Bewildered March 30, 2012 6:40 AM   Subscribe

So I posted a comment in this thread that was deleted. Poor me, too bad, so sad.

My comment, ten or fifteen deep inthread as I remember it, said some shit like 'In a perfect world, we'd have a Metafilter where members didn't link to revenue-generator Gawker link-bait posts' or some loosy-goosy crap along those lines.

I'm not upset about having my special immortal words deleted -- it was a short and offhand comment after all -- but I am kinda bewildered because I don't understand why it was canned. That just don't seem right to me. Seems awfully arbitrary.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken to Etiquette/Policy at 6:40 AM (152 comments total) 1 user marked this as a favorite

That is the sort of commentary that is about site & community guidelines and policy rather than about the post itself. It's a derail. Take it to MeTa.

Hey, you took it to MeTa! Now that you're here, I think your comment was weirdly passive-aggressive and coy in only the most annoying ways. If you want to address the person who posted the link, do so, don't do it as faux apostrophe. That's irritating. And how is one to differentiate between the content on the web that is revenue-generating and that which isn't?
posted by shakespeherian at 6:43 AM on March 30, 2012 [8 favorites]


Mods tend to delete meta comments about posts; theoretically the post that you made was supposed to go here in MetaTalk and not in the thread. (See this comment from cortex.)
posted by Kimberly at 6:44 AM on March 30, 2012 [1 favorite]


hey, stav, I deleted it. You said, In a perfect world, I would prefer that Metafilter members eschew linking to Gawker site linkbait revenue generators. I'd take it to Metatalk, but, yeah.

Meta complaints belong in Metatalk, because otherwise we get long in-thread discussions on the blue about whether the post is good for Metafilter, which totally disrupts the discussion on whatever the actual post is about.
posted by taz (staff) at 6:45 AM on March 30, 2012 [11 favorites]


And how is one to differentiate between the content on the web that is revenue-generating and that which isn't?

PUNCH THE MONKEY AND FIND OUT
posted by griphus at 6:48 AM on March 30, 2012 [45 favorites]


Shut up and get back in line, stav.
posted by MrMoonPie at 6:48 AM on March 30, 2012


griphus I already punched the monkey in the shower this morning so I don't even OH WAIT NEVERMIND
posted by shakespeherian at 6:49 AM on March 30, 2012 [9 favorites]


I disagree, taz - when a link is posted on MetaFilter, I think it opens up that link to discussion not just about its content, but also its source (and formatting, as well).
posted by Curious Artificer at 6:58 AM on March 30, 2012 [1 favorite]


Meta complaints belong in Metatalk

Fair enough, I guess. I know the drill after 12 years, even though meta-thread-commentary really does go on all the damned time (AND IS REPREHENSIBLE), which makes me and my HORROR OF CENSORSHIP go all crazy pants and end up posting this thread.

Shut up and get back in line, stav.

Are there sausages at the end of the line? I am very fond of sausages.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 6:59 AM on March 30, 2012


As they used to say in Russian, during the war:

"There are sausages in the back of every line, comrade, but a tractor at the front of a seldom few."

I'm not sure what it meant, although my grandfather was never the same since they put his brain in that robot built by illiterate Ukranian peasants. Looking back on it, I think he was either telling me to get a job or to get married. Who knows.
posted by griphus at 7:04 AM on March 30, 2012 [24 favorites]


"Take it to Meta," but I think you're really better off just using the contact form to complain. That only goes to the mods, not the peanut gallery, and avoids the "OMG you are opening a Meta for this" uselessness.

I really don't know that I would ever open another MetaTalk thread nowadays.
posted by smackfu at 7:05 AM on March 30, 2012 [2 favorites]


(I sure like reading them for the entertainment though, so carry on.)
posted by smackfu at 7:05 AM on March 30, 2012


I really don't know that I would ever open another MetaTalk thread nowadays.

There are topics and features that do benefit from discussion with the community at large.

And then there's monkey-punching. No benefit, but it feels good.
posted by carsonb at 7:10 AM on March 30, 2012


You can have my monkey punching when you pry it from my cold dead fingers.
posted by shakespeherian at 7:12 AM on March 30, 2012


even though meta-thread-commentary really does go on all the damned time

We aren't as nutso aggressive about it as we could in theory be, but we do remove it when we see it and it makes sense to do so. Sometimes it's a wee aside in an otherwise substantial comment, and sometimes it's been responded to and wrapped back into conversation in a way that makes removing it unreasonable; things like that make it trickier.

But when I see stand-alone stuff not-in-metatalk that's pretty much explicitly one form or another of "I have a position on metafilter's systemic characteristics or practices", I'll usually nix and redirect. Generally in the blue or the green that's something to flag and move on from, not something to start a mid-thread conversation about. We have this whole Metatalk thing for a reason.

when a link is posted on MetaFilter, I think it opens up that link to discussion not just about its content, but also its source (and formatting, as well).

Maybe in exceptional situations where the subject of the source and formatting is really, really inextricably pertinent to the discussion of the content. There's grey areas where it's practically impossible to discuss one without the other. But "I wish people wouldn't post link to site x" in a thread with a link to site x is a metadiscussion issue, not something for the thread itself. It's fine to have that discussion, but do it over here. And that's the sort of thing that we end up removing regularly from threads on mefi and ask.

