Over and over and over again. August 18, 2010 4:59 PM   Subscribe

Four live posts on the Park51 mosque. Two MetaTalk posts (three now). This is getting ridiculous. Suggestion: either introduce a separate "current events" area, or have a way of bouncing posts back up to the top if people are really interested in continuing to talk about it.
posted by Joe in Australia to Etiquette/Policy at 4:59 PM (103 comments total)

I vote for option C: adding new links to still-open threads.

But I agree the mosque issue has reached the saturation point.
posted by misha at 5:05 PM on August 18, 2010 [2 favorites]


there probably was a post or two I missed, but we managed to keep the Prop 8 rulings pretty confined over the last few weeks.. so yeah I agree with misha: Option C. If people are interested in still taking about it they can go to the old post.
posted by edgeways at 5:07 PM on August 18, 2010


I'm opposed to building new mosque posts so close to the Ground Zero of deleted FPPs.
posted by mattdidthat at 5:09 PM on August 18, 2010 [28 favorites]


It's a real wedge issue, sadly. It's not just about people wanting to respect the so-called hallowed ground of a crime sight or whatever, it's about undermining the US Constitution so there are going to be a lot of different angles and individual stories that could be served by separate discussions. That said, posts should be limited...
posted by Burhanistan at 5:09 PM on August 18, 2010


So, you are right, but for what it's worth, I managed to miss them all except for the most recent one. So yes, it has gone unnoticed in some quarters.

But the mods are usually pretty clear about this and typically just delete the new ones. Odd that they haven't in this case. But one case does not a trend make.
posted by GuyZero at 5:10 PM on August 18, 2010


If these people honestly believe that all Muslims in the world are terrorists in league with each other, wouldn't the best place for a mosque be RIGHT INSIDE THE NEW WORLD TRADE CENTER?
posted by drjimmy11 at 5:11 PM on August 18, 2010 [9 favorites]


As the author of one of those, I took into account that it was an already much-discussed topic, but I feel my post had a unique angle to it, namely Dutch politics. If not I wouldn't have posted it, because there would have been no post IMO.

Aside from that I do sometimes feel that "just leave it as a comment in the still-open thread" doesn't cut it when you know it's only going to be a few stray Recent Activity readers and homunculus in there and exposure will be minimal.
posted by goodnewsfortheinsane at 5:15 PM on August 18, 2010


I tried to warn you all, but nobody would listen. Now some damn Aussie pipes up and suddenly it's AN ISSUE.
posted by nomadicink at 5:15 PM on August 18, 2010 [2 favorites]


It's a real wedge issue, sadly.

Seems like the opposite of a wedge issue. Idiots all think it should be prevented, everyone else disagrees. A wedge issue divides a group against itself.
posted by DU at 5:15 PM on August 18, 2010 [3 favorites]


Another vote for option C here. (I felt the same way about WikiLeaksFilter.) We all know it's a Big Deal Current Event, but in the absence of any major developments (the building gets bombed, some court issues an injunction against the construction, the opposition suddenly and unilaterally backs down for some reason), I don't see why we need more than one thread a week on the subject, if that.
posted by Gator at 5:16 PM on August 18, 2010


> A wedge issue divides a group against itself.

I was thinking of the oneness of humanity and we are all Americans and other such fantasies so pay me no attention.
posted by Burhanistan at 5:17 PM on August 18, 2010 [1 favorite]


It's a real wedge issue, sadly.

It's a manufatured wedge issue. I live in NYC and I haven't encountered anybody not on TV who really cares.
posted by jonmc at 5:19 PM on August 18, 2010 [15 favorites]


...and exposure will be minimal.

I don't think that is actually a bad thing as this site isn't necessarily geared towards "news". Not ragging on you or your post, however I expect everyone who made knock on Park51 posts feel their post added new and unique coverage.
posted by edgeways at 5:20 PM on August 18, 2010


I live in NYC and I haven't encountered anybody not on TV who really cares.

Oh PLEASE, like what New Yorkers think matters here!
posted by nomadicink at 5:21 PM on August 18, 2010 [5 favorites]


We've been removing some posts to try and keep it from being lazy or overwhelming, but this is (gobsmackingly) kind of the main thing happening in the US political dialectic at the moment and just about everybody seems to be either contributing to or raptly attending the resulting sociopolitical clusterfuck.

