a bit of me dies every time a thread is deleted

May 6, 2002 6:56 PM

I'm sure it's an unpopular opinion and I admit it probably has to do with my personal experience of neo-fascist censorship in Portugal, as well as my libertarian views on freedom of expression, but I feel a bit of me dies every time a thread is deleted on MetaFilter. Or perhaps it's just frustration for not being able to read them. Although Matt is as tolerant a person as I know and I've understood the reasons for every deleted thread I was aware of, I truthfully don't think malevolent or stupid posts can't be dealt with by the MetaFilter community such as it is. Why not just leave them be? In time they might just be ignored, as they deserved. But not dignified with deletion. For there is such a thing, IMO.
posted by MiguelCardoso to MetaFilter-related at 6:56 PM (146 comments total)

I sympathize with your feeling, but the fear here is boundless multiplication by those with no feeling for the site or its purpose or conventions. There are always those.
posted by rushmc at 7:00 PM on May 6, 2002

I think the main reason why he deletes them is for server load. If the community dealt with the posts, you would have those stupid posts with like 200 comments all being haikus or pancakes. See the problem lies in the fact that when the community sees a post to be deleted they get all 4th grade and act really childish with the haikus and pancake posts. And the only good these posts do is alert matt to delete the post, and of course take up more server usuage.
posted by thebwit at 7:04 PM on May 6, 2002

I should say, rushmc, I mean threads - not posts. A thread I'd say was a string of comments, with minimum critical mass, where some point or criticism of value was made.
posted by MiguelCardoso at 7:05 PM on May 6, 2002

Good point. But, thebwit, the only reason pancakes and haikus occur is because users think a thread is going to be deleted. So the threat of deletion actually encourages them. If people knew threads were going to be preserved, I bet they wouldn't be so silly. Or repetitive.
posted by MiguelCardoso at 7:09 PM on May 6, 2002

I would love to see them frozen rather than killed. Often I have no idea what all the fuss was about, since the offending thread is already gone by the time I read about it.
posted by donkeyschlong at 7:09 PM on May 6, 2002

I feel a bit of me dies every time a thread is deleted on MetaFilter.
This is the point where you should really consider that you might have far too much emotional attachment to a website.
posted by darukaru at 7:14 PM on May 6, 2002

The thread leads are available on LoFi.
posted by NortonDC at 7:14 PM on May 6, 2002

but I feel a bit of me dies every time a thread is deleted on MetaFilter

I feel a part of me dies every minute that goes by before they are smote.

And, what darukaru said.
posted by adampsyche at 7:16 PM on May 6, 2002

I'll butt out after this, but I think donkeyshlong is right and that the recent experience of threads which Matt has simply closed supports his view. People accept closed threads almost completely. It's a much better idea, I think, than the eternal request for a "deleted post cemetery" with all its well-known defenses and objections.
posted by MiguelCardoso at 7:17 PM on May 6, 2002

but I feel a bit of me dies every time a thread is deleted on MetaFilter

Must you be so melodramatic? It's only a website, sheesh.
posted by rodii at 7:31 PM on May 6, 2002

I like the frozen idea, I am no html (or wahtever it is called now) guru, but is it a possibility to leave them, and not allow any more comments in that thread, so we can understand why? Unless, it's really personal or something, I guess.
posted by bittennails at 7:31 PM on May 6, 2002

Lay off, rodii, it's just an opinion, personal style is personal style. Nice timing though :)
posted by bittennails at 7:33 PM on May 6, 2002

Miguel, I don't know if your direct inspiration here was the zombo.com post or not, but I'll chime in anyway to say I think it, at least, should have stayed. As was pointed out in the thread, although the site had been mentioned in two (relatively old) threads, and was certainly a "well-known" (as much as these things can be - nobody is aware of everything) internet meme, it had never been the subject of its own post on MetaFilter. Yeah, I knew about it, and maybe it didn't deserve its own post, but once it was there, and people did start piling on, I tried to add some value to the thread - the site is back up after being down for a while, the designers have their own FAQ about the site, which is pretty humorous in itself - but still no discussion entailed. Well, fine - then the topic doesn't need to be discussed, and the thread can die. But to remove it in its entirety almost validates the behavior that kept a discussion from developing in the first place.

Just my opinion, though, and just on that thread - clear doubles, or outright malicious or otherwise inappropriate posts, should be and generally are deleted.
posted by yhbc at 7:36 PM on May 6, 2002

Actually, yhbc, the most recent example was Stumpy McGee's MetaTalk post today, about adnan's grotesque anti-semitic remark. Sheauga made a very important point - about an horrifically violent comment by Stumpy towards a woman - and implicitly about MetaFilter's relative insouciance to all "bitch" remarks.

I agree that "bitch slapping" is apparently OK on supposedly PC MetaFilter and that this is incoherent. I would have liked to read the responses to Sheauga.

Hence the appeal for frozen or closed threads; rather than deleted ones.

When I checked back I saw a 30+ comments header, but the thread had been deleted. As Stumpy had complained about prejudices against short men and was now complaining about Adnan's "ugly Israeli women" comment; I thought sheauga's point was particularly apt. But where were the other twenty comments? I'm almost sure some interesting comments were lost.

I'd have loved to have read them. As it is, I have no idea. How many times have we had to ask other people to summarize deleted threads so that we know what's being discussed? The "Move Along" message is very frustrating, no?

The Zombo thread I actually read - and I thought it was worth preserving, because of the way it illustrated MetaFilter riddles. Yes, it was old. But no, it had never been the main link. And the fact that Moz started a MeTa thread about it should have been enough to make you want to at least read the deleted thread...
posted by MiguelCardoso at 7:54 PM on May 6, 2002

Well, unfortunately, Stumpy's thread probably did need to be deleted, just for the reasons I outlined above. It was a double - and even if he didn't initially mean it to be, it quickly became malicious and inappropriate, largely through his own doing.
posted by yhbc at 8:09 PM on May 6, 2002

Lately, reading Metatalk has been like watching an old Twilight Zone episode. Perhaps we are all toys in Matt's toy box:

three thousand "improbable entities stuck together into a pit of darkness. No logic, no reason, no explanation; just a prolonged nightmare in which fear, loneliness and the unexplainable walk hand in hand through the shadows"


posted by vacapinta at 8:12 PM on May 6, 2002

I think a little part of Matt dies every time he has to delete a stupid thread. I think a little part of him dies when he spots a thread full of hateful or ignorant geek spittle, a blight on the website... I'm sure there must be days when he can hardly face logging on to see what a mess people have left for him to clean up. I wonder how many times he ends up saying "Shit, what now?" rather than something more positive.

Considering we've already established that the retention rate for anything here is 7 days or less, whether the thing is deleted sooner or later, what difference does it really make? And if you think keeping it around for posterity is the reason, well -- if it's shitty enough to merit closing or deleting, it's probably not worth saving for the ages.
posted by crunchland at 8:13 PM on May 6, 2002

And as for Stumpy McGee's thread and the 20 messages you missed, based on the way it was going, 15 of them were from Stumpy, so I wouldn't shed a tear for the loss of them if I were you.
posted by crunchland at 8:18 PM on May 6, 2002

OK, crunchland, a compromise: close shitty threads but leave them available-for-reading for 7 days, so we know what we're talking about. Or not missing. Then delete them forever. I agree there's no reason to preserve them; i.e. to be honest, I hadn't thought about that...

