Wait, I solved the puzzle!! February 27, 2010 10:24 PM Subscribe
I am extremely uncomfortable with the deletion of the jwz metatalk thread.
I dislike the idea of deleting the original Ask thread, for reasons well articulated within the MeTa thread, but I suppose that's up to the poster. But why has the MeTa thread been deleted?
I dislike the idea of deleting the original Ask thread, for reasons well articulated within the MeTa thread, but I suppose that's up to the poster. But why has the MeTa thread been deleted?
This post was deleted for the following reason: poster's request. Anybody else who wants to post about the whole jwz thing, please think hard about whether you actually want to post about it first. -- cortex
The post was deleted because the "poster's request is poster's request." And that seems like a pretty goddamned solid reason.
posted by barnacles at 10:40 PM on February 27, 2010
posted by barnacles at 10:40 PM on February 27, 2010
Deleted turtles all the way down.
posted by mr_crash_davis mark II: Jazz Odyssey at 10:40 PM on February 27, 2010 [4 favorites]
posted by mr_crash_davis mark II: Jazz Odyssey at 10:40 PM on February 27, 2010 [4 favorites]
So does that mean this thread will also get deleted? You see what madness censorship causes?
Madness, I say!
posted by chairface at 10:41 PM on February 27, 2010 [1 favorite]
Madness, I say!
posted by chairface at 10:41 PM on February 27, 2010 [1 favorite]
That irked me as well, so I put it up on the deleted thread blog, so it's easily googleable.
posted by dead cousin ted at 10:45 PM on February 27, 2010 [17 favorites]
posted by dead cousin ted at 10:45 PM on February 27, 2010 [17 favorites]
Yes, the MeTa link deletion was a bad call.
Adding to robots.txt to disallow crawling have been a bad call, but less so.
posted by killdevil at 10:45 PM on February 27, 2010 [1 favorite]
Adding to robots.txt to disallow crawling have been a bad call, but less so.
posted by killdevil at 10:45 PM on February 27, 2010 [1 favorite]
chairface: So does that mean this thread will also get deleted? You see what madness censorship causes? Madness, I say!
Dmmt! Pstr's rqst s pstr's rqst!!
posted by barnacles at 10:47 PM on February 27, 2010
Dmmt! Pstr's rqst s pstr's rqst!!
posted by barnacles at 10:47 PM on February 27, 2010
This post was deleted for the following reason: not at all psyched about this but poster's request is poster's request. -- jessamyn
Part of the problem here is that participants can't see deleted threads.
posted by graventy at 10:48 PM on February 27, 2010
Part of the problem here is that participants can't see deleted threads.
posted by graventy at 10:48 PM on February 27, 2010
But I'd also posit that there's something different about posts being disappeared on MeTa and the other subsites.
MeTa's are very rarely deleted. Since the beginning of the year, there have been four or five. (yeah, I went back and counted, but I'm a lazy counter..so...) The majority were deleted because they didn't belong here. One was an AskMe update that people were being snarky about and the poster requested it's removal.
This one was deleted because I guess the poster felt bad about 'ruining' the puzzle for EVERYONE.
posted by graventy at 10:51 PM on February 27, 2010
MeTa's are very rarely deleted. Since the beginning of the year, there have been four or five. (yeah, I went back and counted, but I'm a lazy counter..so...) The majority were deleted because they didn't belong here. One was an AskMe update that people were being snarky about and the poster requested it's removal.
This one was deleted because I guess the poster felt bad about 'ruining' the puzzle for EVERYONE.
posted by graventy at 10:51 PM on February 27, 2010
Did Mwongozi request that the MetaTalk thread go away too?
The deletion reason on the MetaTalk thread uses the phrase "poster's request" twice, so I would assume so.
posted by Jaltcoh at 10:51 PM on February 27, 2010
The deletion reason on the MetaTalk thread uses the phrase "poster's request" twice, so I would assume so.
posted by Jaltcoh at 10:51 PM on February 27, 2010
I think we'll discover that this won't mean any significant and permanent changes to how MetaFilter operates, the slope is actually good and grippy underfoot and as a small bonus the original poster and jwz have their wish. Not ideal perhaps giving the misgivings of many other users here, but we could always let it lie and move on.
posted by Abiezer at 10:53 PM on February 27, 2010
posted by Abiezer at 10:53 PM on February 27, 2010
YOU CAN'T MAKE THAT DECISION LALEX
I thought this MeTa could use a bit of a stir.