Four posts on the same subject in the same month is definitely busier than we'd want things generally to be, and we'll continue to keep an eye out for posts that seem like too-little or too-soon or too-samey and nix them with pointers to an open thread, but I'm not sure what else there is to say beyond that. None of these four posts have been slight little off-hand things, and I don't think we're at the sort of crisis point where we have to shut the topic down hard.
posted by cortex (staff) at 5:22 PM on August 18, 2010 [1 favorite]


but isn't this just sort of feeding into the clusterfuck? We have a thing, we have a post about the thing, then someone on "importance" says something about the thing and we have another post about the thing, and so on. No one has said shut it down hard, rather redirect it to where it conversation is already happening.

But, I guess it is a moot point now.

cheers
posted by edgeways at 5:31 PM on August 18, 2010


After checking cortex's link on the word "some," I'd just like to say that it'd be fine with me if you instituted a strict rule that FPPs will be deleted if the heading uses this formula:
How much longer before they start talking about final solutions to the "Muslim Problem"?
posted by Jaltcoh at 5:33 PM on August 18, 2010


idiotic wedge issue incessantly brayed about by pundits = slow news month.
posted by LobsterMitten at 5:36 PM on August 18, 2010 [2 favorites]


Oh God, they've co-opted cortex! Run Matt, RUN!
posted by nomadicink at 5:38 PM on August 18, 2010 [1 favorite]


but isn't this just sort of feeding into the clusterfuck?

No? Metafilter is not a trendsetter in the American political scene. Nothing that has happened or will happen with this crazy bullshit politicking is the result of any post on Metafilter.

If people make lazy posts about this, we will delete them. If people make slight or nothing-new-here posts about this, we will delete them. If people make a storm of posts about this every day, we will delete at the very least most of 'em, with pointers to open threads. Any request other than "shut the topic down hard" is a request that we do basically exactly what we have already been doing.

Four posts in a month is more than average, but that's always going to happen now and again; nothing is perfectly evenly distributed around here, the site's a living thing with peaks and troughs and outliers even within the bounds of reasonably normal, okay site behavior. I hear those of you who are saying some variation of "it's a lot". I agree. It's a lot. So it seems to be going for now. I'd love it if the whole goddam thing calms down, but in the mean time we have been keeping and will continue keep an eye on it. Again, I'm not sure what else there is to say there.
posted by cortex (staff) at 5:42 PM on August 18, 2010 [1 favorite]


Four live posts on the Park51 mosque. Two MetaTalk posts (three now). This is getting ridiculous.

Hang in there Joe. Thanksgiving is just a few short months away.
posted by special-k at 5:53 PM on August 18, 2010 [5 favorites]


Hang in there Joe. Thanksgiving is just a few short months away.

I actually did a real live spit-take. Well done.
posted by kate blank at 6:03 PM on August 18, 2010


and after that is when we start the war on christmas again, right?
posted by fritley at 6:05 PM on August 18, 2010


Cortex wrote: Four posts in a month is more than average, but that's always going to happen now and again ...

Um, Cortex? Remember when you said this? "There's no sense in either treating this specific situation like it's every single situation going forward or in criticizing it based on the counterfactual that some third thread came along as well."

When it was two posts it was well, it's just two posts, it's silly to speculate about having three posts. OK, now we're up to four. Plus a bunch of deleted ones, so it's clear that people are still trying to make new FPPs about it. And they're doing it because they see, hey, that one got up, so mine might too. It's directly rewarding clutter. It's not like you can't see new developments via the Recent Activity link.
posted by Joe in Australia at 6:18 PM on August 18, 2010 [1 favorite]


I can't understand why people get angsty and rulesy about this
kind of thing. Read the posts you like. Ignore the posts
you don't. Write the posts you would want to read and don't call out other people for not meeting your arbitrary expectations. Rinse, repeat
posted by sweetkid at 6:22 PM on August 18, 2010 [6 favorites]


Um, Cortex? Remember when you said this?

Yes, I do. I didn't say anything there about two being the magical number more than which there can never be more posts, I was responding specifically to you getting on zarq's case about daring to make a second thread on a topic in part by waving around the threat of a third.