All that is entirely aside from the fact that I think Gawker routinely sucks in their presentation and has a sort of slimy sheen over a lot of what they do and would be happy myself if we basically never linked to them again. But that's just me.
posted by cortex (staff) at 7:13 AM on March 30, 2012 [5 favorites]


Curious Artificer, there's a difference between someone saying, for example, that they don't like how the article was written, or the tone it takes, or how it was presented (for example spreading an article across several pages just to get more ads in) and saying that you don't think it should be posted. The first complaints are still talking about the article and/or source, but the second is discussing what does or doesn't belong on Metafilter, which is what we have Metatalk for.
posted by taz (staff) at 7:13 AM on March 30, 2012 [4 favorites]


even though meta-thread-commentary really does go on all the damned time

You probably would get less flags if you didn't include "I'd take it to Metatalk, but, yeah."
posted by smackfu at 7:14 AM on March 30, 2012 [4 favorites]


You can have my monkey punching when you pry it from my cold dead fingers.

Does it make it feel like someone else is doing it?
posted by griphus at 7:15 AM on March 30, 2012 [4 favorites]


Just as a like aside here I can never hear reference to Seattle's alt weekly paper without getting the image of a benumbed hand.
posted by shakespeherian at 7:21 AM on March 30, 2012 [3 favorites]


smackfu: ""...and avoids the "OMG you are opening a Meta for this" uselessness."

FWIW, Stav strikes me as someone who can handle that sort of thing with just the right amount of self-deprecation and amusement.

...perhaps he has special WonderChicken powers....
posted by zarq at 7:27 AM on March 30, 2012 [2 favorites]


zarq: "...perhaps he has special WonderChicken powers...."

Indeed he does. I've seen him crack a peanut with one finger.
posted by Grither at 7:28 AM on March 30, 2012 [3 favorites]


we'd have a Metafilter where members didn't link to revenue-generator Gawker link-bait posts

I feel like I've missed a memo about this. I'm not a fan of Nick Denton or anything, but why should we avoid anything & everything published at a Gawker site?
posted by yerfatma at 7:32 AM on March 30, 2012


shakespeherian: "Just as a like aside here I can never hear reference to Seattle's alt weekly paper without getting the image of a benumbed hand."

And Dan Savage, grinning lewdly?
posted by zarq at 7:36 AM on March 30, 2012


The Gawker network is basically a cocktail party full of different sorts of people, some of whom are fun and witty and know cool stuff and like to share it, and many of whom are intolerably annoying, unethical and sometimes just terrible people. And what's worse is that the cool, fun people tend to tend to bring guests who have grown out of posting racial slurs on YouTube videos, but haven't yet honed their troll skills enough to hang out at Reddit.

And also to get to this cocktail party you have to crawl up a mound of feces that rivals the Great Pyramid of Giza in scope.
posted by griphus at 7:45 AM on March 30, 2012 [4 favorites]


It's bedtime in Korea, but before I snuggle down, friends: I love you. I do trust our moderators here, even if I am not entirely cool with each and every call they make.

I apologize for wasting your time with this complaint if you feel your time has been wasted. It's all about trust for me, and my trust right now it is (slightly) diminished, but so it goes.

Shit ain't easy.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 7:53 AM on March 30, 2012 [2 favorites]


I've seen a couple of deletions recently where the refrain "take it to MeTa" really hasn't made sense.

I understand that discussions about the site "belong" here. I've been on the site for over seven years, with many daily visits. But, for instance, there was a recent post on the Green of someone looking for a series of jokey youtube videos of a husband and wife team (or something) that the poster mentioned maybe seeing on here. The Ask was deleted because it was a discussion about Metafilter.

Well, not really, the poster was looking for a video. There was no intrinsic reason why the AskMe couldn't stand qua AskMe; it's not a discussion about how the site works. If the OP wanted to burn their weekly question on AskMe rather than on MeTa, why not let them?

A deletion would have been perfectly reasonable if the question was "Why was my comment deleted" or "How do I contact the mods"--clearly, those are site-related and not appropriate to AskMe.

Slavishly applying this rule yields some bizarre results.

AskMe: "Help! I just ate a poison mushroom (I think)! I think there was an AskMe about this before, but I'm slipping into unconsicousness and I can't find it. I'm so cold and everything's going black" DELETED. Site specific discussions go to MetaTalk.

And yet:

MeTa: "Does anyone remember a question about at-will employment from a while ago on the Green? In my case, my employer wants me to require me to board his cat in my apartment while he's on vacation, but I'm allergic to cats. If I don't, can he fire me?" A-OK! It's about the site, so this question is in the right place on MeTa!
posted by Admiral Haddock at 7:54 AM on March 30, 2012 [1 favorite]


stavrosthewonderchicken: "Are there sausages at the end of the line? I am very fond of sausages"

Sausage fest, boyzone...whatever.
posted by notsnot at 7:55 AM on March 30, 2012


The sausage is a lie.
posted by Sailormom at 8:07 AM on March 30, 2012


I really don't know that I would ever open another MetaTalk thread nowadays.

It's an easy process.

You wanna complain about someone? How 'bout shakespeherian? Don't you think his user names should start with a capital 'S'? By not doing so, isn't he disrespecting The Bard?! Are you gonna stand for that, huh, ARE YOU?! Hell no, call the mofo out!
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 8:09 AM on March 30, 2012 [1 favorite]


Slavishly applying this rule yields some bizarre results.

Well, bizarre imagined results. Neither of your mockups there are representative of what we actually end up doing in practice. If you want to imagine we'd blithely dismiss a serious medical question because of a sideways mention of the site, you can do that, but it's kind of weird and uncharitable.

People fucking around on Metatalk with askme-by-proxy stuff that isn't actually about Metatalk is not great, either. We're extra light on the delete button over here but it's the sort of thing that might get deleted indeed if it's egregious, more likely will get closed with a "don't do this", and sometime may just get let to stand and probably griped at in thread until people start discussing Babylon 5 instead. Metatalk is a little weird.

Anyway, the "does someone remember x from metafilter?" microgenre of questions has basically always been redirected to Metatalk, because that is indeed a Metatalk thing; it's the closest to a weird grey area that we actually practically get with this stuff, but that's the way it's been traditionally handled. And since, when it actually happens, it's routinely non-urgent, non-high-stakes stuff where taking the two minutes to walk over to Metatalk and repost it there is not a hardship, we're pretty much okay with staying consistent about drawing that specific line.

