Is there a MediaFilter somewhere? June 21, 2011 9:14 AM   Subscribe

Every so often I see questions about how we should treat spoilers for ongoing TV shows like Doctor Who, Game of Thrones, etc. What I don't see is any posts actually dedicated to those things. Where are we discussing current TV that spoilers are an issue?
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish to MetaFilter-Related at 9:14 AM (167 comments total) 1 user marked this as a favorite

Here's a spoiler...this discussion is going to go poorly.
posted by Falconetti at 9:15 AM on June 21, 2011 [17 favorites]


Good God, man.
posted by boo_radley at 9:16 AM on June 21, 2011 [7 favorites]




Another spoiler thread? Ruh roh.
posted by Specklet at 9:16 AM on June 21, 2011 [1 favorite]


Well, there have been four Game of Thrones threads within the past two months, and at least two more that I know have been deleted. Other than that, not too much, apparently.
posted by Curious Artificer at 9:16 AM on June 21, 2011


From my calculations, 129% of all posts lately on this website have been about either Game of Thrones or Doctor Who. For the rare post that isn't specifically about either of these teevee shows, somebody will bring one of them up. And then another person will bring up either Firefly or post a "related" XKCD comic.
posted by Threeway Handshake at 9:18 AM on June 21, 2011 [4 favorites]


Where are we discussing current TV that spoilers are an issue?

I'd tell you but that would spoil it.
posted by Splunge at 9:20 AM on June 21, 2011


This one from this morning.
posted by Mitheral at 9:22 AM on June 21, 2011


Har har.

And going by that tag there doesn't seem to have been a single post about the current season of Who! Guess I wasn't missing anything there.
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 9:23 AM on June 21, 2011


*SPOILER ALERT*

ArtW leaves, probably forever, but Fake comes back, as I don't think he actually watches TV or cares, and Trurl was revealed to be Joe Bees all along!

I can't wait for next season.
posted by Slap*Happy at 9:24 AM on June 21, 2011 [18 favorites]


Also, I noticed (and posted in) the The Killing topic, but it seemed much more the exception than the rule to have a post relating to TV that aired last night instead of ten years ago.
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 9:24 AM on June 21, 2011


I think we can close this one up.
posted by empath at 9:25 AM on June 21, 2011


Doing a search for spoilers reveals various threads about various movies and tv shows.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 9:25 AM on June 21, 2011


Empath: agreed, question asked and answered. Thanks for not mocking me too much.
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 9:27 AM on June 21, 2011


The Mod Interface for MeTa should include an open bar.
posted by zarq at 9:27 AM on June 21, 2011 [3 favorites]


Another spoiler thread? Ruh roh.

All along, it was just the owner of the abandoned amusement park in a rubber mask.
posted by Sys Rq at 9:28 AM on June 21, 2011 [5 favorites]


What I don't see is any posts actually dedicated to those things. Where are we discussing current TV that spoilers are an issue?

Mostly in threads that happen to be about the media property in question, and to which people interested in that property flock and end up discussing it.

That's part of the weird tension of some of the recent spoilers-related discussion: we don't really do the "Open Thread About X" thing on mefi, and posting literally just as an excuse to chat about X is not great and not really encouraged.

I would be absolutely thrilled not to wander into yet another discussion about spoiler policy on mefi in this thread, incidentally. There's an open metatalk anyone who really wants to go there can track down.

Anyway, what it comes down to is people like talking about stuff, and so long as people aren't going overboard (and I would say that with the recent string of Doctor Who and Game of Thrones we've been maybe having people go a bit overboard indeed) and the posts themselves are good posts, we're not going to delete stuff just out of spite, but it needs to not be a thing where there's some de facto expectation that e.g. "you can't deleted that post, we need to talk about this weeks episode" or something.

On a related note, PhoBWonKenobi just a few days ago launched MetaCooler as an unofficial spinoff forum for spoiler-averse discussion of existing and new TV/Movie/Game content, so folks interested in having a dedicated place specifically to chat about media stuff with a full-on spoiler policy are heartily encouraged to check it out.
posted by cortex (staff) at 9:28 AM on June 21, 2011 [7 favorites]


Please read previous threads in MetaTalk about spoilers. MetaFilter is not a spoiler-free zone and the mods do not actively police spoilers. The site does not have a spoiler tag and is not getting one. About the most we will do is tuck a spoiler behind the fold of a longish post or add a spoiler indicator to a comment if the original poster requests it. While there are many current event threads on MeFi, it's not MeFi's main purpose and so people who discuss current media events do so at their own risk. That said, people should not be jerks about spoilers, but this is more of a "be cool" guideline and less of an actionable policy.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 9:30 AM on June 21, 2011 [2 favorites]


we don't really do the "Open Thread About X"

Maybe we pretend we don't, but, increasingly, we do.
posted by Wolfdog at 9:32 AM on June 21, 2011 [3 favorites]


Another spoiler thread? Ruh roh.

All along, it was just the owner of the abandoned amusement park in a rubber mask.


My son has started using "Zoinks!" in regular conversation. This is awesome.
posted by eyeballkid at 9:33 AM on June 21, 2011 [4 favorites]


My goodness, I'm not usually one to pull the 'noob' card but you've been here a month and two days (not counting lurking time, whatever else) and you've already asked two MeTas!

I politely urge you to use the contact form (which would have worked for both your questions), ask around to your contacts with MeMail, lurk a bit, look at the wiki, read the FAQ, that kind of thing instead. It can be very hard to figure out how this site works but there's a lot of options that can work instead of MetaTalk.
posted by librarylis at 9:34 AM on June 21, 2011


That's part of the weird tension of some of the recent spoilers-related discussion: we don't really do the "Open Thread About X" thing on mefi, and posting literally just as an excuse to chat about X is not great and not really encouraged.

Oops. Sorry about that.
posted by Rory Marinich at 9:34 AM on June 21, 2011


"I would be absolutely thrilled not to wander into yet another discussion about spoiler policy on mefi in this thread, incidentally. There's an open metatalk anyone who really wants to go there can track down."

Are you guys still reading that thread? Because it doesn't seem like it.
posted by Eideteker at 9:35 AM on June 21, 2011 [1 favorite]


Are you guys still reading that thread? Because it doesn't seem like it.

Badgering always works, yes.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 9:37 AM on June 21, 2011 [1 favorite]


Yeah, I don't really understand the point of the 'double post' flag in MeTa when it's almost never adhered to. If the topic is something which has been recently discussed, what's the point in keeping it open? Not to mention the fact that this particular topic brings out the extra stoopid in people.
posted by gman at 9:37 AM on June 21, 2011


When you play the Game of Spoilers, you win or you die.
posted by Trurl at 9:37 AM on June 21, 2011 [1 favorite]


You are being plain fucking annoying, Eideteker. Let it go.
posted by cortex (staff) at 9:38 AM on June 21, 2011 [11 favorites]


Not to mention the fact that this particular topic brings out the extra stoopid in people.

