Calling Out ParisParamus

January 20, 2003 11:47 PM

Is there any reason to tolerate inflammatory hate-screed like this?

Once again: PATHETIC, delusional, A-HOLE PACIFISTS.
posted by rushmc to etiquette/policy at 11:47 PM (144 comments total)

They are welcome to their opinions, but do those who insist upon attacking people verbally rather than trying to argue a point really think that anyone gives them any credibility whatsoever after their juvenile ravings? And since Metafilter is led by example, should we be encouraging them? It definitely seems that the more that slides by, the more we see (even in the same day).
posted by rushmc at 11:50 PM on January 20, 2003

I ♥ ParisParamus.
posted by hama7 at 11:55 PM on January 20, 2003

I'm not surprised.
posted by rushmc at 12:00 AM on January 21, 2003

I'm sorry. But this is the second consecutive MeTa about the same post.
posted by hama7 at 12:00 AM on January 21, 2003

You mean like when you told a member to "STFU" (ie Shut The Fuck Up) in the thread just below this one rushmc? Not to forgive PPs lunatic raving, but there was an awful lot of witless, hyperbolic dumbness in that thread, from both the America-loathing friends of Saddam and from the angry hair-trigger Americans. Sadly, the reasoned viewpoints of both the legitimate skeptics of war and from the supporters of Hussein's disarmament were (and usually will be) lost in the sea of vitriol and juvenilia.

Did we really need two MetaTalk threads pointing out the bad behaviour in that thread?
posted by sir walsingham at 12:06 AM on January 21, 2003

Threads don't commit bad behavior; people do.
posted by rushmc at 12:10 AM on January 21, 2003

rushmc, he was talking about the people at the demonstration, not the people on this site, while you were telling someone on this site to "stfu."
posted by mathowie at 12:16 AM on January 21, 2003

Everyone needs a nice calm cup of tea at this stage, I think. The 'sea of vitriol and juvenilia' (well phrased, sir walsingham) grows increasingly dismaying of late.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 12:20 AM on January 21, 2003

Let's Make Out!!!
posted by Stan Chin at 12:26 AM on January 21, 2003 [1 favorite]

the sea of vitriol and juvenilia.

That really is exquisite.

Let's Make Out!!!

Don't we even get long walks on the beach first?
posted by hama7 at 1:25 AM on January 21, 2003

rushmc: Glass houses, stones etc.
posted by metaxa at 1:49 AM on January 21, 2003

mathowie - is that a useful distinction? if i start posting about a-hole site admins (in general), you're not going to take it personally? (i wouldn't bet my posting rights on it). by my reading he was tarring all opponents to the war with the same (wide) brush.

these threads seem to be more ritualised posturing than discussion. as far as i can tell, it's all about scoring rhetorical points, not convincing anyone. example 1 - if there's a hint that someone might change their mind about something then it's seen as a weakness (eg S@L's "therapy" comments on troutfishing). example 2 - playing on distinctions like you're making (name calling of others/members) to slip personal abuse in "below the barriers". ho-hum.
posted by andrew cooke at 3:28 AM on January 21, 2003

broad brush, dammit. where's a cliché when you need one?
posted by andrew cooke at 3:29 AM on January 21, 2003

he was talking about the people at the demonstration

so, as long as we don't insult other users (like Steve did here, right?) we can rudely and aggressively vent our anger in block capital against everything and everybody that happens to bother us?
do we all have freedom to rant like ParisParamus did?

Is'nt this dangerously too similar to alt.flame policy? Shouldn't MetaFilter standards be a little better than that? If Paris can rant like that, we all have the right do it. Then, the possibility of a reasonable debate ends.
Or is it that only rightwingers are allowed to do that, so that they don't feel the stigma of discrimination in this communistic, pro-terrorist and pro-suicide bomber community?

I repeat my proposal for a moratorium of "War against Iraq" threads until the actual war begins. Right now the war is like I/P for MeFi -- it also excites the same unruly users as I/P used to do, apparently.
Really, Matt, think about a moratorium, please
posted by matteo at 3:43 AM on January 21, 2003

YOU STILL ALIVE?!?!?!?!
[mutters angrily, goes to see the Don]
posted by quonsar at 4:41 AM on January 21, 2003

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?
posted by troutfishing at 5:02 AM on January 21, 2003

It's all a front. PP's aim is to be the stereotypical lunatic ranter to try get people to disagree with his rantings. PP is, in reality, an open-minded, considerate, thoughtful person with a wide-ranging knowledge on a variety of subjects.

No, really.
posted by i_cola at 5:08 AM on January 21, 2003

quonsar
writing from Federal Pen for threatening to kill the President, arent'ya?

trout
about a year ago we had this flood of I/P threads, they became a 24-hour-brawl covering a good chunk of the front page (with a little help from the always unruly Paris and other "let's ethnic-cleanse the West Bank" Likud apologists, for example), and Matt began deleting a lot of those threads. was it support of Sharon's policies? well, I think it was good aministrator policy. war will begin soon enough, as ms Rice politely remembered us a few days ago. until then, let's cool down a little

also, temper tantrums are de facto already rewarded here on MeFi. otherwise professional trolls and "fuck you buddy" users would have been banned much more often. Matt, bless his heart, is the opposite of the censor, if anything he is too laissez faire. hence, temper-tantrum-throwing "fuck you" users are not punished as they would otherwise be.
posted by matteo at 5:12 AM on January 21, 2003

Whatever happened to the good ole silent treatment? Best troll-killer I know.
posted by Vidiot at 5:20 AM on January 21, 2003

PP's aim is to be the stereotypical lunatic ranter to try get people to disagree with his rantings.

