The Lethal Thread of 117781

July 11, 2012 1:31 PM

Can't for the life of me figure out why this was deleted. Perhaps a less cryptic reason would help because this one was totally not obvious.
posted by moammargaret to MetaFilter-Related at 1:31 PM (243 comments total)

That thing was a trainwreck from one end to the other.
posted by Chocolate Pickle at 1:32 PM on July 11, 2012 [1 favorite]

The OP has a history of virulent anti-Obamaism, if I remember correctly. And it never goes well.
posted by cooker girl at 1:34 PM on July 11, 2012

I picked up that link when it was published. I think it is a very good article - and I think it will need very careful, detailed framing, and a concerted effort on the part of members to avoid the Circular Firing Squad that every Obama thread generates.
posted by the man of twists and turns at 1:35 PM on July 11, 2012 [1 favorite]

So... the same thread posted by a different person would have been OK?
posted by moammargaret at 1:36 PM on July 11, 2012 [4 favorites]

To be fair, AElfwine Evenstar should have known better. If the article was pro-Obama, it would have withstood deletion.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 1:37 PM on July 11, 2012 [6 favorites]

Yeah posting a thread with an Obama article using the fascism tag when we've asked you politely to not be "that guy" on MetaFilter is extremely problematic. If someone else wants to make another go at it and be a little less editorializing with their flags (and not have a history of same) that would be fine.

If the article was pro-Obama, it would have withstood deletion.

You know better than to do this here.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 1:38 PM on July 11, 2012 [28 favorites]

So... the same thread posted by a different person would have been OK?

My favorite count hopes so.
posted by the man of twists and turns at 1:39 PM on July 11, 2012

I have no opinion on the person posting the item, but that article is a fairly awful piece of writing.
posted by dfriedman at 1:39 PM on July 11, 2012

So... the same thread posted by a different person would have been OK?

Along with the "fascism" tag? Yeah, no.
posted by scody at 1:42 PM on July 11, 2012 [1 favorite]

You know better than to do this here.

*shrug* If we're now deleting posts because of the people who write them, that hardly seems to improve the situation.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 1:43 PM on July 11, 2012 [4 favorites]

So... the same thread posted by a different person would have been OK?

It'd be less immediately problematic, yes, because in this case the issue was significantly the pattern of prior behavior with the poster. Who, as acknowledged in the deletion reason, has been doing a pretty good job of turning things around, which I totally appreciate, but this is not really in keeping with that.

That said, I'm not thrilled at the prospect of any more rehashed arguments about contentious political topics in general and it's still early in the general election season. Just tossing up another "hey, here's something else to argue about" post isn't my favorite sort of Metafilter under the best conditions. And the "let's argue specifically about administrative power and extrajudicial killings" is kind of an established super-hot-button people-yelling-at-each-other angle on that, so, ugh.

If someone takes the care to try and make the best post they can of it by focusing on the "this is interesting and worth reading" angle somehow, it'll be fine as far as it can be but it doesn't leave me feeling super hopeful for the thread that'll result.

To be fair, AElfwine Evenstar should have known better. If the article was pro-Obama, it would have withstood deletion.

A basic skim of the archives would make it clear how foolish an assertion this is.
posted by cortex (staff) at 1:43 PM on July 11, 2012 [4 favorites]

They're always deleted posts based on who writes them. Good faith attempts generally stand unless the post sucks. An otherwise good post can easily fail due to the baggage of the poster. Happens frequently and I bet is a factor in many deletions. Just as the first post a user makes often gets a pass if it's not sucky.
posted by cjorgensen at 1:45 PM on July 11, 2012

I feel like until after the election, US political posts should lose all benefit of the doubt. Unless it's a great post, nuke it from orbit.
posted by no regrets, coyote at 1:50 PM on July 11, 2012 [38 favorites]

Well that's just bizarre. Why would anyone care who posted a thread that itself was not delete worthy? And what is the virtue of running and hiding from hot button issues? Surely people of all ideologies can recognize the substantive difference between extrajudicial killing and "rofl mitt romney said something stupid."
posted by moammargaret at 1:51 PM on July 11, 2012 [1 favorite]

So... the same thread posted by a different person would have been OK?

Actually, no.
posted by zombieflanders at 1:52 PM on July 11, 2012 [4 favorites]

And what is the virtue of running and hiding from hot button issues?

We are not a hot button news blog. Increasing amounts of "Here is a new contentious thing about the US elections!" posts are problematic here since the site is lightly moderated and as international as we can make it. There is a difference between running and hiding and stuff just being less of the core purpose of the place. It's clear that you have a difference of opinion about the way the site is moderated, but this is not a new thing here. Context matters and some of the context here is who the poster was and the fact that we're in ramp-up-to-election time in the US which is always a bumpy place here.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 1:53 PM on July 11, 2012 [14 favorites]

There has been, to my observation, an uptick in fighting, deleted threads, deleted comments, and account closings.

I blame the heat.
posted by the man of twists and turns at 1:54 PM on July 11, 2012

Why would anyone care who posted a thread that itself was not delete worthy?

Well. The word "itself" there implies "in an attribution-free vacuum". And on the blue that doesn't exist.
posted by AkzidenzGrotesk at 1:55 PM on July 11, 2012 [1 favorite]

Why would anyone care who posted a thread that itself was not delete worthy?

Among other things it can drastically affect the ensuing conversation. To quote one comment:

"Fascism" tag? Really?

No surprise that this particular OP would use that tag. Yawn.

If a post is going to end up being about the poster it's not necessarily a great idea.
posted by Tell Me No Lies at 1:55 PM on July 11, 2012 [2 favorites]

Increasing amounts of "Here is a new contentious thing about the US elections!" posts are problematic here since the site is lightly moderated and as international as we can make it.

The months before presidential elections are the only times that I sort of give metafilter a rest. I'd love it if we set a really high bar set for political posts in the following months.
posted by boubelium at 1:58 PM on July 11, 2012 [4 favorites]

I dislike the deletion reason blaming this on the poster, but it was a good deletion. I am in full agreement with the sentiment that Presidential election posts have a high bar to clear. "Here is another article about Romney/Obama, which by the way is about an issue that MetaFilter has argued to death" is not above that bar.
posted by Etrigan at 2:00 PM on July 11, 2012 [3 favorites]

i get all the reasons, but it's still a shame metafilter can't talk about what's in the article because the poster has a history.
posted by Avenger50 at 2:01 PM on July 11, 2012 [4 favorites]

Why would anyone care who posted a thread that itself was not delete worthy?

Because this is no one's personal blog, and neither axe-grindy posting/commenting on a pet topic nor the (generally pretty negative) cult-of-personality dynamics that come from that kind of hobby horse behavior improve this place at all. There are lots of personal venues where someone can have as much of a subject-specific outlet as they need, but Metafilter is by design not one of those.

This is one of the implications of this being a big group space. Doing something enough that it leads to people having a "oh, he's That Guy" reaction means weird friction and derails and distractions that undercut the ability of folks here to have more interesting or productive discussions.

And what is the virtue of running and hiding from hot button issues?

There's a great big gulf between "not eagerly featuring" and "running and hiding from". Like Jess says, we are not a hot button issues site. There are, again, places on the internet where you can get that sort of thing, and if that works for you then that's awesome. But people melting each other's faces off every day over bad news or angry-making stuff isn't actually what Metafilter was originally built to foster and does not make for a very fun or interesting site for anybody but the recreational facemelters.
posted by cortex (staff) at 2:02 PM on July 11, 2012 [5 favorites]

Actually the heat might not be a ridiculous reason. After all, MLB batters get hit way more as the temperature rises.
posted by softlord at 2:04 PM on July 11, 2012

it's still a shame metafilter can't talk about what's in the article because the poster has a history.

No one said that. We've said the opposite, in fact.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 2:04 PM on July 11, 2012 [1 favorite]

it's still a shame metafilter can't talk about what's in the article because the poster has a history.

No one said that. We've said the opposite, in fact.

Hmmm....

Yeah posting a thread with an Obama article using the fascism tag when we've asked you politely to not be "that guy" on MetaFilter is extremely problematic. If someone else wants to make another go at it and be a little less editorializing with their flags (and not have a history of same) that would be fine.
posted by andoatnp at 2:10 PM on July 11, 2012 [4 favorites]

You didn't highlight "a little less editorializing with their flags."
posted by Sticherbeast at 2:11 PM on July 11, 2012 [5 favorites]

That's too bad. I mean, everyone here is wicked smart, self-selecting and conscientious. I think we do hot-button better than anywhere else on the internet. I mean that in all sincerity. But I take it that's not part of metafilter's mission, and I respect that.

(Before I go, though, can I just register my objection, for what it's worth, that an article about drone-striking a sixteen year old American citizen is considered to be an "election post." God forbid if that's ever the case.)
posted by moammargaret at 2:11 PM on July 11, 2012 [1 favorite]

I have no idea what you're saying andoatnp.
posted by koeselitz at 2:12 PM on July 11, 2012

How long until someone reposts the article?
posted by andoatnp at 2:12 PM on July 11, 2012

Maybe those members who have taken the time to come here and bemoan the unjust fate of the deleted post could put all that creative energy toward making a better one.
posted by mkultra at 2:13 PM on July 11, 2012

I have no idea what you're saying andoatnp.

It's the difference between reading it as

"because the person who posted the article is a problem we don't get to talk about the article because it got deleted"

and

"anyone else can post the article who doesn't have a history of being a problem and then we can talk about it".
posted by andoatnp at 2:14 PM on July 11, 2012

There are maybe a few more people I can think of who would also appear to be That Guy if they posted this thread with those tags, but generally yeah someone else could do it and then we'll hope that everyone treats each other decently and I shall start drinking early.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 2:17 PM on July 11, 2012 [7 favorites]

If someone reposts the article then we're in the second situation, but if no one reposts it, then we're in the first situation, which is what I took Avenger50 to be complaining about.
posted by andoatnp at 2:17 PM on July 11, 2012

"Recreational Facemelters" is totally going to be the name of my next band.
posted by xbonesgt at 2:17 PM on July 11, 2012 [3 favorites]

There are a couple of users who only post hot-button articles with extensive and controversial pullquotes right in the middle of the front page. I would wager that less than 10% of commenters in those busy threads have actually read the article, which is fine, because the way the OP frames it is meant to draw you in with a controversial statement, not with the article itself.

