Moderating your post moderation

January 20, 2003 3:02 PM

Post moderation. I can empathize with feelings of attachment to posts which you submit. When you post as often as troutfishing has in his own post (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11), however, I think you are overdoing things.
posted by moz to etiquette/policy at 3:02 PM (63 comments total)

not that i haven't overdone things in threads myself, but as of this post's writing, those 11 comments compromise greater than 25% of the thread's content (40 comments in total). i think this kind of moderation tends more often to provoke tension than reasoned discussion.
posted by moz at 3:05 PM on January 20, 2003

(comprise would have been the better word choice than compromise, in retrospect.)
posted by moz at 3:06 PM on January 20, 2003

Thanks for raising this, moz. I was just wondering if someone would.

I also found the way the post was written really hard to read.
posted by biscotti at 3:11 PM on January 20, 2003

Troutfishing posts a lot in a lot of threads. And considering that the partial reason that a person posts something is because he/she wants to talk about it, is it that surprising that someone participates vigorously in his own discussion?
posted by Stan Chin at 3:29 PM on January 20, 2003

(Of course, his tone of "AGREE WITH ME DAMMIT!" in his op/ed political posts leaves a lot to be desired.)
posted by Stan Chin at 3:32 PM on January 20, 2003

Those typefaces make me feel all itchy.

Doesn't troutfishing know that he's supposed to start this thread himself?
posted by hama7 at 3:36 PM on January 20, 2003

That thread appears to be therapy for troutfishing, who seems to be wigging out over the up coming war...
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 3:36 PM on January 20, 2003

moz, having read the thread several times from 0 comments to over 50, I feel that troutfishing is trying hard to steer the thread, not moderate who can say what. It got way off track with the discussion of who could quantify what number and most of his comments were directed thusly. I, for one, do not see the evil in trying to overcome misdirection, if that's geared towards defeating an entirely different point. Thread proposes that the media willfully misrepresented and even acknowledged such the turnout of X. The comments should be that a) they didn't at all, or b) the reasoning for and reaction to it. Instead we have many people apologizing for what must be an obvious mistake by media outlets, 'cause how do you count people ina crowd (huyyuck)? When the media outlets themselves apologize for bias, what is wrong with pointing out their fault? troutfishing has argued against terrible logic (albeit rather forcefully) but since when has that become a crime 'round these parts?

I don't get the feeling that this is a salepitch. I do get the feeling that troutfishing cares deeply about the issue. His comments (whether you agree or not) have been spot on topic. Is there something wrong with what he's said? If not, its simply an arbitrary numbers game about how many times someone can hit the post key.

On preview, Steve, exactly what kind of therapy is your participation in these threads for you, (yeah we gonna kill'em good, and if'n you don't like it, then you got the mental type problems, huyyuk...)?
posted by Wulfgar! at 3:45 PM on January 20, 2003

It's a bit much. The original post is pretty borderline (it's almost one of those political ax-grinding things), but the constant posting afterwards made it even less appealing.
posted by mathowie at 3:49 PM on January 20, 2003

I don't think you get to control the thread's direction (i.e. moderate) just because you intended it to be about one thing, and it ended up being about something else. Once you release that baby into the wild, it's going to be what it will be.
posted by biscotti at 3:50 PM on January 20, 2003

I can't help but notice that every time there's an anti-war protest, there is inevitably a MetaFilter post complaining about the lack of coverage thereof, or exhorting people to attend same, or assuming that everyone reading will naturally be in agreement. Anyone else notice this?
posted by mcwetboy at 3:55 PM on January 20, 2003

I agree that one should not moderate the thread prompted by one's post. But I have a real problem with how some here would define "moderation." Moderation is not the result of X number of posts; it is a conscious effort to steer the direction of the discussion and, often, to shout down those interested in taking it a different way. Simply posting in the thread, without trying to "run" it, is mere participation.

That thread appears to be therapy for troutfishing, who seems to be wigging out over the up coming war...

We get that that's your opinion, Steve. You've said so two or three times in the thread and now here. Now can you STFU?
posted by rushmc at 4:00 PM on January 20, 2003

Wulfgar, it isn't therapy for me... troutfishing's post just give me the feeling that this is something that is really bothering him, and he needs to get it off his chest. I am not implying that people against the war have issues. (well maybe some of them, but not most of them)

McWetBoy: Yes, I too notice it...