I'm not sure what you want here. I've tried to be pretty clear upthread about how we've been approaching this. If you feel it's too many posts, you feel it's too many posts. You've complained in different contexts about us removing posts in part because of too-muchness as well; I feel like this is more you being annoyed with the topic than trying to work out any specific practicable policy issue.
posted by cortex (staff) at 6:28 PM on August 18, 2010 [5 favorites]


This is a significant topic, red-hot in the American press, and none of these posts are doubles. Ergo, it makes sense to leave them up. Read or not as you wish.
posted by bearwife at 6:28 PM on August 18, 2010


Reed or red? C'mon, this is important.
posted by fixedgear at 6:29 PM on August 18, 2010


Seriously what sweetkid said. I wish I could make my brain work such that I actually had to read things so carefully that I couldn't just easily skip over something I wasn't interested in. But because I don't have this problem, I never understand callouts like this.
posted by MCMikeNamara at 6:30 PM on August 18, 2010


Joe in Australia, you don't care but many of us do so give it a rest. If most of mefi wants it off the front page it'll be off the front page. In the mean time it's something that matters and many people here would like to talk about it, here.
posted by nola at 6:43 PM on August 18, 2010 [1 favorite]


I think you're trying to treat a national problem with internal site tweaks. People need to stop giving a damn about the mosque (me included).
posted by mccarty.tim at 7:00 PM on August 18, 2010


I was just about to post a bitchy, snarky comment, and then I saw "note: everyone needs a hug" and the happy purple unicorn on my "Post Comment" button and just couldn't do it. Social conditioning: it works.
posted by slogger at 7:04 PM on August 18, 2010 [1 favorite]


You realize that by calling it a mosque, you're buying into the radical right-wing interpretation, right?
posted by boo_radley at 7:08 PM on August 18, 2010 [7 favorites]


I prefer "Burlington Jilbab Factory"
posted by desjardins at 7:14 PM on August 18, 2010 [5 favorites]


Please let this not be a further venue for that or any other specific argument on the subject of the proposed building project itself. There are threads on the blue.
posted by cortex (staff) at 7:15 PM on August 18, 2010


I'm so fucking sick of hearing about it, especially since the new season of Weeds started.
posted by nomadicink at 7:16 PM on August 18, 2010


That may have been offensive. I apologize.
posted by desjardins at 7:18 PM on August 18, 2010


Outside of this particular topic, the theme of 'too many posts on topic x in y-timespan' is certainly deserving of a hard and fast rule. Failing that, there should be a bright blue guideline. If that's not in the stars, the mods should issue some sort of standard ruling outlining their specific intentions and steps towards action that will ensure a solid reference point when addressing this in the future. Well, heck, even that sounds a bit much—maybe individual MeFites who feel strongly about the Internal Consistency of the MetaFilter Moderators' Case-By-Case Topic Evaluation and Moderation Technique could take it upon themselves to heed the bit about case by case and forget forever any wish for internal consistency rather than insist on major site changes to accomodate their fucking whims.
posted by carsonb at 7:21 PM on August 18, 2010 [1 favorite]


If I am not interested in a specific thread, I read another thread.
posted by Astro Zombie at 7:25 PM on August 18, 2010 [2 favorites]


You realize that by calling it a mosque, you're buying into the radical right-wing interpretation, right?

You realize that we're talking about this in the latest thread, right?
posted by Jaltcoh at 7:32 PM on August 18, 2010


Jaltcoh, I am pleased that we are in agreement on the matter. I will, as cortex has suggested, direct further comments to the active thread.
posted by boo_radley at 7:42 PM on August 18, 2010



That may have been offensive. I apologize.

I chuckled.
posted by GilloD at 7:44 PM on August 18, 2010


Happy purple unicorn?
posted by grouse at 7:46 PM on August 18, 2010


Jaltcoh, I am pleased that we are in agreement on the matter.

I would recommend reading my comments in the MeFi thread more closely.
posted by Jaltcoh at 7:48 PM on August 18, 2010


On me posting in the thread, not actual substantive opinions!
(sorry for the confusion)
posted by boo_radley at 7:49 PM on August 18, 2010


...or have a way of bouncing posts back up to the top if people are really interested in continuing to talk about it.

If only we had some sort of "Recent Activity" feature, where you could view threads that have had recent comments in some sort of chronological order, that would appear on a special page only if you were involved in the discussion...

I doubt anyone would use it, though.
posted by Devils Rancher at 7:51 PM on August 18, 2010


This is the fault of oil for not pissing out of the seafloor anymore.
posted by Artw at 7:52 PM on August 18, 2010 [2 favorites]


On me posting in the thread, not actual substantive opinions!