A good deletion in my opinion, and I hope the bar for US political posts is considerably raised for the next few months.
posted by Think_Long at 2:21 PM on July 11, 2012 [2 favorites]

It's kind of beside the point anyway, isn't it? Mefi ain't for talkin', never has been.
posted by koeselitz at 2:24 PM on July 11, 2012

It was a worthy post. Junod is doing great journalism.
posted by steinsaltz at 2:25 PM on July 11, 2012

When a poster has a history of basically trolling for liberals and tags a post fascism, I am okay with the mods concluding that member is not engaging with the community in good faith and pulling the post. That doesn't mean, moammargaret, that the link is not good or interesting or discussion-worthy or best of the web. It does mean that 30% of the thread is likely to be about that poster and that history and that tag, and should absolutely be aborted.
posted by DarlingBri at 2:26 PM on July 11, 2012 [15 favorites]

A good deletion in my opinion

Not based on your previously stated definition, though:

only post hot-button articles with extensive and controversial pullquotes

This user posted the headline. The "fascism" tag was unfortunate, but ultimately the mods believed the conversation would be about the user's ax and not the article itself, which I understand.

What I don't understand is MeFites who say it was a good deletion because they really don't believe the article could be true, don't want it to be true, and wish it wasn't true.
posted by Avenger50 at 2:30 PM on July 11, 2012 [1 favorite]

MetaTalk: we'll hope that everyone treats each other decently and I shall start drinking early.
posted by sonika at 2:31 PM on July 11, 2012 [1 favorite]

Speaking of deleted threads and blogs, the deleted thread blog hasn't been updated since last month.
posted by jamjam at 2:32 PM on July 11, 2012

A good deletion in my opinion

Not based on your previously stated definition, though:

only post hot-button articles with extensive and controversial pullquotes

This user posted the headline.

True, and to be fair I think I was confusing this user with another user as well, but I still think that the controversial issue posting style is relevant here I guess.
posted by Think_Long at 2:34 PM on July 11, 2012

Avenger50: "What I don't understand is MeFites who say it was a good deletion because they really don't believe the article could be true, don't want it to be true, and wish it wasn't true."

What I don't understand is who you think is saying that.
posted by mkultra at 2:35 PM on July 11, 2012 [6 favorites]

What I don't understand is MeFites who say it was a good deletion because they really don't believe the article could be true, don't want it to be true, and wish it wasn't true.

Unless some comments here have been deleted, I don't see anyone saying that.
posted by zombieflanders at 2:35 PM on July 11, 2012

I strongly disagree with the use of the fascism tag here, but I do appreciate that we have posts about Obama that go beyond how awesome and cool he is and how he is super dreamy when he gives someone a cake, regardless of the author.
posted by furiousxgeorge at 2:36 PM on July 11, 2012 [6 favorites]

What I don't understand is MeFites who say it was a good deletion because they really don't believe the article could be true, don't want it to be true, and wish it wasn't true.

What the hell are you referring to here? I am honestly puzzled.
posted by Tell Me No Lies at 2:37 PM on July 11, 2012

Though I never make political posts and rarely comment in them anymore, you guys do realize that it's the election season and a whole shitbang number of users are going to want talk about it from a whole shitbang number of angles, right?

I mean, I imagine it's going to get repetitive and there's going to be arguments and some people will be jerks and some people will see how far they can push things. I guess that's what the staff here has to put up with in exchange for all the cocaine and strippers or whatever it is that's used to persuade the mods to keep their jobs.

What I'm totally failing at saying is that maybe there should be some additional 'suggested' guidelines for post topics, especially for the myriad of users who weren't hanging around here in '08, '04, '00, '96, '92, '88, '84, '80, and especially the bleak year of posts that was '76.
posted by item at 2:38 PM on July 11, 2012 [2 favorites]

I just remembered that I really don't like being told what to do, EVER, so scratch the whole suggested post guidelines suggestion I just burped out.
posted by item at 2:40 PM on July 11, 2012 [2 favorites]

What I don't understand is MeFites who say it was a good deletion because they really don't believe the article could be true, don't want it to be true, and wish it wasn't true.

I believe very much in the criticisms posted about Obama from the perspective of the article.

I ALSO believe it was a good deletion. These things can coexist.
posted by scody at 2:43 PM on July 11, 2012 [6 favorites]

So what can make this post better? If it doesn't deal with the subject matter at all? Good grief.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 2:45 PM on July 11, 2012 [1 favorite]

Strike 3, Curly.
posted by Rodrigo Lamaitre at 2:46 PM on July 11, 2012 [2 favorites]

Here is a new contentious thing about the US elections!

As a journalist I'd respectfully disagree that this was election coverage. It's from a respected men's magazine with high quality standards, and it's beyond the Republican-Democrat spectrum of ideas.
posted by steinsaltz at 2:47 PM on July 11, 2012 [7 favorites]

p.s. In other words, killing civilians is never going to show up as an U.S. election issue. It's not like Romney is about to go with anti-war ads.
posted by steinsaltz at 2:48 PM on July 11, 2012 [5 favorites]

Avenger50: “What I don't understand is MeFites who say it was a good deletion because they really don't believe the article could be true, don't want it to be true, and wish it wasn't true.”

I was also bothered by the people saying it was a good deletion because ostriches can't fly. I mean, come on, that doesn't even make sense.
posted by koeselitz at 2:50 PM on July 11, 2012 [6 favorites]

I strongly disagree with the use of the fascism tag here, but I do appreciate that we have posts about Obama that go beyond how awesome and cool he is and how he is super dreamy when he gives someone a cake, regardless of the author.

There's a ton of posts critical of Obama and the administration here just in the last month or so (including two written by you, one of which was over a relative non-issue), two of which are on this exact topic. Cherrypicking an obviously-intentioned jokey LOLbama post as evidence of some conspiracy to the contrary is ridiculous.
posted by zombieflanders at 2:51 PM on July 11, 2012 [4 favorites]

I just said I appreciate that we have such posts, you need to learn to read instead of randomly attacking any comment I make that has the word Obama in it.
posted by furiousxgeorge at 2:58 PM on July 11, 2012 [1 favorite]

If someone else wants to make another go at it and be a little less editorializing with their flags (and not have a history of same) that would be fine.

I guess it's actually not fine?

I agree with steinsaltz that this isn't a "Here is a new contentious thing about the US elections!" post. The article could have been written last year. It doesn't mention Romney or the election at all.
posted by theodolite at 3:02 PM on July 11, 2012 [1 favorite]

you need to learn to read instead of randomly attacking any comment I make that has the word Obama in it

Thanks for illustrating my point.
posted by zombieflanders at 3:08 PM on July 11, 2012 [2 favorites]

I am curious if the logic of "delete-worthy because it's that guy" was key here because the mods felt this was likely to be a face-melting, topic-that-MeFi-does-not-do-well, or not. In other words, if my pet topic was guitars and I posted monthly FPPs that were guitar-related, does the bar eventually get raised for me because I'm always posting about guitars? Is there a point at which Guitar-Related-FPP-X would be valid coming from another user, but it gets deleted from me because I'm always posting about guitars?

(Just curious. I don't care about this particular deletion one way or the other.)
posted by cribcage at 3:09 PM on July 11, 2012

Thanks for illustrating my point.

Your assertion was that I was alleging a moderator conspiracy to shut down anti-Obama posts even though I was voicing my appreciation for the opposite and condemning the post in question for using the fascist tag. That is entirely separate from your bizarre habit of making up shit about my comments, which anyone can see just happened.
posted by furiousxgeorge at 3:12 PM on July 11, 2012 [1 favorite]

Yes combination of That Guy and Bad Topic. We do have a few users who post regularly about the same general topics and as long as it doesn't look like you're appropriating MeFi as your own personal blog, that's generally fine.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 3:13 PM on July 11, 2012 [1 favorite]

I think that at this point any subsequent FPPs will immediately become a forum for discussing this metatalk thread instead of the article.

I don't really see an easy way out of this.
posted by postcommunism at 3:16 PM on July 11, 2012

The "That Guy" in question has one post — which is about Korean food trucks, which has nothing to do with Obama, or even politics in general.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 3:17 PM on July 11, 2012

even though I was voicing my appreciation for the opposite and condemning the post in question for using the fascist tag.

You are nowhere near as clear as you think you are, nor as clearly not-trolling as you think you are. This is within your power to clear up.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 3:24 PM on July 11, 2012 [2 favorites]

I am really rethinking my decision to try and make a post that contains this link. I wanted to use it as one end of a 'writing on the war in Afghanistan and elsewhere' post, but it looks like it will just turn into flags and fighting.
posted by the man of twists and turns at 3:27 PM on July 11, 2012

The "That Guy" in question has one post — which is about Korean food trucks, which has nothing to do with Obama, or even politics in general.

Only if you're being pedantic about the definition of "posts" here. And since the mod response never mentions the word, it's moot anyway.
posted by zombieflanders at 3:27 PM on July 11, 2012

The "That Guy" in question has one post —

That is not the That Guy that is actually in question. The one is question is the subject of this meTa. Jesus.
posted by rtha at 3:31 PM on July 11, 2012 [2 favorites]

I'm not sure how one would frame a post on it. It doesn't need supporting links because it is quite comprehensive and seems very fair and balanced (not in the lol Fox sense), but it seems difficult to summarize in a way which will not lead to the same old drone debate since it is long enough that most people aren't likely to read it and appreciate the nuance.

How about: Tom Junod in GQ magazine examines the deeper meanings behind the new American counter-terrorism strategy of targeted killings. When war becomes personal, what does that mean for the decision makers involved?

"You have made a historic opportunity into your personal obligation, and in so doing you have made sure that no man can become president unless he knows that he has it within him to kill another man — one whose face he has probably seen, one whose name he probably knows.

-
I think that is what the article is really about. It describes the personal lives of Awlaki and his son not to glorify them, but to personalize them. It shows Obama and his administration as honorable, intelligent, lawful people having to make direct orders to kill an individual, and how that is different from bombing a target full of people you can't know or identify, whose faces you have never seen and family history you aren't aware of. It's a decision that may be neccesary, but will have to weigh on the soul of anyone who decides to do it. I'm not trying to proxy have the thread here, just trying to figure out what kind of framing would make it work. It's a best of the web article, IMO.
-
You are nowhere near as clear as you think you are, nor as clearly not-trolling as you think you are. This is within your power to clear up.