Oh, well, that's alright then. Perhaps we should have a simple, one-syllable descriptor for such a personality type.

Any ideas?
posted by Grangousier at 5:22 AM on January 21, 2003

hey asshole - quote me. that's right. you have accused me of threatening to kill the president, and everyone here saw it. provide the quote, fuckface. jerk. the one where i directly and personally threaten to commit murder upon the person of the president. show me. show us all. you fucking asshole fascist pig. jerk.
posted by quonsar at 5:32 AM on January 21, 2003

My language is usually very calm and understated.

Proposed deal: eliminate member names consisting of vulgar words, and I've limit my language to words they say on the Family Channel.

Deal?
posted by ParisParamus at 5:46 AM on January 21, 2003

PP makes the same point in every Iraq thread. He comes in right at the end and basically says 'the war's going to happen, there's nothing you can do about it', like it's the clincher in the argument. Just ignore it. Even if he does do it in caps.
posted by Summer at 5:46 AM on January 21, 2003

My language is usually very calm and understated.

Proposed deal: eliminate member names consisting of vulgar words, and I'll limit my language to words they say on the Family Channel.

Deal?
posted by ParisParamus at 5:46 AM on January 21, 2003

well, you don't really need a direct and personal threat to get the Secret Service involved, AFAIK. They'd probably consider your comment of interest.

but jeez, take a deep breath, 'kay? I'm not one for censorship by Matt (nor by anyone else), but really, once people start calling each other assholes and telling them to "shut the fuck up", any actual dialogue is gone (most likely for good) from the thread. so why bother posting when it's all bile anyway? Cool off, gather your thoughts, THEN post.

Unless it's funny.
posted by Vidiot at 5:47 AM on January 21, 2003

I ? ParisParamus.

Hama7, I think you'd be surprised at some of Paris's more liberal viewpoints. Get him on the death penalty, then see how much you ? him.
posted by Summer at 5:48 AM on January 21, 2003

Ooops, that was a heart in preview.
posted by Summer at 5:48 AM on January 21, 2003

i thought my response to the fucking fascist pig matteo was hilarious.
posted by quonsar at 5:52 AM on January 21, 2003

Do you see what I mean?

Hama7, I think you'd be surprised at some of Paris's more liberal viewpoints. Get him on the death penalty, then see how much you ♥ him.

I know, (I've read) but he's peaches in an peacenik thread.
posted by hama7 at 5:55 AM on January 21, 2003

Vidiot - That's the grown-up approach. It works really well with children and adults alike - "planned ignoring"!

Matteo - I think the point here is that there is a very fine, fuzzy line between "inflammatory" and not - an official policy of censorship would be just that - censorship - and would amount to an endorsement of the US government's position. Furthermore, If temper tantrums are rewarded on Mefi now, they will then be doubly rewarded.

As I_Cola observed, Paris_P is very capable of making intelligent arguments but (in my opinion) resorts to personal attacks to flame threads and so cut off debate.

I refuse to acquiesce to the inevitability of War, and am a bit offended by your suggestion that I just "relax" on this one. What issues do you take very seriously? Has anyone ever told you to "relax" on them - if so, how did this suggestion make you feel?

And even more centrally - 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 with nothing that verged close to the "taboo", as did (apparently) my suggestion that US media was undercounting Anti-War protestors. Cultural oddities are great - in moderation.

The old dictum for polite, safe conversation was: avoid politics, religion and sex. Sex, on Mefi at least, is now quite safe. Is that the current state of things, that religion, and especially politics, are taboo? I find that to be a dismal thought.


My post could have been considered a troll if not for my links to the striking retractions published by NPR and the NYT about their Oct. 26th undercounts which - juxtaposed with their ludicrous undercounts of the Jan 18 protest (I say this with conviction, because I witnessed both) suggest a form of media censorship. And this would be bad because the independance of the "Fourth Estate" has long been considered crucial to the healthy functioning of American Democracy. If I'm right, if most of the US media was trying to ignore the Anti-War protests, well - there is a difference in degree, but not in kind between this type of censorship and the functioning of Pravda in the old Soviet Union.

In short, I think there are issues crucial to the health of US Democracy involved here.

"If freedom of speech is taken away, then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter." - George Washington

"Naturally the common people don't want war neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country." - Hermann Goering
posted by troutfishing at 6:07 AM on January 21, 2003

now i remember why i don't bother reading this site much anymore.
posted by zoopraxiscope at 6:07 AM on January 21, 2003

Not to change the subject (I can't imagine why I would want to do that) - I had a dream about Matt last night. My husband, my 2 kids, and Matt (a complete stranger to all of us, I have no idea how he got there) were all piled in my car. Matt was crammed in the back seat with my kids, hehe. We were going to the Phila Art Museum and we had a flat. Matt got out of the car (which had conveniently broken down right in front of a gas station) and changed the flat with my husband. I went in to the bathroom at the gas station and there was a mouse running around, and he saw me and ran up to me and was about to actually lunge at my leg, and so I kicked it. Then I sat down on the toilet (it was the only place to sit) and cried for about half an hour, because I was so scared of the possibility of being attacked by a mouse. When I finally came out of the bathroom, Matt had totally charmed and won over everyone in my family, and they were all gathered around him while he entertained them with stories and jokes. My daughter had a big crush on him. Everyone was mad at me for taking so long in the bathroom, and the enthusiasm for the Art Museum had waned, so we all went home.