And yeah, I can't pretend any curiosity as far as Stumpy's comments are concerned - but how do I know someone didn't react intelligently to them, as xena in the short-guy post and sheauga in today's MeTa thread? In any case, I have to rely on you. How else could I know?
posted by MiguelCardoso at 8:22 PM on May 6, 2002

A compromise?

I think you're under the mistaken impression, Miguel, that the making of management decisions of Metafilter is some kind of democratic process. I think the best compromise is for Matt to do whatever works best for him, and for the rest of us to butt out.
posted by crunchland at 8:33 PM on May 6, 2002

"Sheauga made a very important point - about an horrifically violent comment by Stumpy towards a woman - and implicitly about MetaFilter's relative insouciance to all "bitch" remarks."

Miguel, did you even read the thread in which I posted that joke (which I myself admit to be violent)? I didn't know that adnan was male at that time - I wrote that comment in reaction to his idiocy. Don't take it out of context.

"I agree that "bitch slapping" is apparently OK on supposedly PC MetaFilter and that this is incoherent. I would have liked to read the responses to Sheauga."

Please read the following reply.
posted by Stumpy McGee at 8:41 PM on May 6, 2002

Self policing mean anything anymore, crunchland, it is a tagline right?
posted by bittennails at 8:42 PM on May 6, 2002

Nice to see Stumpy and some others revive the conversations from the deleted threads here. Does that bring a few of your bits back to life, Miguel?
posted by rcade at 8:49 PM on May 6, 2002

"And as for Stumpy McGee's thread and the 20 messages you missed..."

Actually, there were more than 20 responses, 24 or so, when the thread was deleted.

"... based on the way it was going, 15 of them were from Stumpy ... "

That's not true at all. Only ten of the messages were from me.

"... so I wouldn't shed a tear for the loss of them if I were you."

Why are you so mean to me?
posted by Stumpy McGee at 8:53 PM on May 6, 2002

I delete things that are a blight on the site. I imagine what the site would look like to someone hitting it for the first time, and remove things that would give me a negative view of the site. The zembo site was all editorial talk about whether or not Cam's comment was uncalled for, and there weren't any posts talking about the site itself.

Miguel, anything else you can think of? I think the site is better off whenever a post is deleted, otherwise I would never delete a post. Keeping the quality of the site high is the only reason I do anything here.
posted by mathowie at 8:56 PM on May 6, 2002

"Nice to see Stumpy"

Nice to see you too, my friend.
posted by Stumpy McGee at 8:57 PM on May 6, 2002

Self policing mean anything anymore, crunchland...?

I guess it's a clever slogan, but it's never really been accurate.
posted by crunchland at 9:16 PM on May 6, 2002

"As Stumpy had complained about prejudices against short men and was now complaining about Adnan's "ugly Israeli women" comment; I thought sheauga's point was particularly apt."

What are you talking about? I never complained about anything. I have my own ways of dealing with the written word, so please stop trying to psychoanalyze me. And the Iroquois raccoon's point made no sense - he took my words out of context.
posted by Stumpy McGee at 9:17 PM on May 6, 2002

For chrissakes, put a sock in it Stumpy. Why does every thread have to be about you? If someone mentions you by name, just let it go. If you're going to respond to everything everyone ever says about you, it's going to be a bumpy ride here. This thread is about Miguel's heart dying every time I commit an act of administration on the site, and I'd like to know exactly what he means, because I don't quite understand where he is coming from.
posted by mathowie at 9:32 PM on May 6, 2002

Miguel, do you never have anyone post anything objectionable on your commenting at your site? What would you do if someone did - just leave the post there for everyone else to read? Or would you "dignify it with deletion" so as to present your site to others the way you want it to be seen? Because I think that's all Matt is trying to do. I don't find it frustrating in the least. When I come across a "move along" message, I move along.
posted by iconomy at 10:00 PM on May 6, 2002

::grumbles::

a part of you dies, Miguel? spare us the soap opera...

I admit it probably has to do with my personal experience of neo-fascist censorship in Portugal

You're now making the pseudo-connection to fascism with Matt's deletions?

I have a question, Miguel...if you honestly have a great deal of respect for Matt and his site, why do you still comment in the cult threads? Why, after he specifically mentioned his mild animosity with them as they waste system resources, would you disregard his words?

I've given this minimal thought, but seriously, you do a great disservice to those you stand behind you Miguel, because your comments are simply lip-service to a man and a community who, apparently, bring you great joy.
posted by BlueTrain at 10:12 PM on May 6, 2002

Methinks Miguel is stirring it again.
posted by Lynsey at 10:35 PM on May 6, 2002

The threads that are deleted are deleted usually because they are not going anywhere (unless the link has already been posted before). The 'deleted threads' that arent getting anywhere, eat up not just system resources, they also eat up our time. Each of us only have so much bandwidth that gets dispersed over so many different threads. It uses up time that could have been better spent on another more interesting thread. It REALLY helps us!

Also, I suspect that the implied threat of deletion itself acts as a deterrant against posting of juvenile links and comments.

Deleted thread has nothing to do with "freedom of expression" and everything to do with quality control. Censorship has to do with intent, not action. When you burn your own books in your own backyard, that is not censorship. It sounded very poetic and all, but much as I love your links, that was sheer hyperbole!


posted by justlooking at 10:58 PM on May 6, 2002

Matt: I imagine what the site would look like to someone hitting it for the first time, and remove things that would give me a negative view of the site.

Dammit, I keep forgetting this, when I should remember how baffling private jokes, hermetic chatter, random name-calling, feud reproduction and navel-gazing were when I first started reading MetaFilter. I once criticized this "outside world" perspective because I hadn't yet understood how everything that's great about MetaFilter is indeed instantly perceptible from without. I realize this is more like a public forum than a private club and all the better for it.

BlueTrain: apart from one farewell remark, I haven't commented on any of the cult threads since Matt and others explained what a waste of resources they were. And of course there was no pseudo-connection between neo-fascism and MetaFilter. It's just that having lived through it I'm very sensitive about freedom and so my personal experience might colour my reaction - i.e. make me pathologically touchy - to what might be simple administrative decisions.

I still think, though, that self-policing is more effective and that the suggestions offered in this thread - closing threads as opposed to deleting them, so that interested users can see what all the fuss is about and understand the rationale behind deletions - are worth talking about.

Though, once again, the "outside world" perspective is pretty persuasive. Readers and lurkers would think we were all mad or obsessed with each other or something. Perish the thought!

[As for being melodramatic, well that's just the way I'm made and can't be helped]
posted by MiguelCardoso at 4:13 AM on May 7, 2002

but I feel a bit of me dies every time a thread is deleted on MetaFilter
well, stop that! the stench is becoming palpable.
posted by quonsar at 5:36 AM on May 7, 2002

I still think, though, that self-policing is more effective

If self-policing were actually effective Miguel, your account would've gone dead within 24 hours of your first comment.

And I'm not saying that it should've, or that that would've been a good thing for the site (and I'm not saying that it wouldn't have been), I'm just saying that self-policing obviously doesn't work. The fact that you're around to post is evidence of that.
posted by cCranium at 6:03 AM on May 7, 2002

I think the site is better off whenever a post is deleted, otherwise I would never delete a post. Keeping the quality of the site high is the only reason I do anything here.

On the community weblog that I designed and administer, one of the first administration tools that I included was for the deletion of threads and posts. Why?

- It keeps pages clean.
- People will double post, no matter what you do to stop them.
- If someone posts something that needs to be removed, it can be cleaned up immediately.
- There is no good reason why someone should make a mess in my community and I should not be able to take care of it. If someone sprays graffitti on a house, the homeowners don't leave it for posterity, do they?