"I appreciate that we have these posts" is perfectly clear. It is out of my control if someone wants to imagine it says the opposite.
posted by furiousxgeorge at 3:34 PM on July 11, 2012

You [furiousxgeorge] are nowhere near as clear as you think you are

The statement by furiousxgeorge was "I strongly disagree with the use of the fascism tag". I am honestly asking myself how this can be construed as unclear without bad faith reading. Were you commenting on other posts by furiousxgeorge?
posted by patrick54 at 3:35 PM on July 11, 2012

Seems like it should just go in one of the open drone warfare threads....
posted by wildcrdj at 3:36 PM on July 11, 2012

a moderator conspiracy to shut down anti-Obama posts

meFascism
posted by Golden Eternity at 3:38 PM on July 11, 2012

Just curious but am I "that guy" for anything?
posted by Talez at 3:43 PM on July 11, 2012

That is not the That Guy that is actually in question.

El Sabor Asiatico's post was disappeared, after which the reason given was that he is a "That Guy" who posts regularly about this subject, when, in fact, the only post he has made is one about Korean food trucks. If we then redefine "posts" to include comments, then the only comment in his recent history I can find that is vaguely, barely critical of the sitting President is this.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 3:44 PM on July 11, 2012

I love the implicit suggestion in this thread, that Metafilter is not friendly enough to very liberal, anti-Obama viewpoints.

It, it...boggles the mind.
posted by downing street memo at 3:47 PM on July 11, 2012 [2 favorites]

On the one hand, I don't see this post ever making it to the front page again.

On the other hand, if I were to try it, I wouldn't use the Post Title and quote El Sabor used. I'd just put the headline and then hide under the bed.

But I don't think I'll try it.
posted by Avenger50 at 3:48 PM on July 11, 2012

after which the reason given was that he is a "That Guy" who posts regularly about this subject

Neither the deletion reason in that thread nor anything here says that.

If you mean jessamyn's comment with "That Guy" in it that was pretty clearly (to me) about the original deletion.

Otherwise I don't see it.
posted by wildcrdj at 3:50 PM on July 11, 2012 [1 favorite]

after which the reason given was that he is a "That Guy" who posts regularly about this subject,

Where is this reason given, that is specifically about El Sabor?

Because I see this:

Yes combination of That Guy and Bad Topic. We do have a few users who post regularly about the same general topics and as long as it doesn't look like you're appropriating MeFi as your own personal blog, that's generally fine.
posted by jessamynAdmin (staff) at 3:13 PM on July 11 [+] [!] Other [5/6]: «≡»

Which was in response to this:

I am curious if the logic of "delete-worthy because it's that guy" was key here because the mods felt this was likely to be a face-melting, topic-that-MeFi-does-not-do-well, or not. In other words, if my pet topic was guitars and I posted monthly FPPs that were guitar-related, does the bar eventually get raised for me because I'm always posting about guitars? Is there a point at which Guitar-Related-FPP-X would be valid coming from another user, but it gets deleted from me because I'm always posting about guitars?

(Just curious. I don't care about this particular deletion one way or the other.)
posted by cribcage at 3:09 PM on July 11 [+] [!] No other comments.

Which I read as both referencing the Original That Guy of this meTa, AElfwine Evenstar. Can you explain to me how you read it as referring to El Sabor, when none of the other mentions of That Guy in this thread mention him or his deleted post?
posted by rtha at 3:50 PM on July 11, 2012 [1 favorite]

Can you explain to me how you read it as referring to El Sabor, when none of the other mentions of That Guy in this thread mention him or his deleted post?

There are a few others here who noticed El Sabor's recently deleted post. This place has a habit of inspiring mob-like reactions and we're basically attaching labels to people who don't deserve them. Especially when that's not why the post is getting deleted, in the first place.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 3:54 PM on July 11, 2012

To me, the issue is pretty clear:

1. Election year posts about sitting presidents and candidates are going to be held to a higher standard in terms of content.

2. Metafilter is not your personal whetstone for sharpening your axe. Nothing wrong with liking to post about a particular subject, but purposefully baiting a fighty yell-match (e.g., tagging an FPP about the president with "fascism") is definitely axe-grindy.

The article in question was pretty meh, and reason enough to delete with a call for re-framing, especially within the context of it being a few months from election day. The "come at me bro" nature of the tagging was an added reason.
posted by Marisa Stole the Precious Thing at 3:54 PM on July 11, 2012 [3 favorites]

As a journalist I'd respectfully disagree that this was election coverage

As a kung-fu expert, I'd disagree with your disagreeance.
posted by smoke at 3:55 PM on July 11, 2012 [1 favorite]

The article in question was pretty meh

Really? Why?
posted by Avenger50 at 3:56 PM on July 11, 2012

Really? Why?

Call it a matter of personal taste. Whole lot of chatty, bloggy filler that got kind of grating in its over-personal way. Just reads like standard men's magazine fare to me. The subject itself is important and well worth exploring, but in a better way than this.
posted by Marisa Stole the Precious Thing at 4:02 PM on July 11, 2012

Blazecock Pileon: "If we're now deleting posts because of the people who write them, that hardly seems to improve the situation."

This is not meant as a defense or support of the deletion policy, but my first post ever was a stunt post intended to prove a point about MeFi's deletion policy. (A point, by the way, about which I was spectacularly wrong). In the resulting MeTa, it was indicated that although the post was kinda shitty, it was left up because I was the poster, and I had a good track record up to that point (with comments). So basing deletion decisions on the people who make posts isn't a new approach, it goes back at least seven years.
posted by Bugbread at 4:07 PM on July 11, 2012 [1 favorite]

There are a few others here who noticed El Sabor's recently deleted post.

I see one.

Where, exactly, are you reading this?
posted by rtha at 4:09 PM on July 11, 2012

Here's another.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 4:10 PM on July 11, 2012

I guess I don't see how that then drags El Sabor into the That Guy arena, especially since the deletion reason is given as commenters being shitty, not the OP being That Guy. Can you explain how you're making that specific connection?
posted by rtha at 4:14 PM on July 11, 2012 [3 favorites]

jessamyn: "You are nowhere near as clear as you think you are, nor as clearly not-trolling as you think you are. This is within your power to clear up."

Jessamyn, I don't know furiousxgeorge's background, but there's only one way I can interpret "I strongly disagree with the use of the fascism tag here, but I do appreciate that we have posts about Obama that go beyond how awesome and cool he is and how he is super dreamy when he gives someone a cake, regardless of the author.", which is "I strongly disagree with the use of the fascism tag, but I am happy to see more anti-Obama posts".

Can you give a suggestion on how he could have made that comment more clear? To me, it already seems really clear.
posted by Bugbread at 4:17 PM on July 11, 2012 [1 favorite]

I don't know about you guys but in my opinion putting someone on a kill list because you don't like what they are saying is a pretty clear sign of, at the very least, incipient fascism. In retrospect I would have left the tag out had I known it was going to precipitate a deletion.
posted by AElfwine Evenstar at 4:27 PM on July 11, 2012

Can you explain how you're making that specific connection?

Okay: The progress of the discussion, the observation from people that the links had been deleted again, which then followed up with jessamyn's comment about why, namely "That Guy" (the person whose post had just been disappeared) writing a number of posts about this subject and making Metafilter his personal blog about drone attacks. Then there is the deletion reason, saying that the post is "pre-GRAR"'ed, essentially stating the OP is editorializing, the motivation for which is not at all obvious from the poster's history nor even from the article itself, which shares the same title.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 4:29 PM on July 11, 2012

I disagree with that Aelf, but aside from that I think it represents your personal opinion on the subject and not the content of the article which is not the best way to tag.
posted by furiousxgeorge at 4:31 PM on July 11, 2012 [1 favorite]

You're right furiousxgeorge I should have left that out. But all's well that ends better as my gaffer used to say.
posted by AElfwine Evenstar at 4:33 PM on July 11, 2012

As far as I can tell, the only "That Guy" and mentioned by the mods is AElfwine Evenstar, not El Sabor Asiatico. I think you're conflating two separate posts.
posted by zombieflanders at 4:35 PM on July 11, 2012 [2 favorites]

Not really.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 4:36 PM on July 11, 2012

which then followed up with jessamyn's comment about why, namely "That Guy" (the person whose post had just been disappeared)

She was responding to this comment, which starts I am curious if the logic of "delete-worthy because it's that guy"; the only previous mentions of the combination of That Guy had been specifically about Aelfwine. You are misreading.

We could, of course, just hope that jessamyn will be able to stop rolling her eyes and rending her garments and shouting at us through her computer screen to let us know what it was she meant. But then you probably wouldn't believe her anyway.

Seriously. When only Person A has been referred to as Orange, and then Person B comes up quite tangentially and is never referred to as Orange, how in the hell to leap to "Stop calling Person B Orange!" rather than making the much shorter, safer leap to "Reference to Orange Person = Person A"?
posted by rtha at 4:40 PM on July 11, 2012

Not to get pedantic myself, but considering that the first mention of "That Guy" in this thread is 5:02 and ESA's post was made at 5:32, I think it is.
posted by zombieflanders at 4:40 PM on July 11, 2012 [1 favorite]

Yeah, sorry, I wasn't considering El Sabor Asiatico as being similar to That Guy for what that's worth.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 4:43 PM on July 11, 2012

What I don't understand is MeFites who say it was a good deletion because they really don't believe the article could be true, don't want it to be true, and wish it wasn't true.

Learn how to read. Or provide evidence that anyone wrote or even implied what you laid out in your comment.
posted by to sir with millipedes at 4:44 PM on July 11, 2012

Trolling?
posted by ericb at 5:03 PM on July 11, 2012

That's in response to the original statement: "Can't for the life of me figure out why this was deleted."
posted by ericb at 5:04 PM on July 11, 2012

Yeah, looking at my time stamps here, the order is:
1) I Love to Count posts The Lethal President
2) It is deleted
3) Aelfwine posts the Lethal President
4) It is deleted. The deletion reason mentions Aelfwine being "that guy"
5) MeTa is started
6) Jessamyn mentions "that guy" again
7) El Sabor Asiatico posts The Lethal President
8) It is deleted

So Jessamyn's comment about "that guy" was before El Sabor Asiatico even made his post, let alone its deletion.
posted by Bugbread at 5:04 PM on July 11, 2012

Wait what...I didn't even see I love to Count posts attempt. I guess the mods have plans this week and don't feel like babysitting an Obama thread.
posted by AElfwine Evenstar at 5:17 PM on July 11, 2012

They wouldn't have to babysit if people didn't insist on being assholes in threads like that.
posted by rtha at 5:19 PM on July 11, 2012 [5 favorites]

Between the userbase here having a "mob mentality" and assuming mods are making deletions based on IRL plans, I'm really starting to wish folks were a little more charitable with what they assume the motivations of their fellow posters are.
posted by Marisa Stole the Precious Thing at 5:20 PM on July 11, 2012 [3 favorites]

Yeah I don't really think the mods are deleting it because they have plans...bad joke I guess.

