.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 8:39 AM on February 2, 2010 [1 favorite]

Well, many people are X but then are later Y.

Those people are phonies. Great, big phonies.
posted by Aquaman at 9:39 AM on February 2, 2010 [1 favorite]

Sorry I meant X and then later Not-X. As in old and then later young, or changing races. Take off yr people-hunting cap. It seems like messaging the mods is the obvious route rather than hashing it out in the thread or in meta, thanks.
posted by Potomac Avenue at 9:46 AM on February 2, 2010

Going through previous AskMes can be really helpful in terms of providing background information for the question, though somehow I never seem to think of doing it myself. I've never seen anyone be a dick about it that I can recall.
posted by orange swan at 10:05 AM on February 2, 2010

Sorry I meant X and then later Not-X. As in old and then later young, or changing races.

Many people are X and then not-X. You can't get younger, of course. But could you change races? If someone is "white" in one question and "black" in another, does that make them "phony"? Is Barack Obama a "phony"? I could call him "white" in one blog post and then "black" in another blog post. You can change many things about yourself. A meat-eater can become a vegetarian or vice versa. A Christian can become a Buddhist or vice versa. People even change their gender. I think we should devote our resources to solving people's stated problems, not for policing whether their identities are consistent.
posted by Jaltcoh at 10:06 AM on February 2, 2010 [2 favorites]

I'd hope everyone would experience a worldview-challenging "faith crisis" at one point or another; it's a great way to broaden one's perspective. I am nowhere near the same person I was, say, ten years ago. I've challenged my beliefs, wrestled at length with cognitive dissonance (nasty stuff, that) and finally embraced new perspectives I once would've found appalling. Like I said, it's a good thing. It's personal growth.

All that is to say, X and then later Not-X is perfectly reasonable and shouldn't necessarily be considered hypocrisy or trolling. I shudder to think about some of the posts I would've made had I had a MeFi account during my deepest periods of soul-searching. And the inevitable MeTa callouts for my inconsistency shortly afterward.
posted by The Winsome Parker Lewis at 10:19 AM on February 2, 2010

It's totally legit but it often involves catching them in some contradiction or pointing out that they might be part of the problem.

I don't think it's legit at all. Sifting through somebody's comment history and then using it to make a point is just pretty jackass, and that's all there is to it. If you could do this in real life, the human race would destroy itself in three days time, as we'd find each other completely unbearable to be around.

Whenever I see somebody doing this, I'm like, "What the hell is wrong with this person? Do they really have *that much* spare time?"

PEOPLE, WE ARE NOT RUNNING FOR POLITICAL OFFICE HERE. WE ARE TRYING TO HAVE A FUCKING CONVERSATION. DO NOT HOLD US TO AN ABSURD LEVEL OF CONSISTENCY THAT DOES NOT EXIST IN REAL LIFE.
posted by Afroblanco at 10:37 AM on February 2, 2010 [1 favorite]

But who ... is Afroblanco? Is he "Afro" or "blanco"? Can you really trust Afroblanco?
posted by Jaltcoh at 10:42 AM on February 2, 2010

HI.

I'm the internet and I dain to think I know exactly who you are because you posted some stuff on metafilter one time and I just reread it without any context.
posted by TomMelee at 10:47 AM on February 2, 2010

All that is to say, X and then later Not-X is perfectly reasonable and shouldn't necessarily be considered hypocrisy or trolling.

There's a big difference between "I eat meat" vs. "I am vegan" and something like "I am a female high school senior" and "I am a married man experiencing a midlife crisis at the age of 45"

I think everyone is clear that people change their minds, sometimes dramatically. I think where it gets more murky is that people's stated worldviews can change even when they'd asserted hard and fast at an earlier point in time that they never ever would.

cf. I will love you forever. It is a statement of intent, not a statement of fact, however fervently we would wish to believe otherwise. People who make hard and fast statements that later become untrue can, of course, be politely asked about them. This is part of how AskMe works.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 10:51 AM on February 2, 2010 [1 favorite]

But who ... is Afroblanco? Is he "Afro" or "blanco"? Can you really trust Afroblanco?