Frankly, it doesn't surprise me when any administrator chooses to delete a thread or post. No matter how hard you try to explain to people what good behavior within a community is, there are always a select few who don't get it, and force the admin to exercise authority.
posted by iceberg273 at 6:39 AM on May 7, 2002

I'm just saying that self-policing obviously doesn't work

Sure it bloody-well does, cC. Not perfectly, of course, but what works perfectly? If you define self-policing as the shared responsibility of all members of a community to do their damnedest (when they're so inclined and able) to encourage the behaviours that they believe are appropriate to the community of which they are a part, and discourage the behaviours they believe destructive, I think MeFi is a fine example of 'self-policing' as effective community-administration policy.

'course that's just me. But even taking into account the chicken-little take on Metafilter as it is today that some hold, I think that self-policing, buttressed as it is by Matt's ever-present and firm hand, has kept this place from disintegrating the way that many have predicted it would. There is noise, darn tootin', but there's still enough signal to keep hundreds, if not thousands, of us coming back daily...

posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 6:50 AM on May 7, 2002

(By which I mean to say, delete away, Matt. Delete good threads at random too, just to keep people on their toes! Why the hell not?)
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 7:01 AM on May 7, 2002

If you define self-policing as the shared responsibility of all members of a community to do their damnedest (when they're so inclined and able) to encourage the behaviours that they believe are appropriate to the community of which they are a part, and discourage the behaviours they believe destructive, I think MeFi is a fine example of 'self-policing' as effective community-administration policy.

But that's not how I define self-policing, Stav. I define self-policing as all members exhibiting the behaviours that are appropriate to the community of which they are a part.

Discouragment should be unnecessary if self-policing is effective, because people are policing their behaviour themselves.

If self-policing is effective -- and I don't think it is anywhere, not just here -- then Matt wouldn't have to delete or even freeze threads, because everyone would understand what everyone else wants and there wouldn't be a discussion about appropriateness.

But that's not the case. That's not possible when hundreds or thousands of different people with different interests and different cultures and different everything else come together and try to communicate.

In those situations there needs to be a single entitity that determines appropriateness. In democratic countries that's theoretically the government acting on what they think the people want. In dictatorships that's one person whose word is law.

MetaFilter is a dictatorship. Matt's word is law. If people here work well together and more times than not post what the rest of the community want to see and are interested in -- and I agree that there is still signal, I'm here aren't I? -- then it's because Matt's a benevolent dictator.

What's being proposed in this thread is that Matt should stop buttressing the community with his hand, stop taking direct control in the pruning and cleaning up and presentation.

The argument for that proposal is that self-policing is a good enough tool to continue the high signal you refer to.

I say it's not enough, for that signal to continue we need Matt.
posted by cCranium at 7:18 AM on May 7, 2002

(My brain just went *boom* because I've always understood the 'self' in 'self-policing' as meaning the community as a whole, rather than each individual here. Ignoring, unfairly, all the other stuff cC talked about above, I'm genuinely curious if my understanding of that word is the way most other folks here have understood it, or if I've been off in stavro-space all this time...honestly, and pedantically perhaps, I think it's a key (well, for me at least) to this and other discussions we've had about MeFi and communities in general!)
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 7:25 AM on May 7, 2002

as well as my libertarian views on freedom of expression

Also, your freedom of expression ends when your packet touches Matt's server. Try excercising your libertarian views on his freedom of ownership.
posted by cCranium at 7:34 AM on May 7, 2002

no, self-policing is understood by me also to be collective, stav. "policing" is something you do to someone else. You don't "police" yourself, you just exercise will, tempered by judgment, experience, group norms, etc. (hopefully)
posted by luser at 7:36 AM on May 7, 2002

Metafilter: your freedom of expression ends when your packet touches Matt's server.
posted by iceberg273 at 7:39 AM on May 7, 2002

Keep your hands off my packet, Growler-boy!
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 7:40 AM on May 7, 2002

Mommy, the packet touched me in a BAD PLACE.
posted by darukaru at 7:44 AM on May 7, 2002

Also, your freedom of expression ends when your packet touches Matt's server. Try excercising your libertarian views on his freedom of ownership.

Then what does this [All posts are © their original authors.] mean?
posted by bittennails at 7:45 AM on May 7, 2002

When you're policing other people, you're policing. When you're self-policing, you're policing yourself.

I don't think that invalidates the self-as-community definition, it's just a different definition.

You don't "police" yourself, you just exercise will, tempered by judgment, experience, group norms, etc. (hopefully)

Er, this is policing too. When MetaFilter self-polices, it's members police themselves and each other. When cCranium self-polices, he polices himself.

Again, I don't think either definition invalidates the other.

posted by cCranium at 7:47 AM on May 7, 2002

Then what does this [All posts are © their original authors.] mean?

You retain copyright, but Matt, as editor, retains the right not to include your writing in the final version of the volume.
posted by iceberg273 at 7:49 AM on May 7, 2002

Then what does this [All posts are © their original authors.] mean?

It means that Matt is acknowledging that the post is yours, not his, not that you have free reign to post whatever you like, regardless of community norms.
posted by cCranium at 7:49 AM on May 7, 2002

"MetaFilter is a dictatorship."

MetaFilter is a weblog.
posted by Stumpy McGee at 7:49 AM on May 7, 2002

"MetaFilter is a dictatorship."

MetaFilter is a weblog.

Right you are! I don't recall anyone saying the two are mutually exclusive.
posted by cCranium at 7:52 AM on May 7, 2002

Er, this is policing too. When MetaFilter self-polices, it's members police themselves and each other. When cCranium self-polices, he polices himself.

I would call Bullshit on that cC, but I'm Drunk™

*grin*

Seriously though (bad-ump dump, tish), I think it might be fruitful to define terms and that sorta thing, late in the thread as we all are.

(My dog I'm having a flashback to Philosophy 101. Nonetheless, plow on I will...)

If self-policing is as I defined it (civic responsibility), it means a very different thing for what we expect from responsible members of this or any other community, as opposed to what we might expect from the way you originally talked about it (self-control, personal responsibility).

I think it muddies the water to merge the two, as they're very different, and should be treated and discussed differently...
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 7:58 AM on May 7, 2002

Call me naive, but I always thought that "Self-Policing since 1999" had the same degree of moral imperative as "the plastic.com it's okay to like". In other words, the entire concept of "self-policing" is nothing more than a throw-away joke based on Matt's observation of what really does happen. To say, then, that there are actual rules and definitions involved in the concept is to take the joke a wee bit too far.
posted by yhbc at 8:00 AM on May 7, 2002

Q : "How many MeFites does it take to screw in a lightbulb?"

posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 8:04 AM on May 7, 2002

What?

Matt is the exact opposite of any definition of dictator - even the most benevolent - you can come up with. If he were to delete anything he thought was worthless, I fear we'd have about 10% of all posts and comments.

Apart from obvious and unpardonable excesses being deleted because they affect the community's freedom to express itself, MetaFilter is freedom itself.

Which is to say that quite a few people here would love Matt to be a dictator and MetaFilter to be a dictatorship where freedom of expression was severely limited. But that's their problem; not Matt's; not ours and certainly not MetaFilter's.
posted by MiguelCardoso at 8:05 AM on May 7, 2002

(Storm's a-comin', Jed.)