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 11:01 PM on February 27, 2010
I thought this MeTa could use a bit of a stir.
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 11:01 PM on February 27, 2010
You can make that decision, possibly, but again, MeTa deletions are very rare, and I think you addressed a legitimate question.
posted by graventy at 11:03 PM on February 27, 2010
posted by graventy at 11:03 PM on February 27, 2010
I agree that this isn't a harbinger of significant changes, but the thing is, the original poster and jwz don't have their wish, because both threads are linked from this thread. And they'll likely be linked from any subsequent thread should lalex decide to request this one be deleted. (which, has been done?? on preview. wtf?)
I think, actually, that this is an awesome solution, as was dead cousin ted's little extra bit of info on the deleted thread blog. Mwongozi's conscience is clear, and people who want to talk about the shoulda/woulda/coulda of the deletions can, here or there.
posted by donnagirl at 11:03 PM on February 27, 2010
I think, actually, that this is an awesome solution, as was dead cousin ted's little extra bit of info on the deleted thread blog. Mwongozi's conscience is clear, and people who want to talk about the shoulda/woulda/coulda of the deletions can, here or there.
posted by donnagirl at 11:03 PM on February 27, 2010
What is this? An unpatented formula for resurrecting the dead or something?
If some person makes a puzzle on the internet and another person halfway solves it, revealing clues that are searchable by Google, so what?
If some person is unhappy to have the solution to his super-secret "gag" revealed, then it falls on him to make another more challenging puzzle. Or else not put his original puzzle on the internet where people who solve it can reveal their half-solutions.
posted by at the crossroads at 11:08 PM on February 27, 2010 [1 favorite]
If some person makes a puzzle on the internet and another person halfway solves it, revealing clues that are searchable by Google, so what?
If some person is unhappy to have the solution to his super-secret "gag" revealed, then it falls on him to make another more challenging puzzle. Or else not put his original puzzle on the internet where people who solve it can reveal their half-solutions.
posted by at the crossroads at 11:08 PM on February 27, 2010 [1 favorite]
So does that mean this thread will also get deleted? You see what madness censorship causes?
Madness, I say!
MADNESS? THIS IS METATALK!
Actually, as this is a discussion about a deleted discussion of a deleted AskMe thread, it's more like metametametatalk. Which would make my talking about it metametametametatalk.
Why am I suddenly thinking of Twiki?
posted by ricochet biscuit at 11:11 PM on February 27, 2010
Madness, I say!
MADNESS? THIS IS METATALK!
Actually, as this is a discussion about a deleted discussion of a deleted AskMe thread, it's more like metametametatalk. Which would make my talking about it metametametametatalk.
Why am I suddenly thinking of Twiki?
posted by ricochet biscuit at 11:11 PM on February 27, 2010
Oh, ok. Mods, the OP requests that you delete this post! thxbye!
We could get some sort of relay race of deletions and new MeTa posts going to last all through March if we set our minds to it!
Didn't want to come off as dismissive: graventy's right, it is a perfectly legitimate question to raise; just that my sense is with a lot of similar decisions it usually isn't the beginning of a whole new regime given the way the mods give the various malarkey that comes there way consideration on its particular merits.
posted by Abiezer at 11:12 PM on February 27, 2010
We could get some sort of relay race of deletions and new MeTa posts going to last all through March if we set our minds to it!
Didn't want to come off as dismissive: graventy's right, it is a perfectly legitimate question to raise; just that my sense is with a lot of similar decisions it usually isn't the beginning of a whole new regime given the way the mods give the various malarkey that comes there way consideration on its particular merits.
posted by Abiezer at 11:12 PM on February 27, 2010
I have made a there/their error and thus my opinions in this thread are moot. I shall retreat in shame.
posted by Abiezer at 11:13 PM on February 27, 2010 [1 favorite]
posted by Abiezer at 11:13 PM on February 27, 2010 [1 favorite]
I will be interested to hear what MaPintaTexAmyn says
Matexamynta?
posted by Jaltcoh at 11:17 PM on February 27, 2010
Matexamynta?
posted by Jaltcoh at 11:17 PM on February 27, 2010
The way people use the word moot kinda fascinates me. It's supposed to mean "open for debate or discussion" or "arguable," but it's often used as if it means "useless" or "inert."
posted by cgc373 at 11:19 PM on February 27, 2010 [3 favorites]
posted by cgc373 at 11:19 PM on February 27, 2010 [3 favorites]
I don't have strong feelings, but my immediate reaction is that the deletion was kind of crappy and there must have been a better solution available.
posted by Forktine at 11:28 PM on February 27, 2010
posted by Forktine at 11:28 PM on February 27, 2010
And hey, mods, I am still waiting for this post to be deleted. I'm pretty embarrassed about it.
