I admit it, I monopolized the thread

December 9, 2002 6:51 AM

Er, Guilty... It's easy to monopolize a thread when the subject is dear to one's heart. But it's difficult to gauge when one should resign and say "I'll shut up now". Cheerleading is annoying and thread-destroying. Although it's impossible to regulate posters' percentages and stuff, I'd like to hear other members' opinions on what constitutes the acceptable limit for commenting on one's own thread - considering that the moment you post it, it no more belongs to you than it does to anybody else.
posted by MiguelCardoso to etiquette/policy at 6:51 AM (75 comments total)

I think you're just catching up with not being able to post for a couple of days. All those words were pent up inside you, and would have made a mess all over the place if you hadn't posted every other message in that thread. And it's ok, really. None of us read what you have to write anyway.
posted by crunchland at 7:23 AM on December 9, 2002

Isn't this one of those issues where common sense is the final authority? I imagine if you comment 'too much' on any thread, you'll realize you're being annoying if A) everybody tells you how annoying you're being or B) if everyone gets bored with your yammering and walks out leaving you talking to yourself.

Trying to authoritatively moderate your thread, implying ownership, now that's another issue. . .

(not implying you did that, just sucks when people do.)
posted by dgaicun at 7:40 AM on December 9, 2002

Miguel, you worry too much, methinks. It was an ok thread, had that nice conversational flavor that happens around here sometimes. MetaTalking it is a bit superfluous, perhaps?
posted by normy at 7:40 AM on December 9, 2002

Miguel, you're more than welcome to entertain yourself in the thread I started about the history of Iraq, since nobody else wants to.

*sobs, crawls in corner*
posted by sebas at 7:41 AM on December 9, 2002

Hauling your own ass into MetaTalk before someone else does it is a pretty good sign that you haven't pissed someone off enough yet. Self-effacing, pre-emptive apologetics are a sign of good (albeit neurotic) character, but they're also the subject of a John Cleese skit in How to Irritate People -- "Am I fussing you?"

If you're worried that you're overdoing it, back off quietly. If you've ruffled feathers, someone will be all too happy to point that out here -- but wait for that to happen before apologizing. Because sometimes we don't mind.
posted by mcwetboy at 7:48 AM on December 9, 2002

miguelfilter. i like it.
posted by quonsar at 8:09 AM on December 9, 2002

it's buffed.
posted by quonsar at 8:09 AM on December 9, 2002

I refuse to participate. Get Tamim.
posted by crunchland at 8:14 AM on December 9, 2002

shouldn't someone validate this MeTa thread by going to the MeFi thread and bitching out Migs for dominating the discussion in his own post?
posted by quonsar at 8:16 AM on December 9, 2002

Was it just miguel though? A quick scroll through that thread and it's Miguel, Adam, Taz, and a couple of others predominantly commenting. I think it was just a post that had the right timing for the conversational feel, and even the poster gets to participate in that conversation.
posted by jmackin at 8:16 AM on December 9, 2002

Thanks, guys - but 14 comments in a 64 comments thread is definitely overdoing it. More than 1 in 5... My own feeling is that percentages suck, since thread length varies so much. My own gut feeling is that threadposters' comments (Doesn't ThreadPoster sound like the new Clive Barker movie, though?), discounting answers to open questions and challenges, shouldn't ever exceed 4 or 5. Also, regarding jmackin's comment, other posters should try to stick with the same limit.
posted by MiguelCardoso at 8:23 AM on December 9, 2002

ThreadPoster vs. The Lurkers!
posted by MiguelCardoso at 8:24 AM on December 9, 2002

Miguel, now you're making me feel guilty for commenting too much; I usually don't, but this, oddly, excavated too many conflicted feelings for me to just shut up. Like I should have...
posted by taz at 8:33 AM on December 9, 2002

Mmm, shopping ..... must comment.
posted by Summer at 8:41 AM on December 9, 2002

Miguel. Get a grip, man.