Ah! Got it. That makes more sense.
posted by Jaltcoh at 7:52 PM on August 18, 2010


It's ironic, really. Seems like when some people aren't complaining about why something did get deleted, others seem to be complaining about why something didn't. What a tightrope we collectively make them walk.
posted by crunchland at 7:56 PM on August 18, 2010 [1 favorite]


the happy purple unicorn on my "Post Comment" button

If you're taking hallucinogens in class, you should really be bringing enough for everybody to share.
posted by juv3nal at 8:09 PM on August 18, 2010


Yeah, let's have more threads about human rights in Israel instead!
posted by orthogonality at 8:19 PM on August 18, 2010 [2 favorites]


Whatever we do, can we agree to cull the amount of single link tumblr posts?
posted by hellojed at 8:43 PM on August 18, 2010 [1 favorite]


US political news gets crazy like this every August when Congress goes home for summer vacation. Remember last year all the town halls about health insurance and the screaming loonies and Obama was gonna kill your grandmother with death panels and Miley's stalker problem? Jus' chill.
posted by netbros at 8:44 PM on August 18, 2010 [1 favorite]


I'm kinda surprised no one has yet posted The War is Over as the last US combat troops (excluding 50,000 "peace-keepers") have pulled out of Iraq.

Operation Iraqi Liberation Freedom: Mission Accomplished!
posted by orthogonality at 8:49 PM on August 18, 2010


I can't understand why people get angsty and rulesy about this

Seems like when some people aren't complaining about why something did get deleted, others seem to be complaining about why something didn't.

I think the two follow actually. People complain when their post (or one they want to read/participate in) gets deleted for a reason they don't agree with. A MeTa ensues where moderator explains the reasoning. Then they see a post survive that seems to them should be deleted for the same reason and feel it's unfair that it gets a pass. Complaining about the post left to stand is just a proxy for being irritated about the original deletion. IMO, anyway. As the parent of more than one child, I find it a pretty predictable response to perceived unfairness in how rules are applied (to protest the person "getting away with it").

Not speaking for Joe in this case, just in general. Maybe >1 post on a topic really bothers him and it has nothing to do with a certain topic that Metafilter doesn't do well. But I think that's why you see gripes from both ends of the spectrum so often, anyhow.
posted by cj_ at 8:49 PM on August 18, 2010


Would you like to raptly attend my my sociopolitical clusterfuck? Yes? I knew you would.
posted by sanko at 8:50 PM on August 18, 2010


I shudder to imagine Lady Gaga doing a Park51 benefit concert.
posted by Joe Beese at 8:51 PM on August 18, 2010


the last US combat troops (excluding 50,000 "peace-keepers") have pulled out of Iraq

As Chris Floyd reminds us, there remains also "an equal number of Washington-paid privateers", plus the State Department's own armed force.
posted by Joe Beese at 8:56 PM on August 18, 2010


posted by Joe Beese I shudder to imagine Lady Gaga doing a Park51 benefit concert.

Can't read my, can't read my, bu-bu-bu-burka face
posted by mattdidthat at 8:57 PM on August 18, 2010 [4 favorites]


> If I am not interested in a specific thread, I read another thread.
> posted by Astro Zombie at 10:25 PM on August 18 [1 favorite +] [!]

I go to the park and poison pigeons.
posted by jfuller at 9:15 PM on August 18, 2010



This is the Terry Schiavo incident, part II.

It's what happens when small goverment republicans who don't like the government or other people meddling in the affairs of land owning taxpayers until they sense it could serve some politically expedient purpose, then they're throw those quaint notions of property rights and "don't tread on me" slogans right under a bus.
posted by Pogo_Fuzzybutt at 9:18 PM on August 18, 2010 [2 favorites]


Whatever we do, can we agree to cull the amount of single link tumblr posts?

Yes. We will implement this. Starting tomorrow.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 9:23 PM on August 18, 2010


I would kill for a Shepard Fairey poster of David Paterson.
posted by phaedon at 9:33 PM on August 18, 2010


I'm kinda surprised no one has yet posted The War is Over as the last US combat troops (excluding 50,000 "peace-keepers") have pulled out of Iraq.

For what it's worth, this is how America surrenders. As quietly as possible. Same thing happened with Vietnam. Last ground troops vacated as of summer some time, 1972 ... while everybody who was anybody was at the cabin, sailing off Nantucket, that sort of thing.
posted by philip-random at 9:58 PM on August 18, 2010


I am starting fuckyeasinglelinktumblrposts.tumblr.com immediately
posted by 0xFCAF at 9:59 PM on August 18, 2010 [1 favorite]


sweetkid writes "I can't understand why people get angsty and rulesy about this
"kind of thing. Read the posts you like. Ignore the posts
"you don't. Write the posts you would want to read and don't call out other people for not meeting your arbitrary expectations. Rinse, repeat"


Like counterfeit currency the bad pushes out the good. The greater the proportion of the front page devoted to blathering idioticy like this zoning dispute the less inclined the people making better posts are likely stick around. Or at least I'd be less inclined to visit if PoliticalFilter and SportsFilter were being cc'd to the front page. The filter part of MetaFilter is important.
posted by Mitheral at 10:16 PM on August 18, 2010 [3 favorites]


Can we go back to the old design?
posted by rhizome at 1:30 AM on August 19, 2010


Happy purple unicorn?