RushMC: I said it once. I'm glad you can count, dumbass.
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 4:04 PM on January 20, 2003

i like troutfishings posts - even if they are a bit partisan - good for him/her.
posted by specialk420 at 4:04 PM on January 20, 2003

I'm with biscotti: Let the post create it's own conversation. Trying to steer or moderate the comments always feels heavy handed to me. Often when reading through a thread I watch tangents pop up that end up being more conversational then the original topic. The author of the post should be able to get their ideas across within the text of the post, or the much hyped [more inside] and shouldn't need to reiterate on the comment board.
posted by elwoodwiles at 4:17 PM on January 20, 2003

a modest proposal:
this is not necessarily a consequence of trout's thread, but what about a Attaq Iraq fpp moratorium, at least until the war starts (in a few days -- coupla weeks maximum, it appears)? the Iraq thing is becoming a little like I/P, maybe some serious pruning wouldn't hurt until the actual carnage starts. That said, and back to topic:

Steve,

we all know that when trout posts a lot in the same thread it's a symptom of his mental illness -- being a commie-loving, America-hating terrorist supporter can drive somebody insane, thank you very much, we're all getting professional help to be cured of our treasonous lack of admiration for the current administration's Iraq (or fiscal, or you name it) policy.

but Steve, when _you_ post 5, 6 or more times in the same thread, as you quite often do, what is it, then? an attempt of enlightening this corrupt community with your knowledge and wisdom?

as long as a user does not troll shamelessly, or tells people to go fuck themselves (like you did at least once, Steve), I don't have a problem with them posting too many comments in a thread they started. we've all been guilty of it, some time or another, it's not a bad thing per se
posted by matteo at 4:35 PM on January 20, 2003

I don't know, moz.

Trout had done his homework and knew his stuff, while not everyone in his thread had even read the article thoroughly. Trout's comments added info and opinions backed by logic/facts, and his comments were rarely if ever mere opinions--how could you tell him to limit his participation severely?

I think I'll have to file this MeTa callout under Who gives a flyin' one? (But call me back if we start getting some good jokes here.)
posted by Shane at 4:37 PM on January 20, 2003

blah blah woof woof. the font sucks. those italics hurt my eyes. than is not equal to then. jimmy posts too damn much. mary has heinous blackheads. wah! wah! wah! i am a pompous intellectual wannabe. all these uninformed radicals are making me look bad. slurp my high-falutin' mefi ass.
posted by quonsar at 4:38 PM on January 20, 2003

is it that surprising that someone participates vigorously in his own discussion?

Shane I was reminded of a missing member when you said this, and he had a similar post on this in Meta-Talk

quonsar, you forgot your mascot...the feral q-snark in it's natural environs
posted by thomcatspike at 4:43 PM on January 20, 2003

in his defence - he seems to have backed off the last couple of hours. also, normally when this kind of thing happens, someone soon makes a comment in the thread; i can't find anything this time (but it's a long thread).

on a slightly related topic, it's a bit tiring when people (maybe it's everyone, but i've noticed particularly the more pro-war amongst us) keep dragging politics over from threads into meta discussions.
posted by andrew cooke at 4:45 PM on January 20, 2003

Heh, I was just glad to see the feral Snark still alive and well on q's page! 'But Twas Stan said that, TCS. I agree, though, Sez I.
posted by Shane at 4:51 PM on January 20, 2003

ah matteo, how I missed your drivel...

I never said that troutfishing was a "commie-loving, America-hating terrorist supporter", I said that he seemed bothered by the topic at hand, and needed to get it off his chest. Yes, I often will post multiple times in a thread of interest. So by the same token, I know how passionate troutfishing is about this topic, as I am about my topics. Mathowie, willing, troutfishing is more than welcome, as far as I am concerned, to post as often as he wishes...

So on that note, matteo go fuck yourself...
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 4:51 PM on January 20, 2003

Sorry Stan, thanks for the correction Shane.
posted by thomcatspike at 4:57 PM on January 20, 2003

I was reminded of a missing member when...

If my member went missing, the last thing I'd be doing is posting about it on MeTa.
posted by jonson at 4:58 PM on January 20, 2003

From the thread: S@L: "troutfishing, I just hope you feel better as these thread seems to be some sort of therapy for you today."

from this MeTa thread: S@L: "That thread appears to be therapy for troutfishing, who seems to be wigging out over the up coming war..."