Stop trying to censor my people!
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 9:42 AM on June 21, 2011


zarq: "The Mod Interface for MeTa should include an open bar."
And Lambrettas. "Closing this up, ciaooooo (putt putt putt putt)
posted by boo_radley at 9:45 AM on June 21, 2011 [1 favorite]


What happened to the TVFilter off-site idea? I really loved the idea of that after someone in one of the recent spoiler MeTas basically admitted to making FPPs under false pretenses about TV shows in order to chat about the latest episode. That really left a bad taste in my mouth and I'd love if that misuse of MeFi was excised to another website altogether.
posted by BeerFilter at 9:56 AM on June 21, 2011


What happened to the TVFilter off-site idea?

MetaCooler!
posted by cortex (staff) at 9:59 AM on June 21, 2011 [1 favorite]


gman writes "Yeah, I don't really understand the point of the 'double post' flag in MeTa when it's almost never adhered to."

The same flag choices exist on all subsites. I'm guessing the same code is used for all.
posted by Mitheral at 9:59 AM on June 21, 2011


I think the TVFilter is getting to be like PoliFilter.
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 9:59 AM on June 21, 2011


Awesome!
posted by BeerFilter at 10:01 AM on June 21, 2011


Are you guys still reading that thread? Because it doesn't seem like it.

The questions you were badgering us about are ones we have already answered and the answers stay the same. None of us see the point in answering the questions yet again. I know you don't like the answers, but that's a different thing from there not being answers.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 10:02 AM on June 21, 2011 [3 favorites]


I know its off the table, but the more this comes up, the more I think I'd like the idea of a tag that simply changes the text to the background color and underlines it to show you something is there.

It'd be most useful for spoilers, but mefites, being creative people, would probably come up with all sorts of clever ways of deploying it.

Reading the text would be as simple as selecting all, which would make it iPhone/ iPad/ Android friendly (moreso than using the <abbr> tag anyway.) And it would be less intrusive than ROT-13 or other ways that people will voluntarily try to protect people from their spoilers.

Unfortunately I can also see how this would lead to a ton of extra work as people demanded the mods retroactively hide other people's spoilers, and that would also get old quick, as would implementing non-standard HTML, but as a general statement, I like the idea of having more useful tags in our sandbox of stuff to use, rather than less.

Still, it's a "no" and I accept that. I'm just pining away for a method of stopping people talking about this as a feature request.
posted by quin at 10:04 AM on June 21, 2011 [2 favorites]


cortex: "What happened to the TVFilter off-site idea?

MetaCooler!
"

Oh, nice.
posted by octothorpe at 10:12 AM on June 21, 2011


SPOILER ALERT: The Titanic sinks.
posted by Mister Fabulous at 10:13 AM on June 21, 2011


SPOILER ALERT: The Titanic sinks.

Only on Earth 616.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 10:15 AM on June 21, 2011 [2 favorites]


I was told in a dream that I was in a dream, that I would wake up soon, and I would wake up in my own bed. When I woke up I found myself in my own bed. It was not like some other mornings. Some mornings I am not totally sure where I am, or who I am. Those mornings it takes me a moment before I realize I am in my own bed, and I am who I was yesterday, and that there was a yesterday, several yesterdays, in fact. Those mornings, I jump out of bed refreshed with confusion. But, that morning, that spoiled dawn, was different. When I woke, I knew who I was, and where I was. There was no sense of unease or uncertainty about what would happen next. There was no twist of surprise and discovery to give zest to my morning. Where would be brightness, was bleakness. What would have been a colorful dawn was dried and recycled. The sensation lingered in my mind for the rest of the day, that cotton mouth ache in the chest feeling of having lost something special, something I will never get to have now.
posted by TwelveTwo at 10:29 AM on June 21, 2011 [1 favorite]


"The questions you were badgering us about are ones we have already answered and the answers stay the same. None of us see the point in answering the questions yet again. I know you don't like the answers, but that's a different thing from there not being answers."

No, you didn't answer my questions. That is why I clarified. Whatever you answered is not what I asked. I'm sorry that it's annoying to you that I am asking questions that you don't want to answer, but there's no reason to be rude and dismissive about it.

I asked.
You gave a non-answer.
I asked again.
You ignored.

That is "plain fucking annoying."
posted by Eideteker at 10:30 AM on June 21, 2011 [2 favorites]


You mean you don't have access to the private--- I've said too much.

NO CABAL! NONE, I TELLS YOU.
posted by entropicamericana at 10:30 AM on June 21, 2011


What part of "No we are not going to make further changes" is confusing to you, Eideteker?

Your question: So are we going to make my suggested additions to the FAQ or New User page?

Our answer: no.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 10:36 AM on June 21, 2011


Mister Fabulous: "SPOILER ALERT: The Titanic sinks."

"IMT made the sky... FALL!"


Sadly, no one is going to get that reference / spoiler....
posted by zarq at 10:38 AM on June 21, 2011 [1 favorite]


What part of "you don't need to make the changes, I'll make them for you" is confusing?

Did you re-read the comment that the comment I just linked to links to? And the comment that that comment links to? Because I think you missed something.
posted by Eideteker at 10:39 AM on June 21, 2011


What part of "you don't need to make the changes, I'll make them for you" is confusing?

The part where you are saying "here are my suggested changes to the FAQ" and we say "not going to amend the FAQ with those changes" and you're like "no no you don't have to do anything, just change the FAQ, which is apparently not doing anything, why can't you reeeeeeeeaaad" and we're trying and at this point barreling toward failing to be remotely polite about it.
posted by cortex (staff) at 10:43 AM on June 21, 2011 [2 favorites]


I was all ready to give Eide a chance here, but following those rabbit-hole links has got me annoyed too.

This is an excellent opportunity to practice 'letting it go.'
posted by carsonb at 10:46 AM on June 21, 2011


Comment from misha requesting the same thing:

'I'd prefer, instead of, "please try to be polite and include them inside the thread or a [more inside] section rather than in the post itself," the FAQ said, "please try to be polite and warn readers when commenting with a spoiler in a thread."'

I'm not just speaking for myself here. Several folks asked for some common courtesy w/r/t spoilers. Not a policy, just a reminder. I gave you the wording (which you misread). I don't see the problem, other than "we won't do it" (no mention of why, fingers are already in ears, la la la, etc.).

Really disappointing. You guys are usually very supportive of making this a kinder place.
posted by Eideteker at 10:47 AM on June 21, 2011


Sadly, no one is going to get that reference / spoiler....