(Yup. Storm's a-comin'.)
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 8:09 AM on May 7, 2002

"Right you are! I don't recall anyone saying the two are mutually exclusive."

Interesting. MetaFilter should invade smaller, weaker weblogs.
posted by Stumpy McGee at 8:09 AM on May 7, 2002

I think it muddies the water to merge the two, as they're very different, and should be treated and discussed differently...

Does choosing either definition change the fact that Matt's direct hand is helpful to the community?

I would call Bullshit on that cC, but I'm Drunk™

How is that bullshit? "Policing your behaviour" is a perfectly valid turn of phrase, it's something we all do every day.

To say, then, that there are actual rules and definitions involved in the concept is to take the joke a wee bit too far.


yhbc speaks Truth.
posted by cCranium at 8:11 AM on May 7, 2002

Interesting. MetaFilter should invade smaller, weaker weblogs.

?

/me turns on mental killfile.

Matt is the exact opposite of any definition of dictator - even the most benevolent - you can come up with.

dictator

dic·ta·tor Pronunciation Key (dkttr, dk-t-)
n.

An absolute ruler.
A tyrant; a despot.
An ancient Roman magistrate appointed temporarily to deal with an immediate crisis or emergency.
One who dictates: These initials are those of the dictator of the letter.

Matt is the absolute ruler of MeFi. He doesn't excercise his power often, but he could very easily delete me or any other user. He has absolute power. He has absolute say. He gives us the freedom we have to say things because he values personal expression and that's why we all come here -- we like his rules.

Whether or not he uses his power does not change the fact that he has the power.
posted by cCranium at 8:15 AM on May 7, 2002

Does choosing either definition change the fact that Matt's direct hand is helpful to the community?

Not at all, not at all. But I sense that we wish to talk about different things, and that what would to all intents and purposes appear to be an exchange of views is merely an opportunity to repeat into the void what we each think, and that neither of us is much interested in what the other has to say, when it comes down to it, and that, yes, this is fractally self-similar to the larger environment in which we talk, and so proves it all a massive freaking waste of time.

My attempts at levity are dropping like bricks. Time for bed.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 8:18 AM on May 7, 2002

But I sense that we wish to talk about different things

I'm sorry, I wish to talk about whether or not Matt should continue deleting threads.

I thought that's what the thread was about?
posted by cCranium at 8:22 AM on May 7, 2002

You just keep on talkin' then, buddy. Enjoy.

I'm out.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 8:25 AM on May 7, 2002

cCranium, a few things.

- I take the word "self-policing" to mean the community as a whole. I've never heard anyone use the phrase to mean self in the individual sense, especially when applied to a community situation. When a term is used in the context of a community, the idea of self as an individual is gone, as the nature of community is described as a whole being. A community can be self-policing when others "police" threads and talk people out of bad behavior, so I don't have to. The slogan is a bit tongue in cheek, but also know that I don't do that much here. I delete a double post or two a day, skim the site hourly to see what is going on, but I don't have to do much more than that. Once in a while I email people about their behavior or discuss it in MetaTalk, but the community by and large is pretty much self-policing.

- As soon as someone busts out the dictionary definition of a word, an argument has descended into semantics, and an argument about semantics is about the biggest waste of energy I can imagine. In the grand scheme of communities, I would put myself as far as possible from the title dictator. You can argue semantics all you want, and who owns what, but I've participated in dozens of mailing lists and community sites, and I'm barely here, and while I'm here I rarely exert any force. I'm on mailing lists where the admin is ever present, telling people publicly that they are idiots when they ask a dumb question, and openly making an example out of bad behavior by banning people in blazes of glory. I'm barely here anymore, and in the continum of community, I'm more janitor than all-powerful dictator.

- I delete things that are obvious double posts, and things that are stupid or run horribly afoul of the guidelines. I'm not going to stop that, because the site is better with them removed. I'm not going to freeze threads because it is rare that a good thread goes bad and still stays good enough to keep. If a flame war erupts after a cerebral discussion about something, I rarely see it when it has just started, and could close the thread, and instead the thread (no matter how good it was) will be dominated by some dumb ending.

I feel bad about some deletes, but the site is better off for them being gone and it is rare when I have to do it, and rare when it is a contreversial call. I won't be changing my behavior on that anytime soon.
posted by mathowie at 8:50 AM on May 7, 2002

While I respect mathowie's right to run the server however he chooses, a feature that might alleviate all this, is an admin log. Basically a mini-log, where Matt just explains what he did and why. E.g.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I deleted the thread:
THIS IS ZOMBO.COM . WELCOME TO ZOMBO.COM. THE ONLY LIMIT IS YOURSELF.

Because it was unnecessary.
posted by mathowie at 9:35 PM PST on May 9
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I know a lot of times, I come back and wonder where a thread went. (poor Cliff Yablonski). It's just an idea.
posted by patrickje at 8:57 AM on May 7, 2002

I'm picturing Matt with a big old ring of keys on his belt now. Everyone knows that the janitor is the most important person in any organization.
posted by yhbc at 9:01 AM on May 7, 2002

Some people seem to really prefer quantity to quality.
posted by websavvy at 9:05 AM on May 7, 2002

(Storm's a-comin', Jed.)

Eh?

I take the word "self-policing" to mean the community as a whole.

The problem in this situation becomes that no one in the community except for matt has any real power; the worst we can do is call out, or write about it in our weblogs, were we so inclined. So the self-policing (as a community) stance becomes a method of attempting to control others using shame, guilt, or "peer pressure."
This works, sometimes. Miguel is a shining example of someone who realized that this is a community, that there were certain spoken and unspoken rules, et cetera. The sticky point comes in when Miguel "policed himself" into changing.
The internet is full of jerks who won't do that, and on whom our peer-to-peer community policing system will have no effect. People have to self-police (in the willpower, restraint sense) to make it work; equally as important, people have to police themselves in order to provide the illusion that community policing works in general.

As soon as someone busts out the dictionary definition of a word, an argument has descended into semantics, and an argument about semantics is about the biggest waste of energy I can imagine.

It needs to be said though. You may be a janitor, but you are the only one with power. You may not be a harsh mistress dictator, but any other word applied to it is just covering up the fact that you are Metafilter, as in "l'etat, ce moi." We may be a community, with our own dynamics and behaviors, but if I've learned anything from Dune, it's that "he who can destroy a thing, controls that thing." None of us can do that (though we're demonstrably capable of doing same to the signal/noise ratio).
posted by j.edwards at 9:22 AM on May 7, 2002

just frustration for not being able to read them

Clearly the real issue - I think Miguel is just lacking any mechanism of judging quality. Even bad posts are apparently good. This whole thread == 'Give me more to read'
posted by zzero at 9:36 AM on May 7, 2002

Matt, I'm sorry things descended into a battle of semantics. I tried to head it off, then swallowed the "You can't find a definition..." bait.

I should know better; sorry.
posted by cCranium at 9:37 AM on May 7, 2002

"I'm picturing Matt with a big old ring of keys on his belt now. Everyone knows that the janitor is the most important person in any organization."

"Oh, really? You guys think I'm just some untouchable peasant? Peon? Huh? Maybe so, but following a broom around after shitheads like you for the past eight years I've learned a couple of things. I look through your letters, I look through your lockers, I listen to your conversations. You don't know that but I do. I am the eyes and ears of this institution my friends...By the way, that clock's twenty minutes fast."

posted by mr_crash_davis at 9:57 AM on May 7, 2002

Why not create a deleted thread thread. Or link.
posted by ParisParamus at 10:11 AM on May 7, 2002

This discussion reminds me of the fairly recent discussion about the dross that appears at the ends of threads. Wasn't that discussion started by the same guy?