If you really want to stop, just stop.
posted by Kafkaesque at 8:43 AM on December 9, 2002

I'd like to hear other members' opinions on what constitutes the acceptable limit for commenting on one's own thread

I'm certainly not an expert, but when people ask questions related to the subject in a thread I've started I usually get a yen to answer them, but I usually wait to see if someone else does first, because if they do, it's probably because they know more about it than I do. For what it's worth I didn't find your presence overbearing in that thread. Mine, maybe yes...
posted by taz at 9:02 AM on December 9, 2002

Miguel. Get a grip, man.

If you really want to stop, just stop.

Kafkaesque: it's very difficult for a writer to stop. On MetaFilter what I do is essentially break up putative articles or chapters into comment-sized chunks. I can't help it: I'm programmed to write at least 5,000 words on any topic. Other members' comments just stimulate me further. As I love reading much more than writing, of course. So I imagine a conversation with a lot of friends. Otherwise, I'd be quite happy with eternal dialogues. Every time an intelligent comment appears, I have to fight not to respond. Adapting to the short/interrupted comment form, in a community format, was very difficult for me. I remember mattpfeff once saying (in a friendly way) my mission in life was leaving no posting box unfilled. He wasn't far wrong. I know... it's pathetic. Crunchland said on MeFi IRC it was OCD. Perhaps it it. I prefer to think of it as enthusiasm. Well, I would; wouldn't I? ;)

[Excuse self-regarding BS]
posted by MiguelCardoso at 9:13 AM on December 9, 2002

My own gut feeling is that threadposters' comments discounting answers to open questions and challenges, shouldn't ever exceed 4 or 5.

Miguel, how many times have I told you to listen to that little voice in your head?

Now, stop nattering and go and do some shopping. I need new socks.
posted by your mother at 9:17 AM on December 9, 2002

Is this one of those family confrontation moments like you see on TV all the time?

"We love you, but we need to talk about your addiction--"

"I DON'T HAVE AN ADDICTION! RAWR HULK SMASH!"
posted by Stan Chin at 9:18 AM on December 9, 2002

I can't help it: I'm programmed to write at least 5,000 words on any topic.

Seriously Migs, where do I get that programming done? I could use it for so much good. I can't sit myself down to string together fifteen consectutive words. There are so many things I'd like to get written but I keep.... oooh, look! A pony!
posted by eyeballkid at 9:20 AM on December 9, 2002

Miguel: "I've been bad and I must be spanked. Discuss."

Mefi Police: "Ummm.... No. You're fine. Relax. No worries."

Miguel: "No. I really think I need to be spanked. Really. Spank me. Go ahead."

Mefi Police: "Please stop. You're frightening us."

Miguel: "Spank me!!! I'm very bad!!! YOU MUST SPANK ME NOW!!!!! Spank, damn you, spank!!!"
posted by y6y6y6 at 9:29 AM on December 9, 2002

a buffed pony!
posted by quonsar at 9:32 AM on December 9, 2002

Miguel, I am at a loss here-- what response were you looking for? You're a bit like a little boy who announces he has eaten all the cookies. Do we applaud your honesty? Do we bemoan your lack of self-control? Do we make up a new rule? I sense you are looking for a pat on the back and a gruff "That's all right, son, it happens to the best of us."
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 9:32 AM on December 9, 2002

Where's Bluetrain when we need him most?
posted by crunchland at 9:32 AM on December 9, 2002

let's not overreact crunchland
posted by eyeballkid at 9:43 AM on December 9, 2002

Miguel, get your own blog, fuckwit.

There, it's been said. Now does everyone feel better?
posted by mr_crash_davis at 9:44 AM on December 9, 2002

he has one, mr_crash_davis, the url is http://metatalk.metafilter.com/ . does this thread count as a talkback?
posted by danOstuporStar at 9:50 AM on December 9, 2002

*strangles crunchland, distancing BlueTrain with his outstretched, sneaker-clad left heel*
posted by MiguelCardoso at 10:18 AM on December 9, 2002

Miguel, it's unkind of you to seemingly admit guilt and apologize for a thing, and suggest it be discussed, and then declare that you cannot help but keep on doing it anyway.