Afroblanco : Wrong for Metafilter, wrong for America
posted by Afroblanco at 10:55 AM on February 2, 2010 [5 favorites]

I think it's fine as long as it's not in a condescending way. I had someone (a few people?) do this in a recent question and I was grateful for the, "Well, judging by what happened a few months ago, this probably isn't a good idea" insight because I wouldn't have otherwise remembered it in that light.

That being said, I sometimes post anony for other people so I'm probably a 45 year old man one day and a 17 year old girl the next anyway. (Then again I don't know any 45 year old men...)
posted by biochemist at 11:17 AM on February 2, 2010

Interesting, in most of the cases where the poster's history is brought up that I have noticed, it's not because the poster's world view has changed - ie they were a vegan and now they are looking for a recipe for steak. Most of the cases I've seen have been relationship filter, where other people's reactions to the OP are sometimes explained by previous behavior - ie referencing a previous question where the poster admits to publicly cheating on their SO in response to a newer question about why their SO is grumpy at them. I think it's fair to say that people change (I know I have) but you also have to remember that even though you've changed, the people around you will remember how they were treated in the past even if you think you've turned a new leaf.
posted by fermezporte at 11:19 AM on February 2, 2010

I sometimes post anony for other people

If you do this please do it sparingly and make it clear that you're asking for a friend. The AnonyMe queue is a busy one and we'd like to prioritize questions asked by MeFites if there's some sort of conflict, too many questions, whatever. The AnonyMe feature is supposed to be for members needing to ask the rare anonymous question.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 11:24 AM on February 2, 2010

I'll be sure to make it clear!
posted by biochemist at 11:33 AM on February 2, 2010

I don't think there's anything wrong with looking at previous questions and referring to them; pretty much every time I've done it it is because I remember the poster and question anyway.
posted by oneirodynia at 12:33 PM on February 2, 2010

pretty much every time I've done it it is because I remember the poster and question anyway.

Yeah, it's not an issue of too much spare time, because the only time(s?) this has ever occurred to me to do is when the past comment so deeply angered me that I remember it well (and I'm not sure I've ever actually done it, since that red film suddenly descending over the monitor is basically how you know you should not do it).
posted by palliser at 2:10 PM on February 2, 2010

I don't think it's legit at all.

I think this is wrong. Sure you have to be careful about it but there are times when you can only legitimately answer the question in a helpful way if you know the asker's history.

Without naming names there is a certain asker who posted like 4 AskMes in the space of a few months with regard to a relationship with a boy. The overwhelming response to the first three questions was that the situation was not good and she didn't appear to be in a position where a relationship made sense. Each successive question ramped up the drama.

How could one post a decent answer to the 4th question without taking into account that the OP was constantly coming to AskMe and asking about interpersonal drama and then ignoring the advice every single time? I think bringing up the fact that the OP was wasting everyone's time, including her own, is perfectly legitimate in that instance.
posted by Justinian at 5:38 PM on February 2, 2010 [1 favorite]

> cf. I will love you forever. It is a statement of intent, not a statement of fact, however
> fervently we would wish to believe otherwise. People who make hard and fast statements
> that later become untrue can, of course, be politely asked about them. This is part of how
> AskMe works.
> posted by jessamyn at 1:51 PM on February 2 [+] [!]

It strikes me that "I will love you forever" is something that will be remembered if you say it. And if you later change your mind you will absolutely, definitely be reminded of it. And #2, if you put in a letter you can expect to hear the letter read aloud in court.
posted by jfuller at 6:16 PM on February 2, 2010

Yet another way the real world is not at all like Ask MetaFilter.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 6:33 PM on February 2, 2010 [1 favorite]

WE ARE TRYING TO HAVE A FUCKING CONVERSATION.

I was promised snacks. Where's the taters?!
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 8:14 PM on February 2, 2010

That Afroblanco character is pretty dodgy if you look at his posting history. He plans meetups in New York AND San Francisco. He says he likes New York, then he says SF is better. Which is it? Huh? Huh?
posted by gingerbeer at 8:35 PM on February 2, 2010 [1 favorite]

Aquaman: "Well, many people are X but then are later Y.

Those people are phonies. Great, big phonies"

I disagree. I was a Charismatic Christian once, but I "saw the light" and got the heck out of a very abusive church and now I'm agnostic.
posted by IndigoRain at 11:43 PM on February 2, 2010

HAMBURGER goddammit HAMBURGER!!!
posted by Aquaman at 8:05 AM on February 3, 2010