I think the upshot of both discussions is the same, to wit:

Bad stuff is bad; bad stuff really isn't good. No amount of verbosity will transform stuff from bad to good.

I hope that's not too complicated.
posted by anapestic at 11:25 AM on May 7, 2002

Thank you for that link, zzero. The mind reels. I somehow missed that gem the first time around.

I wonder if any of us have the slightest idea of how much time Matt spends cleaning up after us and answering complaining emails and deleting and editing and trying to explain the same things over and over and over and over and over again on MetaTalk. It gets me down, I wonder what it does to him. And some of us are rather more high maintenance than others.

I think of Matt's "Trial by Bunnyfire". I can only imagine the vast amounts of time Matt spent adding and deleting accounts, the countless back and forth emails, the daily comments and reprimands and lectures in MetaTalk, etc - just on her alone. The day before she deleted her weblog she posted that her husband had actually called Matt on his cellphone to talk about her. Can you possibly imagine that?? I was appalled. And of course Matt has never mentioned it here - what else hasn't he mentioned? What else is going on behind the scenes that we don't know about? And does he spend enough time answering our emails and catering to us and mopping up our messes and trying patiently to deal with our constant complaints?
posted by iconomy at 12:37 PM on May 7, 2002

What else is going on behind the scenes that we don't know about?

Think robotic oompah-loompahs. Naked, oily, robotic oompah-loompahs.

I think that's about all you need to know.
posted by Kafkaesque at 12:56 PM on May 7, 2002

deus ex machina
ala oily ompahs
i love this place


posted by clavdivs at 1:01 PM on May 7, 2002

Kaf is wrong, I've been behind the scenes and it's actually the underwear gnomes from South Park running things.
posted by jonmc at 2:21 PM on May 7, 2002

...but you see...Fes has the keys. and he wont give them up.
enter bugs and mugsy.

Mugsy: "aw right yovs guyz, up against that forrest green wall shee...we wants ta know whoz runnin dings, shea.

Bugs: "want me check the pockets?"

Mugsy: 'whatta ya mean rab-bit, they aint got nose pockets in there...shee."

Daffy: "oh brother." (frisks gnomes)
posted by clavdivs at 2:43 PM on May 7, 2002

:)
posted by clavdivs at 2:43 PM on May 7, 2002

The day before she deleted her weblog she posted that her husband had actually called Matt on his cellphone to talk about her. Can you possibly imagine that??

What a beating. I'd be tempted to accidentally delete the site and all of the backups after receiving a call like that.
posted by rcade at 2:52 PM on May 7, 2002

Oy. Screw the New York Times!
posted by crunchland at 3:21 PM on May 7, 2002

Isn't this bunnyfire's blog?
posted by Mid at 3:22 PM on May 7, 2002

(actually, it seems she's abandoned that one for a new one)
posted by modge at 3:34 PM on May 7, 2002

Omigodyouguys, I had just started feeling normal again, getting used to Metafilterlife without bunnyfire or any mention of her and you have to bring her up again? Gah!
posted by Lynsey at 3:52 PM on May 7, 2002

i know, i'm truly sorry. off to flog myself now...
posted by modge at 4:00 PM on May 7, 2002

Brings to light this waste of space (scroll way, way down). Seems someone was giving Miguel the business on this topic earlier.
(not that he doesn't deserve it - now that this thread has drifted away he's off the hook until it scrolls off the page, he feels like pushing a little further, and he starts another one)
posted by zzero at 4:00 PM on May 7, 2002

What else is going on behind the scenes that we don't know about?

Well, mhodge's link leads to a mention of 1835. Great use of matt's bandwidth.


posted by vacapinta at 4:02 PM on May 7, 2002

wow. 1835 has gotten worse than bad.

i could have sworn reading that the major 'cult-thread offenders' vowed to cool it after matt made it clear that it was frowned upon?
posted by modge at 4:20 PM on May 7, 2002

As one of the "cult thread offenders"(albiet a minor one) I'll cut it out. There are other places for tomfoolery. Sorry.
posted by jonmc at 4:50 PM on May 7, 2002

Naked, oily, robotic oompah-loompahs.

Taglines, they keep a pilin'.
posted by adampsyche at 4:56 PM on May 7, 2002

What ever happened to Mike TV?
posted by ParisParamus at 6:10 PM on May 7, 2002

Okay, 1835 is a waste of space. I thought it had it's own little inertia and it was fun, but reading it back, yeah, it is an incredibly useless pile of shit.
I'll cool it.
posted by dong_resin at 6:27 PM on May 7, 2002

So how many cult threads are there?
posted by ParisParamus at 6:43 PM on May 7, 2002

Regarding the execrable end that 1835 ground down to, a new tagline occurs to me: Metafilter - the restroom wall of the internet.
posted by Lynsey at 7:29 PM on May 7, 2002

I think of Matt's "Trial by Bunnyfire".

hmm...obviously I've missed something...

::: takes a deep breath of air and smiles for the first time in a week :::
posted by rushmc at 7:33 PM on May 7, 2002

I've been searching through the archives of metatalk, looking for the cult thread where cult thread enthusiasts have all agreed to renounce their participation in cult threads as frequently as possible, despite their continued and ongoing participation, (in a conspiritorial, secret-society kind of way...)

I haven't found that thread yet, but I know it must exist!
posted by crunchland at 8:19 PM on May 7, 2002

Okay, I didn't even know that 1835 was still going on.

* Nobody tells me anything! *

But, as another cult thread afficianado, I will say, again, that they should be closed. CLOSED. Shut-off-ski. I have, and do hereby in the face of all that is holy, renounce my participation in them.

Well, dandy, you say, there will be more. Yep. Undoubtedly. Right up until humans evolve beyond their ability to take advantage of whatever they see before them. Take a look at 9622, for chrissakes! (well, on second thought, don't - loading it up really is a terrible strain on the server) - it's still going on, weeks after the worst offenders voluntarily departed!

Unfortunately, the only real solution is in programming. If mathowie wants the cult threads gone, it will (unfortunately for him, and for the rest of us as representatives of the human race) be necessary to set an upper limit on thread length, after which, no posts are allowed. The limit need not be known to anybody but Matt, and in fact may be flexible, but otherwise there will ALWAYS be drains on the precious bandwidth.

Sorry, that's just human nature.



posted by yhbc at 9:34 PM on May 7, 2002

Well, while I didn't renounce cult threads utterly with a solemn promise never to return, I did imply that I was done with them. Going back to 1835 was duplictious.

What can I tell you. Sometimes it's fun to be frounded upon. A couple of bad jokes and putt-ons snowballed into wastefull tripe. Gave me a nice little warm feeling at work.
Reading it back here in one go, I recognize it as a pointless waste of resources, and so, with no ambiguity whatsoever, say that I will now avoid dead thread end babble utterly.
posted by dong_resin at 9:44 PM on May 7, 2002

I don't mean to get off on a rant here, but... Look, I'll be honest, the only reason us (we? whatever, I'm not a grammatician) monkeys at 9622 took to other pastures is because we finally realized that our hijinx was detrimental to other mefi users.

unfortunately, I don't think that the "cult" thread phenom will ever die out completely. there will be a new group thread that certain people latch onto and continue shennanigans in. It may be an existing thread or one that gets posted in the next year or so, it's just part of the game. In other words, closing those threads now will not really solve the issue.