Dude, use the contact form.
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 11:34 PM on February 27, 2010
Dude, use the contact form.
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 11:34 PM on February 27, 2010
This is our world now. The world of the electron and the switch; the beauty of the baud. We exist without nationality, skin color, or religious bias. You wage wars, murder, cheat, lie to us and try to make us believe it's for our own good, yet we're the criminals. Yes, I am a criminal. My crime is that of curiosity. I am a hacker, and this is my manifesto.
You may delete my thread, but you can't delete us all!
posted by Juicy Avenger at 11:39 PM on February 27, 2010 [2 favorites]
You may delete my thread, but you can't delete us all!
posted by Juicy Avenger at 11:39 PM on February 27, 2010 [2 favorites]
There's nothing Googlable here specific to the original problem, so I think this thread should stand.
posted by at the crossroads at 11:45 PM on February 27, 2010
posted by at the crossroads at 11:45 PM on February 27, 2010
Wait, you really want this thread closed, too? You were "extremely" uncomfortable regarding data integrity and setting precedent for willy nilly thread deletion and NOW that's exactly what you want to happen AGAIN? That's going to open a traversable wormhole to sillytown. Or is my sarcasm detector just off?
posted by Juicy Avenger at 11:52 PM on February 27, 2010
posted by Juicy Avenger at 11:52 PM on February 27, 2010
I DISAGREE WITH THE FISH IN MY PANTS.
posted by loquacious at 11:56 PM on February 27, 2010 [2 favorites]
posted by loquacious at 11:56 PM on February 27, 2010 [2 favorites]
If I had a wicked ass handle like Matexamynta I just might have better things to do with my Saturday night than hang out with a bunch of goofs on the internet. Just sayin'.
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 12:02 AM on February 28, 2010
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 12:02 AM on February 28, 2010
cgc373
Moot
1. open to discussion or debate; debatable; doubtful: a moot point. (your meaning)
2. of little or no practical value or meaning; purely academic. (hence useless)
via dictionary.com
posted by b33j at 12:14 AM on February 28, 2010
Moot
1. open to discussion or debate; debatable; doubtful: a moot point. (your meaning)
2. of little or no practical value or meaning; purely academic. (hence useless)
via dictionary.com
posted by b33j at 12:14 AM on February 28, 2010
b33j, I don't mean to be pedantic; I'm not complaining that the word means something other than what people use it to mean. It certainly does mean "useless" now. I just think it's interesting how much less often I see the "debatable" meaning than the "useless" one.
posted by cgc373 at 12:18 AM on February 28, 2010
posted by cgc373 at 12:18 AM on February 28, 2010
Me, I want to solve the puzzle or at least help other people solve it. I was seriously considering opening a MeTa thread calling for participants to join me somewhere offsite to work on the puzzle together. I was thinking Google Wave, since it was built for easy collaboration & all, plus I've never really done anything useful with Wave yet.
Now that I've said it I guess it's time to put it into motion. Anybody interested in working on carrying the solving forward can drop me a MeMail & if I get more than a couple I'll open a Wave & throw out invites to it (along with invites to Wave for any who need them) & we can take it from there.
Who's in?
posted by scalefree at 12:19 AM on February 28, 2010
Now that I've said it I guess it's time to put it into motion. Anybody interested in working on carrying the solving forward can drop me a MeMail & if I get more than a couple I'll open a Wave & throw out invites to it (along with invites to Wave for any who need them) & we can take it from there.