Talking about something nothing could possibly be done about is legitimately frustrating. Surely you must realize that. For those people who object to your behavior on MetaFilter, this thread is like a rude slap in the face.

I don't believe that's what you intend by it. But you can't do it anyway. People here have by and large accepted that you are what you are; maybe it's time you did, too. And if it turns out you're programmed not to do that, either, by all means do not say so. Don't make any excuse at all.

Just do what you can.
posted by mattpfeff at 10:20 AM on December 9, 2002

mattpfeff is a wise man.
posted by ginz at 10:34 AM on December 9, 2002

mattpfeff is a redundant man. as is this thread. migs is just enjoying a little mass crank-yanking.
posted by quonsar at 11:02 AM on December 9, 2002

Good God I agree with quonsar.
posted by BlueTrain at 11:13 AM on December 9, 2002

I disagree with your premise, Miguel. While there is substantial (and quite proper) objection to this:

Trying to authoritatively moderate your thread, implying ownership, now that's another issue. . .

I see little reason to object to normal participation in a thread by the original poster of the link, for reasons you yourself allude to: "considering that the moment you post it, it no more belongs to you than it does to anybody else."

As a European, you have direct experience and knowledge to contribute to a thread about European shopping that we Americans don't. At best, we can add the experiences we've had there on visits, or contrast with our own local shopping experiences. So it only seems reasonable that those with more direct experience (like you, Summer, and the other contributors to that thread) would comment more, because they have more to say.

What's the problem again?
posted by rushmc at 11:17 AM on December 9, 2002

I like pancakes. Is another person here harbouring a love of pancakes?
posted by Pretty_Generic at 11:42 AM on December 9, 2002

*stands with fork at attention*
posted by eyeballkid at 11:43 AM on December 9, 2002

Metafilter: A little mass crank-yanking

Metatalk: What's the problem again?
posted by gottabefunky at 11:44 AM on December 9, 2002

You realize that miguel has managed to start two threads in the span of 24 hours with 70+ replies. He did it the only way he could get away with it. If we're not careful, he'll start another MeTa thread and do it again. His obsessive compulsive personality requires that we all kowtow to his insatiable self-esteem, like little puppets on a string.

Dança! Você deve dançar, como os fantoches que você é!
posted by crunchland at 11:45 AM on December 9, 2002

ok, it's only 38 replies so far here.. sue me.
posted by crunchland at 11:48 AM on December 9, 2002

Nowt wrong with your frequency of commenting lad. I liked the thread it was rather entertaining.
posted by johnnyboy at 11:58 AM on December 9, 2002

rushmc: The problem is that Miguel posts way too much. You know it, he knows it, we all know it. He gets away with it because he's a Writer and (in his own words, whose else?) "it's very difficult for a writer to stop." Plus he's got a large fan club. But really, Miguel, either cut back or keep doing it 'cause you just can't stop—but try to spare us the anguished self-appraisals. (Or, what mattpfeff said.)
posted by languagehat at 12:00 PM on December 9, 2002

"The problem is that Miguel posts way too much."

No. He *use to* post too much. I'd guesstimate he's posting 75% less than in his hayday. If you think this is too much, it's because you didn't see his output before we spanked him with the restrained paddle.

Trust me, he's posting as little as he's capable of. Don't poke him or he'll revert back.
posted by y6y6y6 at 12:09 PM on December 9, 2002

...Plus he's got a large fan club...

Speaking of which, i kiss my "Super Groovy Miguel" wall poster every night before i go to sleep. And I'm now president of our local chapter too!
posted by amberglow at 12:19 PM on December 9, 2002

it's very difficult for a writer to stop.

I should think a good writer would be able to use but a few words to make a point.
posted by cCranium at 1:15 PM on December 9, 2002

Tell that to Norman Mailer.
posted by eyeballkid at 1:39 PM on December 9, 2002

There's a famous story about Miles Davis upbraiding his then-sideman John Coltrane about the length of his solos. Coltrane said that he had too many ideas and asked for advice on how to stop.