This is a large community, certain people will be drawn to different things, that's one of the beauties of it. I think Matt doesn't want to discourage it that much, because he may be seen as a buzzkill (ok, not so much as the I'm really trying to make which I'll get to eventually) and he knows that as a sort of subculture is formed within a thread, it will spawn off to a new site or whatever, much like the bigger cult threads have. (I will not link them, I'm assuming anyone who's reading this already knows what I'm talking about).

I'm not defending my part, or anyone else's for that matter, but maybe, just maybe, matt should speak up (using email or otherwise) when they seem to be getting under the server's skin.

Or, I could be wrong. That's just my opinion.
(this may be my longest post ever, you'd think it would have more substance, oh well)
posted by tj at 10:43 PM on May 7, 2002

... closing those threads now will not really solve the issue.

Closing all threads after they are either one or two weeks old would solve the issue. Keeping those cult threads around degrades the performance because a small group of people are requesting the same large file over and over just to see the last couple messages in it. As part of the continuing campaign to crush the spirit of all people who are using this place as an IRC channel, we ought to shut down all old threads so they have nowhere to regroup. Make them adopt old Slashdot threads and unpopular LiveJournal entries.
posted by rcade at 6:44 AM on May 8, 2002

Also these so-called "cult threads," as and if they become more predominant, will change the nature of Metafilter as it is represented. One's memory of a perfectly good and interesting thread will NOT be what is preserved, and NOT be what people judge the site by in hindsight. Imagine if a significant proportion of threads were "doctored up" ex post facto to display the sort of stupid, brain-dead, meaningless tripe appended to 1835. Anyone examining Metafilter a year from now, or ten, or more, would conclude that it was just another iteration of the more inane spaces of Usenet or AOL chat. Is this really what we want, those of us who value and respect what we have here?
posted by rushmc at 7:15 AM on May 8, 2002

Well, with a few noteworthy exceptions, I think it's pretty presumptuous to assume people will give a royal rat's ass about what we write here a year or more down the road. I mean, of all the volumes that have been written on the Usenet in the last 15 years, only a relative handful of messages have any significance or meaning now.
posted by crunchland at 7:30 AM on May 8, 2002

was the chat that extensive to pull noticable resources? (honest question) I've seen a few, done a couple but not really requesting pages over and over.(perhaps a few?) I understand, um, server load, the mechanics of it. is this akin to IRC back chat? a few markings, a good example is rodiis "I claim", adds does not detract. so moderation, even rarity of breaking...rules is tolerated. but when said rules are broken as to cause resources to be drained, when noones really reading (cult thread indeed) is by any rational standards not good. hence measure taken as evident by rcades idea of simply closing the threads after a more then reasonable period.
shit...it is in the rules. this back chat?
well if not, if his inchoateness here can think it through, steps should be taken. i agree with rushmc, the actual thread would be 'preserved' incorrectly.
(would closing threads save on resources?)
posted by clavdivs at 10:03 AM on May 8, 2002

Well, with a few noteworthy exceptions, I think it's pretty presumptuous to assume people will give a royal rat's ass about what we write here a year or more down the road.

History suggests otherwise. Archaeologists make a living digging through people's garbage dumps; sociologists, historians, and many others, through people's mental dumps.
posted by rushmc at 5:17 PM on May 8, 2002

1. A.J. Liebling is correct in saying that, "Freedom
of the press is reserved for those who own one".
2. However MeFi reached the "tipping point" when it is perceived by the public as a public Forum.
3. I admire "Matt" for his savy, but he wouldn't do what he does if he wouldn't get a lot out of it, ergo I don't feel grateful to, or sorry for him.
4. Miguel comes accross as an intelligently inquisitive person, with ideas of his own while respecting others'.
5. His critics in this thread come on with a lynch-mob mentality. All Haiku and Pancake. No reasoning.
6. There are some MeFi fundamentalists here whose main contribution is to thought-police the site, demanding removal of what they disapprove, without taking on the "offending" post and refute its form, style, or content with argument.
7. I still don't understand why my post of this picture was deleted. It is a real major document of our time worthy of analysis, whether on the basis of psychology, politicians, body language of politicians (particularly in light of Mussolini and Hitler's), photography as document of reality or dramatization, the realationship between the photographer and its subject, different cultural perceptions of the imagery of evil, or hero-worship, and so on.

posted by semmi at 8:28 PM on May 8, 2002

I agree with your points 1-6, semmi. As for #7, I think if you had raised any of those issues in your post and tied them to the photo, that it might not have been deleted (you probably would have benefitted from some supporting links, as well).
posted by rushmc at 9:27 PM on May 8, 2002

http://antennaradio.com/drylongso/playlist_2frame.htm
posted by y2karl at 10:12 PM on May 8, 2002

! did not mean to post that! Oops. Please delete it, Matt.

Um, on the topic at hand:

I am of no fixed opinion in regards to this matter.
posted by y2karl at 10:14 PM on May 8, 2002

2. However MeFi reached the "tipping point" when it is perceived by the public as a public Forum.

No one has yet to state, for a certainty, that MeFi has EVER reached its tipping point, if one for the site even exists.

3. I admire "Matt" for his savy, but he wouldn't do what he does if he wouldn't get a lot out of it, ergo I don't feel grateful to, or sorry for him.

So?

5. His critics in this thread come on with a lynch-mob mentality. All Haiku and Pancake. No reasoning.

That's ridiculous, but then again, most ignorance is willful, right?
posted by BlueTrain at 10:18 PM on May 8, 2002

Miguel comes accross as an intelligently inquisitive person, with ideas of his own while respecting others'

I don't buy that last part. This thread is the nth reposting of "I know we've discussed this before, and I already know the answer, but do we really have to restrain ourselves from posting anything, anytime we want? Really? Are you sure??
posted by zzero at 4:51 AM on May 9, 2002

semmi chill. until you insult matt. dont assume. until you talk to him dont assume until you tasted a cookie or recieved a thanks for something dont assume...
the only criteia for matts 'censorship' is the stuff in the rules, whislt not hammurabis codex, they have the room for expansion and contraction, and can be bent.
my matt examples are from outside
but i have insulted him. either he saw it
never saw it, never would see it.
integrity with ones site is ownership and control and
over asses like me
and im still here
what more proof do you want.
the beauty is. i can be afforded the luxery of being ignored
while you cannot. at least by me.
(sorry for the meme but someone has to try)
Leibling forgot the people can break the presses, steal or connive. ownership is king. responsibility is to the people. this is evident by 'being'.(mefis still here right)
i see no matt edict. he has been nothing but benevolent.
knowledge is not power. how you use it is.
matt and his crew are zen-baby
pureists, and more labels at the feet of our webmaster?
gez, enjoy the ride watch it grow. cause this is it. you guys are in the slot man.

flash in the pan HA, you'll owe a box of 'Cristos Miguel:)
and semmi
pt.7 is this picture proof of something. it is open to debate

Arafat: "Time to get serious"

what can you say..
posted by clavdivs at 9:07 AM on May 9, 2002

Boy, clavdivs, now you're talkin' sense.

Not.
posted by y2karl at 4:52 PM on May 9, 2002

Ah...clav...yeah...well....but hold...get me needle...inhale...then chat....hmmm....ahhhhh....
you're incoherent bro....either way...that I can say...sheeeeet..
posted by semmi at 4:53 PM on May 9, 2002

a/s/l?
posted by mlang at 5:26 PM on May 9, 2002

1. 'A.J. Liebling is correct in saying that, "Freedom
of the press is reserved for those who own one".'