Again, the grease monkey saves the day. It's a shame people don't use the happy rainbow narwhal button more though.
posted by carsonb at 3:49 AM on August 19, 2010


...ain't a mosque.

...ain't at ground zero
posted by orville sash at 5:56 AM on August 19, 2010


Jonmc: It's a manufatured wedge issue. I live in NYC and I haven't encountered anybody not on TV who really cares.

With respect, it sounds like you would have known only one person who voted for Nixon. As someone who cares more about the delays in rebuilding St. Nicholas than about the Muslim community center, but who spends a lot of time in the red state circles of New York City, I personally assure you there are lots of people very excited about this issue.
posted by Jahaza at 7:04 AM on August 19, 2010


Aside from that I do sometimes feel that "just leave it as a comment in the still-open thread" doesn't cut it when you know it's only going to be a few stray Recent Activity readers and homunculus in there and exposure will be minimal.

Although I don't agree with the sentiment, this may be one of the most astute observations of MeFi I've ever seen.
posted by SpiffyRob at 7:06 AM on August 19, 2010


I feel like this is more you being annoyed with the topic than trying to work out any specific practicable policy issue.

Joe, MetaTalk was in an uproar recently because too many Lady Gaga posts were hitting the front page. Did you complain then? What about when there were complaints about too many Palin threads? Too many US election threads? Iraq threads? Too many posts where each letter is a link?

On the other hand, I *do* recall a comment you made in which you said you were disappointed that your post about Gilad Shalit was deleted as a duplicate, because the comments in the thread gave a more nuanced, grassroots historical perspective to the issue. How is that different than what's happening here?

If you're taking a stand against too many duplicate or unnecessary posts, then that's great. We agree on that. Sincerely. But is that really what you're doing here?
posted by zarq at 7:20 AM on August 19, 2010 [3 favorites]


Whatever we do, can we agree to cull the amount of single link tumblr posts?

On a little side note, this word, cull - that's not how it works.
posted by kingbenny at 7:50 AM on August 19, 2010


Four live posts on the Park51 mosque.

And you've commented-repeatedly- in two of them. As recently as a few hours prior to making this MeTa post.

So what's your problem, really?
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 7:58 AM on August 19, 2010 [2 favorites]


> On a little side note, this word, cull - that's not how it works.

Maybe that's a situation where "decimate" would be appropriate.
posted by Burhanistan at 8:10 AM on August 19, 2010


(Also, you know you've been reading MeTa too long when you can make reliably accurate guesses as to who favorited a comment. Spooky.)
posted by Burhanistan at 8:11 AM on August 19, 2010


It would be nice if Joe in Australia explained why he is really objecting to these posts in particular, other than their frequency.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 10:05 AM on August 19, 2010 [1 favorite]


And now an AskMe thread too?
posted by mbrubeck at 12:26 PM on August 19, 2010


And now an AskMe thread too?

It seems like a valid question to me, and that's the appropriate place to ask it.
posted by zarq at 12:41 PM on August 19, 2010


People can ask questions on Ask Metafilter. That's what it's for. We would hugely appreciate people not carrying arguments on the general subject into that thread, however, since that's manifestly not what it's for.
posted by cortex (staff) at 12:47 PM on August 19, 2010


IMHO, if there's a post active any subsequent posts about the same subject matter it should be deleted and referred back to the original post.

From the "I want a pony" department, perhaps a "merge" function where the owner of a deleted thread with still useful information in an FPP style gets a Mefi mail with a "Hi we still have an open discussion topic would you like to have your FPP amended to the more inside section of the open post?" with a merge or delete button.

Then amended to the [more inside] section is "So and so adds... *insert deleted FPP content here*"
posted by Talez at 5:12 PM on August 19, 2010


IMHO, if there's a post active any subsequent posts about the same subject matter it should be deleted and referred back to the original post.

To a degree this is standard practice. It's just not an ironclad thing; when we do vs. don't do that depends a lot on the specific context.

perhaps a "merge" function where the owner of a deleted thread with still useful information in an FPP style gets a Mefi mail with a "Hi we still have an open discussion topic would you like to have your FPP amended to the more inside section of the open post?" with a merge or delete button.