Who's in?
posted by scalefree at 12:19 AM on February 28, 2010
as per lalex's insisting, I would like to have every post, comment and answer deleted by the mods for anyone who requests it.
posted by at the crossroads at 12:38 AM on February 28, 2010
posted by at the crossroads at 12:38 AM on February 28, 2010
You'd best shut your mouth before jwz asks to have you deleted.
posted by planet at 12:39 AM on February 28, 2010 [3 favorites]
posted by planet at 12:39 AM on February 28, 2010 [3 favorites]
I'm just annoyed that the ikkyu2 post got deleted before I saw it. I want to know juicy speculations!
posted by sid at 12:44 AM on February 28, 2010
posted by sid at 12:44 AM on February 28, 2010
Just put the solution on YOFB. Then you'll be an internet hero for solving the great mystery, and a pariah in the eyes of a web pioneer. What's not to like?
posted by netbros at 12:50 AM on February 28, 2010 [1 favorite]
posted by netbros at 12:50 AM on February 28, 2010 [1 favorite]
In a land of blind lawyers, a one-eyed man is king.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 1:10 AM on February 28, 2010
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 1:10 AM on February 28, 2010
irks me too lalex. Especially since the Meta got deleted (I understand if OP wanted the Askme deleted).
posted by special-k at 1:10 AM on February 28, 2010
posted by special-k at 1:10 AM on February 28, 2010
I dunno, this is like a perfect storm of web geekery.
-----------
1)There is a puzzle
2)Astute mefites get to the bottom of it
3)MeFi is asked not to show the result so as not to spoil it for others via google
4) Metafilter complies. Because that is the polite thing to do.
--------------
5) Nobody believes no 4 for a second
posted by Sparx at 1:17 AM on February 28, 2010
-----------
1)There is a puzzle
2)Astute mefites get to the bottom of it
3)MeFi is asked not to show the result so as not to spoil it for others via google
4) Metafilter complies. Because that is the polite thing to do.
--------------
5) Nobody believes no 4 for a second
posted by Sparx at 1:17 AM on February 28, 2010
Pedantic
2. Overly concerned with minute details or formalisms
posted by one_bean at 1:17 AM on February 28, 2010
2. Overly concerned with minute details or formalisms
posted by one_bean at 1:17 AM on February 28, 2010
OK, sid, so... there's this Hollywood guy, right. Big into a certain...Hollywood religion. Let's say.
And ikkyu2 had some theories about that guy. I think involving his smile, and what it said about him.
That was pretty vague, I think.
posted by graventy at 1:27 AM on February 28, 2010
And ikkyu2 had some theories about that guy. I think involving his smile, and what it said about him.
That was pretty vague, I think.
posted by graventy at 1:27 AM on February 28, 2010
will this question survive?
posted by stinkycheese at 1:39 AM on February 28, 2010
posted by stinkycheese at 1:39 AM on February 28, 2010
HOW'D IT GET BURNED?
posted by Scattercat at 2:10 AM on February 28, 2010 [3 favorites]
posted by Scattercat at 2:10 AM on February 28, 2010 [3 favorites]
and since we're on the topic of the survival of myths,
when will "This account has been disabled" show the date of the disabling?
(I ask just for the sake of honesty in recording.)
posted by at the crossroads at 2:11 AM on February 28, 2010
when will "This account has been disabled" show the date of the disabling?
(I ask just for the sake of honesty in recording.)
posted by at the crossroads at 2:11 AM on February 28, 2010
if you pay even half of second watching mod actions around here you know that they hate, hate, hate stunt posts. i wonder how they'll feel about stunt deletion requests.
posted by nadawi at 2:29 AM on February 28, 2010 [1 favorite]
posted by nadawi at 2:29 AM on February 28, 2010 [1 favorite]
Apparently the mods were too slow in deleting this embarrassing MeTa, so lalex saved them the trouble and simply deleted herself. :(
posted by Rhaomi at 2:34 AM on February 28, 2010
posted by Rhaomi at 2:34 AM on February 28, 2010
if deleting MeTa posts for some super secret puzzle maker isn't a stunt-mod move,
then I don't know what "hate, hate, hate" means.
posted by at the crossroads at 2:38 AM on February 28, 2010
then I don't know what "hate, hate, hate" means.
posted by at the crossroads at 2:38 AM on February 28, 2010
Like the Israelites before Baal, I waver between two opinions here. On the one hand, lalex is pulling a stupid stunt here, a sort of 'nyah-nyah, I reopened the topic, now what're you gonna do about it, hey?' kind of thing. (And I can't stand it when people say they're "extremely uncomfortable" with routine practical decisions on Metafilter. Save your "extreme uncomfort" for really terrible things in life - it's not as though they don't exist, or even as though we don't talk about them here.)
On the other hand, I was annoyed not to see any response whatsoever from Mwongozi in that thread. Like he couldn't even just say why he thought what he thought. But he probably didn't know how it works, and in the end I trust the mods; I'm pretty darned confident they did what's best, even if it's clear they had their own reservations.