'correct?' linking the counter-examples would waste my time.

2. 'However MeFi reached the "tipping point" when it is perceived by the public as a public Forum.'
this your viewpoint or do you have insider knowledge concerning the viewing publics reading habits

3. 'I admire "Matt" for his savy'
-so do i, for the fact that i could insult his post and it just glides on by him with no evident reprecussions like banning etc.

4. 'Miguel comes accross as an intelligently inquisitive person, with ideas of his own while respecting others'.

really?, i never noticed.

5. "His critics in this thread come on with a lynch-mob mentality. All Haiku and Pancake. No reasoning"

talk about lynch mobbing...dude.

6."There are some MeFi fundamentalists here whose main contribution is to thought-police the site" maybe because they care, like you, dont want some inchoate dink mussing up the sheen.

7. I still don't understand why my post of this picture was deleted.- i'll let that decision speak for itself


" did not mean to post that! Oops. Please delete it, Matt."
enough said on that big guns.

anyone else?

posted by clavdivs at 5:30 PM on May 9, 2002

"A countless number of people, among themselves similar and equal, who are constantly busying themselves with themselves to acquire the small and trivial pleasures with which they fill up their lives. Each sticks to his own and is mostly indifferent to the fates of all the others."

- Alexis de Tocqueville, on Americans, in De la démocratie en Amèrique, 1840

posted by semmi at 7:04 PM on May 9, 2002

did i tell you about the time de Tocqueville stayed in Flint Mi. Its true, he was attacked by a bear...again true. He found the people...rugid yet charming (all 6 of them)
he saw a vast world with a small amount of people in it. But he came to love those people. for all the faults they stood up to the world.

I'm an ass semmi, few would debate that. but let us drop this. most ride over what i say so...if you want to hear regret for that post well...thats my business. (i have none) i do have regret for stirring shit which i do-do. uh hem. I love your response. it was truly thought out and one can be flattered even while being slapped. one thing ive thought about MeFi is that no one person can ever control the discourse with-in. (except Matt)

posted by clavdivs at 8:22 PM on May 9, 2002

The Fifth Element of Style
Strunk & clavdivs 02

1 Omit random words OMIT RANDOM WORDS!
2 Use Etruscan syntax where possible - Chechnyan where not
3 words random
4 Avoid punctuation
5 Name semi-obscure historical figure insert, germane or not
6 Insert random words
posted by y2karl at 2:33 AM on May 10, 2002

Karl, I think we've gotten the idea that you think clav's style is unique, noteworthy and good fodder for comic jibes. This is, what, your thousandth post to that effect? Can we move on?
posted by rodii at 4:51 AM on May 10, 2002

"a/s/l?"

81/male/The Vatican
posted by Stumpy McGee at 4:53 AM on May 10, 2002

so, this is the new new new cult thread, right?

we've even got rodii joining in the banter this time, with a chatty comment to y2karl that would most appropriately be sent over email (clavdivs is a big boy; he can take care of himself).

so, what kind of foods do you folks generally eat while masturbating?
posted by mlang at 6:08 AM on May 10, 2002

(that's the point i was trying to make with my a/s/l check.)
posted by mlang at 6:08 AM on May 10, 2002

/set mode #innaneblather +oooooooo mlang
posted by Mid at 6:21 AM on May 10, 2002

and you wanna talk resource issues? yes, loading a cult thread consumes more resources than loading a shorter thread does... but that effect is canceled out by the low number of requests made each month for cult threads.

total cult thread requests can't be more than two or three hundred per month. contrast that with the thousands (or maybe even tens of thousands) of requests per month for the israel/palestine threads — and the metatalk threads complaining about the israel/palestine threads.

now, neither type of thread conforms to the expressed purpose of the site (sharing and discussing interesting links), but at least the cult threads are community-builders, developing friendships which may make the site stronger in the long run. israel/palestine threads, conversely, contribute nothing and, if anything, serve to divide the community, rather than strengthen it.
posted by mlang at 6:26 AM on May 10, 2002

or... if you really want to cut down on bandwidth and server useage, let's talk about the more than 900,000 successful requests per month for the index page.

would you folks like to ban lurkers? i mean, after all, they're not really contributing anything to the site, are they?
posted by mlang at 6:30 AM on May 10, 2002

Seriously, the "thread end" garbage almost always seems to start after one of clav's "comments." It's like a cue. Call it "style" if you want, but there is something about a string of random gibberish that really derails a conversation.
posted by Mid at 6:31 AM on May 10, 2002

Clav types neither random, nor gibberish, my friend.
Much like Miles Davis floating scales only tangently, yet inexorably linked to the tonic note, The Mighty Clav types around the subject, but very much on target.
Keep reading, you'll see it.
Or, maybe you won't.

Or, as a wiser person than myself put it, Damnant Quod Non Intelligunt.
posted by dong_resin at 6:48 AM on May 10, 2002

1. Thank god you got that out there mlang. I've been dying to say that for days now, in fact composing posts in that precious space right before sleep. The truly most pathetic thing is this absolute bullshit. It's like a group of little kids yelling "sssshhhhh" really loudly at each other. Especially the "miguel you talk too much"; and then the redirection to said cult thread so that everyone hit the server intensive thread.

2. Mid: congratulations, you are the thread end gibberish now. All of this pointless, useless whining. If you can't, or won't read clavdivs posts then don't. Stop talking about him. Maybe he's brilliant, maybe he's a moron. Just stop correcting his grammer, and saying "wow, clavdivs, Your non-conformity makes me strangely uncomfortable." I can read what he writes, and I look forward to reading it.
posted by goneill at 7:29 AM on May 10, 2002

(Um, I have never posted anything about clav before.)
posted by Mid at 8:00 AM on May 10, 2002

(that's the point i was trying to make with my a/s/l check.)

Jokes are usually funniest when they have to be explained. Thanks, I eventually had a great laugh.

and you wanna talk resource issues? yes, loading a cult thread consumes more resources than loading a shorter thread does... but that effect is canceled out by the low number of requests made each month for cult threads.

Memo to self: Loading a cult thread "cancels out," uh, loading a shorter cult thread, because not many people load them. Or something. Got it!

now, neither type of thread conforms to the expressed purpose of the site (sharing and discussing interesting links), but at least the cult threads are community-builders

Hey, if it feels good, do it, you know? It's your site! All yours!
posted by Skot at 8:42 AM on May 10, 2002

I'll also add: pointless chatty "thread end" comments tax the server, especially when people are constantly reloading it. The big "cult" threads are MetaFilter are an extreme waste of resources. Everyone knows that every page request comes direct from the database, right? If anyone loads the original 1142 metafilter thread, it is fetching over a thousand comments from the database to show you, denying others from accessing the database and getting "server too busy" error messages. And yes, I know I need to do something to remedy the situation, but it is one of those things you can never plan for. I never imagined people would post several times a day to something that was two years old. - mathowie

mlang, goneill...either you two are completely oblivious, or completely irreverent. I really don't give a shit how you can rationalize your chat. The bottom line is nothing you say really matters. None of your reasons matter. Why? Because it's already been stated, quite clearly, that the owner of this site does not like cult threads and pointless chatter.

but at least the cult threads are community-builders, developing friendships which may make the site stronger in the long run.