Looks like twice to me. (The other two similar comments were by other users--my apologies.) My point stands: if you have to denigrate a person's state of mind, you must not have any valid response to their points.
posted by rushmc at 5:12 PM on January 20, 2003

Gosh, with such scathing repartee as "go fuck yourself" and "dumbass," who needs valid responses?
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 5:15 PM on January 20, 2003

two or three times in the thread and now here
That means 3 or 4. Learn to count, and not exaggerate.
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 5:16 PM on January 20, 2003

[this is petty]
posted by eddydamascene at 5:24 PM on January 20, 2003

Hi folks! - I was under the impression that I should reply to people who challenged what I said....sometimes over the top, but on the balance, mostly with reason and factual/link citations. What's wrong with this? I'm not trying to steer anything! people are quite free to bombard the post with their opinions. I like to try and respond to most people's comments because I generally feel strongly about the topics I post.

About my last (Income distribution) post, one respondent said that it was the most civil she/he had seen in a long time on Mefi.....not too much name calling on the antiwar protest post either.

The problem with a single line post is simple: lack of context.

I've thought of solutions - which I tried to apply in the "Income distribution" post - of posting additional material/links in the "reply" section. I think this is a good compromise, because it doesn't clutter up the main Mefi page - but there's another option: that of a dedicated "background" section, for people who get snowed (or oppressed?) by too much original link poster commentary in the "reply" section
posted by troutfishing at 5:36 PM on January 20, 2003

I had no problems with either the thread, or trout's or Steve's participation therein.

The personal attacks and epithets have gotta stop, though.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 5:45 PM on January 20, 2003

i second that. -

jeez. you'd think the packers lost in the first round of the playoffs or something with stevelinwoods touchiness.
posted by specialk420 at 6:01 PM on January 20, 2003

errrrr, Damn you Mike Sherman!
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 6:03 PM on January 20, 2003

I'll trade 'dumbass' for exuberance. I'll trade 'drivel' for heartfelt participation. I'll trade 'go fuck yourself' for erratic font stylings.
posted by Opus Dark at 7:00 PM on January 20, 2003

"You SHALL conform to all existing AND non-existing posting and commenting guidelines! ... OR ELSE, DAMMIT!" - your friendly me-fi overlords
posted by mischief at 7:00 PM on January 20, 2003

Blame Favre. He played like crap. GO BUCS!
posted by Wulfgar! at 7:01 PM on January 20, 2003

That thread appears to be therapy for troutfishing, who seems to be wigging out over the up coming war...

~laugh~

Well, since you brought it up, one wonders exactly what purpose Metafilter thus serves for you, given your own overall posting frequency and your seeming fondness for posting in "antiwar" threads. Since you started this little trend, I'm sure that from now on you won't mind if folks use loaded phrases like "therapy" and "wigging out" when it comes to your own views. I mean, it'll be OK with you if we just respond to your next post with "That's nice, Steve....and our rate for providing 'therapy' for you is $165/hour, and please don't drool so much on the couch next time."

I said that he seemed bothered by the topic at hand, and needed to get it off his chest.

No, you didn't. You said "the thread appears to be therapy for troutfishing" - ya just had to sneak a little innuendo in there. Either you can't read your own posts, you're backpedaling so fast your legs are a blur, or you lie ad lib. Which is it?

Either take responsibility for your own words, or don't post such swill any more. All sorts of folks (the military included) really look down on that kind of cowardly quibbling and backtracking.

And your lame namecalling and insults ("dumbass", "go fuck yourself")....absolutely juvenile. It speaks worlds. It really does.
posted by fold_and_mutilate at 7:27 PM on January 20, 2003

Isn't this what you people do in your political threads all day?
posted by Stan Chin at 7:30 PM on January 20, 2003

All the members know each other and they generally share the same political and cultural mentality.
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 7:40 PM on January 20, 2003

oh, and once again... f&m my email is posted in case you would like to shoot me off a message instead wasting space here with some problem you seem to have with me, personally....
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 7:44 PM on January 20, 2003

Wow. Interesting link Steve. I was surprised by this:

"You must write these answers in 1/2 a page in English."

Fascists! Imperialists! Have they no respect for cultural relativism?
posted by hama7 at 7:49 PM on January 20, 2003

via A.wholelottanothing.org
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 7:53 PM on January 20, 2003

Either you can't read your own posts, you're backpedaling so fast your legs are a blur, or you lie ad lib. Which is it?