Just some Okie legend

posted by quin at 10:48 AM on June 21, 2011 [3 favorites]


Of all the issues that generate multiple hundreds-of-comments-long MeTas, at least one account disabled, and tons of irritating debate... Let it go!
posted by proj at 10:49 AM on June 21, 2011


For the rare post that isn't specifically about either of these teevee shows, somebody will bring one of them up. And then another person will bring up either Firefly or post a "related" XKCD comic.

I think there's an XKCD comic about that.
posted by scalefree at 10:49 AM on June 21, 2011


quin: " Just some Okie legend"

Well done, sir. Well done.

posted by zarq at 10:55 AM on June 21, 2011


The part where you are saying "here are my suggested changes to the FAQ" and we say "not going to amend the FAQ with those changes"

The problem was that was Jessamyn quoted back at me was NOT what I had said at all. Following that, I was ignored. I bring it up again, and I'm annoying? You could have at least said, "OK, I get what you're saying, but we're not going to do that." You jumped straight to calling me "fucking annoying." Wow, thanks. Charitable.

The flip side is if I did something nasty on the site and you asked me to "cut it out." Then I went "Cute it out, what's that? lol." And then you asked me again and I ingored you. Then on the third attempt (where I somehow hadn't been banned), I called you fucking annoying.

I'm not Artw. I was not foaming at the mouth. We were having a discussion, and I was calm and rational about it. I would have taken a polite reply, probably even a dismissive one. I was polite, but persistent. If that's an issue for you, you know how to contact me. We could have discussed this privately. There was no reason, no provocation for name-calling. I'm not going to ask for an apology, or demand satisfaction in a duel, or go "I'll show you fucking annoying!" I'm too old for that bullshit. I'm just disappointed.

"I was all ready to give Eide a chance here, but following those rabbit-hole links has got me annoyed too."

Would you prefer I link them all in one comment? I could do that, but I think it's more indicative the way it is of how I keep mentioning something and get no reply. Really, it's not that hard to say, "Oh, missed that the first time. It's a nice thought, but not something we want to do at this time." Really, some fucking civility would have sufficed.
posted by Eideteker at 10:56 AM on June 21, 2011 [3 favorites]


MetaFilter: Did you re-read the comment that the comment I just linked to links to? And the comment that that comment links to? Because I think you missed something.
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 10:56 AM on June 21, 2011 [7 favorites]


=D
posted by Eideteker at 11:01 AM on June 21, 2011


Eid, I shall be civil and send you a memail.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 11:02 AM on June 21, 2011


You guys are usually very supportive of making this a kinder place.

The FAQ, as we've said earlier, is not a place where we generally suggest behavior to users. If we put something like "you should act like this" in the FAQ here, there is the strong implication that we'll do something to enforce that. We won't. We have said this. You may disagree with us that putting something in the FAQ carries that implication, but that's the premise that we're working from, a premise that is informed by years of interacting with users and the way they read, misread and over-read any "official" statements by anyone on Team Mod. We think having such a statement in the FAQ would be problematic for reasons we've outlined repeatedly previously.

fingers are already in ears, la la la, etc.

One of the downsides to having a moderator team that is as available and responsive as we are is that we can sometime feel held captive by people who basically won't take no for an answer and have a "but WHY" response to us to the responses that we give, all the while insulting us as if we're not trying in good faith to balance the needs of a fairly complex and diverse community because we won't do what they personally want. There are thousands of people here who all want something different from the website and our job is to try to find outcomes that work for the majority of them in most cases.

I'm sorry you are disappointed in this, but we do not agree with your assessment that there is an open discussion on this topic. You won't take no for an answer because you think we didn't understand the question. We think we understood the question just fine. We are at an impasse. I have read the comment you linked to and the comment it linked to and I'm still at the same place. You seem to think that we couldn't come to the conclusion that we did if we truly understood you. I don't think that is the case. Given that, the back and forth on it seems sort of non-productive and we've been trying to politely leave it alone.
Accusing us of not reading a thread seems fairly non-civil to me.

If it's helpful: we understand what you're saying, it's a nice thought but we're not going to do it, you'd be doing us a kindness if you'd leave it alone. Thank you.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 11:04 AM on June 21, 2011 [12 favorites]


People are down on this week's spoiler policy thread, but they're not recognizing that bridging episodes are usually focused on setting up the pieces for the third act. Next week's spoiler policy thread is going to be epic.
posted by Drastic at 11:05 AM on June 21, 2011


That "=D" was to Alvy.

Because, really, I'm fine about this. The mods just slipped up, and I called them on it. It happens to all of us. They slip up pretty rarely, all things considered. But their viewpoint on spoilers is just fucking weird ("a spoiler tag will create more MeTas!" Well, guess what....), but it's their site, not ours.

We offered to help code the new feature. We offered to help document it. I offered to help with the FAQ/new user page text (something I actually do for a living! so I'm not just some schlub! Well, ok, I'm a schlub, but I kinda sorta know what I'm talking about!). Gave up on the spoiler tag, just wanted a note about courtesy (specifically reminding people that it's not something they can take up with the mods). OK, fine, we can't even have that. I don't get it, but fine. It is what it is. Forget about it, Jake. And so on.

Thanks for the supportive MeFiMails, folks. I'm fine, just scratching my head on this one.
posted by Eideteker at 11:09 AM on June 21, 2011 [1 favorite]


What part of "you don't need to make the changes, I'll make them for you" is confusing?

You seem to be taking an extremely literal reading of "We've done as much to the FAQ as we are going to." That doesn't mean "we personally are done making changes but we're open to other people changing it". It means "As much has been done to the FAQ as is going to be done, whether by us or by anybody else.

By analogy, if you said "hey, I'll prune that tree in your yard for you" and I replied "I've done as much to that tree as I'm going to", I would be extremely upset if you then came into my yard and pruned my tree.

Metafilter: Really, some fucking civility would have sufficed.
posted by Lexica at 11:13 AM on June 21, 2011


"I'm sorry you are disappointed in this, but we do not agree with your assessment that there is an open discussion on this topic."

"I would be absolutely thrilled not to wander into yet another discussion about spoiler policy on mefi in this thread, incidentally. There's an open metatalk anyone who really wants to go there can track down."

So which is it? Should we go to the open thread, or is the discussion closed? A WILD CONTRADICTION APPEARS!

*readies pokéball*
posted by Eideteker at 11:13 AM on June 21, 2011


I'm happy 'cause suddenly I look and smell fairly sane, at least today.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 11:15 AM on June 21, 2011 [5 favorites]


Fucking civility is covered by Emily Post's book on bedroom etiquette.
posted by TwelveTwo at 11:15 AM on June 21, 2011 [2 favorites]


You know who else was banned for being completely obsessed by something and not realizing when enough is enough?
posted by gman at 11:17 AM on June 21, 2011 [1 favorite]


NOT MIGUEL?

why do I type twotwelve, Twelvetwo. I believe it is police code dyslexia
posted by clavdivs at 11:19 AM on June 21, 2011


So which is it? Should we go to the open thread, or is the discussion closed? A WILD CONTRADICTION APPEARS!