If someone ends up not finding it that way (which is pretty rare for "when did I see this on mefi" questions), they're welcome to go over to askme and reframe it as a "where was this thing on the internet?" question without phrasing it as "I saw this on metafilter, tell me where".
posted by cortex (staff) at 8:12 AM on March 30, 2012 [1 favorite]


You wanna complain about someone? How 'bout shakespeherian? Don't you think his user names should start with a capital 'S'? By not doing so, isn't he disrespecting The Bard?! Are you gonna stand for that, huh, ARE YOU?! Hell no, call the mofo out!

WELL IF THAT'S HOW YOU WANNA PLAY IT I'M OUTTA HERE, SO LONG METAFILTER
posted by shakespeherian at 8:25 AM on March 30, 2012 [1 favorite]


Slavishly applying this rule yields some bizarre results.

Your examples are odd. We're not being slavish, just consistent. "Hey I saw this on MetaFilter..." questions include a huge site-based limiter. And, since that site is our site, it's about this site and needs to go here. The AskMe posting page is really really clear that MeTa is where these things go--"If your question is about MetaFilter, MetaTalk, or Ask MetaFilter, please post it to MetaTalk, which is designed for questions about the site itself."--so this isn't some weird inside baseball rule we're just applying based on insider knowledge. It's explicit.

I understand that for some people this rule doesn't "feel" right and for other people they may just not like it, but with a site full of this many nitpickers and rules lawyers of various types, we're usually better off trying to be as consistent as we can be which is exactly why that question got deleted.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 8:26 AM on March 30, 2012


If someone ends up not finding it that way (which is pretty rare for "when did I see this on mefi" questions), they're welcome to go over to askme and reframe it as a "where was this thing on the internet?" question without phrasing it as "I saw this one metafilter, tell me where".

Agreed, though the example about the video was from earlier this week, and the poster has yet to take that two minutes to come over to the gray. For what it's worth, I think the posters who get dinged on AskMe because they mention seeing something on MeFi before are likely less habitual users of the site--which make it more unlikely that they'll take it to MeTa.

These things don't keep me up at night, to be sure, but it is indeed strange (to take a more quotidian example) that one could ask on MeTa "I read a book about X when I was a kid, and someone mentioned it here the other day in another 'name that book thread' and I forgot to bookmark it! What was the book/thread?" -- and that still seems like it's OK under the rules, but if you ask on AskMe "There was a great video that I found from a post (either here or on Reddit) and I want to find it again; it was about lolcats.", it's a bad post for AskMe.

In these gray (gettit?) cases, "take it to MeTa" seems better applied as a norm than as a rule.
posted by Admiral Haddock at 8:27 AM on March 30, 2012


Probably someone mefimailed the poster the answer so they don't need to post a meta because they have their answer.
posted by Mitheral at 8:32 AM on March 30, 2012 [1 favorite]


"Either here or on Reddit" actually makes it explicitly clear that the domain of their question is larger than the site itself. It's not the prototypical example of a "this goes in Metatalk" question.

But again in actual practice, the specific question I gather you're talking about, here, says no such thing; it identifies the front page of the site and even an approximate time domain in which the post was made. And it's from a user who has been here for close to a decade and has used Metatalk repeatedly.

If we get misplaced questions from apparent and hence more-likely-to-be-confused newbies, we'll often write them a quick note via email to try and clarify what's up.
posted by cortex (staff) at 8:33 AM on March 30, 2012 [1 favorite]


What I think you're missing, Admiral Haddock, is that in cases where the poster maybe saw it on MetaFilter (whether they actually did or not), the MeTa commenters will usually track it down for them. MeTa can function like AskMe, but AskMe cannot function like MeTa. The system works, as long as posters do actually come back and post to the grey.
posted by librarylis at 8:33 AM on March 30, 2012 [1 favorite]


it identifies the front page of the site and even an approximate time domain in which the post was made. And it's from a user who has been here for close to a decade and has used Metatalk repeatedly.

Fair enough!

What I think you're missing, Admiral Haddock, is that in cases where the poster maybe saw it on MetaFilter (whether they actually did or not), the MeTa commenters will usually track it down for them.

That was, in fact, my point! Regardless of whether you actually saw the X on MeFi, the helpful folks on MeTa will track it down. So if you remember a funny video on Reddit, there's nothing stopping you from just posting a MeTa and saying you saw it on MeFi/AskMe, and we'll all track it down dutifully.

Can't you see that Communists are coming in to MeTa and contaminating our precious bodily fluids? (Which is again to say, this doesn't keep me awake at night; I just think that strict application of the rule in all cases is not great from my perspective as a user.)
posted by Admiral Haddock at 8:43 AM on March 30, 2012


If some ruminations on Slapshot is a Gawker site whoring for traffic, they are really letting the quality of their traffic-whoring slip. Otherwise, it sounds like your main complaint is that Gawker is intended to run at a profit, which is true of many of the sites MetaFilter links to, and of MetaFilter itself.
posted by Horace Rumpole at 8:50 AM on March 30, 2012


Seems awfully arbitrary.

Welcome to metafilter.
posted by karathrace at 9:03 AM on March 30, 2012 [2 favorites]


karathrace: Welcome to metafilter.