Steve is always spinning his own comments, that's why some users like to call him Steve at Spinwood. He even changed his userpage info after some us called him out for its content

All the members know each other and they generally share the same political and cultural mentality.

if you follow foldy's link on posting frequency you can see how some of the heaviest users here are conservatives like you, Steve, or not-very-liberal Likud apologists for that matter.

to shoot me off a message instead wasting space here with some problem you seem to have with me, personally....
because saying "fuck you" is not a waste of space, huh?
steve, if you want other people not to attack you, try to learn some manners first. it's not that foldy said "fuck you Steve", right? only childish, crude users would write comments like that. as much as you probably dislike him, foldy has better manners than you do
posted by matteo at 7:55 PM on January 20, 2003

Moz - Twelve, and counting. Because my posts are just plain dumb, I have to make up for this by sheer numbers. Don't you believe in levelling the playing field?
posted by troutfishing at 8:14 PM on January 20, 2003

Okay, to go off the subject yet again, I'd just like to mention: Jesus! I honestly have never seen that index/stats thingie before, and I had absolutely no idea I was apparently one of the top ten biggest whiners on Metafilter. I mean, I've been told it, but to see it right there on the screen... gosh.
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 8:14 PM on January 20, 2003

Christ on a crutch, troutfishing. You're creeping up on my ridiculous contribution index number, and that's clearly a sign of mental instability and a lack of a real-world life.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 8:36 PM on January 20, 2003

Uh, that's 13 - unlucky!!.....Damn you, spongebob squarepants!
posted by troutfishing at 8:39 PM on January 20, 2003

All the members know each other and they generally share the same political and cultural mentality.

So...you're saying that you're only here to post purposefully provocative (in the bad sense) comments in order to write a paper for a class?

Wheeee! Life in a virtual Skinner box!
posted by rushmc at 9:01 PM on January 20, 2003

I take it that Steve is back from our holiday.
posted by inpHilltr8r at 11:25 PM on January 20, 2003

Go Raiders!
posted by i_cola at 4:45 AM on January 21, 2003

My 2 cents now that everyone has talked: this anti-war rally post is unreadable. Too confuse, too partisan and too "personal" in the worst webloggy sense. That's not what this site is all about. I understand the fact that people are trying to defend the author, but this also points to one of MeFi 's worst aspects: the cliquish protection of some posters, inevitably leading to a loss of intellectual freedom and making the site less interesting. Matthowie, who watches the watchmen?
posted by 111 at 5:36 AM on January 21, 2003

Matthowie, who watches the watchmen?

Well, it's not so much who watches the Watchmen as it is who reads them. I always suggest that everyone read the Watchmen as soon as possible. After all, time is short.
posted by Shane at 6:46 AM on January 21, 2003

111 - I posted a long speach about the "loss of intellectual freedom" on the adjacent Metatalk post to this thread. Matteo had proposed a censorship policy to deal with the flaming, and I responded - ''Matteo - Wouldn't your proposal amount to a blanket censorship which squelches voices of dissent against the push of the present U.S. government for War?
In other words, wouldn't it amount to a de-facto Mefi policy of blanket support for U.S. goverment foreign policy? And, almost as importantly, wouldn't it reward the behavior of people who employ the language and tactics of personal attacks on Mefi ? In other words, wouldn't it reward temper tantrums and thus be very counterproductive, so that any time someone wanted to quelch discussion on a particular issue, they simply need to throw a tantrum?" Matteo responded with a "You know Trout, we've been over all this before" observation in which he reiterated his point (with background history) to which I responded: " if Mefi is reduced to a policy of censorship, then it will be reduced to discussions of the trivial. Think: the Weekly World News of the Blogosphere! Cultural oddities are great - in moderation. But wouldn't the outcome of your proposal (censoring political posts) be a steady diet of posts about adult babywear and vibrating cellphones? Mefi would devolve to a parade of endless, titillating cultural curiousities"
posted by troutfishing at 6:54 AM on January 21, 2003

Hey, trout, can we get back on the Watchmen here! Rorschach is sooo cool. Quit derailing...
posted by Shane at 6:59 AM on January 21, 2003

Shane - that's really wierd....by the way, have you heard what the french have to say about Mefi?

"Metafilter is a closed community and allows new members only rarely. All the members know each other and they generally share the same political and cultural mentality. The main page is composed of links which are described by the posting member: comments are on another page. "Mefi" members are urbane, cultured, and sophisticated and the links which they choose to post are either serious or on the cutting-edge of culture and technology.