Eh, conflict resolved. lalex, you're being pissy for no reason. I was curious about what was going on, too, but the way to ask about policy or moderation here isn't to trip into the kitchen and drop the family gauntlet so clumsily that it leaves a big dent in the floral print linoleum.
posted by koeselitz at 2:40 AM on February 28, 2010
On the other hand, I was annoyed not to see any response whatsoever from Mwongozi in that thread. Like he couldn't even just say why he thought what he thought. But he probably didn't know how it works, and in the end I trust the mods; I'm pretty darned confident they did what's best, even if it's clear they had their own reservations.
Eh, conflict resolved. lalex, you're being pissy for no reason. I was curious about what was going on, too, but the way to ask about policy or moderation here isn't to trip into the kitchen and drop the family gauntlet so clumsily that it leaves a big dent in the floral print linoleum.
posted by koeselitz at 2:40 AM on February 28, 2010
Oh. Er.
That's quite odd, now, isn't it?
lalex... come back? It's no big deal, really.
posted by koeselitz at 2:42 AM on February 28, 2010
That's quite odd, now, isn't it?
lalex... come back? It's no big deal, really.
posted by koeselitz at 2:42 AM on February 28, 2010
'Twould be humorous if lalex had had the account disabled through an unfortunate typo in the aforementioned contact form whereby "please delete this post" accidentally became "please delete this poster." Unfortunately, that seems unlikely. Please don't be embarrassed, lalex. I have posted some god-awful stupid meta threads before - that one was much worse than this. We won't pile on - promise!
posted by koeselitz at 2:48 AM on February 28, 2010
posted by koeselitz at 2:48 AM on February 28, 2010
What the fuck is going on around here? Did everyone go crazy while i wasn't looking?
posted by dead cousin ted at 2:50 AM on February 28, 2010 [9 favorites]
posted by dead cousin ted at 2:50 AM on February 28, 2010 [9 favorites]
This thread is now my desktop wallpaper.
posted by louche mustachio at 2:53 AM on February 28, 2010
posted by louche mustachio at 2:53 AM on February 28, 2010
"Stunt-Deletions" don't go over quite so smoothly as stunt posts.
posted by at the crossroads at 3:15 AM on February 28, 2010
posted by at the crossroads at 3:15 AM on February 28, 2010
"Stunt-Deletions" don't go over quite so smoothly as stunt posts.
Speaking of which, where is katherineg these days?
posted by thisjax at 3:20 AM on February 28, 2010
Speaking of which, where is katherineg these days?
posted by thisjax at 3:20 AM on February 28, 2010
since this metathread is going to be deleted as soon as mattamynapintexmeatbomb wakes up, could somebody please enable the IMG tag for a while? oh, that's right. they're all asleep.
posted by UbuRoivas at 3:35 AM on February 28, 2010
posted by UbuRoivas at 3:35 AM on February 28, 2010
Could somebody please enable the IMG tag for a while?
Don't change the subject, mister smart man.
I still want to know why the mods thought it was okay to delete a MeTa puzzle post.
posted by at the crossroads at 3:40 AM on February 28, 2010
Don't change the subject, mister smart man.
I still want to know why the mods thought it was okay to delete a MeTa puzzle post.
posted by at the crossroads at 3:40 AM on February 28, 2010
Come on back lalex; nothing here worth leaving over (except maybe my error-strewn posts above).
posted by Abiezer at 4:08 AM on February 28, 2010
posted by Abiezer at 4:08 AM on February 28, 2010
where is katherineg these days?
kathrineg rejoined as internet fraud detective squad.
posted by Houstonian at 4:09 AM on February 28, 2010
kathrineg rejoined as internet fraud detective squad.
posted by Houstonian at 4:09 AM on February 28, 2010
I sure hope the internet fraud detective squad can get to the bottom of this mess we got here.
posted by at the crossroads at 4:25 AM on February 28, 2010
posted by at the crossroads at 4:25 AM on February 28, 2010
Okay, fine. I'm being pedantic. If you want to use that definition.