I'm really starting to wish folks were a little more charitable with what they assume the motivations of their fellow posters are.

Well now that I've been labeled as "that guy" by the mods I'm going to have a pretty rough time aren't I. I'm actually a little miffed about that as I haven't really been "that guy" ever since we saw the last of old joe beese and his drop dead sexy profile pic.(no i'm not joe) I decided that if I was going to be able to express my opinion I was going to have to do so much more judiciously as I thought I had been doing with the occasional slip up here and there...what with me being human and all.
posted by AElfwine Evenstar at 5:30 PM on July 11, 2012 [3 favorites]

Well now that I've been labeled as "that guy" by the mods I'm going to have a pretty rough time aren't I. I'm actually a little miffed about that as I haven't really been "that guy" ever since we saw the last of old joe beese and his drop dead sexy profile pic.(no i'm not joe) I decided that if I was going to be able to express my opinion I was going to have to do so much more judiciously as I thought I had been doing with the occasional slip up here and there...what with me being human and all.

Settle, Gretel. If you don't keep editorializing axe-grindy posts up on your soapbox you won't have any problem at all.
posted by Talez at 5:35 PM on July 11, 2012

They wouldn't have to babysit so much if people could hold off on the steady stream of U.S. election year political outrage posts, as well. Use your facebook or whatever if you feel the need to "wake people up", go ahead and assume that most people here read the news and know what's going on.
posted by drinkyclown at 5:35 PM on July 11, 2012 [2 favorites]

OT, but what happened with Trurl, was that voluntary or did he tread too close to old Joe at some point?
posted by furiousxgeorge at 5:36 PM on July 11, 2012

I'm actually a little miffed about that as I haven't really been "that guy" ever since

Something I went out of my way to note in the deletion reason and twice in this thread. My intention is not to miff you but the whole THING with a bad string of behavior is that it's great when you cut it out but when you maybe stop cutting it out for a bit we're left right back where we started thinking, shit, here we go again.

We deleted your post, and that's really all we did. I tried to be gentle about it. I appreciate you making the effort in general.

OT, but what happened with Trurl

Ban after yet another go around with him. Two lives and way too many chances between them but it got to the point where we were done holding out any shred of hope.
posted by cortex (staff) at 5:39 PM on July 11, 2012

Too close. We had a really amiable chat with him but it was getting to the point where we'd asked him and then told him he needed to quit doing that thing he did where he'd turn any thread about US politics into an Obama fight and he just couldn't do it. So it was just a failed Brand New Day. We went sort of out on a limb to try to make it work [giving him a lot of short timeouts instead of just banning him] but it was getting labor-intensive for us and not really solving the problem so we wished him well and told him to come back if he felt like he could manage that better.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 5:39 PM on July 11, 2012

Well now that I've been labeled as "that guy" by the mods I'm going to have a pretty rough time aren't I. -- Unfortunately, once you've been pegged, you're pegged. It's as true here as it is in the rest of the world.
posted by crunchland at 5:42 PM on July 11, 2012 [1 favorite]

MetaFilter is not a platform for people to spam for their political causes.

I know MetaFilter has a high density if American liberals, and it's an election year, so it's a good place to encourage American liberals to get out and vote, or conversely, to sit out the election because Obama's an asshole, but that's not what the site is for, and as far as the site is concerned that type of stuff is basically pollution.

It's great for MeFites to make FFPs about interesting sites or articles they've come across about American politics, or to discuss politics. The same user linking to yet another article on the use of drones, the same issue we've heard about over and over again? The exact same users reciting the same pro- and anti-Obama talking points over and over again in any thread even tangentially related to one of their talking points? Not so great.

We need to distinguish between people making FFPs about interesting stuff on the web which is sometimes political, and political spamming or astroturfing. I think the mods are doing OK at this, and even erring on the side of caution. I think taking into account a user's previous posts and comments in trying to figure out which one of these they're doing is perfectly reasonable.
posted by nangar at 5:46 PM on July 11, 2012 [2 favorites]

I don't know about you guys but in my opinion putting someone on a kill list because you don't like what they are saying is a pretty clear sign of, at the very least, incipient fascism.

Meh, "fascism" is really too precise (and too cliched) a word here. Stalinists have hit-lists, so does that make all Stalinists Fascists, or does that make all Fascists Stalinists? Is Obama a Stalinist?

Indeed, the current Russian government has kill lists, too. Does that make them Fascists, even though the current Russian oligarchical kleptocracy displays none of the practices of traditional Fascists?

"Authoritarian" is a better word choice. It covers all the stuff that is concerning about targeted assassinations - extra-judicial, lack of due process, no recognition of human rights...
posted by KokuRyu at 5:46 PM on July 11, 2012 [1 favorite]

"Fascism", as a charge to levy against an American president, was unfortunately all used up about halfway through Bush's second term. It's kinda cartoony and hyperbolic now, and tends to make people just dismiss anything you have to say about any of the very dubious shit going on in Obama's foreign policy.
posted by Marisa Stole the Precious Thing at 5:52 PM on July 11, 2012

Well now that I've been labeled as "that guy" by the mods I'm going to have a pretty rough time aren't I

If it makes you feel better, I will forget you were That Guy From That Thread in like, a day. There are 40,000 members, a zillion posts in any 24 hours, and everyone lights themselves on fire occasionally, including me. Don't sweat it.
posted by DarlingBri at 5:55 PM on July 11, 2012 [4 favorites]

I'm still curious to know what I'm known for being "That Guy" of though. I'm sure it's my stimulating and thought-provoking comments and winning smile.
posted by Marisa Stole the Precious Thing at 5:58 PM on July 11, 2012 [1 favorite]

Fascism is a political ideology, not a military strategy. I understand the sentiment but the word choice is wrong.
posted by moammargaret at 5:58 PM on July 11, 2012 [1 favorite]

If I remember right, you've mostly been That—Wait That's A Guy?! to a lot of people.
posted by cortex (staff) at 6:01 PM on July 11, 2012 [21 favorites]

That happened via MeMail like 2 weeks ago, too. It's the gift that keeps on giving. I kinda like being this gender-flexible person on some corner of the internet.
posted by Marisa Stole the Precious Thing at 6:04 PM on July 11, 2012

Wait.

That's a guy?!
posted by zombieflanders at 6:05 PM on July 11, 2012 [2 favorites]

i get mistaken for a guy here and elsewhere so i try to watch out for that assumption in myself, but it seriously never occurred to me that MSTPT could be a guy.
posted by nadawi at 6:29 PM on July 11, 2012

Well now that I've been labeled as "that guy" by the mods I'm going to have a pretty rough time aren't I.

Ah, yes. See: 'Playing the Victim' card.
posted by ericb at 6:32 PM on July 11, 2012

I have been mistaken for a robot.
posted by elizardbits at 6:38 PM on July 11, 2012

And yet you keep saying Romney isn't the candidate for you.
posted by koeselitz at 6:40 PM on July 11, 2012 [1 favorite]

i am an altogether better sort of robot though
posted by elizardbits at 6:42 PM on July 11, 2012 [5 favorites]

Unfortunately, once you've been pegged, you're pegged. It's as true here as it is in the rest of the world.

Funny, that's the same thing some girl I met on Craigslist told me.
posted by box at 6:46 PM on July 11, 2012 [1 favorite]

I'm often mistaken for a hat.
posted by dogrose at 6:49 PM on July 11, 2012

See: 'Playing the Victim' card.

I always read this "playing the victim-card" in my head. But then again, maybe you just know more card games than I do. I really only know euchre.

Or, is that a greeting card? Hm.
posted by heyho at 6:49 PM on July 11, 2012 [1 favorite]

If elizardbits is a robot I don't want to be a human anymore because your comments.

also every time I read your name, I first think elizabeth and have to do work to get to the actual name. it's actually a little weirdly annoying in a finicky and specific way. I don't know why and that bothers me.
posted by lazaruslong at 7:10 PM on July 11, 2012

New post linking to that article. Let's see how it goes, shall we?
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 7:22 PM on July 11, 2012

Well, shit. Trurl was banned? Again?Dammit.

He made great posts. Seriously good, fascinating, interesting FPP's. Was the situation really so unsalvageable? Was being so consistently disruptive and derailing that he had to be banned? Really?

That sucks. This place is thinner without him.
posted by zarq at 8:25 PM on July 11, 2012 [5 favorites]

What's the difference between being "That Guy" and being "This Guy"?
posted by maryr at 8:27 PM on July 11, 2012

Two thumbs.
posted by Etrigan at 8:29 PM on July 11, 2012 [10 favorites]

Was the situation really so unsalvageable? Was being so consistently disruptive and derailing that he had to be banned? Really?

Yes, really. He was banned originally for behavior he could not curtail in political threads. Behavior that turned threads into train wrecks, caused MeTa threads, the whole mess. He came back as a BND, promised to not be That Guy (basically) and slowly got to the point where he was unable to do that and was doing the same stuff he got banned for. If you can't make the Brand New Day work, you basically don't get to keep using it. He was active over at MetaChat at one point, I don't know if he still is.

It seems totally not okay to get into more detail than that in a public thread. You're welcome to email us if you want to discuss it more.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 8:37 PM on July 11, 2012

I'm often mistaken for a pile of ferrets stuffed into human clothing, when I am in fact a pile of ermines stuffed into human clothing.
posted by Uppity Pigeon #2 at 8:50 PM on July 11, 2012 [1 favorite]

Huh, I also saw you as more of a collective of stoats.
posted by maryr at 8:53 PM on July 11, 2012 [1 favorite]

But then he'd be Stoic Pigeon #2.
posted by Talez at 9:19 PM on July 11, 2012

zarq: “He made great posts. Seriously good, fascinating, interesting FPP's. Was the situation really so unsalvageable? Was being so consistently disruptive and derailing that he had to be banned? Really?”

Trurl was kind of a sad case, for me at least, because he was really and truly my favorite poster here. His posts were great, so much so that I'd usually forget that he was a BND. And then I'd turn around and be totally stunned when I'd wander into a thread he was commenting in – it was like he was a completely different dude, utterly out of step with his high quality posts. I am sad, like you, and I feel like we've lost something, but I can appreciate that it wasn't really salvageable after a certain point. For those of us who were mostly just following him to see his posts, it may be hard to believe, but having seen a lot of his commenting I think the mods did everything they could in his case. Trurl might even agree with that assessment, given the unusual amount of reflection he could be capable of in odd moments.
posted by koeselitz at 9:37 PM on July 11, 2012 [2 favorites]

jessamyn: “It seems totally not okay to get into more detail than that in a public thread. You're welcome to email us if you want to discuss it more.”