Back to your regularly scheduled arguing.
posted by iconomy at 6:12 AM on January 21, 2003

Well put, troutfishing. (But don't you DARE call me a grown-up.)
posted by Vidiot at 6:13 AM on January 21, 2003

The hell with this discussion crap. I say we start DreamFilter. That was great, iconomy. Matt saves the day! Again!
posted by Vidiot at 6:15 AM on January 21, 2003

I ? ParisParamus.

Ooops, that was a heart in preview.

Summer, I think I like it better the way it was...
posted by Vidiot at 6:19 AM on January 21, 2003

trout

the war topic has been debated a lot here, a moratorium would hardly amount to censorship of a growing debate. it's a pretty dead horse topic by now -- especially in a community where users have such a short fuse, I'm sorry to report.
there's 200 threads that can indicate the results of the MeFi poll: who's for and who's against Iraq Attaq, all there for the record.
also, just wait until somebody posts the is-Scott-Ritter-a-child-molester? topic on the front page, you'll see all hell breaking loose, especially given this newly found civility in the community ("fuck you-asshole-fascist-pig"). a Iraq moratorium is going to look like a good idea, after the Ritter thing. Wanna bet?
posted by matteo at 6:32 AM on January 21, 2003

But the world will be rid of a menace with infinite cash. The Middle East's corrupt, disgusting, fascist ways will be seriously undermined.

Come on, folks, this is absolutely priceless. Its like a joke, right, y'know, funny?
posted by Wulfgar! at 6:37 AM on January 21, 2003

just wait until somebody posts the is-Scott-Ritter-a-child-molester? topic on the front page, you'll see all hell breaking loose

sheesh, matteo, didja have to bring that one up? Now I'll have to stay away from MeFi for a couple of days until it gets interesting again.
posted by Vidiot at 6:38 AM on January 21, 2003

zoopraxiscope - Why? (but I guess you read it enough to delve into Metatalk!

[By the way, I found a great site for quotes by the "Founding Fathers" on "Freedom". It seems as if they would have had a lot of scathing things to say about the current political climate in the US - but I guess times have changed, eh?]

Vidiot - Grown up! Grown up!

Dreamfilter (!) - I've run across similar things on the web. Hmmm.
posted by troutfishing at 6:40 AM on January 21, 2003

OK, so they won't be undermined?
posted by ParisParamus at 6:43 AM on January 21, 2003

(Far too nasty in here - the sea of vitriol indeed - but a valiant attempt at a safe harbor from iconomy. Thank you, Ike - that was beautiful - a flower amongst the doo-doo piles. Now stop me before I mix metaphors again.)
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 6:48 AM on January 21, 2003

Is there any reason to tolerate inflammatory hate-screed like this?

Once again: PATHETIC, delusional, A-HOLE PACIFISTS.

Well, by making sweeping, sterotyping generalizations in vulgar terms like this, Paris undermines any credibility he and his arguments might have. He "reveals" himself. So why not give him enough rope to hang himself?

Other than that, I can't think of a reason.
posted by Shane at 6:52 AM on January 21, 2003

Even if a mixed metaphor sings, it should be derailed.
posted by Vidiot at 6:54 AM on January 21, 2003

zoopraxiscope - Why? (but I guess you read it enough to delve into Metatalk!


truth be told, this is the first time i've looked at metatalk in weeks. truly, i should know better myself than to post what i did above, i should simply go back to ignoring the site--i realize my above comment isn't really constructive, and so it'd likely be best to have kept it to myself. for that i apologize to all who had to read that bit of meta-whining.

as to the why, since you went ahead and asked i'll answer rather than keep quiet. i simply don't find metafilter as interesting as i used to. in my opinion, both the quality of the posts and the quality of the discussions have gone precipitously downhill of late. these days i often come and look at the FPP's to see if they link to anything i'm interested in, but generally i don't even peruse the commentary anymore. at this point, i pretty much know what to expect in these discussions, and rarely do i ever find them enlightening or even worth my time. but that's just me. i'll go back to silence now, i don't think my participation at this site is really worth my while anymore, and reading my complaints probably ain't worth anyone else's.
posted by zoopraxiscope at 6:58 AM on January 21, 2003

But wouldn't the outcome of your proposal (censoring political posts) be a steady diet of posts about adult babywear and vibrating cellphones?

Troutfishing- I find this blanket statement of contempt for all non-political posts on Metafilter utterly blinkered. I find discussions of the possibility of war here trivial and "Weekly World News" like myself.
posted by PinkStainlessTail at 7:00 AM on January 21, 2003

Ugh. Apparently I find a lot of things. Pardono. That's what happens when I post while angry.
posted by PinkStainlessTail at 7:12 AM on January 21, 2003

matteo. i am sorry for calling you names. i shouldn't post when pissed off. i still think you are a jerk though.
posted by quonsar at 7:25 AM on January 21, 2003

Recent "trivial" (arguably) non-political threads:
Example
Example
Example
Example
posted by PinkStainlessTail at 7:27 AM on January 21, 2003

PinkStainlessTail - OK, there is plenty of good, thoughtfull (and safe!) non-political stuff. So it would be like Public Radio meets the Weekly World News? One could do worse, but.......
posted by troutfishing at 7:36 AM on January 21, 2003

But what? Spell it out for me.
posted by PinkStainlessTail at 7:44 AM on January 21, 2003

Well, the circumscribed nature of the debate, for one.