posted by cgc373 at 4:32 AM on February 28, 2010
posted by cgc373 at 4:32 AM on February 28, 2010
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
F1 90 A1 E8 17 8D 80 64 34 94 39 4F 80 31 D9 C8
7A 5F 8A 09 F8 33 F7 22 1B D4 1F A6 4C 9C 79 33
C8 72 94 CE 84 F9 CC EB 59 84 B5 47 EE C1 8D 66
45 2F 6E 40 3C DF 10 71 4E 41 DF AA 25 7D 31 3F
posted by ryanrs at 4:50 AM on February 28, 2010
45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
F1 90 A1 E8 17 8D 80 64 34 94 39 4F 80 31 D9 C8
7A 5F 8A 09 F8 33 F7 22 1B D4 1F A6 4C 9C 79 33
C8 72 94 CE 84 F9 CC EB 59 84 B5 47 EE C1 8D 66
45 2F 6E 40 3C DF 10 71 4E 41 DF AA 25 7D 31 3F
posted by ryanrs at 4:50 AM on February 28, 2010
How bizarre.
posted by fantabulous timewaster at 4:55 AM on February 28, 2010
posted by fantabulous timewaster at 4:55 AM on February 28, 2010
hey, mods, I am still waiting for this post to be deleted.
Hey, we sleep at night!
And as people have said above, this is something we're pretty uncomfortable about ourselves. Generally speaking, even "poster's request" doesn't always cut it for MeTa but in this case [poster called out his own AskMe] we felt like we'd be being sticklers or pedants if we left it up. Not psyched, but there it is.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 4:58 AM on February 28, 2010
Hey, we sleep at night!
And as people have said above, this is something we're pretty uncomfortable about ourselves. Generally speaking, even "poster's request" doesn't always cut it for MeTa but in this case [poster called out his own AskMe] we felt like we'd be being sticklers or pedants if we left it up. Not psyched, but there it is.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 4:58 AM on February 28, 2010
Popping this back open for half a second to supplement.
I still want to know why the mods thought it was okay to delete a MeTa puzzle post.
It wasn't a puzzle post, it was a policy-headcheck post from the same user who posted the puzzle askme. I think both could have and in an ideal world should have stood, but the fact is that we have historically honored poster's request to remove their own regretted content. It's something that comes up occasionally on askme, less often on the blue, and less often still on the grey, but it's one fairly straightforward policy: if you post something and really regret it and write to us to ask us to, we're probably going to remove it. We may try to find a way to work around that with the user, but that may not pan out, either, which brings us back to the request for deletion and our general practice of honoring it.
Doing so in this case was extra weird given the oddness of the third-party-request dynamic that prompted the whole thing, and a re-read of the original metatalk should make it totally clear that as mods none of us really liked the situation or the idea of deleting the threads, but through private communication with Mwongozi it became clear that solutions other than just deleting the threads were going to leave him feeling really uncomfortable, and at that point Mwongozi was really clearly regretting having been the one to post both of those threads.
Live by the focus on the desires of our actual community members, die by the focus on the desires of our actual community members. We didn't delete the threads for jwz's sake, we deleted them because Mwongozi, who created them in the first place, was feeling a lot of personal regret about it. Period.
posted by cortex (staff) at 6:55 AM on February 28, 2010 [1 favorite]
I still want to know why the mods thought it was okay to delete a MeTa puzzle post.
It wasn't a puzzle post, it was a policy-headcheck post from the same user who posted the puzzle askme. I think both could have and in an ideal world should have stood, but the fact is that we have historically honored poster's request to remove their own regretted content. It's something that comes up occasionally on askme, less often on the blue, and less often still on the grey, but it's one fairly straightforward policy: if you post something and really regret it and write to us to ask us to, we're probably going to remove it. We may try to find a way to work around that with the user, but that may not pan out, either, which brings us back to the request for deletion and our general practice of honoring it.
Doing so in this case was extra weird given the oddness of the third-party-request dynamic that prompted the whole thing, and a re-read of the original metatalk should make it totally clear that as mods none of us really liked the situation or the idea of deleting the threads, but through private communication with Mwongozi it became clear that solutions other than just deleting the threads were going to leave him feeling really uncomfortable, and at that point Mwongozi was really clearly regretting having been the one to post both of those threads.
Live by the focus on the desires of our actual community members, die by the focus on the desires of our actual community members. We didn't delete the threads for jwz's sake, we deleted them because Mwongozi, who created them in the first place, was feeling a lot of personal regret about it. Period.
posted by cortex (staff) at 6:55 AM on February 28, 2010 [1 favorite]
This thread is closed to new comments.
I completely disagree with the deletion, but MetaTalk threads do get deleted on poster's request on occasion, so it's not too unexpected.
posted by graventy at 10:37 PM on February 27, 2010