Missed this bit before I commented; sorry. Consider it dropped.
posted by koeselitz at 9:38 PM on July 11, 2012

You know, if you really feel stifled by not being able to post your hot-button topic here, you could, you know, just go elsewhere. There's a great big internet out there.
posted by Lynsey at 10:14 PM on July 11, 2012 [2 favorites]

You know, if you really feel stifled by not being able to post your hot-button topic here, you could, you know, just go elsewhere. There's a great big internet out there.

Typical American Rubbish.
posted by AElfwine Evenstar at 10:24 PM on July 11, 2012 [1 favorite]

"...the site is lightly moderated and as international as we can make it."

Goddamn it, now I'm going to need more coffee and a load of screen wipes.
posted by Decani at 10:25 PM on July 11, 2012 [1 favorite]

Wait, Trurl is banned? WTF? His posts were the most consistently excellent here, and MeFi will be much poorer without him. What the hell he was he doing that outweighed his positive contributions to the site?
posted by homunculus at 10:48 PM on July 11, 2012 [2 favorites]

Ach, crap, I posted before I read further. Nevermind.
posted by homunculus at 10:52 PM on July 11, 2012

If you conflate "censorship" with "fascism" you don't really understand either word. They are not synonyms. If you the confuse the former with editing - even if it were heavy handed and wrong headed, which this was not - then you don't understand "censorship". And if you consider the actions of a small set of independent moderators - especially if they are made unilaterally and against the common popular opinion - you don't really understand what "fascism" means. These are not just words to mean "things I don't agree with".
posted by freebird at 10:59 PM on July 11, 2012 [2 favorites]

AElfwine Evenstar: "'You know, if you really feel stifled by not being able to post your hot-button topic here, you could, you know, just go elsewhere. There's a great big internet out there.'

Typical American Rubbish"

I haven't lived in America for a while, so my impression of it comes primarily from my memories of it from pre-1996, and from the Internet. That impression is "hey, guys, let's get into a really big argument about something political!!!!" My family did it. The kids at my university did it. Political talk radio, which is all about arguing politics, did it. TV did it. Pretty much everybody loved to fight about politics.

Since I've left America, I have found out (primarily from the Internet) that Fox has created a news station, primarily to argue about hot-topic issues. Two comedians, Jon Stewart and whatshisname Colbert, have established careers talking about hot-topic issues.

Maybe the impression I'm getting here from overseas is wrong, but it seems like America is more about "arguing about hot-topic issues" than ever. So saying "if you want to argue about that stuff, go somewhere else on the Internet" doesn't sound like "typical American rubbish" to me. It sounds very atypical.
posted by Bugbread at 11:09 PM on July 11, 2012 [1 favorite]

moammargaret: "That's too bad. I mean, everyone here is wicked smart, self-selecting and conscientious. I think we do hot-button better than anywhere else on the internet. I mean that in all sincerity."

Check out the site humiliating comments on this recent post and get back to us on that, we apparently can't even manage to be less of a bullying asshole to talented singing children than the linked youtube comments.

Incidentally, mods, what happened with you guys and that thread? It had to have been flagged to hell and was a pretty classic case of a user who does this ALL THE FUCKING TIME taking a massive dump on it right at the very beginning.
posted by Blasdelb at 11:34 PM on July 11, 2012 [3 favorites]

His posts were great, so much so that I'd usually forget that he was a BND.

I read your comment without context, so I nipped off to the urban dictionary to find out what a BND was. Boy was *I* surprised.
posted by Tell Me No Lies at 12:58 AM on July 12, 2012

Yeah, I'm with blasdelb.
posted by to sir with millipedes at 3:50 AM on July 12, 2012 [1 favorite]

a pretty classic case of a user who does this ALL THE FUCKING TIME taking a massive dump on it right at the very beginning.

True enough in this case (I actually suspected who you were talking about before I clicked) but that a greater portion of others are people responding to said dump isn't that great, either.
posted by Marisa Stole the Precious Thing at 4:00 AM on July 12, 2012 [1 favorite]

Since we're in MeTa now and I'm not derailing that thread...

I'm not new to MetaFilter by any stretch of the imagination. This is not my first FPP. When I post something, I only post things that I both really enjoy and have a fair amount of emotional distance from because I understand that push-back from the community is a pretty normal part of how things go around here and I've learned from experience that it's not good for me to feel like I need to *defend* the subject of my post. So, I don't post something if I feel like I won't be able to brush it off if someone really hates it.

Anyhow. Even with that in mind, knowing that people might not like my post and might just be verbal about it and that's really ok with me.... even with that... I'm very, very seriously considering not posting FPPs anymore if what I can reasonably expect is people to find the simplest reason to hate/snark on the post without even reading it at all. Part of why I suspect that post got turned into a debate on the names of the children involved is it was the easiest way to snark without actually clicking the link.

I was totally prepared for snark about something being "twee" or too precious or [your favorite children singing on youtube video sucks] or whatever. To have the thread being taken over with the lowest common denominator snark at the very beginning, to me, if my standards are already lowered so I'm not posting things I'm emotionally invested in... well, this is just one more push to the edge of "Not worth posting at all."
posted by sonika at 4:20 AM on July 12, 2012 [7 favorites]

Incidentally, mods, what happened with you guys and that thread? It had to have been flagged to hell and was a pretty classic case of a user who does this ALL THE FUCKING TIME taking a massive dump on it right at the very beginning.

That inane shit is as big a drag on the site as any PoliOutrageFilter. I don't know if they feel they have something to prove or gain by constantly being a sneering turd, but I do wish they'd try getting validation from their job, family, or friends rather than just sadly, noisily, flailing about for attention here.
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 4:29 AM on July 12, 2012 [6 favorites]

Those kinds of comments probably get a fair amount of favorites, don't they?
posted by crunchland at 5:13 AM on July 12, 2012

A quick scan suggests no.
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 5:18 AM on July 12, 2012

I don't know if they feel they have something to prove or gain by constantly being a sneering turd, but I do wish they'd try getting validation from their job, family, or friends rather than just sadly, noisily, flailing about for attention here.

Yep. That user has a well established pattern of being all noise and no signal.
posted by to sir with millipedes at 5:19 AM on July 12, 2012 [1 favorite]

Part of why I suspect that post got turned into a debate on the names of the children involved is it was the easiest way to snark without actually clicking the link.

Clicked the link, watched the entire song, read the thread and found the child name part of if more interesting to me than the video. Cute kid vids are fine, Cute kid vids doing the same thing that has been done again and again for the past couple of years is a bit old. At least for me, so I went with a kid name comment.

However, the turd at the top of the thread was uncalled for and was a derail. Had it not been there, I would have simply passed over the thread and not commented at all because maybe the thread would have stayed on course and not interested me. I am fairly ambivalent about most cutey kiddo vids in general and do my best to not piss in those threads. In this particular case, the historical Seinfeld reference just kept popping in my mind so I went with it. Maybe if the thread had not gone to the Turd Side early, I would never have posted there.

Sorry your thread went south. I don't post FPPs anymore fwiw. Primarily because I suck at posting FPPs. My last FPP was deleted, and yes, it sucked.

So to bring this MeTa thread back inline, I am submit that all thread derails and subsequent deletions are the result of Obama and the current administration's drone policy.
posted by lampshade at 5:59 AM on July 12, 2012

FWIW, I found the names *discussion* to be interesting and I don't mind that something I posted went into a different direction. That is... once the thread started being actually discussing why people choose certain names rather than just snark.

It's the drive-by "I have nothing to say about this, but I have to say SOMETHING so here's what I've got off the top of my butt" kind of thing that is frustrating.
posted by sonika at 6:07 AM on July 12, 2012 [5 favorites]

yeah....i hear ya on the drive by crap. Its even worse when it is a vindictive, obnoxious one. The goofy ones make me laugh, but when the intent is to outright insult people and content, it has no place in the thread.
posted by lampshade at 6:36 AM on July 12, 2012

Decani does that sort of thing often enough that I commented about it in Meta recently. But to be fair, he's definitely not the only person who does it. But ye gods I think it would be nice if he'd stop hating on music threads that don't "do it" for him around here.

Sonika, I sympathize completely. I know how discouraging it can be to take the time and effort to post an FPP and have it derailed with drive-by snark.
posted by zarq at 7:14 AM on July 12, 2012

This place is thinner without him.

I see what you did there.
posted by octobersurprise at 8:05 AM on July 12, 2012

The site is lightly moderated.... as we can make it.

Thanks, I needed a laugh this morning.
posted by entropicamericana at 8:06 AM on July 12, 2012 [1 favorite]

So saying "if you want to argue about that stuff, go somewhere else on the Internet" doesn't sound like "typical American rubbish" to me. It sounds very atypical.

Sounds like you missed the bush and now obama years where almost every time a critique of our country is made you can always count on some idiot saying: "well if you hate our country so much why don't you move somewhere else."
posted by AElfwine Evenstar at 8:10 AM on July 12, 2012 [1 favorite]

Or, you can stay here and work diligently to enlighten the sheeple.
posted by octobersurprise at 8:15 AM on July 12, 2012

The internet is not geography. You literally have a choice to instantly go to any other site you want to. Metafilter cannot be all things to all people. Demanding that it try is irrational and unfair.
posted by koeselitz at 8:17 AM on July 12, 2012 [1 favorite]

Incidentally, mods, what happened with you guys and that thread? It had to have been flagged to hell

It has rolled up to being flagged to slight heck but only gradually or it might have jumped out at me more, but the short version is this is just a crossed-wire on my end—when I saw the initial comment, I thought it was an obnoxious aside but I thought it had been made in a different and much busier thread where it would be likely to just get driven on past by folks continuing with that busy discussion about not-shouting-about-names. Totally my error, if I had taken a closer look to double-check it would have been obvious what a derail it was in context and I would have nixed it immediately.

and was a pretty classic case of a user who does this ALL THE FUCKING TIME taking a massive dump on it right at the very beginning.

It was, and that sucks, and it's something Decani really needs to put more of an effort into restraining himself on. He's obviously not the only one who ever does it, but he's been doing it a lot, and the wander-into-a-thread-and-start-hollering-about-some-shit-he-doesn't-like schtick is not improving threads.

True enough in this case (I actually suspected who you were talking about before I clicked) but that a greater portion of others are people responding to said dump isn't that great, either.