Do you think that the funding from various corporate sources (such as the "Citizens for Balanced Energy Choices" -actually a Coal Industry Front Group- which runs ads on NPR) has no effect on limiting and circumscribing Public Radio coverage (on the environment, in this case), or that there is no underlying motivation for NPR to undercount Anti-War protests?

I tried to spell it out earlier - let me try again: to remove or censor taboo subjects (I guess politics, in this case, and probably religion too) would be to eviscerate a great part of what makes Mefi - or life! - interesting (*except for sex), what gives it "juice" for me and, I suspect, for many others
posted by troutfishing at 9:06 AM on January 21, 2003

Well, the circumscribed nature of the debate, for one.
We have corporate sponsors/masters on Mefi exerting a chilling effect on what we say in exchange for sweet scratch? My checks keep getting lost in the mail, apparently...

Seriously, an outright ban on political threads (even ones about Iraq) would be a bad thing. But I don't see why that requires belittling non-political threads as trivial. It may be "safe", but there's nothing inherently "dangerous" about you and Steve@ rubbing agendas.
posted by PinkStainlessTail at 9:21 AM on January 21, 2003

Do you think that the funding from various corporate sources (such as the "Citizens for Balanced Energy Choices" -actually a Coal Industry Front Group- which runs ads on NPR) has no effect on limiting and circumscribing Public Radio coverage (on the environment, in this case), or that there is no underlying motivation for NPR to undercount Anti-War protests?

I love watching you fight the good fight, trout, and you do it well. But I must say, I have watched NPR stories pointedly attack large multinational companies that advertise on NPR. I wish I could remember an exact example, but one came up about 2 years (?) ago. The company continued to fund NPR, also.

Maybe I'm naive in this rare case, but I have great hopes for NPR.
posted by Shane at 9:25 AM on January 21, 2003

Shane- you might be thinking of ADM and This American Life.
posted by PinkStainlessTail at 9:26 AM on January 21, 2003

"Citizens for Balanced Energy Choices"

Good call on them, though. Bastardos!
posted by Shane at 9:26 AM on January 21, 2003

Good catch, PinkST! BUT, there was another case on "mainstream morning" NPR news (not This-Amer- Life), also, and I think ADM was the company also.

Of course, considering ADM has fingers in every available pie, the probability is naturally high it was them...
posted by Shane at 9:31 AM on January 21, 2003

rushmc, he was talking about the people at the demonstration, not the people on this site,

I have to agree with others here that that's a very generous reading of his comments. But even giving him your take on it, would you like to see a flood of contentless comments about George Bush that did nothing but call him names? Seems to me you tend to delete those.

while you were telling someone on this site to "stfu."

Yes, and it's about time someone did. Look, there is a huge difference between shouting down someone in a debate--which is inexcusable and should never be tolerated--and refusing to tolerate a person's habitual namecalling, denigration, belittling, insulting, and personal attacks on another member. There should be zero tolerance of the ad hominem, but you continue allow it, and we all suffer the results--a poisoned, escalating atmosphere of negativity and personal dislike and resentment. I'm sick of the jackasses, I'm sick of the juvenile delinquents who think it's great fun to come here and poke people with sticks until they erupt like a violated anthill, and I'm sick of the lack of respect and civility that a certain minority of the people here habitually show for their fellow members.

And why is it that so many of the knee-jerk ill-behaved are numbered amongst the self-identified hard-core "conservatives?" This is a statistical anomaly, surely! I like and crave a mix of all perspectives, opinions, attitudes and viewpoints, but don't these 4 or 5 individuals (I won't name them--we all know who they are) realize that they are doing themselves and, perhaps more importantly, their political and social agendas a tremendous disservice by being such poor representatives for them? Every time one of them resorts to attacking another member rather than engaging their arguments, it is inevitable that the rest of us will think, at least a little, "Well, they must have no good answer to that or they would have offered it."

I am neither a liberal nor a conservative, but I can honestly say that after reading Metafilter all this time, I am less sympathetic to many of the conservative viewpoints than I once was, largely as a result of the recurrent behavior of its proponents. This is the legacy of Rush Limbaugh, perhaps--I hope it was worth it to him to drill so many in hate and intolerance in order to boost his ratings. Are they they only ones who ever behave badly? No, of course not. But a simply scan of the site will reveal that they are by far the most frequent abusers of the community good will. One has to wonder: if their social skills are so underdeveloped that they can't get along in a simple online society like mature adults, how sophisticated can their philosophy and beliefs be? A person IS colored by his behavior. Reputation counts for a lot in a medium where faces and badges of authority don't show.

Should I have phrased my objection differently? Perhaps. Certainly anyone who has read here long knows that it was out-of-character for me. But the fact is, I chose that form intentionally. There comes a point where by condoning antisocial behavior you are contributing to it. Tolerance of ad hominem does not contribute to a free and open debate--it stifles it. Giving it tacit legitimacy by not responding to or punishing it is like fertilizing weeds. Enforcing minimum standards of decency and behavior is not the same as censoring thought and opinion, and it's a shame that the two are so often conflated here.
posted by rushmc at 9:46 AM on January 21, 2003

Oh, and I told him to shut up in Meta, not Mefi, which is a whole different animal.
posted by rushmc at 9:48 AM on January 21, 2003

rushmc and others, of course I don't think people should go around painting whole groups with an ALL CAPS brush like paris did. The point I was trying to make was that while it was a shitty post, telling another user specifically to shut the fuck up anywhere on the site is worse.