- There is a previous recent thread, for discussion of stuff, open and available in Metatalk.

- The question of whether or not we will make the changes you want to the FAQ entry about spoilers is a discussion that is not ongoing: you asked, we answered.

The same word can have different referents in different contexts. That is not a complicated idea. I do not understand why you are acting the way you are acting.
posted by cortex (staff) at 11:19 AM on June 21, 2011


"You seem to be taking an extremely literal reading of "We've done as much to the FAQ as we are going to." That doesn't mean "we personally are done making changes but we're open to other people changing it". It means "As much has been done to the FAQ as is going to be done, whether by us or by anybody else."

No, I got that. I was being sarcastic. My actual point was that I hadn't had a response on what I thought was a reasonable clarification. Now, it's possible (and the mods certainly seem to think so) that it was unreasonable, but like I said, I wasn't exactly foaming at the mouth or screaming at anyone. I don't think the insult was warranted. Something like "read what you wrote again, see what you're saying about there being no punishment/mod involvement [or whatever], still don't feel like it makes a worthy addition to the FAQ or the New User page [or the Post a Link page?]" would have been cooler. Paraphrase as you like.
posted by Eideteker at 11:22 AM on June 21, 2011


"Calmer than you are, dude."
posted by proj at 11:23 AM on June 21, 2011 [6 favorites]


"- There is a previous recent thread, for discussion of stuff, open and available in Metatalk.

- The question of whether or not we will make the changes you want to the FAQ entry about spoilers is a discussion that is not ongoing: you asked, we answered."


Got it, thanks for the clarification.
posted by Eideteker at 11:25 AM on June 21, 2011


(Wow, that was downright easy!)
posted by Eideteker at 11:25 AM on June 21, 2011


Sorry, that was a bit dickish.
posted by Eideteker at 11:29 AM on June 21, 2011


(That was somewhat harder, but I still managed it!)
posted by Eideteker at 11:29 AM on June 21, 2011


Shorter Eid: Why wasn't I consulted?
posted by monju_bosatsu at 11:35 AM on June 21, 2011


(It was also sincere, despite the parallel structure which might lead one to believe that it was also sarcastic. Yes, it was a joke, but it was a joke on me and my unwillingness to apologize. "Dude, that was totally dickish. Own it." Mea culpa.)
posted by Eideteker at 11:35 AM on June 21, 2011


Are you going to stay cooped up in those parenthesis all day, or are you go out and play outside at some point?
posted by TwelveTwo at 11:41 AM on June 21, 2011


(Dude, have you checked these things out? Sooooo comfy. Almost womb-like, but not in a creepy way.)
posted by Eideteker at 11:43 AM on June 21, 2011 [1 favorite]


(These are comfortable. Serene actually. I could stay in these forever.)
posted by TwelveTwo at 11:46 AM on June 21, 2011


(Oh my God. You guys. Seriously. Oh my God.)
posted by boo_radley at 11:50 AM on June 21, 2011 [1 favorite]


(We would never have fights if we all wore these. All the time. Forever.)
posted by TwelveTwo at 11:52 AM on June 21, 2011


(they're like a slanket for meaning. i want to buy a slanket so bad, for my lonliness. dont tell anyone outside tho, k?)
posted by Potomac Avenue at 11:57 AM on June 21, 2011 [1 favorite]


(Wow, that was downright easy!)

I feel like the core of this is that you have this impression that our job is to specifically and in detail attend to whatever you personally have to say in Metatalk. That it's not enough for us to talk about community stuff in aggregate and try to cover what's come up in a discussion, we have to lay down a specific tailored response just for you in precisely the form you dictate or tacitly expect, or else we're doing you wrong or not listening or being dismissive or whatever the hell.

Which, you know, I'm happy to try and get people's questions answered and not leave stuff dangling in discussions if I can help it. We put in a tremendous amount of effort on that front in the spoilers discussions over the last couple months because it's something that as a team we think is a good thing to do where possible. I like getting questions answered to the extent that I have the capacity to do so.

But we have a finite amount of time and energy, we can only reasonably address a subject or restate a position so many times in any stretch of time. In a busy thread with a lot of people discussing stuff, that means it's entirely possible that when multiple people broach the same general subject, we're going to answer on a less than one-to-one basis just for the sake of our own sanity.

The level of expectation of personal attention and satisfaction you seem to be after, to the point where you repeatedly hector us in multiple threads for not giving you specifically the form and valence of response you want even when we have addressed at length and in nuance the overall substance of the topic external to your specific angle on it, is unreasonable and makes our jobs a lot harder. I feel like you failing to catch onto this to the point that here we are still talking about this in a completely different thread is a problem with you being unfair in your expectations of what we have a mandate (to say nothing of the energy and the restraint) to accomplish, not a problem with us slipping up by failing to satisfy those unfair expectations.

Our responsibility is to this community as a whole, not your your personal satisfaction; you are a welcome member of this community, but when it gets to feeling like you're buttonholing us and then blaming us for not liking it, something is well out of whack.
posted by cortex (staff) at 11:59 AM on June 21, 2011 [15 favorites]


Eh, I think we disagree. I asked if you were still reading the thread, pointing to a specific unanswered question of mine. It was less about getting an answer as it was pointing out that it was disingenuous of you to direct folks to an older (still active thread) if the point was just to make it more convenient to ignore them.

I'm glad I got some form of response, though.
posted by Eideteker at 12:03 PM on June 21, 2011


MetaFilter: like a slanket for meaning

(oops, I mean:)

(MetaFilter: like a slanket for meaning)
posted by Eideteker at 12:04 PM on June 21, 2011


The boat sinks, the ring is tossed, guy kisses girl, girl kisses guy, occasionally the guy kisses the guy, everyone finds a new home except the red shirts, the butler did it except when it was the brother/grand vizier/evil queen. Everyone dies at the end, everyone lives happily ever after, the rabbits/mice/dogs/$_furryanimal saves the day-is killed-finds peace. The grisly murder is solved/notsolved. Deus ex machina is used once again.

IT
WAS
THE
SLED!!!

The J is an homage to Rocket J Squirrel!!!

She shoots, he Scores!!! The team is let down and we have all learned an important life lesson about drugs/teen pregnancy/trust.

Humanity/family/friends/nature is great-monstrous-neutral, Technology rises up and wages war. The serum kills the zombies and THESE vampires sparkle.