Then amended to the [more inside] section is "So and so adds... *insert deleted FPP content here*"


Oh heck no. I mean, it's a nice idea if someone somewhere wants to implement it for their discussion board, but it's not happening here. Changing the content of a post after the fact creates a weird moving target where the chronology of responses becomes unclear, something we really aren't down with.

If we delete a post because there's another already open, the thing for the poster of the new one to do is to join the conversation in the existing thread. If they've got substantial new good links, they can add them in a comment. Often we'll explicitly mention this idea in the deletion reason, but it's a standing practice regardless of whether we bring it up specifically.
posted by cortex (staff) at 5:19 PM on August 19, 2010 [1 favorite]


I wonder if it's even possible to implement such a filter without a lot of problematic false positives.

If I post a story to the Blue about a breakthrough that affects the cost of breast cancer detection in patients who have mammograms, and another two weeks later someone famous randomly dies of breast cancer, would that then prevent me from posting an obit thread?
posted by zarq at 5:42 PM on August 19, 2010


Zarq said: If you're taking a stand against too many duplicate or unnecessary posts, then that's great. We agree on that. Sincerely. But is that really what you're doing here?
XQUZYPHYR asked: So what's your problem, really?
Blazecock Pileon asked: It would be nice if Joe in Australia explained why he is really objecting to these posts in particular, other than their frequency.

Why don't you come out and say what you mean?
posted by Joe in Australia at 5:44 PM on August 19, 2010


I did. Did you not understand the question?
posted by zarq at 5:49 PM on August 19, 2010


If I post a story to the Blue about a breakthrough that affects the cost of breast cancer detection in patients who have mammograms, and another two weeks later someone famous randomly dies of breast cancer, would that then prevent me from posting an obit thread?

I've come back to this like six times and cannot get over how obnoxious I think it is that you use breast cancer as the example here. It's like you picked the one thing that you expect to not get called on, and frankly, it's irksome.
posted by micawber at 6:18 PM on August 19, 2010


Micawber, I sincerely do not understand what you're trying to accuse me of here. Could you please clarify?

I was thinking about 3 FPP's from my posting history although without checking (I'm on my phone right now) I'm not sure how close together the latter 2 were chronologically.

I posted a number of months ago on the controversy regarding the patenting of several breast cancer related genes by the company that created the diagnostic test used to detect them.

Recently, I posted an updated second FPP on the same topic, after a landmark court decision.

I then remember a third FPP I made when Lynn Redgrave passed away from breast cancer. Her daughter had created a photo essay that I found deeply moving so I turned it into an FPP. I am not sure of the timing of that third post compared to the second, but I believe they were timed relatively closely together. If they had been within 30 days of each other it occurs to me that a filter which *prevented* people from posting doubles might have stopped me from doing so.

If you felt that I was somehow making light of breast cancer that was absolutely not my intention.
posted by zarq at 6:39 PM on August 19, 2010


These are the posts I was thinking of:

1) Do they preserve scientific transparency, protect profits or both?
Posted May 13th, 2009

2) "You Can't Patent Nature"
Posted March 31, 2010

3) Lynn Redgrave Passes Away
Posted May 3, 2010

The second and third posts were a little over 30 days apart.
posted by zarq at 7:19 PM on August 19, 2010


I wonder if it's even possible to implement such a filter without a lot of problematic false positives.

Just to be clear, we are not, at all, considering this. So if you want to discuss what rules might be in a totally different MetaFilter than where we are, that's fine but it really has pretty much no bearing on this. We have a system right now and we can talk about whether we should have another one, but some autofilter is not among the options.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 7:38 PM on August 19, 2010


Okie doke. Thank you.
posted by zarq at 8:10 PM on August 19, 2010


I wrote: Why don't you come out and say what you mean?

Zarq replied: I did. Did you not understand the question?

Sure. You don't think I'm "really" complaining about duplicate posts. You're implying that I have another motive. We're all grownups here, Zarq. Say what you mean.
posted by Joe in Australia at 11:09 PM on August 19, 2010


Umm... we did. Yes, you're right. We're "implying" that you have another motive, what in us asking, you know, what your motive was, since, ah, complaining about the abundance of threads you participated in makes no sense. So, yeah, you totally found Waldo.

So can you answer the question now or are you just going to feign indignation to avoid doing so?
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 7:05 AM on August 20, 2010


Why don't you come out and say what you mean?

Your posting history is pretty well established. So asking why you wrote this post is a fairly straightforward question, one which you're under no obligation to answer, but which would go a long way to addressing your real issues, whatever they might be. Up to you.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 9:37 AM on August 20, 2010


Sure. You don't think I'm "really" complaining about duplicate posts. You're implying that I have another motive. We're all grownups here, Zarq. Say what you mean.