But it doesn't matter. Almost any debate about the war has been reduced to coarse namecalling by members that are more interested in venting their frustrations than participating in true discussions that respect their peers and allow for a free exchange of ideas. The people that participate in them fully and do their best to belittle other viewpoints while shouting past each other should rethink their methods. They are (at least in my mind) killing MetaFilter.
posted by mathowie at 10:12 AM on January 21, 2003

Amen.
posted by timeistight at 10:16 AM on January 21, 2003

They are (at least in my mind) killing MetaFilter.

It always scares me when you talk like that. Here. Feel better? A little?
posted by PinkStainlessTail at 10:22 AM on January 21, 2003

the thing is, if you wade through the crap, there are intelligent arguments happening on this site that you won't find anywhere on the web this side of Kur0shin. Given the 'ease' of tossing off comments, I am actually surprised it isn't worse. I can honestly say that my opinions have been influenced by the posters on this site, obviously that doesn't include the idelogue blowhards (on both sides) who call names and generally behave like crying children.
posted by cell divide at 10:30 AM on January 21, 2003

They are (at least in my mind) killing MetaFilter.

Sadly, I don't think they care all that much. People who exhibit the fanatic zeal that is routinely displayed in many political threads seem to have the need to argue until the medium (in this case, metafilter) they are arguing in sinks out of site from the shrapnel of their words.

Paris, Postroad, hama7, Steve@L, to name a few, re-read the words fanatic zeal and see if they fit as apt descriptions for you.
posted by ashbury at 10:32 AM on January 21, 2003

ashbury, I think you're contributing to the problem by selecting only right wingers for your example.
posted by timeistight at 10:41 AM on January 21, 2003

Almost any debate about the war has been reduced to coarse namecalling

I suggest, again, a moratorium (or a severe limit, let's say one FPP a day) of war-related FPP's until the invasion actually starts. It'a not very painful solution, it worked when I/P threads were ruining the quality of the conversation, and when the sniper threads were popping up everywhere every five second turning MeFi into SniperFilter. Maybe something in the sidebar to warn users: "you wanna talk about war? post here"
posted by matteo at 10:51 AM on January 21, 2003

Almost any debate about the war has been reduced to coarse namecalling...

If one can remain calm and affable, if one can present facts and well-reasoned, logical opinions, then one will advance one's viewpoints and potentially influence people. As soon as one acts as Matt has described above, one loses all credibilty. I wish more people would realize this.
posted by Shane at 10:53 AM on January 21, 2003

Mathowie - I'm sorry the post incited so much vitriol - other than my 'i', 'small' and 'bold' tags, but what's wrong with taking note of a systemic undercounting of political protest numbers? Given the admissions by the NYT and NPR, I know that it's not merely in my head..(not to mention personally witnessing both events)...and it's very disappointing to see the same discounting concerning the Jan. 18 protest.

The last two links of the posts were gratuitious, sure, and I could have formatted the piece better, but hey! - an awfull lot of lives or a stake, and millions of people are taking to the street to protest a possible US invasion of Iraq: is this not noteworthy?

Or, to put it differently, all of the movements which promoted social change in the last 100 years of American history have generated conflict. If the tenor of Mefi has changed, it's probably due in part to a change in the tenor of American political culture. Left/right polarization seems to be up, and some observers blame that on increasing (you guessed it!) income equality.

By the way Paris_Paramus resumed normal (curse free) argumentation later on the post, and I wished him luck on his way to a job interview: I believe that our foes (as foils) are necessary in that they give us definition and (at best) keep us honest.
posted by troutfishing at 10:55 AM on January 21, 2003

Almost any debate about the war has been reduced to coarse namecalling by members that are more interested in venting their frustrations than participating in true discussions that respect their peers and allow for a free exchange of ideas.

Nice observation, but rather impotent without any action to back it up. More to the point, this bad behavior is hardly limited to war posts, and I think linking it to them specificially says more about a person's particular post topic/type preferences than it really addresses the underlying problem.
posted by rushmc at 11:02 AM on January 21, 2003

Sadly, I don't think they care all that much. People who exhibit the fanatic zeal that is routinely displayed in many political threads . . .

. . . care more about their beliefs than the venues in which they express them. If MetaFilter dies because of their zealotry, that's just collateral damage. On to the next site.

what's wrong with taking note of a systemic undercounting of political protest numbers?

It's not new. If I recall correctly, a post like that has happened whenever there has been a major protest -- complaining, for example, about being ignored by the major media. I'll try to find some examples. It's also fuel for warbloggers: it provides them with something to fulminate against.
posted by mcwetboy at 11:03 AM on January 21, 2003

Oops - that was "income inequality". I'm getting sloppy - time to put away the axe for a while, I think..........
posted by troutfishing at 11:03 AM on January 21, 2003

By the way Paris_Paramus resumed normal (curse free) argumentation later on the post

BFD. By then, the damage was done and the tone was set.
posted by rushmc at 11:06 AM on January 21, 2003

I believe that our foes (as foils) are necessary in that they give us definition and (at best) keep us honest.

I don't want to be the foe of anyone here. I prefer to think of you all as neighbors, if not as friends.
posted by timeistight at 11:09 AM on January 21, 2003

I prefer to think of you all as neighbors, if not as friends.

Dude, can I borrow your garden weasel?
posted by Shane at 11:19 AM on January 21, 2003

Don't do it! he still has my roto-tiller!
posted by PinkStainlessTail at 11:21 AM on January 21, 2003

I believe that our foes (as foils) are necessary in that they give us definition and (at best) keep us honest.