This is your schtick in every MetaTalk thread lately. Would you like to talk about it? You're either fairly new here, and in that case, I don't know why you hang around, or this is a BND account, and, well, I don't know why you decided to come back.
posted by gman at 9:08 AM on March 30, 2012 [17 favorites]


Single link traffic whoring gawker post.
posted by Big_B at 9:12 AM on March 30, 2012


That's not fair, I don't even get to MeTa why my comment disappeared from the Nina Paley thread when Stav gets the pony first *pout*
posted by infini at 9:23 AM on March 30, 2012


You only made one comment in the recent Paley thread and it's still there.
posted by cortex (staff) at 9:27 AM on March 30, 2012


All that proves is that you ab/used your mod powers to delete it from his very mind before it was posted, which is even more terrifying.
posted by Admiral Haddock at 9:30 AM on March 30, 2012 [3 favorites]


Is this the thread to ask for (SLGawker) instead of (SLYT)?
posted by the man of twists and turns at 9:32 AM on March 30, 2012


What is BND?

And yeah, I have talked about it when its relevant to the topic. My concerns have not been addressed, and have even been 'bookmarked' so it tells me others feel that way too.

Quit being so aggro, gman.
posted by karathrace at 9:44 AM on March 30, 2012


karathrace: "What is BND?"

Brand New Day. Refers to folks who closed their accounts, or had them closed by the mods, but are allowed to return to the site under a different user name. He's asking if you're a old Mefite who is now using a new user name.
posted by zarq at 9:47 AM on March 30, 2012


On a Friday night a few years back, I was at a bar with a bunch of friends after work. Now, it was a little more posh than the sort of bars we usually went: way up in a high-rise in the Flatiron District, expensive drinks, upscale-dressed waitresses, the whole shebang. Anyway, so there's actually a dedicated outdoor area with deck chairs and robes and shit and we were out there smoking and this dude, just a little older than us (he was maybe in his mid-to-late 30s, we were in your late-20s/early-30s) came up and asked if we were the Gawker meetup. We told him that we were not and he actually asked "are you sure?" Like we had lied to him or perhaps did not know which social gathering we were attending.

I still have no idea what to make of that. Did he think we were the Gawker meetup and just freezing him out? Maybe that was, like, a thing at Gawker meetups; you had to prove you wanted to hang out with them. Or maybe he was a terrible person and banned from Gawker meetups and trying to sneak into them knowing full well he'd get caught. I wonder if that guy ever found the Gawker meetup.
posted by griphus at 9:47 AM on March 30, 2012 [1 favorite]


Maybe he was the Gawker meetup and he was hoping you'd say you were the Gawker meetup so he could be like HA HA OBVIOUSLY NOT and then go tweet about it and then write an article about how awesome his tweet was and how you could maybe stand to lose a little weight too, I mean, he's just saying.
posted by cortex (staff) at 9:49 AM on March 30, 2012 [4 favorites]


Worth noting: If you are a BND you're under no obligation to confirm that to anyone. A number of users prefer to establish themselves under a new identity without a link to their old one. And someone else literally outing you by saying "karathrace used to be zarq" is a no-no that's frowned upon by Team Mod. Being given a Brand New Day would mean someone's entitled to a fresh start.
posted by zarq at 9:51 AM on March 30, 2012 [1 favorite]


Thanks, zarq. No I am not a BND.
posted by karathrace at 9:51 AM on March 30, 2012


Check your email, karathrace.
posted by cortex (staff) at 9:53 AM on March 30, 2012


Although, according to the definition on the metawiki, if I had been a BND, gman'souting would have been a violation of site policy, right?
posted by karathrace at 9:53 AM on March 30, 2012


Ok, cortex.
posted by karathrace at 9:54 AM on March 30, 2012


karathrace: "Thanks, zarq. No I am not a BND."

Whew! That's a relief. If you used to be me, that would be... awkward! ;)

Welcome to MeFi, karathrace.


And no, if gman had literally said, "karathrace used to be X user" then that would have been outing you. Asking you a question isn't that.
posted by zarq at 9:55 AM on March 30, 2012


> And yeah, I have talked about it when its relevant to the topic. My concerns have not been addressed, and have even been 'bookmarked' so it tells me others feel that way too.

It was "bookmarked" by one person who has a long-standing grudge against the site. You are the one being "aggro" by dropping pointless barbs about how the site is run without really offering anything substantial to discuss. You also seem to be trying to score points to get noticed. Besides, more people "bookmarked" gman's comment calling you out on your adolescent behavior.
posted by Burhanistan at 9:55 AM on March 30, 2012


Bhurhanistan, don't mischaracterize my feelings about the site. And how did you know that karathrace wasn't referring to remarks made previously to this thread? (Answer: you didn't.)

This is not a "rule of law" kind of site, so inevitably there's a degree of arbitrariness involved in decisions. Don't pay any mind to him, karathrace, he feels free to show his ass, especially when he thinks nobody's going to call him on it.
posted by Crabby Appleton at 10:04 AM on March 30, 2012


if I had been a BND, gman's outing would have been a violation of site policy, right?

No. Outing users who are making an effort to not be obviously the formerly banned/buttoned users is a bannable offense in and of itself. Saying "Hey I think you are a longtime user masquerading as a new user" is not a bannable offense, at all.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 10:05 AM on March 30, 2012 [1 favorite]


> And how did you know that karathrace wasn't referring to remarks made previously to this thread? (Answer: you didn't.)

A quick check of her history confirms it, assman.
posted by Burhanistan at 10:08 AM on March 30, 2012 [1 favorite]


You only made one comment in the recent Paley thread and it's still there.

No way... I replied to that bit about not noticing the link was already in teh FPP by saying something to the effect of how I'd assumed that first link was from wiki or a bio and maybe we should do user research on which parts of an FPP are clicked first and put in the FAQ or something... ooops....
posted by infini at 10:08 AM on March 30, 2012


Acronym creep is spreading. I've mentioned my part-time job at Target, and they have acronyms for EVERYTHING. "Can you ask the GSTL to have the LOD meet me at TSC? I need to pull the mid-day CAFs and have to check out a PDA". I think I'll start using BND and see if it catches on.
posted by Curious Artificer at 10:10 AM on March 30, 2012 [1 favorite]


To return to the topic at hand...