I
SEE
DEAD
PEOPLE

Average joe/jane wins big. The citizens are crushed. A pure/conflicted hero comes forth. remember kids the mentally ill are either deranged genius evil masterminds, or humors sidekicks. The northwest,midwest,southeast is creepy. Everything important happens in a big city or overseas. Robots are cute/will kill us all.

BLUE PILL BLUE PILL BLUE PILL

USA
USA
USA

*
posted by edgeways at 12:08 PM on June 21, 2011 [1 favorite]


BURMA SHAVED AND PANCAKED, SIR!
posted by clavdivs at 12:10 PM on June 21, 2011 [1 favorite]


Pay attention during cutscenes because there's quicktime events.
posted by fuq at 12:10 PM on June 21, 2011


A WILD CONTRADICTION APPEARS!

Dude, if you want to make a rage comic about it, go nuts. But ugh, can we keep the in-jokes in?
posted by GuyZero at 12:11 PM on June 21, 2011


eyeballkid: My son has started using "Zoinks!" in regular conversation. This is awesome.

Is your son ... Matthew Lillard?
posted by filthy light thief at 12:15 PM on June 21, 2011


Eh, I think we disagree. I asked if you were still reading the thread, pointing to a specific unanswered question of mine. It was less about getting an answer as it was pointing out that it was disingenuous of you to direct folks to an older (still active thread) if the point was just to make it more convenient to ignore them.

Given that I have commented in that thread a couple times after the comment of yours you were linking to, it should be pretty goddam obvious that I'm still reading it.

The whole and sole point of noting the older open thread is that I was hoping that discussion on that subject could keep happening there, where it's already been happening, instead of bifurcating yet again. That's it. That's pretty much precisely what we always mean when we point to an older open thread, which is something we do on a regular basis on the site.

It's not to have an excuse to ignore people, and I honestly resent the hell out of the implication considering that talking to people about this stuff is a huge part of what we do on the site in general and have on this topic specifically been doing.
posted by cortex (staff) at 12:17 PM on June 21, 2011


Also, I'm sorry if you feel like you're being forced to a specific answer on a specific question. I don't think I do this a lot, but in this case, there was a clear misunderstanding (to me; again, arguing in good faith) that I did specifically request attention to. And on a matter that was fairly important not just to me (there have seriously been five MeTas on spoilers since the equinox; it's just now summer). I assure you, I have a fairly high bar for this level of persistence. Judging by the tenor of your initial reply, you don't think so, but I'm sorry if previous behavior from me has given you this misconception. Since my goal was actually to help you folks out (ok, fine, you see me more like Dennis the Menace, well meaning but a total annoyance), trying to do something—ANYTHING—to help reduce the amount of spoiler discussion you folks have to handle, I just expected something other than a direct insult. So yeah, I engaged directly in this thread. Had some fun at your expense (and the expense of my public "reputation" (oh no!)). Sorry.

But prior to that, I had been trying to work with you, not agin. I think I'm pretty clear about when I'm being lulzy here (and I try not to do it at anyone's expense, including the moderators, most of whom are pretty cool people I'm happy to know) and when I'm being serious (unless I'm being faux-serious for the lulz, in which case again, it's pretty obvious). If I need to be even clearer, I will be. If I try to cleanup my lulzy behavior in this thread, think you can give me the benefit of the doubt for a bit?
posted by Eideteker at 12:22 PM on June 21, 2011


They want you to give it a rest, and you want them to give you the benefit of the doubt. Impasse!
posted by carsonb at 12:32 PM on June 21, 2011 [1 favorite]


Had some fun at your expense

Which totally sucks, honestly and completely. We're used to it, but couching things you sincerely care about in jabs to us and how we do our jobs is less likely to achieve the results you desire. I can't tell when you are being serious and when you are being a serious asshole some of the time. It may be significant;y less clear than you think.

I consider you a friend, personally, and I consider the way you've been responding to us on this topic to be downright unfriendly. Wasn't going to mention it, have now mentioned it, would like to stop talking about it, am now stopping talking about it.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 12:33 PM on June 21, 2011 [1 favorite]


cortex, thank you for reminding me to use the word "valence" way more often than I currently do, which is never, because the word "valence" is awesome.
posted by Errant at 12:37 PM on June 21, 2011


Happy Solstice, everyone!
posted by EatTheWeak at 12:38 PM on June 21, 2011


I felt that the spoiler issue had been debated to pieces in that thread, and though I disagreed, site policy was not going to change, so I let it go (which is why I stopped commenting in the thread).

However, Eideteker's attitude in that read was exceedingly polite throughout, and he did make a suggestion, very specifically, repeated it politely several times, and neither cortex or jessamyn responded to his specific request.

Which, yeah, you're busy, you don't have to address specific users, and maybe you felt that you had covered his specific request in a general way already.

But obviously Eideteker didn't think you had covered it, and I also wondered why you didn't at least just say, "Nope, not going to happen," since both mods were participating in the thread. But now jessamyn responded and cleared it all up. Yay!

But calling Eideteker "fucking annoying"? That's not okay, cortex. You didn't have to go there.
posted by misha at 12:42 PM on June 21, 2011


Oh it's the solstice, I forgot! That means it is my opposite birthday! Yay!
posted by the young rope-rider at 12:43 PM on June 21, 2011 [1 favorite]


Uh, also, maybe this thread could be closed because it looks like it's just going to devolve into off-topicness and hurt feelings.
posted by the young rope-rider at 12:43 PM on June 21, 2011


Misha, they were pointing that out in this thread, and as polite as he was there, Eideteker was being pretty dang shrill in here (to the point that I actually wondered whether he'd just been dumped or something, because damn).
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 12:44 PM on June 21, 2011


Or in place of "just got dumped" insert "or something else bad and personal happened and he was just in a really shitty mood".
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 12:45 PM on June 21, 2011


Maybe he just needs a hug.
posted by desjardins at 12:50 PM on June 21, 2011 [1 favorite]


EmpressCallipygos, read again. Eideteker had made *one* comment at the time.
posted by misha at 12:54 PM on June 21, 2011


> Happy Solstice, everyone!

The Sun celebrated the Solstice today by ejaculating on the Earth.
posted by Horselover Phattie at 12:54 PM on June 21, 2011 [1 favorite]


However, Eideteker's attitude in that read was exceedingly polite throughout...

Nah, it was exceeding shrill, impolite, petulant, obstinate and whiny, after the question had been answered several times. Yet Edeteker continued to needle, offering "solutions" after the matter had clearly been decided and that information conveyed, repeatedly.

He was being the very definition of "fucking annoying".
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 12:55 PM on June 21, 2011 [5 favorites]


"It's not to have an excuse to ignore people, and I honestly resent the hell out of the implication considering that talking to people about this stuff is a huge part of what we do on the site in general and have on this topic specifically been doing."