Yes, that kinda sucks too. Ignore the random hollering, folks, don't engage it. You've been on the internet before, you know how this stuff tends to play out.
posted by cortex (staff) at 8:20 AM on July 12, 2012 [1 favorite]

> Demanding that it try is irrational and unfair.

I don't know about the fairness aspect of it all, but I do think it's quite rational of people to try to use the site as a kind of bullhorn for hot button issues rather than simply just go "somewhere else". It's easy access to lots of eyeballs here. You won't get that in many other places, even Reddit, without working a lot harder at it. Here, any old sod with a chip on his shoulder can set up shop and get busy. So, in that since, it's a very rational choice to make to use the site that way rather than row your small boat on the huge internet ocean.
posted by Burhanistan at 8:25 AM on July 12, 2012 [1 favorite]

sense, ffs
posted by Burhanistan at 8:30 AM on July 12, 2012

> I'm often mistaken for a hat.

Me too!

Also, Christ it's boring to see people whining about deletions. The moderators here are doing a better job than you or I could do, and a better job than those on any site I've seen with a comparably large userbase. (Which, if you ask me, which no one did, has gotten way too large.)

> Sounds like you missed the bush and now obama years where almost every time a critique of our country is made you can always count on some idiot saying: "well if you hate our country so much why don't you move somewhere else."

Sounds like you can't tell the difference between a country and a website, or between politics and chatting on the internet.
posted by languagehat at 8:30 AM on July 12, 2012 [1 favorite]

Typical American Rubbish.

Looking like you're making an effort here can go a long way towards the amount of friction you do or do not have here. This is very very very much up to you.

And sorry too about missing the Decani/MC thing. It was a slow burn flag-wise and by the time I saw it later in the day people seemed to have moved on from it. We try to catch that stuff but as much as the "lightly moderated" stuff makes some people laugh, there's some truth to it [especially when there are a few other hot threads using up all of our available time]. If you think we're missing something feel free to also drop us an email but sometimes stuff falls through the cracks.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 8:31 AM on July 12, 2012

Sounds like you can't tell the difference between a country and a website, or between politics and chatting on the internet.

yawn.

Looking like you're making an effort here can go a long way towards the amount of friction you do or do not have here.

True. I guess next time someone makes an idiotic comment pertaining to me I'm biting my tongue. Either way, since some people here seem to be either having reading comprehension issues or just plain conflating me with another user I should say one more thing.

I haven't actually exhibited the least bit of angst over the fpp being deleted. In fact my second comment in the thread was to note that "all's well that ends better". Meaning that it was actually a good thing that my fpp was deleted because it resulted in a better quality fpp. Second I don't see how any of you get that I think Metafilter is my soapbox given that my active participation on the site is not even close to what most of the "accusers" is. Granted I tend to post and comment about issues I find interesting, but doesn't everybody. Most of my posts are science related anyway. Only 12 of my 45 fpps have been related to war, drone wars, or president obama. So the whole "that guy" thing is pretty contrived in my opinion. I guess now that joe/trurl is gone its only natural that vitriol he endured will migrate elsewhere.
posted by AElfwine Evenstar at 8:57 AM on July 12, 2012 [2 favorites]

Another thing that has been bothering me is that in my limited interaction with the mods this "that guy" thing has never come up in the context of drones or obama. It has come up in the context of "making it personal" and "take all comers". Which, with a few exceptions, I thought I had been improving at immensely. Just thought I should point that out for posterity since I am now the new "that guy" pertaining to obama and apparently drones.
posted by AElfwine Evenstar at 9:07 AM on July 12, 2012

Be a zen master and stop all your conceptualizing. Life is a swirling vortex of light and sound. This apparent world is simply a copy of a copy, personalized by your own artifacts of perception and cognition. Now go, and realize that it was always you from before the big bang.
posted by Burhanistan at 9:10 AM on July 12, 2012 [1 favorite]

:) are you talking about cybernetic recursion occurring along a symmetry breaking positive feedback loop?... or are you just really fucked up on LSD???
posted by AElfwine Evenstar at 9:17 AM on July 12, 2012

Whatever makes you happy, but thinking of yourself as stigmatized, even in jest, is to turn your back on the fact that you are really everything. Everything. Everything.
posted by Burhanistan at 9:20 AM on July 12, 2012 [1 favorite]

> "well if you hate our country so much why don't you move somewhere else."

Also, if you think this is an American thing you are sadly mistaken. I just ran across this sentence in a Tessa Hadley story: "She said that it was only fair for everyone to do a day's hard work, and that people who criticized England all the time should try going to live somewhere else, and that she hated cruelty to animals." I assure you this is a human/tribal thing not specific to Americans.
posted by languagehat at 9:32 AM on July 12, 2012 [1 favorite]

Also, if you think this is an American thing you are sadly mistaken. I just ran across this sentence in a Tessa Hadley story: "She said that it was only fair for everyone to do a day's hard work, and that people who criticized England all the time should try going to live somewhere else, and that she hated cruelty to animals." I assure you this is a human/tribal thing not specific to Americans.

Nope, you are the one who is mistaken about a great. many. things. It was I who allowed the bothans to learn the location of the shield generator.

Why is this so important to you? It's almost as if you compulsively feel the need to deflect any criticism of the U.S.A. Why is that? Either way, you are correct that tribalism is not unique to Americans, but having the most powerful military in the world is...maybe you can see where some problems might arise what with the invading and the killing and the torturing.
posted by AElfwine Evenstar at 9:45 AM on July 12, 2012

One should never mistake criticism of one's self as endorsement for the things to which one is opposed.
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 10:08 AM on July 12, 2012 [1 favorite]

Welcome to the part of the thread where if you guys seriously just want to have an argument about this you can do it somewhere else. This is not a proxy space for an argument about what you do or do not like about perceived American/non-American behavior or tribalism or whatever.

AElfwine, to the degree that I have been trying to be gracious about you having been making a good effort, this is seeming like another example of you not doing that re: the "taking on all comers" thing you just yourself noted. Please give this a rest.
posted by cortex (staff) at 10:08 AM on July 12, 2012 [1 favorite]

It's almost as if you compulsively feel the need to deflect any criticism of the U.S.A.

You're calling languagehat out for compulsively deflecting whatever based on that one comment? Did you accidentally Burhanistan's LSD?
posted by rtha at 10:08 AM on July 12, 2012 [5 favorites]

I accidentally a Coke bottle.

What do?
posted by Marisa Stole the Precious Thing at 10:24 AM on July 12, 2012 [2 favorites]

It will pass...
posted by Burhanistan at 10:25 AM on July 12, 2012

"Not sure if thread needs to be closed up
or
Burhanistan's LSD?"
-That Fry
posted by vozworth at 10:27 AM on July 12, 2012

This is now a Spider-man thread.
posted by zombieflanders at 10:31 AM on July 12, 2012

This has always been a Spider-man thread.
posted by neroli at 10:32 AM on July 12, 2012

inb4 404
posted by Marisa Stole the Precious Thing at 10:32 AM on July 12, 2012 [1 favorite]

We have always been at war with the Great Lakes Avengers.
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 10:39 AM on July 12, 2012 [1 favorite]

Be a zen master and stop all your conceptualizing. Life is a swirling vortex of light and sound. This apparent world is simply a copy of a copy, personalized by your own artifacts of perception and cognition. Now go, and realize that it was always you from before the big bang.

Zizek writes, “[Western Buddhism allows us to] fully participate in the frantic pace of the capitalist game (or any other worldly evil like Fascism), while sustaining the perception that you are not really in it, that you are well aware how worthless the spectacle is — what really matters to you is the peace of the inner self to which you know you can always withdraw.”
posted by Golden Eternity at 10:44 AM on July 12, 2012 [3 favorites]

I'm willing to accidentally LSD from all comers.
posted by crunchland at 10:45 AM on July 12, 2012

Peace of the inner self? No such thing! It's just you. Only you. You are a formless presence in an infinite room with a soft diffused light that is coming from an indiscernible source. Always.
posted by Burhanistan at 10:47 AM on July 12, 2012

I guess now that joe/trurl is gone its only natural that vitriol he endured will migrate elsewhere.

And don't think we don't appreciate your continuing efforts to take a place that's about finding interesting stuff about the web and turn it into a pulpit for your political views. Your unflagging efforts in this area are an inspiration to everyone who believes that their agenda must be followed anywhere, everywhere, for the sake of the world.

Any one who has ever been important and doing important things admires your martyrdom in the face of the tyranny of the appropriate, and finds a new foundation in your knowledge, your insistence, your absolute certainty that anywhere at any time is the place to speak out the Truth, social contracts be damned.

And the converts you've made! Your understanding that people's casual dismissal of you is merely a way of flirting with your ideas. Knowing that their seeming indifference is only a cover for their fear of the important truths you alone have the awareness to uncover! Knowing that your unique insight is so unsettling, so terrible for these mundane people to encounter that they have no choice but to silence your bright spark before they are overwhelmed by terror.

Soldier on, oh guiding star of Truth. Lead us all to the land where our very important messages trump the need to respect the petty wishes of the mundane. All of us who's specialness has been torn from us by the world await your triumph that we may rise ourselves and all will recognize our wisdom.

We will all be special once again. We will all be wiser than our neighbors, and they will all stop to listen to us no matter what they may be engaged in. Even those with unbridled passion and messages of their own will abandon their petty causes to rally behind us. No one will be subject to the petty rules of society or common cause, as everyone will act righteously and everyone else will fall in line behind us.

Your unflagging efforts inspire us all. Utopia awaits!
posted by Tell Me No Lies at 10:55 AM on July 12, 2012 [4 favorites]

Granted I tend to post and comment about issues I find interesting, but doesn't everybody. Most of my posts are science related anyway. Only 12 of my 45 fpps have been related to war, drone wars, or president obama.

I apologize if this seems in any way like piling on, because I like and respect you and we've had a number of good, productive conversations over the years, but 27% does seem like a high number to me. Now granted, I've made more than 10x your number of posts so in terms of sheer volume perhaps it's less likely I'd post so much on a single issue, but I can't think of any individual topic -- even the ones I make FPPs about a *lot* -- that I've ever posted as much about.

When trurl was initially banned there was a lot of discussion in meta about whether it was his behavior or his political position that was upsetting people. The consensus was the former. Taking a contrary-to-the-majority political position can certainly make a thread all about you and your point of view. But speaking as someone who has had a sort of similar problem around here in the past, if people are saying your behavior is the issue and not your position per se, please consider that they may have a point? If nothing else, changing the way I communicate around here made discussions less frustrating. You might find looking at the situation objectively as beneficial as I once did.
posted by zarq at 11:07 AM on July 12, 2012 [4 favorites]

I guess now that joe/trurl is gone its only natural that vitriol he endured will migrate elsewhere.