Now: was that a great Metafilter post? Probably not the best!

But that's a pretty goofy (if sincerely intended) piece of writing linked to, sure. It was written by Will Leitch. Leitch is a columnist at New York magazine, the author of four acclaimed books about sports and/or himself, a founder of the bizarre and wonderful webmagazine The Black Table (defunct since 2006), and a former New York Times web columnist. He also sidelines as a movie critic, and is a bizarrely devoted Woody Allen fan.

You can criticize Gawker Media sites all you want. (Lord knows I have!) And yes, like many website on the Internet, they are supported by advertising. (Cough.)

But Will Leitch isn't in the business of shilling Denton's ad impressions.

Why is it that you're unwilling to pay good and real and substantial writers simply by the magical act of reading things, for free, on the Internet. Good things, often! Things that someone really wanted to write! And that they didn't write to whore pageviews or "unique new visitors" or whatever.

Your drive-by slag-off on an Internet messageboard doesn't really fly.

At the very least, if you don't want to deal with that, you could ask yourself why you're unwilling to install ad block.
posted by RJ Reynolds at 10:13 AM on March 30, 2012 [5 favorites]


I feel like I've missed a memo about this. I'm not a fan of Nick Denton or anything, but why should we avoid anything & everything published at a Gawker site?

Because it's not the New York Times apparently. Oh yeah, we're supposed to avoid them, too.
posted by philip-random at 10:23 AM on March 30, 2012


Burhanistan, you're full of it. Take note: two favorites, neither is mine.
posted by Crabby Appleton at 10:27 AM on March 30, 2012


This is what happens when Pluto squares the Sun on a Friday
posted by infini at 10:33 AM on March 30, 2012


This is what happens when Pluto squares the Sun on a Friday

What's the prognosis for tomorrow's MeFi Bar Crawl in Cambridge? Drunken brawl? Please say drunken brawl.
posted by Admiral Haddock at 10:36 AM on March 30, 2012


Drunken, sloppy orgy is more like it.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 10:37 AM on March 30, 2012


Frat thread is over yonder, gents.
posted by griphus at 10:40 AM on March 30, 2012


Can we have new section of the site? Meta-Meta-Talk?

So we can talk about when things are appropriate to talk about in meta-talk?
posted by Chekhovian at 10:43 AM on March 30, 2012


I vote for MetaCranky.
posted by rtha at 10:50 AM on March 30, 2012 [9 favorites]


What's the prognosis for tomorrow's MeFi Bar Crawl in Cambridge?

*stares deeply into goblet full of Chilean red*

*sneezes*

OMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM

Someone will slip and fall into the river while the rest continue weaving heartily down the path on the way back from the last pub while loudly singing Ave Maria.


*comes to*

Did that mean anything to you?
posted by infini at 10:50 AM on March 30, 2012


I vote for MetaCranky.

May the odds be ever in your favor.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 10:52 AM on March 30, 2012


Metatalk: a weird grey area.
posted by nat at 11:08 AM on March 30, 2012 [13 favorites]


...weirdly passive-aggressive and coy in only the most annoying ways.

That's cold, man. I didn't read the comment in question; but if it was coy in the most annoying ways, I'm sure it was coy in many less-annoying ways as well.

Ferchristsake, throw a brother a bone.
posted by steambadger at 11:22 AM on March 30, 2012 [1 favorite]


"this old man came rolling home"
posted by infini at 12:14 PM on March 30, 2012


Because it's not the New York Times apparently. Oh yeah, we're supposed to avoid them, too.

This is made really easy thanks to their paywall.
posted by Mitheral at 12:47 PM on March 30, 2012


This is made really easy thanks to their paywall.

*cough cough cough clear your cookies cough cough cough*

Seriously they spent 10's of millions of dollars developing that shite?
posted by Chekhovian at 1:41 PM on March 30, 2012 [2 favorites]


aaaaaah, and here I was thinking all these people had been relocated to Bundesrepublik Neder-Deutschland. Whew!!
posted by not_on_display at 2:01 PM on March 30, 2012


Burhanistan, you're full of it. Take note: two favorites, neither is mine.

Oh jesus, this is a race to the bottom-and-a-half, isn't it? I will say, Kara, that I'm intrigued that a member so new can hold such strong opinions about how the site should and shouldn't be run.
posted by smoke at 2:11 PM on March 30, 2012 [2 favorites]


So, shakespeherian storms out, and two seconds later, Crabby makes his triumphant return, walking in through the same door with a funny smile and smelling of punched monkeys.

INTERESTING
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 2:19 PM on March 30, 2012 [5 favorites]


I also love my new favorite MeFi catchprhase: history confirms it, assman.
posted by Admiral Haddock at 2:23 PM on March 30, 2012 [5 favorites]


Worth noting: If you are a BND you're under no obligation to confirm that to anyone.

ell-oh-ell
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 2:47 PM on March 30, 2012


Hi guys I'm back hope I didn't miss anything!
posted by shakespeherian at 2:50 PM on March 30, 2012


Yes, the monkey punching line is twice as long before you left. The price is still $20 SAIT, but you have to go the end of the line. Don't worry though, there's a sausage fest going back there.
posted by P.o.B. at 3:23 PM on March 30, 2012


Curious Artificer- do you really have to bug the LOD just to grab a PDA? (Back in my day we used LRTs and we liked it!)
posted by Jpfed at 3:59 PM on March 30, 2012


What's the prognosis for tomorrow's MeFi Bar Crawl in Cambridge? Drunken brawl? Please say drunken brawl.