Prior to this whole byzantine, multi-thread spoiler discussion, I wouldn't have even thought to doubt. I understand it's a lot to keep up with. But aside from my initial outrage, I've been pretty sober throughout the discussion. Persistent, yes, but pretty open to discussion. Maybe it's just too much for you to keep up with, or it really is that confusing what we users have been saying, but there were several times when folks felt like they weren't being heard or listened to (only talking about folks who were speaking rationally). Otherwise, the thought would never even have occurred.
posted by Eideteker at 12:58 PM on June 21, 2011


I'm juist going to point out that Falconetti totally spoiled this thread.
posted by cjorgensen at 1:00 PM on June 21, 2011


Wow, this sure looks like it's a contentious issue.

Maybe we ought to put something in the FAQ about it.










Kidding! Kidding! I'm sorry!
posted by Curious Artificer at 1:01 PM on June 21, 2011 [1 favorite]


I've got a spoiler for you:

YOU WILL DIE ALONE.
posted by orthogonality at 1:02 PM on June 21, 2011


YOU WILL DIE ALONE.

Nope, there's other bodies around.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 1:04 PM on June 21, 2011 [2 favorites]


Thanks, misha. Whatever goodwill I had I squandered in this thread, which was my choice. It wasn't going to get me anywhere anyway.

The matter is settled and decided. I'm not happy with the way the mods responded (well, cortex, actually; from Jessamyn, it was more a lack of response, initially). I'm glad they did respond, finally. I'm not happy that they thought I was being a jerk when I had been (up to and including my first comment in this thread) trying really hard to be polite. But you can't control what people think of you, I guess. So, if you're prepared to say any answer is better than no answer, then I guess you should really expect any answer. I'm not happy I had to resort to actually being a jerk before I got a full answer that was more than just an "STFU."
posted by Eideteker at 1:08 PM on June 21, 2011 [1 favorite]


YOU WILL DIE ALONE.

That's comforting. No tsunami/earthquake/nuclear/bioplague/alien invasion/nano-goo/zombie armageddons in my lifetime! What good news!
posted by bonehead at 1:13 PM on June 21, 2011 [1 favorite]


YOU WILL BUY A1.
posted by TwelveTwo at 1:15 PM on June 21, 2011


"Which totally sucks, honestly and completely. We're used to it, but couching things you sincerely care about in jabs to us and how we do our jobs is less likely to achieve the results you desire."

What I desire was clearly not on the table. But I did get a result, which is better than nothing. If a few people think less of me, *shrug*. Who I am and what I do isn't important to me. What is is making things better in the long term. Sorry for being such a jerk, but nothing else was working. As misha said, I had tried being polite.

"I consider you a friend, personally, and I consider the way you've been responding to us on this topic to be downright unfriendly."

I got unfriendly because cortex (and to a lesser extent, you) was unfriendly to me. That's where I dropped the civility. I guess I can only apologize for being an asshole unconsciously before that, but I wasn't consciously an asshole until after I was fitted for the hat. The ass-hat. (Yes, that was a joke. I still joke when I'm angry, because I'm never really that angry and I still love you guys.)

Wasn't going to mention it, have now mentioned it, would like to stop talking about it, am now stopping talking about it."

Yeah, let's do that. (Who wants to go back inside the parentheses?)
posted by Eideteker at 1:16 PM on June 21, 2011


Maybe it's just too much for you to keep up with, or it really is that confusing what we users have been saying, but there were several times when folks felt like they weren't being heard or listened to (only talking about folks who were speaking rationally).

The problem is that when someone says "this is what I think should happen" and we say "I hear you, but we disagree and we're not going to do that", that's not not-hearing, that's saying no. When we get YOU'RE ALL LA LA LA FINGERS IN EARS as a response to attempts to explain, repeatedly, what policy is and why it is that, when any other answer than "yes we'll do that" is treated as dismissiveness, that's not something it's in our power to make better.

People have a variety of opinions on the state of mefi's spoiler policy and on what if anything would in their ideal universe be changed. We've tried to address as much of that as possible, to address individual variations on these ideas to a reasonable degree, to be clear about what status quo is, and to be clear that we don't intend to significantly change that on the short or long term; we've talked about the existing content of the FAQ, discussed potential changes, made some changes and pointed them out, and made it clear that we were not planning to change it further; we addressed, as much as possible, the different and conflicting ideas people had about what does and what should and what could happen.

It's a confusing issue because there's no unanimity on the subject. Our job in part ends up being parsing the discussions as carefully as we can, and saying "okay, we hear all these ideas, and this is the actual plan", and trying to help people understand that decision. Being told repeatedly that we're not listening or we just don't understand on, seemingly, the strength of us saying "no" instead of "yes" to one or another specific request, doesn't help us. Having the argument dragged into another thread doesn't help us.
posted by cortex (staff) at 1:18 PM on June 21, 2011 [1 favorite]


(OK, that was a joke. We can now all return to laughing and stupid jokes, and we'll nurse our injuries privately so that we may live to fight another day.)
posted by Eideteker at 1:19 PM on June 21, 2011


(On the same side, maybe even.)
posted by Eideteker at 1:19 PM on June 21, 2011


"The problem is that when someone says "this is what I think should happen" and we say "I hear you, but we disagree and we're not going to do that", that's not not-hearing, that's saying no."

Here is exactly what Jessamyn said:

"While we'll add a NSFW tag or indicator to a link or a post [and this is one of the rare cases where we'll edit without a user's express request] we're actually not going to do the same thing for spoilers."

That is what prompted me to reply:

"That's totally not what I wrote. This is why it sounds like we're talking past each other. You're not listening to what I'm saying."

I asked for a good-faith clarification. I did not receive one. So yes, I asked again. If that's the shittiest thing that happens to you today, then high-five! Your day is awesome!

You could have said, "Yes, we saw that, Eideteker. Sorry we didn't reply." You could even drop the "Sorry..." part. Or you could have ignored me, and continued to not-reply. But you did take the time and effort to reply, only instead you replied with nastiness. So yeah, I replied in kind. I'm not here to make friends. *removes press-on nails*

(Not really. Still not looking to fight. Happy to clarify, though!)
posted by Eideteker at 1:28 PM on June 21, 2011


(oh my GOD these frickin parentheses... so soft, so smooth)
posted by Eideteker at 1:29 PM on June 21, 2011 [1 favorite]


{Weoneare brackets curlywitheternity}
posted by TwelveTwo at 1:33 PM on June 21, 2011 [1 favorite]


I had to resort to actually being a jerk

This is something you never have to do. I love you, and I think you've been unfair to everyone, especially yourself.