But surely you recognize that there is a difference between philosophical counterpoint and petty vendetta?
posted by rushmc at 11:22 AM on January 21, 2003

this bad behavior is hardly limited to war posts

War-related posts are the most easily identifiable, but feel free to back up this statement with examples. My observations are too impotent to notice them elsewhere apparently.
posted by mathowie at 11:23 AM on January 21, 2003

Metafilter: a sea of vitriol and juvenilia

Sorry, couldn't resist. But I think the answer here lies in the same good-sense self-policing that has prevailed on MeFi in the past. I think we all understand troll psychology enough to recognize flamebait when we see it, and ignore it. Doing so requires restraint; when you let the troll get a rise out of you, the troll wins.

I don't think MeFi is being ruined. I think there's a lot of politically charged news flying around right now, and that's the nature of the Internet. People naturally want to discuss things that are important to them. I love a healthy debate as much as the next person, and to me it's obvious when an FPP or comment crosses the line between spirited debate and argumentative bullshit. Our duty as good citizens is to ignore such nonsense and encourage others to do the same. People generally will act like morons in a room full of morons, and they will try to act like adults in a room full of adults.
posted by vraxoin at 12:13 PM on January 21, 2003

Oh, and I told him to shut up in Meta, not Mefi, which is a whole different animal.

Right. "I told you to fuck off outside the restaurant, dear. That's a whole different kettle of fish." I think as long as we remember that you're infalliable and above the rules, we'll all be fine.
posted by yerfatma at 12:28 PM on January 21, 2003

I guess what I meant was, why not treat people like you want to be treated, not expect them to treat you the way you want to be treated? There's only the one person you've got control over. The rest you just have to hope for the best in.
posted by yerfatma at 12:29 PM on January 21, 2003

Troutfishing...."I believe that our foes (as foils) are necessary in that they give us definition and (at best) keep us honest."

TimeisTight..."I don't want to be the foe of anyone here. I prefer to think of you all as neighbors, if not as friends."

But wouldn't such a completely "friendly" community be like a community of "Stepford Wives"?

I know of a Unitarian Church which, in the interests of "niceness", mandated that people no longer clap in church. Instead, they had to rub their hands together, making a sound like this: "swish, swish, swish" -- it was less "disturbing", they said (except to me. I stopped attending)
posted by troutfishing at 12:40 PM on January 21, 2003

troutfishing, I think you want MetaFilter to be some kind of debating club. I don't. If that all it winds up being I'll stop attending.
posted by timeistight at 12:54 PM on January 21, 2003

timetight - no, I don't. But enforced niceness makes me cringe. If you look at my posts, though, you'll see that I'm generally very civil. I can get a bit sarcastic sometimes, though.

I believe that people can fight and yet still get over it. Not that I would want every post - or even the majority of Mefi posts - to be brawls or debates. It's a question of proportion, I think. But, by the same token, I'll argue a subject into the ground. This is bad? I don't curse while I'm doing it.....

The pre-civil rights South was very nice, too (if you were white, that is) but every once in a while, the "niceness" would erupt into savage chaos and somebody (a black male, or several, that is) would get lynched. The tensions and hatreds were not at all far from the surface, just under the niceness. I'm suspicious of "niceness" because the world I see around me is not uniformely "nice" (though it often can be nice or even beautifull in places, for periods of time).

Here's a thought I entertained as a kid - what if Heaven and Hell were the same place....infinitely nice, with boy scout troops on picnics, a place with no bad weather, tooth decay, old age, conflict, anger.....sex even - Heaven for some, Hell for others, no? This was a sub-theme in one Philip K. Dick novel (and many other novels too, I'm sure)..........
posted by troutfishing at 1:10 PM on January 21, 2003

troutfishing- although your earnest zeal has a sort of enthusiastic high-school student attractiveness about it, I don't really think that MetaFilter is the proper place to display it. There are plenty of more politically-oriented sites out there that cater to what passes as 'progressive thinking' these days that would perhaps be more suitable and more receptive to your ideas. Since I don't visit such sites regularly, I am afraid I can't offer any recommendations, but they shouldn't be difficult to find, regardless of what you might hear about the 'stifling of dissent'. The truth is, many of the most interesting Metafilter users do not come here for political discussion at all, but for the sort of posts and commentary that you seem to disdain as trivial. It is sad for me to see the things that Metafilter does well being discarded for the things it does poorly.

Sadly, people also seem to be far too forgiving of the bad behaviour of members who they perceive as ideological brethren. Although the fallacious and puerile tactics of the 'conservative' members here are often subject to rightful scrutiny and condemnation, the equally puerile behaviour of those members with 'progressive' or 'liberal' viewpoints is often overlooked, I suppose, because people feel that they must "stick up" for those that share their views, no matter how loathsome their tactics or how suspicious their motives. This tendency must be combated. Although I share some of the ideological viewpoints of some of the 'conservative' members here regarding the disarmament of dictator Hussein, I cannot ally myself with them when they employ shrill and stupid name-calling and shallow and smug arguments. I would hope members with 'liberal' or pacifist views would regard their ideological comrades with the same disdain when they stoop to stupidity.

mathowie is right in his assessment that it is this acquiescence to and acceptance of childish debate in the name of "winning" these petty arguments that is 'killing' MetaFilter.
posted by sir walsingham at 1:22 PM on January 21, 2003

I don't necessarily agree with everything sir walsingham says, but you have to admit he says it with panache--his prose is like spun gold. Sir, I salute your rhetorical skills.
posted by vraxoin at 1:29 PM on January 21, 2003

"I told you to fuck off outside the restaurant, dear. That's a whole different kettle of fish."