How about awkward stares towards the ground?
posted by A dead Quaker at 4:11 PM on March 30, 2012


I have javascript disabled on this browser. This has two results that I did not know about before I disabled it. One is the New York Times paywall is invisible to me. I can click anything I want there forever as near as I have been able to tell. The other is that every gawker page is completely blank except for the page title.

I'm sure those geniuses will fix all that up right quick but right now it amuses me greatly.
posted by bukvich at 4:36 PM on March 30, 2012 [4 favorites]


bukvich: it's been that way since the whole Gawker media craphole empire had their site redesign in Feb 2011. So it's been broken for a non-trivial number of devices for over a year. They're geniuses over there.
posted by introp at 6:00 PM on March 30, 2012


"Hail! Hail! Up she rises!"
posted by Meatbomb at 7:08 PM on March 30, 2012


Heh... I had a meta derail the other day... trust me, it's better if it's deleted, the alternative is that a mod points it out and reminds you that you should know better.... nothing like a public flogging!
posted by HuronBob at 7:19 PM on March 30, 2012


MrMoonPie: "Shut up and get back in line, stav."

Bitter, bitter.
posted by koeselitz at 9:44 PM on March 30, 2012


Only moderators can make passive-aggressive comments in threads, Stav.
posted by entropicamericana at 10:07 PM on March 30, 2012


...i'm trying - and failing - to picture the mods of MetaFilter as "passive-aggressive" (or anything other than forthright).
posted by batmonkey at 10:55 PM on March 30, 2012


They're passive-aggressive in only the most assertive manner.
posted by Deoridhe at 4:46 AM on March 31, 2012


Only moderators can make passive-aggressive comments in threads

I'd just like to say that I don't appreciate being characterized this way, when I work so hard just to make you happy, day after day, with no thanks or thought for myself.
posted by taz (staff) at 5:49 AM on March 31, 2012 [24 favorites]


I'd just like to say that I don't appreciate being characterized this way, when I work so hard just to make you happy, day after day, with no thanks or thought for myself.

Reminds of something my dad used to tell me: "If it were fun, it'd be called fun. That's why it's called a job."
posted by Big_B at 6:33 AM on March 31, 2012


And the whole thing about getting paid, too.
posted by Meatbomb at 6:43 AM on March 31, 2012


My dad used to tell me not to try to make cheap jokes on the internet because people will think you're serious... but unfortunately, I didn't listen well enough.
posted by taz (staff) at 6:43 AM on March 31, 2012 [8 favorites]


My dad used to tell me not to try to make cheap jokes on the internet because people will think you're serious... but unfortunately, I didn't listen well enough.


I thought it was funny...*voice trails away sadly*
posted by bardophile at 6:49 AM on March 31, 2012 [5 favorites]


Hey taz, how come you haven't allowed anyone to post anything to the blue in the past twelve hours? Is the user who made this post gonna be banned? Unless, I'm missing something about what went down, they've been around long enough to know the one rule you never break.
posted by gman at 6:52 AM on March 31, 2012 [1 favorite]


That superfluous comma is fuckin' ugly.
posted by gman at 6:53 AM on March 31, 2012


I'm not jumping to ban them on the first offense for something that they may not have really understood to be within the scope of stuff that you shouldn't post.
posted by taz (staff) at 7:00 AM on March 31, 2012


That attitude is going to ruin your "power mad, hard ass" reputation.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 7:12 AM on March 31, 2012


taz: "something that they may not have really understood to be within the scope of stuff that you shouldn't post."

From the posting page:

"Note: You read the guidelines, right? Because linking to your own site or a project you worked on in this space will result in a deletion and your account will be banned. Post it to MetaFilter Projects to announce your work instead, which was designed especially for this purpose."

I'm not saying you should ban her. Totally up to you if you want to give her a second chance.

But man, someone would have to be pretty dense not to understand that disclaimer, wouldn't they?
posted by zarq at 7:47 AM on March 31, 2012 [2 favorites]


You guys are never happy are you? Is Pluto still banging the Sun today as well?
posted by infini at 7:49 AM on March 31, 2012


I was at the Autodesk tour and sfkiddo mentioned that she'd be doing a link-dump about all the software and apps and stuff she was talking about. I think we all assumed it would go in the IRL thread, or maybe be a meTa. I think she just got enthusiastic and didn't quite think it all through. She is not an evil spammer.
posted by rtha at 8:04 AM on March 31, 2012 [2 favorites]


infini: "You guys are never happy are you? Is Pluto still banging the Sun today as well?"

Pluto.

Sun.

Disturbing.
posted by zarq at 8:07 AM on March 31, 2012 [1 favorite]


You can have my monkey punching when you pry it from my cold dead fingers.

Punch his monkey! Love his monkey!
posted by octobersurprise at 10:36 AM on March 31, 2012


But man, someone would have to be pretty dense not to understand that disclaimer, wouldn't they?

Every six months or so we seem to get an old-timer who just gets overexcited and doesn't think things through all the way. Those get deleted, but we usually opt for the stern "never do this again" warning rather than the insta-ban, because with people we actually know it's easier and fairer to extend the benefit of the doubt. (This is not the vast majority of self-linkers. Those are nearly always three-comments-and-an-FPP newbies.)
posted by restless_nomad (staff) at 11:16 AM on March 31, 2012 [1 favorite]


*secretly plots self link to drive mods batty*
posted by infini at 11:24 AM on March 31, 2012


Enter Bluebottle with a smile and a song! (Waits for audience applause --not a sausage.)
posted by Trochanter at 11:38 AM on April 1, 2012 [2 favorites]


Look! I found one. (scroll down July 17th)

But it might be self referential since its linking to the FPP that links to the list on which the FPP is now listed *scratches head* One Infinite Loop?
posted by infini at 1:07 PM on April 1, 2012


quite
posted by clavdivs at 2:10 PM on April 1, 2012


Yer a personality Stav, they're comin for ya ......................
posted by sgt.serenity at 4:34 PM on April 1, 2012


Hey sgt! You've got a couple of recent instances where the mods asked you for clarification on why you're being such a shitheel! Here's one, here's the other. Could you maybe chime in on those? Because the mods ARE really patient folks, but I (and I may only be speaking for myself) am not, and I'm basically sick of your shitty shit.