Seriously, my mint chocolate chip is salty with my own tears right now. I know salt makes things more delicious, and the cool creaminess soothes the lump in my throat, but I wanted to share it like I'm supposed to and now it's just all mint chocolate lachrymose.
posted by Ice Cream Socialist at 1:33 PM on June 21, 2011 [1 favorite]


Still not looking to fight.

Perhaps the best way to prove that you are not looking to fight is by WALKING AWAY.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 1:36 PM on June 21, 2011 [1 favorite]


You spent a lot of time sitting out in the hall as a kid, didn't you Eideteker?
posted by Mr. Anthropomorphism at 1:37 PM on June 21, 2011


Ice cream socialist, do you have any salty chocolate chip without the mint? Ooh, what about cookie dough?!
posted by misha at 1:40 PM on June 21, 2011


mint chocolate lachrymose

This is too good a name not to turn into a dessert in its own right. I'm thinking I need to get a recipe for chocolate baked alaska and start experimenting.
posted by EvaDestruction at 1:41 PM on June 21, 2011 [5 favorites]


"You spent a lot of time sitting out in the hall as a kid, didn't you Eideteker?"

You have no idea. SOOOOO much study hall time. I was just really efficient at scheduling. Got a lot of reading done.
posted by Eideteker at 1:43 PM on June 21, 2011


"Perhaps the best way to prove that you are not looking to fight is by WALKING AWAY."

(Can I bring the parentheses with me?)

(I promise not to drag them on the floor.)
((*bunches them up*))

posted by Eideteker at 1:44 PM on June 21, 2011


Why didn't you just memail them or hit the contact form if you wanted an answer so badly?
posted by morganannie at 1:52 PM on June 21, 2011 [1 favorite]


Mint chocolate lachrymousse:

2 c of seriously chilled cream
4 yolks, saved from broken eggs*
6 T sugar
1/2t mint extract
7 oz of bitter, bitter chocolate.
Tears and fresh mint, to taste

Prepare a warm custard of 3/4c cream, yolks, sugar and salty tears, whisking constantly. Strain.

Melt dark, bitter chocoalte in a double boiler. Whisk into custard.

Beat remainder of cream, hard, harder until stiff peaks form. Whisk about 1/4 into chocolate custard, then fold in remainder, gently.

Measure out custard with coffeespoons, into ramekins, cool for the remainder of the afternoon.

Before service, garnish with fresh mint and serve with a brave smile.

*reserve whites for omlettes
posted by bonehead at 1:58 PM on June 21, 2011 [10 favorites]


salty tears

On midsummer night
Heidegger cried


[(&%€!spellchecker)]
posted by Namlit at 2:32 PM on June 21, 2011


4 yolks, saved from broken eggs*

You forgot to specify that you broke the eggs originally for something grander...something better...and all you're left with now is the scraps of what could have been.
posted by the young rope-rider at 3:07 PM on June 21, 2011 [6 favorites]


Is your son ... Matthew Lillard?

I will fight you, sir.

Or I would if I hadn't met you at a meetup and found out you were as nice in person as you are on the site.
posted by eyeballkid at 3:32 PM on June 21, 2011


so, to die for is?
posted by clavdivs at 5:08 PM on June 21, 2011


If it's helpful: we understand what you're saying, it's a nice thought but we're not going to do it, you'd be doing us a kindness if you'd leave it alone. Thank you.

<snip>pages and pages and pages of Eideteker not leaving it alone</snip>

For fuck's sake, bloke, get over yourself.
posted by flabdablet at 5:11 PM on June 21, 2011 [1 favorite]


Here's a spoiler...this discussion is going to go poorly.
posted by Falconetti at 9:15 AM on June 21


See, sometimes spoilers are a valuable public service.
posted by iamabot at 5:33 PM on June 21, 2011


If people spent their time actually watching the shows instead of complaining about spoilers or arguing about spoiler policy they'd know what happened anyway.
posted by joannemullen at 5:58 PM on June 21, 2011 [4 favorites]




If people spent their time actually watching the shows instead of complaining about spoilers or arguing about spoiler policy they'd know what happened anyway.


Yes, but other people would not know that they know they know.
posted by TwelveTwo at 5:59 PM on June 21, 2011


I continue to fail to understand the mods' resistance to adding a simple phrase about comments (in addition to the existing comment about posts) in the FAQ. The FAQ already says this:

"please try to be polite and include them inside the thread or a [more inside] section rather than in the post itself"

and could be easily amended, without violating the strange bright line the mods seem to be seeing about "suggesting behavior to users," to read,

"please try to be polite and include them inside the thread or a [more inside] section rather than in the post itself, and please try to be polite and offer a warning when posting a major spoiler in comments."

There's no philosophical difference on the "suggesting behavior to users" front between the two that I can see, and the addition would go a loong way, I suspect, in satisfying the folks who would like to see something about spoilers in comments at MeFi. Why the mods keep insisting that adding a clause in the FAQ about spoiling in comments within threads would somehow cross some sort of rigid line in how the FAQ works, when there's already a "suggested behavior" about posting right there is completely opaque to me.

*shrug*

What can you do? It's still a great site.
posted by mediareport at 6:00 PM on June 21, 2011 [6 favorites]


Because we will more or less enforce the former but will not enforce the latter. It really is a pretty bright line from that perspective.
posted by restless_nomad (staff) at 6:03 PM on June 21, 2011


...and please try to be polite and offer a warning when posting a major spoiler in comments.

That part reads like policing specific behaviors as opposed to thread/post issues. IMO, of course.

On preview:
Or what the mod said, yeah.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 6:06 PM on June 21, 2011


And in the series finale of Murder She Wrote, it was revealed that Angela Lansbury was the actual killer.

She was just an evil genius who could not only kill people like a ninja, but was also able to pin it on some unsuspecting victim.

That old bag was a total sociopath.
posted by hal_c_on at 6:06 PM on June 21, 2011 [2 favorites]


Actually, Murder, She Wrote was the sequel to The Manchurian Candidate. Cabot Cove's resident doctor and Jessica Fletcher/Elanor Iselin's comic foil, Seth Hazlitt, was the "reeducated" Colonel Milt, who one the one who committed most of the killings. (The rest were otherwise performed by inductees at the "Cabot Cove" training facility, who were either going insane from their brainwashing, or were too strong-willed and thus too close to the truth.)

Jessica's "friend", Dennis Stanton, wasn't a jewel thief - that was a fantasy persona. He was actually a regional BBC correspondent who nearly blew the cover on the post Korean, Cold War Soviet intelligence operation.
posted by Smart Dalek at 6:41 PM on June 21, 2011 [3 favorites]


hal_c_on writes "That old bag was a total sociopath."

