Good FPP derail belongs in Metatalk?

December 7, 2002 1:25 PM

After seeing this thread denigrate into a debate over the question of whether it was a good FPP or not, I started wondering: is a metatalk thread an appropriate vehicle for trying to divert etiquette debate out a blue thread even when the metatalk thread itself is likely to turn into a rehash of a zillion other metatalk threads?
posted by boltman to Etiquette/Policy at 1:25 PM (19 comments total)

In other words, is one of the purposes of Metatalk to keep ettiquette debates out of Metafilter threads, or is it only for having discussions likely to be productive in their own right?
posted by boltman at 1:31 PM on December 7, 2002

If you figure that one out you get a pony.
posted by konolia at 1:32 PM on December 7, 2002

In other words, is one of the purposes of Metatalk to keep ettiquette debates out of Metafilter threads

I've always interpreted it that way, yes. I don't mind having someone making a small comment about formatting or something inside a thread (as long as it's an aside, maybe in small text) if they're also commenting on the thread and just pointing it out without turning it into a big issue. A thread, regardless of whether or not you think it's good, shouldn't be taken apart in the blue by anybody except Matt. Unless it's absolutely terrible (ie: no link or a link to something completely relevant and then a query has to how to deal with an acting-out child...). Then, it doesn't really bother me, but it might bother some.
posted by The God Complex at 2:34 PM on December 7, 2002

ugh. I meant "degenerate" not "denigrate." stupid english language.
posted by boltman at 2:55 PM on December 7, 2002

mix one-third mefi plus two-turds politics... head explodes.

dammit. *scraping bits and pieces off floor.
posted by poopy at 3:08 PM on December 7, 2002

...is one of the purposes of Metatalk to keep ettiquette debates out of Metafilter threads...

i agree. i thought the fpp was most inappropriate considering the wording of it but the comments following were even worse. any problems with the post itself should've been brought here, in the back room rather than stink up the front lobby.
posted by poopy at 3:16 PM on December 7, 2002

*Sigh* It's all about MeFi's & the wonderful political posts which are always (rolles eyes up) biased. Of course, that is the nature of politics- to be biased. To many politcal posts degenerate into nothing having to do with the FPP, but on to if it was a *good* post, and its often times the usual suspects (cue in reference to the devil here). Of course, this has all been said and has obviously hasn't done a lick of good so whats the point i start to ask myself...
posted by jmd82 at 5:02 PM on December 7, 2002

i thought the fpp was most inappropriate considering the wording of it

Fair enough. It's hard to imagine any decent comments when the first line reads "What the hell?".

Oh, well, what the hell.
posted by hama7 at 5:06 PM on December 7, 2002

What the hell? sums it up pretty well for me. The shock from reading that article was enough to spin me into a relapse and some serious mother-grabbing depression. I had been feeling really good since I stopped watching tv last week, too. My soft pallet is swollen from all the coke I did last night.

What's bad about the post is that everybody here knows already. The Washington Post, San Francisco Chronicle...I only know this from Google News, so everybody here probably knows it already...only liberal papers are mentioning this, and who in Middle America cares what some Moonies and San Francisco faggots have to say? The New York Times article goes into some more detail, but the whole first third is ambiguous and most people will just stop reading. The Washington Times has at least two articles about this event, and neither one of them even mention Lott's comment:

Thurmond turns 100 amid banter, plaudits

A witness to history is leaving the Senate

Nobody is going to hear about this. "Nobody" who isn't plugged into the all-seeing eye anyway. I'm not going to mention this to any of my relatives, because none of them are going to know about it. And if they do know about it, they won't care. "Most Wal-Mart workers are below the poverty line and don't have health insurance? Big deal. The whole retail industry is like that." If anybody on television mentions this, it will be nothing...

The new objectivity is to pretend this didn't happen. I think I'm gonna try to pretend, too. Somebody call me when they start killing people, but I'm gonna sit this one out for a while.
posted by son_of_minya at 6:34 PM on December 7, 2002

A thread, regardless of whether or not you think it's good, shouldn't be taken apart in the blue by anybody except Matt.

Okay, I was vocal about thinking it was a lousy post -- I'd like some clarification, then, about how exactly we're supposed to effectively Police Ourselves without actually making any sort of statement in a visible forum. If I was over the line in that thread, I apologize; I may have been flippant. But if the plan is to just ignore it and hope it will go away...
posted by cortex at 6:48 PM on December 7, 2002

Start a thread here and link to it with a polite comment in the thread. That's how I'd suggest going about it.

It's only common courtesy to allow some kind of discussion to foster in the thread before taking it upon yourself to denounce it as worthless. That way, if the mattjority (!!) disagree(s) with you, the thread can live on for its thirty days in the sun.
posted by The God Complex at 7:58 PM on December 7, 2002

First post here ever. "..back room rather than stink up the front lobby" Exactly. I don't read this section because I don't need to. If the mod doesn't like a post, he will remove it. Simple as that. He's the editor, not Midas too-much-time-on-my-hands Mulligan.

I would have responded in the thread somehow with more links if I could have logged in.

Why make such a big deal out of this anyway? Wording? Are you people serious?

I linked the video so you could observe for yourself, but even that doesn't please the snobs. Boo hoo. I suppose it's doesn't matter to them that the leader of the Senate thinks mass conformity is a great idea. Also, that 98% of the press didn't touch this story. They would rather bitch about how ALL Mefi posts should meet their so-called standards and, yes, conform. You're not in charge here. Start your own blog.

It's a totally legit story and post. If you don't like the post or it doesn't interest you, move on. Is that so hard? I do it everytime I check in but I'm not obsessed with controlling everyone and taking the time to post about how decent I think they are.
posted by BarneyFifesBullet at 10:49 PM on December 7, 2002

barney: the point of self-policing is that members are supposed to take an interest in maintaining the quality of the posts on the front page. the ideal is one of community, not of top-down authoritarianism by Matt.