I know the internet, in general, is a place where you can be a world-class asshole and then just high-five yourself and go to bed, but this isn't that place, in general, and I'm pretty intolerant of any efforts to turn it into that. If you have constructive criticism, then please, lay it out. Otherwise, can you just shut your bratty mouth?

Thanks!
posted by SpiffyRob at 4:52 PM on April 1, 2012 [2 favorites]


Everybody needs a hug.

Some more than others.
posted by zarq at 5:39 PM on April 1, 2012




Hey sgt! You've got a couple of recent instances where the mods asked you for clarification on why you're being such a shitheel! Here's one, here's the other. Could you maybe chime in on those? Because the mods ARE really patient folks, but I (and I may only be speaking for myself) am not, and I'm basically sick of your shitty shit.


Well thats your opinion and you're welcome to it, it's not worded very nice - but you won't find me deleting it or rustling up other members to have a go at you. I don't know what else you're on about - the mods are welcome to memail me, but previous fulsome memail denials that anything untoward was happening to the site while an attempt to roll out a wierd amateur therapy filter was being formulated behind the scenes the same week doesn't really bode all that well.

Anyway, good luck.
posted by sgt.serenity at 7:43 AM on April 2, 2012


an attempt to roll out a wierd amateur therapy filter was being formulated behind the scenes

?!?
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 7:50 AM on April 2, 2012


?!?

When they tried to have that thing where users could label themselves as 'experts' in certain fields and have other users mail them for advice - the one that ended up with a lawyer coming on site offering to sue mefi on behalf of misdirected users. It was formulated completely behind the scenes, at the same time i was memailing about the site with various concerns and was told (without quoting of course) that generally nothing was going on with the site or modding that i should be concerned about.

I don't like things happening 'behind the scenes' on mefi, I think it would be better to consult people and I think answers to users could be better. It would take about 1 minute for the mods to open a thread here asking for suggestions on how to improve things from users.

Furthermore, some of the behaviour which stav is now experiencing was applied to yours truly in the past and I still consider it to be shocking at worst and tone deaf at best.

Tell me, what would you think of the mods if they deleted a thread where you were looking for your brother ? Considering that kind of nonsense happening, I think i've been pretty damn patient with others myself.
posted by sgt.serenity at 8:14 AM on April 2, 2012


You weird amateurs.

Seriously, wtf are you trying to say, sarge?
posted by Burhanistan at 8:14 AM on April 2, 2012


When they tried to have that thing where users could label themselves as 'experts' in certain fields and have other users mail them for advice

The only thing I'm remembering is a suggestion from a user that this could be implemented, or something could be added to the wiki and users could have the option of adding something to their profiles that indicated their (self-considered) specialties. Are you referring to something different? Because it sounds like you're saying mods were sneaking around behind the scenes appointing various users as Experts In A Thing. Unless you can show some links or get an okay from the relevant mods to reproduce the memails they sent you about this - they almost always say yes, if I'm not mistaken - I call bullshit on your version.
posted by rtha at 8:34 AM on April 2, 2012


This is the thread you are referring to, from 2006. It broke the site guidelines. I get that you had a real information need but we don't allow people to use the site to track down real, named, non-celebrity people because we don't want to be in a situation of trying to ascertain whether someone is using their AskMe question to be stalkery or contact someone who doesn't want to be contacted and then their personal information winds up all over Google.

You seem to want the site to run differently than it actually runs. I'm not sure who you were MeMailing but it wasn't me. The last MeMails I have from you are from 2010 about the loquacious fundraiser and before that it's an apology for being a jerk on the site. When possible we prefer to have policy discussions or long back and forth interactions with users either in MeTa or via the contact form so we don't have to untangle who said what to whom.

And I think the MeTa thread you're talking about is this one which is something we wanted to implement and turned out to be unworkable which was a big bummer for me personally but wasn't some sort of secret thing we were building. And that guy wasn't a lawyer.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 8:41 AM on April 2, 2012


Well, that's a lot less exciting than I had been led to believe. Six years seems like an awfully long time to be carrying a shoulder-chip.
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 8:56 AM on April 2, 2012


Huh, I don't think I remember that meTa. There was possibly a smaller discussion about such a thing in a meTa about something else, and maybe that's what I'm remembering. Or possibly all meTas just kind of moosh together after a while and become a meTablob.
posted by rtha at 10:41 AM on April 2, 2012


There had been at least a couple other conversations about that sort of folks-helping-each-other idea previous to that metatalk thread, yeah, with a lot of generally positive "it would be nice to do something like this feeling", which was part of where the momentum for trying to work it out as something to do came from. When the rubber met the road it seemed like not the thing to go forward with, which was a bit of a bummer but that's why we talk stuff out.

but previous fulsome memail denials that anything untoward was happening to the site while an attempt to roll out a wierd amateur therapy filter was being formulated behind the scenes the same week

Yeah, so you were being oblique and weird toward Jess in metatalk comments for the nth fucking time and I wrote to you to ask you what the hell was up. It was pulling teeth even getting a clear statement of what you thought was the situation, and when I finally did it turns out that what you thought was the situation was just seriously off-base and weird and inappropriately personal besides, and I asked you to leave it the hell alone, and you suggested you would, and yet here were are yet again, with you being weird and oblique and shitty to us again.