"Take the goddam horn out of your mouth," Davis rasped.
posted by timeistight at 1:40 PM on December 9, 2002

timeistight: Ha! OK, here's a Miles story from a Bob Berg obit:

"On one occasion Berg took a tenor solo at a Davis concert at a point where one wasn't scheduled. In the dressing room afterwards Davis asked him why. The music sounded so good that I couldn't resist it, explained Berg. But Bob, replied Davis. The music sounded so good because you weren't playing."
posted by languagehat at 2:11 PM on December 9, 2002

I should think a good writer would be able to use but a few words to make a point.

Why would you attack y2karl in a thread about Miguel?
posted by MarkAnd at 2:19 PM on December 9, 2002

It's funny how often we complain about a lack of depth in MeFi threads while discouraging comment length and frequency. Perhaps our expectations are too high given the format?

Expecting those who wish to respond to a particular link to throw out their first thought in a paragraph and leave it at that seems analogous to people's appetite for soundbite news on television. Understanding, and the delineation and possible integration of varying viewpoints, comes through conversation, and conversation requires give and take, not just stating one's opinion and moving on. Often it is another person's response to an initial, tentative comment that provokes further thought upon or deeper analysis of the topic than one first offers up. It seems to me that as we become less tolerant of real interaction among members, we guarantee ourselves more--not less--of the dissent and discord that we abhor.
posted by rushmc at 2:21 PM on December 9, 2002

Good story, languagehat. I hadn't heard that one.
posted by timeistight at 2:48 PM on December 9, 2002

You're a hoot Miguel. 5 posts out of 50 (10%) of the posts in a MeTa thread - about posting too much in one's own thread - come from you, the poster. A magnificent piece of subtle irony indeed!

(Just kidding BTW - I certainly think you've got as great a sense of standards and community as anyone here ...).
posted by MidasMulligan at 3:02 PM on December 9, 2002

*gulp*
posted by MiguelCardoso at 3:28 PM on December 9, 2002

*gulp*
Don't drink it all at once...nice, small sips work well!
posted by jmd82 at 3:45 PM on December 9, 2002

Metafilter: YOU MUST SPANK ME NOW!!!!!
posted by Mid at 3:49 PM on December 9, 2002

It's funny how often we complain about a lack of depth in MeFi threads while discouraging comment length and frequency.

Oh, piffle. Extremes of all kinds are what is discouraged. Everything in moderation.
posted by frykitty at 3:50 PM on December 9, 2002

Whose notion of moderation, though, frykitty? Yours? I think not. Mine? Surely not! Matt's? He is extremely reticent (with good cause, IMO) to define the limits of what constitutes an extreme in his mind, preferring to stick with "I know it when I see it." The community standard? Sure...to the extent that such a thing exists. But clearly opinion on what is "extreme" and what is not varies tremendously. So the issue is hardly as simple as you make it out to be.

(Also, not everyone would agree with your stated "Everything in moderation" philosophy, here on Metafilter or elsewhere in life.)
posted by rushmc at 4:25 PM on December 9, 2002

Oops, I think a friend who e-mailed me got it right:

The "shopping in Europe" thread was light-weight but enjoyable. There was nothing wrong with your participation in it. The MetaTalk thread about it, however, is just silly.

I shouldn't have made my attempt at self-discipline public and that's the truth.
posted by MiguelCardoso at 4:29 PM on December 9, 2002

I shouldn't have made my attempt at self-discipline public
therein lie the seeds of anoither meta post...
posted by quonsar at 4:40 PM on December 9, 2002

Mmm, self-discipline
posted by dg at 4:43 PM on December 9, 2002

It seems to me that as we become less tolerant of real interaction among members, we guarantee ourselves more--not less--of the dissent and discord that we abhor.

Untrue...what is wrong here is not comment frequency, but lack of depth. MeFi has become too conversational and content-free. If it were possible, I would love to see a temporary rule that every comment must include a link, but obviously that would be overkill. Just use common sense, or if you don't have any, use restraint.

Oops, I think a friend who e-mailed me got it right:

Which has been explained to you a dozen times in this thread alone. If you truly consider yourself respectful of this site and you principles, try following some of the rules instead of purposefully breaking each one to set an example. You're not a martyr, and any half-intelligent poster can clearly see your blatant disregard for humility.
posted by BlueTrain at 4:43 PM on December 9, 2002

You're not a martyr, and any half-intelligent poster can clearly see your blatant disregard for humility.