That's not what I'm saying at all. Metatalk is the place for drawing attention to people who transgress the site boundaries. Metafilter is not. Therefore it is reasonable that discussions about behavior would have to get more directly personal here, whereas it would not be equally appropriate on the blue side. It's no better to call someone names here than there, of course, but then, I didn't call anyone any names. What I did was to express my extreme dissatisfaction with someone's treatment of another user, and I chose strong terms to do that with. I'm not Matt--my telling someone to "shut up" carries exactly zero weight. But it conveys the point I was trying to make, which is that some behaviors--specifically those which constitute direct attacks against another user, rather than dealing with their words or ideas--should not be tolerated in an adult community that strives for free and reasonable (and meaningful) discourse.

I guess what I meant was, why not treat people like you want to be treated, not expect them to treat you the way you want to be treated?

I've advocated (and, I think, for the most part followed) that here longer than you've been a member, yerfatma. But at some point you have to stop politely asking Saddam Hussein to refrain from killing his neighbors and come join the civilized world. Some people simply will never respond to nudges, requests, community standards and peer pressure. I'm asking Matt to take a more proactive approach to those who intentionally insult and verbally attack other members of the community, and he's apparently blowing me off. So be it--it's his site. But I stand by my position.
posted by rushmc at 1:36 PM on January 21, 2003

The truth is, many of the most interesting Metafilter users do not come here for political discussion at all, but for the sort of posts and commentary that you seem to disdain as trivial.

It doesn't have to be either/or, and your Metafilter is not my Metafilter. The community has always been large and broad enough to satisfy a wide range of members and tastes. Trying to curtail it and shape it to your own preferences is not only selfish, it's unworkable.

Sadly, people also seem to be far too forgiving of the bad behaviour of members who they perceive as ideological brethren.

Some do, that's true, and it's unfortunate. But I hope you're not including me under that umbrella, as I have never cared what labels people choose to sew into their underwear. My concern is with whether they choose to express their thoughts (whatever they might be) in a manner respectful to others. There is no one on the site to whose transgression I would not object.

mathowie is right in his assessment that it is this acquiescence to and acceptance of childish debate in the name of "winning" these petty arguments that is 'killing' MetaFilter.

It's not "debate" that's the problem; it's giving equal acceptance to every kind of tactic. Most people would not tolerate someone coming up to a party, ranting in their face and shouting profanity and calling them names--why put up with it here?
posted by rushmc at 1:46 PM on January 21, 2003

I've advocated (and, I think, for the most part followed) that here longer than you've been a member, yerfatma.

That's wonderful if true (personally, I disagree), but how is my membership length anything more than an arbitrary period of time. Remember Throeau's maxim: "Grey hair does not confer wisdom." The problem I have with your argument (ignoring the fact that my experience doesn't match your claims) is that it furthers the claim that behavior on the Internet is divorced from behavior in real life. People come to this site because you're not ever (almost) going to pull off a meaningful discussion on a Yahoo! chat board. Yet they still insist on acting in ways that would get you punched in any bar I've ever had a good time in.

Try saying "Shut the fuck up" to the next random person who bothers you. Then explain that your opinion carries zero weight because you've no authority.
posted by yerfatma at 1:50 PM on January 21, 2003

Troutfishing: But enforced niceness makes me cringe.

It makes you cringe?
posted by niceness at 1:53 PM on January 21, 2003

Objectively, by word count, or post/comment, my frequency of namecalling/vulgarity is very low; low against Mefi'ites, that is. So, any chance you're (the plural you/vous) attempting to impeach my position by point to a few, rare cuss words? Huh?

And yes, I do believe in evil. And good. And souls.
posted by ParisParamus at 1:57 PM on January 21, 2003

troutfishing:

But wouldn't such a completely "friendly" community be like a community of "Stepford Wives"?

only if you assume disagreement between two or more people makes them foes of one another. don't visit this site to fight others; visit to discuss. if you can't seem to disentangle those two goals, which is certainly possible and has happened to a lot of people, then i think it's worth it to take a break from mefi.
posted by moz at 1:59 PM on January 21, 2003

I'm asking Matt to take a more proactive approach to those who intentionally insult and verbally attack other members of the community, and he's apparently blowing me off.

I've asked for more examples, which I'm still waiting for.
posted by mathowie at 2:18 PM on January 21, 2003

iconomy, you are scaring me.

How many times does mathowie have to say things like "x is killing MetaFilter" and "MetaFilter does not do politics well at all" before people will get the message? Don't you understand? This is not a political discussion forum and never has been. There are places that are eminently suited for political debate, but this is by no stretch of the imagination one of them. Stick to the purpose of the site and all will be well.
posted by dg at 2:21 PM on January 21, 2003

Objectively, by word count, or post/comment, my frequency of namecalling/vulgarity is very low; low against Mefi'ites, that is.

My intent was not to draw you out of the crowd and crucify you as lead jerk, PP. As far as I recall, I've never said a word against you in the past and am certainly not part of the popular PP-bashing club (which I also find inappropriate). I thought you crossed the line and I called you on it, for the good of the site. It's not personal.

So, any chance you're (the plural you/vous) attempting to impeach my position by point to a few, rare cuss words?