I did. I am not being coy. I am *asking* if you have another motive.

That's why I said, "If you're taking a stand against too many duplicate or unnecessary posts, then that's great. We agree on that. Sincerely. But is that really what you're doing here?"
posted by zarq at 12:01 PM on August 20, 2010


With respect, it sounds like you would have known only one person who voted for Nixon.

You don't know me very well. I spend plenty of time with people of all kinds of political persuasuions and I can tell you that this issue is being manufatured by out of town carpetbaggers.
posted by jonmc at 5:43 PM on August 21, 2010 [1 favorite]


Blazecock Pileon wrote: Your posting history is pretty well established.

I understand that people can change their usernames in an attempt to get away from their posting history. Unfortunately, they retain their original personalities - so I think I'll stick with mine.

So asking why you wrote this post is a fairly straightforward question, one which you're under no obligation to answer, but which would go a long way to addressing your real issues, whatever they might be.

I don't know what you imagine my "real issues" might be. But if you think that they are some sort of secret history explaining my posts then why not tell us?

Zarq wrote: I am not being coy. I am *asking* if you have another motive.

I don't think you grasped the point I am trying to make. You made a very offensive accusation in the form of a question. It's a passive aggressive tactic - "you say you don't like fractured threads and a cluttered FP but you're not being frank; you have another reason; why won't you tell us what it is?" I'm sure that people frequently have undisclosed reasons for their actions, but it's courteous to treat their stated reasons as they stand and not insinuate that they are acting in an underhanded way.

I think you should man up and say something like "Joe, I think you objected to the fourth FPP because it was posted on the holy Sabbath" or "because the poster is Ukrainian" or whatever. So tell me, Zarq. Why did you really object to my MetaTalk post?
posted by Joe in Australia at 11:19 PM on August 21, 2010


I think you should man up and say something like "Joe, I think you objected to the fourth FPP because it was posted on the holy Sabbath" or "because the poster is Ukrainian" or whatever. So tell me, Zarq. Why did you really object to my MetaTalk post?

Asking you to clarify your intentions should not reasonably be seen as offensive. It is a simple request. If you view a simple request for clarification about your motives for posting as some sort of offensive accusation then that's your problem and I can't really help you. I will not apologize for doing so.

I don't object to this post. I have not said that I do, nor can that be logically inferred from my question. I didn't object to the last MeTa about this either even though it was to all intents and purposes a callout against one of my posts. I did attempt to respond to all questions in that thread politely, and even tried cracking a few jokes over there.

Joe, you're entitled to make any FPP in MeTa that you like. I'm entitled to ask questions of you regarding why you're doing so.

I am asking why you're suddenly showing a focused interest in double posts on this specific topic. Why the sudden demands for censorship? You do not seem to have been previously bothered by double posts despite extensive focus in Meta on them, and your only other interest in double posts in MeTa that I have seen (although I admit I could have missed something) was your objection to why your own Shalit post was deleted.
posted by zarq at 4:05 PM on August 22, 2010


I thought about it. Honestly Joe, at this point it's been a few days and I really don't even give a shit about your answer anymore. Either we'll see you make a similar MeTa post the next time someone makes yet another tiresome Gaga FPP, or we won't.

This makes two times in two months that I have asked you a reasonable question in MeTa and you've refused to answer me in public. Fascinating, really.
posted by zarq at 4:23 PM on August 22, 2010


Zarq wrote: Why the sudden demands for censorship?

A preference for two rather than four open threads isn't a desire for censorship. On the contrary. Discussions proceed best when there's is only one open thread. Having more than one fractures debate - that's an argument I have consistently made in Metatalk. I want there to be only one thread open at a time precisely because I want a debate.

As for the Lady Gaga posts, I'm oblivious to them. Since I'm not a participant I don't notice how many there are and I'm not drawn to complain about them. In contrast, I was an early participant in the Park51 thread and I responded to the Metafilter thread where someone complained about you splitting the thread. Then two more threads opened up on the same topic and someone helpfully said something like "Hey, now we're talking about it in this thread!" And then I complained, because it was both irritating and obvious and I'd expressed my feelings about it earlier.

This makes two times in two months that I have asked you a reasonable question in MeTa and you've refused to answer me in public. Fascinating, really.

Well, why not make a FPP about it?