It sure does explain why there seemed to be a murder every where she went.
posted by Mitheral at 6:50 PM on June 21, 2011 [1 favorite]


you know who else liked Lansbury for the mother...
posted by clavdivs at 6:57 PM on June 21, 2011


So yeah, come by MetaCooler! Now you can have a TV party EVERY night! TV not included
posted by jtron at 6:59 PM on June 21, 2011 [3 favorites]


I don't understand what the point of this Metatalk thread was except to give people yet another place to bitch about spoilers. Why is this even here?
posted by Justinian at 7:15 PM on June 21, 2011


Because we will more or less enforce the former but will not enforce the latter.

And yet the FAQ includes other suggestions of non-required behavior that are not enforced. Look at the "do I have to use a via"" question:

Many people do this as a courtesy, but it is in no way mandatory.

How is that different than a simple phrase like, "While spoiler warnings in comments themselves are not mandatory, many people do this as a courtesy."

It's the same thing. jess, cortex, et al: y'all are almost always so sharp at identifying and defusing contentious issues. It's a little stunning that you continue to defend this particular hill when a simple, fully consistent addition to the FAQ would take the debate down at least one significant notch. It's important to a chunk of the user base and easily done.

Why not do it?
posted by mediareport at 7:16 PM on June 21, 2011 [4 favorites]


This seems to be one of a couple of weird dogmas around running the site that I and many other people don't understand. I think it is because they are simply a matter of preference.

They come up repeatedly, cause reasonable people to edge towards unreasonability, and never end in a satisfying resolution. And they don't really matter all that much if you step back and look at all the good in the site, the community, and how it is run.

Maybe there just needs to be a FAQ entry that states "Here are a few things we decided not to do with this community: spoilers, threads, etc. because they smell funny to us. We don't plan on changing these things, so have fun within the current framework."
posted by stp123 at 7:17 PM on June 21, 2011


Sometimes they have to remind you it's not actually a democracy.
posted by smackfu at 7:31 PM on June 21, 2011 [1 favorite]


I continue to fail to understand the mods' resistance to...

You may be right. I haven't given this issue the amount of thought that you have.

But I suspect there's nothing the mods can say now that will either expand upon or clarify what they've already said.

If what you've heard so far leaves you unpersuaded, can you accept remaining so?
posted by Trurl at 7:52 PM on June 21, 2011


I'm still here, aren't I?
posted by mediareport at 8:00 PM on June 21, 2011


Don't get existential on us.
posted by TwelveTwo at 8:02 PM on June 21, 2011


I think Metafilter has reached saturation on people with zarquon in their names.
posted by IndigoRain at 8:09 PM on June 21, 2011 [1 favorite]


Oh, yay, I wondered where the flood of new sign-ups from metacooler came from.

I'm in the middle of a move, so things are a little dusty and under construction there, but since it's a new community, I'm really open to input about what it should be and how it can serve mefites. It's not meant to replace this place, by any means, but rather (hopefully) mitigate some of the tension of, "Oh god! I really want to talk about this tv show! Where's a link so I can make a thin post about it!" and the inevitable flood of spoilery, contentious discussion that follows. I figured a new place meant specifically for that is a lot better than trying to force metafilter to be something it's not.

Because I suspect all of this arguing about spoilers is wearing on everyone (specially the mods) and is kind of getting in the way of the things that matter. Namely, talking about television.

(In related news, since the last spoiler thread, my way awesome spoiler warning hoodie came in the mail. So something good came out of all of this!)
posted by PhoBWanKenobi at 8:46 PM on June 21, 2011 [1 favorite]


Dear lord I'm glad I wasn't baked when reading this thread; my brain might have exploded.
posted by J. Wilson at 9:42 PM on June 21, 2011


And in the series finale of Murder She Wrote, it was revealed that Angela Lansbury was the actual killer.

She was just an evil genius who could not only kill people like a ninja, but was also able to pin it on some unsuspecting victim.


I had an idea for a show like this; basically, the protagonist serial killer/detective would use the investigation to find a likely victim to pin the often random murder on. At the end of every episode the protagonist lays out their case against the fall guy; in a voice-over they describe how the dupe did the deed while a flash-back montage shows how the killer orchestrated the frame-up.

There's also an adorable jive-talking moppet and a robot dog in there, too.
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 9:50 PM on June 21, 2011 [7 favorites]


I'm not sure whether this thread is more an example of a character filibuster* or an axe to grind, but I think we can probably agree that some anvils need to be dropped.**


* WARNING: all links lead to tvtropes.org.
** Actually that last one isn't relevant at all unless you deliberately put the emphasis on a different part of the sentence and then completely ignore the content.

posted by doublehappy at 12:37 AM on June 22, 2011


Why are people so obsessed with amending a handful of words that in the end will not change anything except make them sound shrill? Spoilers gonna spoil. A polite request to be polite, especially so buried in an FAQ, will be ignored completely by potential offenders, and it has been established that most offenders probably won't face any sort of punishment anyway. People don't read that precious FAQ as closely as you would like to believe and amending it for this situation will achieve nothing except bow down to nagging, paving the way for the FAQ to becoming a useless pendantic mess. Haranguing the mods just spoils (HA!) the atmosphere.

Wow I can't believe I've actually commented in a spoiler topic thread. Did I unlock an achievement?
posted by like_neon at 2:27 AM on June 22, 2011 [2 favorites]


I think Metafilter has reached saturation on people with zarquon in their names.

Have you noticed that we're never all in the same threads together?

*whistles innocently*
posted by zarq at 6:12 AM on June 22, 2011


zarq: "*whistles innocently*"

always with the zarqasm.
posted by boo_radley at 8:23 AM on June 22, 2011 [5 favorites]


Clearly we have hit peak zarquon. We could have invested in alternative prophecy sources, but it is already too late.

(thinking up some sort of prophecy as real life spoiler take on this whole debate Cassandra 2.0 or some such)
posted by idiopath at 12:25 PM on June 22, 2011 [1 favorite]


I bet this thread is going to end like the movie Source Code...
posted by fuq at 12:39 PM on June 22, 2011


I bet this thread is going to end like the movie Source Code...

With a spoiler?
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 2:31 PM on June 22, 2011


I bet this thread is going to end like the movie The Da Vinci Code.
posted by box at 2:43 PM on June 22, 2011


With the sinking feeling that despite it being underwhelming, there will almost certainly be a sequel?
posted by cortex (staff) at 2:48 PM on June 22, 2011 [4 favorites]


I bet this thread is going to end.
posted by TwelveTwo at 3:12 PM on June 22, 2011


Compared to Dan Brown. The final indignity.
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 3:42 PM on June 22, 2011


I haven't read that one. Is it as bad as the others?
posted by flabdablet at 7:40 PM on June 22, 2011


Every time I see the State Farm Cars 2 ad, I think of these threads.
posted by nomisxid at 9:35 PM on June 22, 2011


« Older You don't get points for posting first.   |   Fund local road reconstruction Newer »

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