Your momma.
posted by Optamystic at 5:15 PM on December 9, 2002

yeah. BlueTrain's momma.
posted by quonsar at 5:36 PM on December 9, 2002

Untrue...what is wrong here is not comment frequency, but lack of depth.

And I am suggesting that there is at least a correlative link between the two.

MeFi has become too conversational and content-free

Since when? MeFi has always been conversational, and there remains at least one link (i.e., content) iin every post. Why in the world would we want to require people to post links within threads? That's never been the purpose of a thread. Sometimes additional links posted to a thread provide context or further illuminate the original topic, but the primary purpose of a thread is to allow people to respond to the original posted link.
posted by rushmc at 6:57 PM on December 9, 2002

Umm - does "MetaFilter: Weblog as conversation" sound familiar?
posted by dg at 7:30 PM on December 9, 2002

an heartwarming thread of touching quonsitude
wherein he drives to new zealand on a tankful of watered-down indian gas

feeding a monkey, marrying rushmc, all that maori shit - but what with the anarchy and bandits and all, perhaps if I opened my veins? raisin' it up, waxin' it down. descended from drug using crows. new zealanders, whether left or right wing, are hideous wingless birds.
posted by quonsar at 9:02 PM on December 9, 2002

Quansar, I was just getting ready to say that.
posted by taz at 10:30 PM on December 9, 2002

14/64 in the original thread, now 6/65 in this thread. I like that Miguel, you are obviously tapering off quite nicely. Are you wearing a patch or chewing the gum?
posted by Mack Twain at 11:52 PM on December 9, 2002

The problem is that Miguel posts way too much.

I disagree. Miguel does post a lot...but I find damn near every one of his posts to be intelligent, informative, entertaining, and capable of sparking an interesting discussion. That's more than you can say for a lot of FPPs. It sure as hell's better than WarFilter, NewsFilter, and FlashFilter (not that those are bad by definition -- but they're not as consistently engaging as an articulate and curious person with catholic interests.)

Post away, buddy.
posted by Vidiot at 12:00 AM on December 10, 2002

That thread was the most interesting thread I've read on MeFi in awhile. Your posts helped a lot in that regard, Miguel -- and your perspective as a European was invaluable towards offering a balanced opinion on the topic.

Stop bashing yourself already -- if noone rags on you about it, to hell with 'em. Obviously noone within the thread gave a shit about the proliferation of posts. I doubt people would have really batted an eyelash if you hadn't brought it up yourself.
posted by evixir at 1:19 AM on December 10, 2002

Miguel's themesong ... more
posted by crunchland at 2:19 AM on December 10, 2002

What the heck has happened to this place? Even a good old-fashioned 'let's pile on Miguel and kick him in the naughty bits' thread, started by Migs himself (as is to be expected for the really good ones) fizzles and barely even gets nasty.

Must be the Christmas spirit or somethin'. Oh come all ye faithful!
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 2:39 AM on December 10, 2002

Ya happy now crunchland? This is #71.
posted by riffola at 3:04 AM on December 10, 2002

I've a good mind to post that wondrous Rolf Harris website myself, I have - oh I do! - were it not for the obligatory, onanistic reference: "Via crunchland in a MetaTalk thread". That would be too much of a muchness, it would.
posted by MiguelCardoso at 3:39 AM on December 10, 2002

aye
posted by eyeballkid at 6:38 AM on December 10, 2002

well, it looks like Miguel has reached a nice round total of 2500 (!) comments as of this writing. (by the time I hit "post", it'll probably be a lot more, I know...)
posted by Vidiot at 9:06 AM on December 10, 2002

*gulp*
posted by MiguelCardoso at 3:28 PM PST on December 9

*gulp*
Don't drink it all at once...nice, small sips work well

MetaFilter: Don't gulp, small sips work well.
posted by thomcatspike at 4:57 PM on December 10, 2002