Honestly, Zarq, it has a lot to do with your inquisitorial manner of interaction, as well as the way you imply things through your questions and observations. They remind me of a Jon Stewart line - "I'm not saying your mother's a whore. I'm just saying that it's interesting she's got money." Except the way you'd do it would be to add "I think we can clear this all up if you get your mother to state, for the record, that she doesn't give blowjobs to strangers for money. Actually, just so we're sure that she isn't trying to evade the truth, she had better state that she does not and has not ever exchanged sexual services to anyone for any compensation whatsoever. I can't see why she'd be reluctant to do that. Unless she really is a whore."
posted by Joe in Australia at 4:52 PM on August 22, 2010


A preference for two rather than four open threads isn't a desire for censorship.

Nitpick: It was a preference for one, rather than four.

On the contrary. Discussions proceed best when there's is only one open thread.

I'm not completely convinced of this. Sometimes a new thread will attract new people who missed the previous post. That said, I don't think it's a valid justification for making them. So in that we agree.

Having more than one fractures debate - that's an argument I have consistently made in Metatalk.

I was unaware of this. Where? Other than posts on this topic and your Shalit post, that is.

I want there to be only one thread open at a time precisely because I want a debate.

We've discussed this a bit already. It seems to me that when a previous thread on the same topic devolves into a flamewar, (especially when a huge MeTa has erupted,) real debate becomes unlikely.

FWIW, I've closed threads and stopped reading because they turned nasty -- and have been doing so more frequently lately. That might just be me. I can't speak to what other people do. Speaking of which...

Well, why not make a FPP about it?

It's not worth creating an FPP simply to satisfy my curiosity about a single poster. And despite what you seem to think, I'm not accusing you of anything. Also, I generally don't like callout threads, and even when I've made them myself I've tried not to name names. As you've personally experienced, they tend to set up a mob mentality which can be really nasty and unhelpful. Plus they tend to provoke flameouts. I said this once before. Those threads are one type I've been avoiding.

Asking questions of you in a MeTa thread is unlikely to spark the same reaction from the community.

As for the Lady Gaga posts, I'm oblivious to them. Since I'm not a participant I don't notice how many there are and I'm not drawn to complain about them. In contrast, I was an early participant in the Park51 thread and I responded to the Metafilter thread where someone complained about you splitting the thread. Then two more threads opened up on the same topic and someone helpfully said something like "Hey, now we're talking about it in this thread!" And then I complained, because it was both irritating and obvious and I'd expressed my feelings about it earlier.

That's a fair, reasonable response. Thank you.

I have to run to a meeting and am going to click post now so I don't lose this comment. Will respond further later.
posted by zarq at 10:34 AM on August 23, 2010


You don't know me very well. I spend plenty of time with people of all kinds of political persuasuions and I can tell you that this issue is being manufatured by out of town carpetbaggers.

Well you wrote, "I haven't encountered anybody not on TV who really cares".

There simply are people who are outraged by this issue (I'm not one of them). The fact that you haven't met them doesn't mean that they don't exist, because, living in NYC, I've met them, many of them native New Yorkers. Since, as you say, you haven't met anyone who's outraged by the issue, you have no basis on which to judge whether their outrage is sufficiently authentic.
posted by Jahaza at 12:52 PM on August 23, 2010


Honestly, Zarq, it has a lot to do with your inquisitorial manner of interaction, as well as the way you imply things through your questions and observations.

Oh dear lord. No one is shining a light in your face, putting your feet to the fire or stretching you on a rack. I'm asking straightforward questions. If you think I'm implying something untoward, then just say so.

Joe, I'm not a subtle person. If I want to accuse you of something specific I will.

One of the things I have been very carefully trying not to do here in MeTa lately is attack first and ask questions later. For a lot of reasons: It puts people on the defensive. It creates a ton of animosity. I may have misinterpreted their intentions or their words. Usually, a person's position on any given issue is more nuanced it may first appear in a quickly posted comment. Etc. I can't very well complain about folks doing it to me if I turn around and do it to others. So I am trying to ask questions instead of jumping. Hopefully I'll manage to do that more often than not. If I'm wording something in a way that gets your hackles up or I seem to be making unfair assumptions then it would be helpful if you would explain why. Or simply ask me questions in return.

The problem with your Stewart comparison is that I was not really accusing you of anything specific here. I was asking if you had an ulterior motive for posting because it seemed out of the ordinary for you to suddenly take such a strong interest in double posts.
posted by zarq at 1:48 PM on August 23, 2010


Unfortunately, they retain their original personalities - so I think I'll stick with mine.

Clearly this is working so well for you. Good luck with that strategy.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 2:39 PM on September 10, 2010


« Older vini vidi vici (via)   |   Can we dial it down a notch in AskMe Newer »

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