Actually, there isn't some sort of Principle of Conservation of Vitriol stating that the total amount of vitriol remains constant and the only thing that changes is how it's distributed. It's possible to have vigorous disagreement and even argument without getting vitriolic about it.
posted by Lexica at 11:21 AM on July 12, 2012 [2 favorites]

Tell Me No Lies it sounds like you're constipated. Try bran muffins.

No worries you're not piling on zarq In fact you're a mefite who's opinion I respect a lot...I don't always agree with it mind you. I'm willing to accept that my behavior may be a problem. In fact I thought I was on track to "rehabilitating" myself in that regard, as apparently did the mods. That's why I find it confusing and troubling that cortex would call me out publicly as "that guy" when a "reframe and try tommorow" would have sufficed. Especially since no mod has ever warned me about being "that guy" in the context of obama or drone warfare. I'm not alleging some conspiracy, sometimes shit just happens how it happens and we have to roll with the punches. Of course I don't expect an apology from cortex as he was just doing his job and everybody makes mistakes. I would just advise cortex that in the future try not to label people in deletion reasons when it's not really necessary.
posted by AElfwine Evenstar at 11:55 AM on July 12, 2012 [2 favorites]

...Your unflagging efforts inspire us all. Utopia awaits!
zarq

No - no words. No words to describe it. Poetry! They should have sent a poet.
posted by Sangermaine at 11:57 AM on July 12, 2012

I seriously think you might have your jimmies rustled over this. Cortex was not "calling you out"; he went about the deletion as delicately as possible, and has been repeatedly gracious to you in this thread despite ... all this. In fact, I think for the most part folks have been super kind to you here. Maybe just chalk it up to "oh well, shit happens, maybe I can learn from this", let it drop, and move on to tomorrow?
posted by Marisa Stole the Precious Thing at 11:58 AM on July 12, 2012

> Zizek writes, “[Western Buddhism allows us to] fully participate in the frantic pace of the capitalist game (or any other worldly evil like Fascism), while sustaining the perception that you are not really in it, that you are well aware how worthless the spectacle is — what really matters to you is the peace of the inner self to which you know you can always withdraw.”

Also, what this kind of neglects, I think, is that there's no conclusion to the debate in Buddhism of whether or not the six realms are real or just metaphor or both. There will be disagreement within the same temple with the people of the same color on the next cushion.
posted by Burhanistan at 12:09 PM on July 12, 2012

When trurl was initially banned there was a lot of discussion in meta about whether it was his behavior or his political position that was upsetting people. The consensus was the former.

This is all relative though. Relative to his political position. If he had formed a habit of dogging Romney in every political thread he would be right at home and I highly doubt he would get any flags. Again not alleging a conspiracy. What happened to joe/trurl was basically a perfect storm of his behavior really clashing with the views of a lot of mefites. Again his behavior while still problematic would not attract as much attention if he had been a critic of Romney.

I seriously think you might have your jimmies rustled over this. Cortex was not "calling you out"; he went about the deletion as delicately as possible, and has been repeatedly gracious to you in this thread despite ... all this. In fact, I think for the most part folks have been super kind to you here. Maybe just chalk it up to "oh well, shit happens, maybe I can learn from this", let it drop, and move on to tomorrow?

I don't have my "jimmies rustled", as I have stated I was miffed at cortex for a short period of time then I got over it. I am now merely suggesting to cortex and the other mods that when writing deletion reasons they should probably think twice. My opinion is that cortex fucked up when he wrote that deletion reason. I can hold this belief without having any ill will towards the staff here, can't I? Again I'm just "kindly" suggesting that he was out of line and to take that into account going forward. You're free to disagree of course.
posted by AElfwine Evenstar at 12:11 PM on July 12, 2012 [2 favorites]

When you basically call something a conspiracy without using the word (twice!), just saying that you're not alleging a conspiracy doesn't actually mean that you're not doing it.
posted by zombieflanders at 12:20 PM on July 12, 2012

When you basically call something a conspiracy without using the word (twice!), just saying that you're not alleging a conspiracy doesn't actually mean that you're not doing it.

reading comprehension...work on it.
posted by AElfwine Evenstar at 12:25 PM on July 12, 2012 [1 favorite]

That's why I find it confusing and troubling that cortex would call me out publicly as "that guy"

Marlo Thomas was That Girl and she never got huffy over it.
posted by octobersurprise at 12:27 PM on July 12, 2012 [3 favorites]

Again his behavior while still problematic would not attract as much attention if he had been a critic of Romney.

Nah, if anyone started turning any political thread into a reason to dog Romney, the populace would quickly tire of it and the mods would have a word with that particular member.

That's the real problem with Joe/trurl's behavior, the penchant to drag his single minded political views into pretty much any thread that mentioned politics. That behavior is disruptive and and causes huge problems and would a cause of concern for any topic.

If someone loved cheeseburgers and used any post related to food to talk about the wonder of cheeseburgers, it would be a problem. For a while, any space related thread seemed to turn into an argument about the cost/benefits of manned spaceflight and had that continued, it probably would have been involved a moderator stepping in.

This isn't a joe/trurl problem or an obama love problem or metafilter groupthink problem. It's a "not everyone wants to talk about your pet subject all the time" problem and if you don't get that, then yeah, you became "that person".
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 12:28 PM on July 12, 2012

What happened to joe/trurl was basically a perfect storm of his behavior really clashing with the views of a lot of mefites. Again his behavior while still problematic would not attract as much attention if he had been a critic of Romney.

Seriously, no it wouldn't. If you would like to take this to the contact form and we'll be happy to detail exactly what the problem was, how it wasn't being handled, and the things we tried to do to keep Trurl in this community, we'll be happy to talk with you about it. This was not the result of just a lot of crabby "We don't like you" flagging.

My opinion is that cortex fucked up when he wrote that deletion reason.

Your opinion is not shared by us and appears to not be shared by others. So, moving forward, things are likely to remain more or less like they are and you'll have to decide how you feel about that personally. You seem to consistently either want MetaFilter to be different from how it is and/or you want to be able to complain about MetaFilter not being how you want it to be. Fair enough. My job is to set expectations about how this site runs now and how it is likely to run in the future. You want to stay despite this site displeasing you, that's your choice. You want to turn that situation into threads where you feel entitled to snark and bitch at people who don't share your beliefs, that's not going to go so well.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 12:28 PM on July 12, 2012 [1 favorite]

reading comprehension...work on it.

The first sentence and third sentence claim the mods are collaborating on an unwritten rule that uses a different set of standards for some censorious purpose. The second sentence says that you're not claiming that the the mods are collaborating on an unwritten rule that uses a different set of standards for some censorious purpose. Not sure where I'm misreading here.
posted by zombieflanders at 12:33 PM on July 12, 2012

Geez, AElfwine Evenstar – wasn't cortex being pretty charitable and even complimentary in that deletion reason? Maybe I'm totally wrong, but it's really hard to see "I appreciate that you're trying not to be 'that guy'" and read it as "you are totallly 'that guy.'"

I agree with cortex and appreciate your contributions, and I really like the interactions I've had with you here. I don't want that fact to be missed, and I hope this little argument doesn't become a source for bitterness for you.
posted by koeselitz at 12:39 PM on July 12, 2012 [1 favorite]

Your opinion is not shared by us and appears to not be shared by others.

As I stated above it is of course your right to do so.

So, moving forward, things are likely to remain more or less like they are and you'll have to decide how you feel about that personally.

I'm not asking for any changes so I feel pretty fine.

You seem to consistently either want MetaFilter to be different from how it is and/or you want to be able to complain about MetaFilter not being how you want it to be.

Cite? I don't think I've ever complained about metafilter or crusaded for it to be different than it is, and resent the accusation that I have.

My job is to set expectations about how this site runs now and how it is likely to run in the future. You want to stay despite this site displeasing you, that's your choice.

And you guys do an excellent job for the most part. Being human mistakes are made from time to time. I feel that cortex made a mistake and am calling him on it. Is that not acceptable behavior? Should I be talking to you guys privately about it? Also, I am perfectly fine with how metafilter is in it's current incarnation.

You want to turn that situation into threads where you feel entitled to snark and bitch at people who don't share your beliefs, that's not going to go so well.

I agree. You will notice that I hadn't commented on the thread when it was deleted and hadn't planned on it either. You can also notice that I have commented a total of 3 times on its current incarnation. Listen I don't know why you are being so aggro. I don't have any problem with you guys or the site. I just suggested that you guys try not to label people in deletion reasons. Sorry I guess.

koeselitz, no not getting bitter although jessamyn kinda hurt my feelings above by accusing me of something I don't feel like I've ever done. My problem with the deletion reason is that I was suddenly labeled as "that guy", as you can see from the comments in this meta, without ever having been approached by the mods that this was even an issue. Again all I did was make a suggestion. I'm willing to let it drop at that as I don't really see much else to be done about it.
posted by AElfwine Evenstar at 12:47 PM on July 12, 2012 [1 favorite]

They wouldn't have to babysit if people didn't insist on being assholes in threads like that.

They wouldn't have to babysit if they actually took serious action against people who are consistently obnoxious.

it's something Decani really needs to put more of an effort into restraining himself on.

Feels like I see plenty of mod tawk along those lines and it seems like in the great marjoity of cases the saaaaaaaaaaaame people keep doing the saaaaaaaaaaaame stuff and the mods come across like parents admonishing children who ignore them and know there's just a teensy little chance that there will be consequences.

I am tired of consistently obnoxious people here, the lack of action taken against them and the mods grumbling because--shock!--the obnoxiousness continues.
posted by ambient2 at 1:04 PM on July 12, 2012

And you guys do an excellent job for the most part. Being human mistakes are made from time to time. I feel that cortex made a mistake and am calling him on it. Is that not acceptable behavior?

Depends on what you want/expect. Do you want an apology? An acknowledgement of wrongdoing (even though cortex and other mods don't agree that there was wrongdoing)? What do you want?
posted by rtha at 1:14 PM on July 12, 2012

mods come across like parents admonishing children who ignore them and know there's just a teensy little chance that there will be consequences.