You can read the links and the comments by the members freely without joining. Metafilter is one of the most quoted sources of internet information on the internet: the community is not large but it is very influential."

*"Groupe Ecole Superieure de Commerce in Pau, France, is a High Business school and a member of the Conference of Grandes Ecoles. As a High Business school, ESC Pau is an elite, highly selective institution of higher education which accepts students at the Junior level and above."

From the rumour mill:""Metafilter: is a closed community and allows new members only rarely. ...new members must pass through a bizzare, bloodthirsty hazing ritual.... All the members know each other and they generally share the same political and cultural mentality....It is rumored that they are all clones, with slight mutations and genetic variations on the DNA of the founder...some have webbed feet and toes...they all reside together in a giant apartment complex in Albania engaging in group sex and bizzare occult practices with the legendary pornography star Cicciolina"....
posted by troutfishing at 7:46 AM on January 21, 2003

Troutfishing, it is pretty obvious you feel strongly about these issues and there's no problem with that, but right now you're too emotional to perceive the kinds of double standards you're trying to apply:

-when it's a debka post, people call it a troll and delete it;
-when it's your own post, you and your cyberbuddies call it "therapy" or some such nonsense; it isn't. It's a passionate, disjointed rant. It does not belong in MeFi any more than several deleted posts on similar subjects;
-I'm against censorship; I think universal style and content standards should exist though. For instance, your small type-itallic thing is annoying and counterproductive. Lose it if only to show some courtesy to the community. Re political content: either it belongs in here or it doesn't. Perhaps it's time for the webmaster to make up his mind about this.
Other than that, everything is cool.
posted by 111 at 7:54 AM on January 21, 2003

I agree with 111 about formatting: troutfishing's combination of <small> and <i> and particularly <small>, <i> and <link> produces something that my aged eyes absolutely refuse to read.
posted by timeistight at 9:11 AM on January 21, 2003

After spending time on metatalk, I now realize it is an extension of the group therapy that so many out of work IT employees can't afford.
posted by The Jesse Helms at 9:44 AM on January 21, 2003

...some have webbed feet and toes...

How the hell did they find out about that? Alright, which identical member of the MeFi Cabal for World Domination took his/her shoes off in public despite specific warning against such? Was it brother Steve@, or Foldy (They're soo much alike...) ; ) Trout, didn't you used to have an e-mail in your profile? How am I going to send you Brautigan's Tokyo-Montana Express excerpts when I finally find my copy? Drop me a note sometime, eh? I'm a discreet non-email-spammer.
posted by Shane at 9:50 AM on January 21, 2003

Metafilter is one of the most quoted sources of internet information on the internet: the community is not large but it is very influential.

Oh..dear that quote seems to bother me the most .

Opus thanks for not being in the Dark, your remark, I agree.
posted by thomcatspike at 10:23 AM on January 21, 2003

111- I'm not really sure who my "cyberbuddies" are, although I'd say that Shane and I both really like Richard Brautigan's writing. But...my agreement and sympathies with Mefi-ers and their opinions varies from post to post and from thread to thread. I've never met any Mefi-er face to face or even had a phone conversation or even exchanged regular emails....

I suppose my brain works differently than yours, because other than the last two links on the post (probably gratuitous), I think the theme was rather tightly focussed: on the media's coverage of the Anti-War protests, and specifically, about my charge (admitted to by the NYT and NPR, at least) of massive undercounting of protest numbers.

Rambling? How so?
posted by troutfishing at 10:26 AM on January 21, 2003

Opus thanks for not being in the Dark...

*sniff* I miss Opus...

111- I'm not really sure who my "cyberbuddies" are...

To paraphrase, there is no cabal. I didn't take part in Trout's MeFi thread at all. Which raises the question, Why am I commenting so much here? Man, I gotta stop goofing and get some work done...

Opus really has it right about underpants.
posted by Shane at 10:30 AM on January 21, 2003

engaging in group sex and bizzare occult practices with the legendary pornography star Cicciolina....

All right, who swiped the sign-up sheet? I haven't even seen Cicciolina yet.
posted by languagehat at 10:38 AM on January 21, 2003

Re political content: either it belongs in here or it doesn't.

Define "political content."

Thanks!
posted by mediareport at 9:54 PM on January 21, 2003