Wording is important in the FPPs because they serve as models for future FPPs. Bad posts encourage more bad posts. Deletion is sort of like the capital punishment of bad threads--just because a thread doesn't get deleted doesn't mean its good, it just means it not totally beyond the pale of acceptability. For all the bad threads that aren't so bad that they deserve death, criticism by the community serves the important, perhaps even essential, function in ensuring that Metafilter lives up to its ideals.
posted by boltman at 1:01 AM on December 8, 2002

In the MeFi thread, someone said: Matt has said, over, and over, and over (and over and over and over) again that FPP's composed of a single link to a well read news site, or opinion piece, do NOT make good threads....

"Is it time to call a moratorium on posts linking to typical op-ed pieces? Special ones, outlandish ones, or provacative ones are fine...." --mathowie

As usual there are folks who, unable to debate the issues effectively or honestly, either attempt infantile personal attacks (Troll!) or try to legislate a bland conformity. A bland conformity here on MetaFilter and in America exactly suits their political purposes.

Any type of provocative thinking is a threat. Since the status quo is now just fine with them, they don't want to see anything attacking that status quo in the newspapers, on the airwaves, nor on MetaFilter. The status quo says there is no racism in America, and there be no need for further efforts in that area (reduces profits and war funding, dontcha know).

Posts like BarneyFifesBullet's (and his reaction to it) above say otherwise. Hence the threat to the status quo. Hence the banal, knee-jerk reaction to the scary thread and threat.

There are enormously important, heartbreaking issues sweeping the world, from war and plague and plunder, to the racism still apparently evident in folks like Republican leader Lott (rightly linked by BarneyFifesBullet). These issues do need the light of day, on MetaFilter, in America, and in the world.

You cry that the discussion of these issues leads to personal insult, flame wars, juvenile behavior on MetaFilter? Don't blame those who raise the issues. Instead, blame those who poison MetaFilter and America with their childishness...and their ever present need for that bland conformity.

Hopefully, MetaFilter posters will continue to seek out the novel and the provocative on the web.... despite those who demand a special filtering of the 'Filter to maintain their precious status quo. Eliminating the childish debating tactics of some by sanitizing provocative posts and discourse....is exactly like reducing birth defects by outlawing intercourse.
posted by fold_and_mutilate at 1:18 PM on December 8, 2002

Eliminating the childish debating tactics of some by sanitizing provocative posts and discourse....is exactly like reducing birth defects by outlawing intercourse.

False analogy...but you knew that.

Corrected:
"Eliminating the childish debating tactics of some by deleting/banning provocative posts and discourse....is exactly like reducing birth defects by outlawing intercourse."

Of course...this being said by one of the most controversial posters on this site.
posted by BlueTrain at 1:46 PM on December 8, 2002

There are enormously important, heartbreaking issues sweeping the world, from war and plague and plunder, to the racism still apparently evident in folks like Republican leader Lott...

i thought that the link itself was really quite good, it was just a certain blatantly agenda-ridden commentary (no matter what side your on) that accompanied it that rubbed me as something not quite right. humans are arrogant self-righteous bastards and if we all had the unbridled freedom on the front page of mefi to proclaim our political beliefs via links supporting our 'Cause' then mefi would be nothing more than just another political-mob-justice-mentality-hang-em-high-slaughterhouse. i can go just about anywhere on the net to express my political agenda, but i wouldn't think of doing it here, at least not on the front page. that's NOT what mefi is for, IMO.

what would the community say if i posted a fpp (along with my personal opinion supporting the belief) advocating the extermination of the entire human race because of our destruction and decimation of mother earth,?

i can read, watch or listen to any countless number of programs or op-ed pieces proposing their solutions to lifes woes. we've heard all the arguments, back and forth forever. however, i don't come to mefi for the repetitive arguments, i come here for a link to a site that offers something a little bit quirky-off-the-beaten-path, something that i wouldn't have seen otherwise (which the link in question did provide). period. if i wanted to hear someone's political chatter (on the front page), i'd tune in to foxNews.
posted by poopy at 2:58 PM on December 8, 2002

This was not a link to a "special, outlandish or provocative" op-ed piece, this was a news link and [engage redundancy feature] this is MetaFilter not NewsFilter. [/redundancy feature] As the man once said "get your own weblog."
posted by Dreama at 4:14 PM on December 8, 2002

You cry that the discussion of these issues leads to personal insult, flame wars, juvenile behavior on MetaFilter? Don't blame those who raise the issues. Instead, blame those who poison MetaFilter and America with their childishness

Radical approach! I like it!

what would the community say if i posted a fpp (along with my personal opinion supporting the belief) advocating the extermination of the entire human race because of our destruction and decimation of mother earth,?

I can't speak for anyone else, but if it were a quality link, I think it could be interesting. There is certainly a case to be made there (though, ultimately, probably not a compelling one).
posted by rushmc at 4:55 PM on December 8, 2002

So...I guess the fact that this thread has been totally derailed and turned into a discussion about the merits of Barney's post is maybe an answer in itself to my original post. Obviously people feel a need to discuss the FPP, so maybe that's a good reason to have started a Metatalk thread about it.

The next question is how should the metatalk FPP be worded? I thought Barney's link was pretty good and the post itself acceptable if not a quite a model post. I was mostly annoyed to see the discussion turn into a flamewar about the FPP itself rather than about Trent Lott. If I had posted to Metatalk it probably would have been something like "Is this a bad post? Discuss." Would that be acceptable?
posted by boltman at 5:23 PM on December 8, 2002