That's bullshit because only 15-30 posters actually post in the cult threads. So what we have is a little clique of MeFi members who waste resources together. And many poeple have suggested creating a new site expressly for chatting. I'm sure Matt would even let you link it to MeTa or get a text-ad.

What do I know...go on and continue filling up old threads with your crap. Hell, it's not my server. It's not my site. It's some dude with no job and a shitload of patience who has to deal with this.
posted by BlueTrain at 8:52 AM on May 10, 2002

YES!! Thank GOD someone finally stood up to say "I want it, so it's good! The rest of you are like little kids!!!!!"

That FPP was a DP, where are the PSJs?????

OMG Assless pants LOL!!!!1 KTHXBI!
posted by zzero at 9:03 AM on May 10, 2002

a couple of days ago i posted a link to a picture in a thread. and perhaps that seemed pointless, or chatty; but i thought of some words matt had written. i think it's fine to be a bit chatty every now and then. (although matt's post was much more pointed than mine.)

mlang, and goneill, i've seen you and some others take some cult threads a little too extremely lately. you both must use instant messaging, right? why branch out into metafilter? i don't know if matt has contacted anyone lately about this kind of thing, but i know he's pretty laid back.
posted by moz at 9:04 AM on May 10, 2002

mlang...I thought of several responses to you, but I think "fuck off" expresses my feelings most succinctly at this point.
posted by rodii at 9:53 AM on May 10, 2002

so... in response to my well-reasoned post, we have personal attacks and/or mockery (and little else) from mid, skot, zzero, and rodii. seeing as they have nothing more to say, i suppose that means that the content of my post was unimpeachable.

bluetrain and moz raise some issues that i would be happy to answer — right after i eat my lunch. i do not deny that things got out of hand and needed to be reigned back in; maybe those calling for an abrupt end to all cult threads are even correct. but the stink of piety in here just got to be too much to handle. unfortunately, this may amount simply to a case of you're wrong. no, you're wrong. oh well, plus ça change...
posted by mlang at 10:19 AM on May 10, 2002

so... in response to my well-reasoned post, we have personal attacks and/or mockery (and little else) from mid, skot, zzero, and rodii.

Actually, rodii's "fuck off" is not really a personal attack: it was more of a dismissal. A personal attack would have been if he had known some detail about your personal life and used it to attack your position. If, for example, he had brought up the fact that the only person willing to back up your position is your girlfriend. That would have been a personal attack, though not a particularly vicious one.

The point is that Matt has specifically stated that the cult threads tax the server and why. Your "well-reasoned post" comes down to "nuh-uh, and I'm going to do what I like anyway."
posted by anapestic at 10:41 AM on May 10, 2002

Your well-reasoned post didn't make any sense - see confusion above. How is loading of threads cancelled out by loading of threads?
Anyway, I was responding more to goneill's clever "You're pathetic! congratulations!" blabber above - she just happened to be cheerleading you at the time.
posted by zzero at 10:44 AM on May 10, 2002

in response to my well-reasoned post . . . i suppose that means that the content of my post was unimpeachable.

Let's examine the validity of this statement.

and you wanna talk resource issues? yes, loading a cult thread consumes more resources than loading a shorter thread does... but that effect is canceled out by the low number of requests made each month for cult threads.

This assumes that the total number of posts is a zero sum game. However, this is not true. What is actually happening is the loading of cult threads in addition to the regular load on the server. This requires a db hit for every comment loaded (assuming that Matt's design is similar to community bboard/weblogs that I've designed) in addition to all of the db hits for regular threads that conform to the stated goal of this website. Thus, this statement is incorrect: there is no effect that is "cancelled out", because the two behaviors (regular threads and cult threads) are additive with respect to server load.

total cult thread requests can't be more than two or three hundred per month. contrast that with the thousands (or maybe even tens of thousands) of requests per month for the israel/palestine threads — and the metatalk threads complaining about the israel/palestine threads.

This statement seems unlikely. Evidence? On April 1, the metafilter site was changed over the met4filter.org. That meant that hits on metafilter were referred from met4filter.org and thus show up on the April logs. On the one day that met4filter.org was up, there were 145 hits on the active cult thread 9622. Thus, it is almost certain that cult thread loads are in the range of several hundred per day, especially given the metastisizing cancer that is the cult thread.

The contrast with the palestinian/israeli threads is not apt because these threads are at least nominally conforming to a stated goal of this website, while cult threads are/were not (see the Mathowie quote by BlueTrain above and your statement quoted below).

now, neither type of thread conforms to the expressed purpose of the site (sharing and discussing interesting links), but at least the cult threads are community-builders, developing friendships which may make the site stronger in the long run. israel/palestine threads, conversely, contribute nothing and, if anything, serve to divide the community, rather than strengthen it.

Actually, the fact that this thread is currently well over 100 comments indicates that cult threads are at least as divisive as israel/palestine threads. What's neat is that we can do something about the former.
posted by iceberg273 at 10:56 AM on May 10, 2002

bluetrain and moz raise some issues that i would be happy to answer — right after i eat my lunch.

Don't bother, mlang. I think icy just ate your lunch.
posted by Avogadro at 11:08 AM on May 10, 2002

i stand corrected.

thank you, icy, for your clear-headed explanation and its supporting facts (i'd been wondering if such detailed server logs were available to confirm (or deny, as the case may be) my hypothesis; i'd had to rely for my information solely upon the (very limited) stats.mefi page), both of which have been in extremely short supply around here.

the combination of your post above and rodii's posts in this thread's older cousin has convinced me of the ultimate wisdom of ending the cult threads.

a self-policing success story!

but is it really true that we can't do something about israel/palestine? (either end the threads or fix the situation over there. i don't care which, just do it quickly.)

p.s. those that doubt the sincerity of my fervent wish to make metafilter the best it can be (and therefore the blatant falsehood of above assertions that my attitude is simply 'fuck you; i'll do whatever i want') would do well to read this
posted by mlang at 12:02 PM on May 10, 2002

"a/s/l?"

5/female/Honduras
posted by Stumpy McGee at 4:11 PM on May 10, 2002

"yes, loading a cult thread consumes more resources than loading a shorter thread does..."

Shorter? Don't even get me started.
posted by Stumpy McGee at 4:14 PM on May 10, 2002

rodii: #3

dong: well, duh...
As a wiser person than you puts it:
Tilt not at windmills of thine own device.

I will never post to any present cult thread again. even this one. I reserve the right, however, to post to future cult threads on occasion. Self defense option reserved in all cases.
posted by y2karl at 5:04 PM on May 10, 2002

this is a perfect example of why threads should be closed once they start to completely deteriorate into brain-dead crap. jesus christ.
posted by pikachulolita at 5:57 PM on May 10, 2002

rodii, y2karl, mlang....recently someone asked me who my favorite MeFite's were, and all 3 of you were on the list. All three of you are major reasons why I now try not to act like a galoot around here. And here you are bickering with eachother. It's kinda depressing. Let's all agree that the cult threads were a waste of time and get back to enjoying this thing we all had a hand in creating, agreed?
posted by jonmc at 6:22 PM on May 10, 2002

Karl, you've gotta break down for feeble minded me how your Don Quixote quote makes even vague sense.
It suggests that I'm determinedly attacking some imagined foe, or, vainly pursuing an unattainable goal. I don't really see how that fits, since I'm neither attacking Mid, nor is Mid's mischaracterization of Clav's posting style imagined, nor is Clav impossible for Mid to grasp.
How's that work?
Y'know, like you said, duh.
Help me out.
posted by dong_resin at 1:15 AM on May 11, 2002