I know little about parenting, but I don't think the best answer is to ramp up the admonishment and worsen the consequences; at some point children need to see how they can get their needs met by doing things differently. Admonishment may just create an ego battle that is maybe best averted with trickery and subtle manipulation.
posted by Golden Eternity at 1:26 PM on July 12, 2012

'Hellbanning Your Three-Year-Old'
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 1:36 PM on July 12, 2012 [6 favorites]

Depends on what you want/expect. Do you want an apology? An acknowledgement of wrongdoing (even though cortex and other mods don't agree that there was wrongdoing)? What do you want?

World peace? An air mattress that can hold its air? or what I said in my last comment:

Again all I did was make a suggestion. I'm willing to let it drop at that as I don't really see much else to be done about it.
posted by AElfwine Evenstar at 1:48 PM on July 12, 2012

'Hellbanning Your Three-Year-Old'

It's been done.
posted by zarq at 1:58 PM on July 12, 2012 [2 favorites]

If only that worked with cats.
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 2:10 PM on July 12, 2012 [2 favorites]

The first sentence and third sentence claim the mods are collaborating on an unwritten rule that uses a different set of standards for some censorious purpose. The second sentence says that you're not claiming that the the mods are collaborating on an unwritten rule that uses a different set of standards for some censorious purpose. Not sure where I'm misreading here.

If he had formed a habit of dogging Romney in every political thread he would be right at home and I highly doubt he would get any flags....What happened to joe/trurl was basically a perfect storm of his behavior really clashing with the views of a lot of mefites. Again his behavior while still problematic would not attract as much attention if he had been a critic of Romney.

He is saying bashing Obama gets you more flags from users, not moderators. Not an accusation of mod conspiracy! Wrong again on the same stupid accusation twice in one thread because you refuse to actually read! Congrats!
posted by furiousxgeorge at 6:41 PM on July 12, 2012 [1 favorite]

He is saying bashing Obama gets you more flags from users, not moderators. Not an accusation of mod conspiracy! Wrong again on the same stupid accusation twice in one thread because you refuse to actually read! Congrats!

Which of course ignores this: What happened to joe/trurl was basically a perfect storm of his behavior really clashing with the views of a lot of mefites.

"What happened" was that he got banned, and alleging that had it just been his behavior it wouldn't have happened sounds like a conspiracy theory, and therefore he doth protest too much. That seems to be the takeaway of several other people here, including jessamyn. If that's not what was meant, it's worded really poorly.

And BTW, you're really on a tear here about me "lying" (of which you've alleged multiple times and never backed up with proof) and "not reading" (when other people agree that the other poster is not making themselves clear). You want to vent at me, do it via MeMail or bring it up with the mods, because the personal attacks via comments are starting to give me a nasty vibe.
posted by zombieflanders at 7:01 PM on July 12, 2012

You want to vent at me, do it via MeMail or bring it up with the mods, because the personal attacks via comments are starting to give me a nasty vibe.

Dude, if you don't want people to get angry about you don't lie about their comments. Nobody made you pretend my comment said something it didn't and nobody is making you continue to distort what AE said even though he made it directly clear he was not alleging mod conspiracy and he has already clarified to you that you are not reading it correctly.

The "what happened" he is referring to is getting flagged a lot because of the clash with other Mefites. He acknowledged the bad behavior was real.

You are ignoring the context of what he was responding to as well, "When trurl was initially banned there was a lot of discussion in meta about whether it was his behavior or his political position that was upsetting people."

He was addressing why people were upset with him, not why the mods did what they did.
posted by furiousxgeorge at 7:12 PM on July 12, 2012

I've never seen jessamyn so bold.
posted by gman at 7:12 PM on July 12, 2012 [1 favorite]

aggro, even.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 7:16 PM on July 12, 2012 [7 favorites]

Nobody made you pretend my comment said something it didn't and nobody is making you continue to distort what AE said even though he made it directly clear he was not alleging mod conspiracy and he has already clarified to you that you are not reading it correctly.

Maybe it truly was worded poorly, then, because banning is a mod action. Ascribing the guy's views clashing with other Mefites as the reason for this mod action does suggest he was banned for have a minority viewpoint, even if zf and AE agree his behavior contributed to that bannening.
posted by Marisa Stole the Precious Thing at 8:13 PM on July 12, 2012

furiousxgeorge has basically the crux of what I was saying. The mods have what 40,000 users to moderate? Figure it out and quit making yourselves look like illiterates...you guys keep trying to tar me but like a bad marksman you keep missing the target.

You guys have such simplistic views of how things happen. In this situation we have 3 actors or sets of actors. We have Joe/trurl(j/t), the mods, and mefites. If you can't create a scenario in your head where all three sets of actors interact and end up with j/t being banned without their being a secret conspiracy then I guess you guys have a profound lack of imagination.
posted by AElfwine Evenstar at 8:32 PM on July 12, 2012 [1 favorite]

Ok, man, phrases like "secret conspiracy" really do not help you.
posted by Burhanistan at 8:34 PM on July 12, 2012

aggro, even.

well you were...
posted by AElfwine Evenstar at 8:34 PM on July 12, 2012

Ok, man, phrases like "secret conspiracy" really do not help you.

That's probably why he doesn't like being falsely accused of suggesting one.
posted by furiousxgeorge at 8:43 PM on July 12, 2012

Burhanistan: "Ok, man, phrases like "secret conspiracy" really do not help you."

I don't know the background here, but just going off what is being said, it seems like AE is saying there isn't a secret conspiracy, and then people are saying "You say you don't think there's a conspiracy, but I know that you really do believe there is a conspiracy, and you're wrong!"

So it seems like a lot of people are having a violent agreement, as opposed to the usual violent disagreement. Very surreal. I'm glad school wasn't like this.

Teacher: "What's 2 + 2?"
Bugbread: "4"
Teacher: "No, you're wrong. You clearly think it's 5, but it's actually 4!"
posted by Bugbread at 8:44 PM on July 12, 2012 [4 favorites]

You guys have such simplistic views of how things happen. In this situation we have 3 actors or sets of actors. We have Joe/trurl(j/t), the mods, and mefites. If you can't create a scenario in your head where all three sets of actors interact and end up with j/t being banned without their being a secret conspiracy then I guess you guys have a profound lack of imagination.

No one is saying this dynamic does not take place. The objection is to the assertion that Joe/Trurl's ban was the result of "clashing with the views of a lot of mefites"; not his behavior alone.
posted by Marisa Stole the Precious Thing at 8:47 PM on July 12, 2012

Very surreal.

Well someone was passing LSD around upthread so I don't know exactly what happened.
posted by AElfwine Evenstar at 8:51 PM on July 12, 2012

The way that the "If you can't create a scenario..." sentence is structured, it comes off like, if we don't believe there's something going on, then we're not paying attention to reality. The fact that it's something like a triple negative with somersault at the end compounds the confusion.
posted by zombieflanders at 9:02 PM on July 12, 2012

yes poorly worded but easily parsed if you actually listen to what I've been saying the entire time.
posted by AElfwine Evenstar at 9:14 PM on July 12, 2012

No, I understood just fine.
posted by the man of twists and turns at 9:27 PM on July 12, 2012 [2 favorites]

This is turning into more of a Brown Recluse Spider-man thread. Necrotizing.
posted by maryr at 10:06 PM on July 12, 2012 [2 favorites]

`So here's a question for you. How old did you say you were?'

Alice made a short calculation, and said `Seven years and six months.'

`Wrong!' Humpty Dumpty exclaimed triumphantly. `You never said a word like it!'

`I though you meant "How old are you?"' Alice explained.

`If I'd meant that, I'd have said it,' said Humpty Dumpty.

Alice didn't want to begin another argument, so she said nothing.

`Seven years and six months!' Humpty Dumpty repeated thoughtfully. `An uncomfortable sort of age. Now if you'd asked my advice, I'd have said "Leave off at seven" -- but it's too late now.'

`I never ask advice about growing,' Alice said Indignantly.

`Too proud?' the other inquired.

Alice felt even more indignant at this suggestion. `I mean,' she said, `that one can't help growing older.'

`One can't, perhaps,' said Humpty Dumpty, `but two can. With proper assistance, you might have left off at seven.'

`What a beautiful belt you've got on!' Alice suddenly remarked.

Lewis Carrol

thanks to Jessamyn for linking to this in previous flameout
posted by Golden Eternity at 10:18 PM on July 12, 2012

Hey, maybe Xenu's thetans aren't such a bad metaphor after all.
posted by Burhanistan at 11:05 PM on July 12, 2012

Wait, they're metaphors?
posted by rtha at 11:05 PM on July 12, 2012

Sure! Other people's thoughts infest us.
posted by Burhanistan at 11:07 PM on July 12, 2012

Justification is a marvelous thing.
posted by de at 11:13 PM on July 12, 2012

you guys keep trying to tar me but like a bad marksman you keep missing the target.

My favorite part of these bunfights is when the flame-r-outer starts to mistake themselves for James T. Kirk.
posted by octobersurprise at 6:17 AM on July 13, 2012 [2 favorites]

That's not a belt. It's a cravat.
posted by Sailormom at 6:22 AM on July 13, 2012 [1 favorite]

The only solution is...a balance of power. We arm our side with exactly that much more. A balance of power...the trickiest, most difficult, dirtiest game of them all. But the only one that preserves both sides.
posted by furiousxgeorge at 7:05 AM on July 13, 2012

Is this the cold war thread?
posted by clavdivs at 7:43 AM on July 13, 2012

Is this the cold war thread?

three aisles down past cookwares.

thanks to Jessamyn for linking to this in previous flameout

Don't flameouts usually involve flames and someone going or being kicked out? All I see here is a bunch of people(the ones being willfully obtuse) with a chips on their shoulder trying to bait me.
posted by AElfwine Evenstar at 9:05 AM on July 13, 2012

Dude, let it go.
posted by lazaruslong at 9:07 AM on July 13, 2012

that was meant as friendly advice, not dismissive snark.
posted by lazaruslong at 9:07 AM on July 13, 2012

trying to bait me.

Usually, people just say something like "Would you just flame out already?!" or "Flameout! Get the popcorn!" So if they're not doing that, you're okay. ;)

I don't always agree with it mind you.

THAT'S IT. Pistols at dawn, dammit. :D

Much of what I'd have said in response to your other points has already been covered by more eloquent folks than me above. I'll only add that it seems to me that the mods tend to take more of a gestalt perspective on everyone here. They necessarily take the long view.
posted by zarq at 1:46 PM on July 13, 2012 [1 favorite]

All I see here is a bunch of people(the ones being willfully obtuse) with a chips on their shoulder trying to bait me.

Well that's a damn shame then. Sorry I wasted my time.
posted by Marisa Stole the Precious Thing at 12:37 PM on July 14, 2012 [1 favorite]