You can write Matt an email if you think there's some sort of fundamental problem with who works for Metafilter that you need him to hear you out on. If you've got some sort of public discussion you want to have, you can do it here and actually be clear about what your issue is. Those are basically the only two options that even make sense; obfuscated personal grouching gets nothing done, it just reminds us that you've got a problem, you aren't willing to talk about it any any useful way, and you aren't willing to get the fuck over it either. It's tiring as shit.
posted by cortex (staff) at 1:28 PM on April 2, 2012 [1 favorite]


rtha: "Huh, I don't think I remember that meTa."

It was... disappointing.
posted by zarq at 1:43 PM on April 2, 2012


MetaTalk: It was... disappointing.
posted by shakespeherian at 1:44 PM on April 2, 2012 [3 favorites]


sgt.serenity: " I don't like things happening 'behind the scenes' on mefi, I think it would be better to consult people and I think answers to users could be better. It would take about 1 minute for the mods to open a thread here asking for suggestions on how to improve things from users. "

When the ThereIsHelp icon concept was raised in MeTa, many members of our community made it clear to the mods that they didn't like the idea and raised concerns that had not yet been taken into account and were ultimately deemed to be unconquerable.

So the system worked. They came up with a concept. Were gung ho about it. Consulted the userbase, who collectively said, "No way." They listened to community and withdrew the idea. And as much as I personally found the non-implementation disappointing, what actually happened is pretty much what you are saying should have happened.
posted by zarq at 1:51 PM on April 2, 2012 [2 favorites]


shakespeherian: "MetaTalk: It was... disappointing."

This place should come with an open bar for the mods, and free joints (and snacks) for the userbase.
posted by zarq at 2:03 PM on April 2, 2012


zarq for mod!
posted by shakespeherian at 2:05 PM on April 2, 2012


zarq for World Bank President!
posted by infini at 2:17 PM on April 2, 2012


zarq's house for the party tonight!
posted by shakespeherian at 2:18 PM on April 2, 2012


zarq for joint dispenser machine stocker and maintainer!

I like the kind with a hint of PCP rolled in, please
posted by Burhanistan at 2:19 PM on April 2, 2012


Oh shit. What have I done?! :D
posted by zarq at 2:29 PM on April 2, 2012 [1 favorite]


We were told there would be snacks.
posted by shakespeherian at 2:29 PM on April 2, 2012 [1 favorite]


shakespeherian: "zarq's house for the party tonight!"

Counterproposal: You babysit. I get to go out with the missus!
posted by zarq at 2:29 PM on April 2, 2012


shakespeherian: "We were told there would be snacks."

No problem. We have ample stock of Veggie Straws and Fruitables Juice Boxes.

Caution: overconsumption of either may cause a person to poop their way to happiness.
posted by zarq at 2:36 PM on April 2, 2012


I'll bring the bacon candy and the scotch.
posted by rtha at 3:08 PM on April 2, 2012 [2 favorites]


That inspired me to break out the Estonian Liqueur (says so on the label) I got for my birthday. Shots all around?
posted by infini at 3:49 PM on April 2, 2012


Did somebody say 'open bar'?
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 5:21 PM on April 2, 2012


zarq's buying us all drinks and pot.
posted by shakespeherian at 5:34 PM on April 2, 2012


Betcha Meta would be calmer, at least.
posted by zarq at 6:06 PM on April 2, 2012 [1 favorite]


origionally, i was so intrigued with meta filter,however,the more involved i become, the more i wonder if i made the correct choice.
posted by brittaincrowe at 9:57 PM on April 3, 2012


Oh well, no use crying about it now.
posted by contraption at 10:18 PM on April 3, 2012


brittaincrowe: origionally, i was so intrigued with meta filter,however,the more involved i become, the more i wonder if i made the correct choice.

Define 'involved'. Unless you've had a bunch of comments removed in your less than 72 hours here, you've made exactly one other comment besides this one, and that was in a thread from February, in a part of the site that I didn't even know existed until now.
posted by gman at 3:43 AM on April 4, 2012


Thanks, zarq. No I am not a BND.
posted by karathrace at 12:51 PM on March 30 [+] [!]

Check your email, karathrace.
posted by cortex (staff) at 12:53 PM on March 30 [+] [!]


So, yes to the BND thing, then?
posted by mediareport at 9:16 PM on April 19, 2012


Let it be.
posted by Burhanistan at 9:25 PM on April 19, 2012


The point being that BND's are fine, but you're not supposed to publicly lie about them.
posted by mediareport at 6:59 AM on April 20, 2012


You're also not supposed to hound people you suspect of being BNDers until they tearfully confess.
posted by shakespeherian at 8:14 AM on April 20, 2012 [1 favorite]


Seriously leave it alone. If karathrace winds up being a frequent or even occasional participator here we can discuss it then.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 8:21 AM on April 20, 2012


I intended no hounding and in fact have no dog in this one other than making more explicit the idea that mods tend to be very forgiving with BNDs, but not so much when a BND, whoever it is, states publicly that they're not a BND. As I recall at least one mod has gone on the record about that, but it seemed worth emphasizing. Sorry if I phrased it in a way that implied I was hounding anyone.
posted by mediareport at 5:25 PM on April 20, 2012


(strike that "if" in the last sentence)
posted by mediareport at 5:40 PM on April 20, 2012


Yes, as a general rule part of our bargain with someone trying to do a Brand New Day or identity reset sort of maneuver or whatever you want to call it in leaving an older account behind for a new one is that they stay away from any sort of active misrepresentation about the situation, etc. When and if something like that comes up it's generally something for private conversation rather than public discussion as far as who needs to be involved in ironing things out, etc.
posted by cortex (staff) at 5:51 PM on April 20, 2012


« Older Unflag/Reflag   |   determining doomed and deleted discussion dates Newer »

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