It's not the cuss words that bother me, it's the lack of respect for other people here. Maybe you HAVE no respect for anyone you decide to label a "pacifist"--fine. But whatever we really think of one another here, how can the community function if we're not civil? "Us vs. them" or "me vs. everyone" doesn't promote interesting discussion, it promotes flamewars, closed minds, and noisy posturing.
posted by rushmc at 2:39 PM on January 21, 2003

I've asked for more examples, which I'm still waiting for.

I know you read the site. They occur in at least one thread almost every day (usually from one of the same small group of members). I don't have the time nor interest in going back and reading the last week's worth of posts, but would you like me to post each one over the next week to Meta? I doubt it. I've tried hard not to do that, after posting a number several months ago, not wanting to dominate the board with essentially redundant observations.

Let's not allow people to cloud the issue. This isn't about different posting styles, or tolerating different viewpoints, backgrounds, or personalities. What I am addressing is the very narrow issue of people verbally attacking other members of the community, either because they enjoy it or in the mistaken belief that it somehow furthers their position in the eyes of the rest of us.

And--and I don't mean this at all in a critical way, although you seem wont to get defensive over everything I say in Meta lately--why would I or anyone else be motivated to ever bring such transgressions to your attention when nothing happens when we do? (Nothing except provoking a backlash against the messenger, that is.) I'm just sayin'.

I know you don't like to make blanket statements, rules or prohibitions for the site, and generally I think that's a very wise and generous policy, but it seems to me--and perhaps you feel differently--that this is a case where an exception should be made and you should state once and for all whether nasty personal attacks are acceptable on the site and what, if any, consequences there will be for those who insist upon making them. Because they poison the atmosphere a lot more than such things as sgt. serenity's (also unacceptable) recent comment diarrhea, IMO.
posted by rushmc at 2:55 PM on January 21, 2003

Sir Walsingham - Although your dryly acidic prose ably demonstrates - to Paris_Paramus and indeed to all - the infinitely greater caustic power of the delicate touch, over the merely vulgar epithet, to deliver the sting of mild and reserved condescension....there are, indeed, sometimes things new under the sun, as there are times when categorical and even seismic changes in the world -as in the political or ther natural order- disrupt our previously, tightly clutched preconceptions: changes which illustrate the philosophical fallacy known as "Und so Weiter".

By this I mean that we can never assume continuity - that is a luxury of fools who also forget that there are, indeed, some things worth speaking out for - even in haste, and at the risk of incurring social opprobium. There are at times, sir, things new under the sun. And there are, furthermore, pivotal moments, moments usually unrecognized by most. Haste can sometimes be confused for zeal. I do hope I am wrong.

Please do not take my comments too personally.
posted by troutfishing at 2:56 PM on January 21, 2003

Objectively, by word count, or post/comment, my frequency of namecalling/vulgarity is very low; low against Mefi'ites, that is.

ParisP, I think you need to broaden your view of what has rushmc and others a bit ticked off. If you take a good long look at your statement which I quoted above, you'll find that you have insulted pretty much an entire region of the world. They're corrupt, disgusting and fascist, yes? And we will undermine that by comin' on in and kicking some ass (that means killing folk, in case you haven't noticed).

It is that level of disrespect to others that is case in point what Mathowie is claiming as the murderer of MetaFilter, not the specific use of specific socially unacceptable words. And I don't think its limited to just "war" posts. Anybody remember the line: "why is religion so goofy"? Any conflicting stance in a post can explode into disrespect and emotion. Hell, I thought I was going to get banned because of an argument over a flag at the Olympics. The trick is take a little responsibility for what you post here, and realize that having a disrepectful tone will draw attack (fair or unfair). I expect to get called on it when I'm a bad boy. rushmc is right, that others should as well.

(By the way, Matt, I just pointed out two examples of what you were waiting for.)
posted by Wulfgar! at 2:59 PM on January 21, 2003

Sir Walsingham leads by example: vulgar personal attacks are quite unecessary. As much, and more, can be said with eloquence.
posted by troutfishing at 3:01 PM on January 21, 2003

ashbury, I think you're contributing to the problem by selecting only right wingers for your example.

I'm Canadian--I really don't have much of a clue as to who leans which way; I pointed out people who stand out to me due to their shouting skills in political threads rather than their political stance. The point remains that when the same issues come up by the same people and those same people are constantly asked to either tone it down or play nicer and then the behaviour is continued the next day or the next week, I can only conclude that these people simply don't care about the community that they may be destroying. That makes me mad.

All I am saying is that I think discussion is better than shouting. Perhaps the discussion might be better suited on somebody else's blog...

How many more nails will it take to secure the lid on the coffin that is metafilter?

troutfishing, nobody is saying that the events under discussion are not important.
posted by ashbury at 3:01 PM on January 21, 2003

My comments were not directed specifically at anyone at Mefi. In any case, no biggie against you, rushmc.

But I do have the impression that on Metafilter (not that I don't enjoy the attention), the more creative, even substantively creative, someone gets in describing why a position is wrong, the more likely that person is to be criticized, and have their view lumped with some extreme, simplistic position (example: reading comments addressed to ParisParamus, someone would get the impression that I'm the spokeperson for the current Prime Minister of Israel, even though my support for him has only been relative, i.e., in comparison to the depravity of the "leader" of the Palestinian Arabs in the Israeli-occupied territories).

What line are we talking about crossing here, anyway? If someone is called "a jerk," or worse, because of "A", "B", and "C," is that inappropriate? I would agree that calling a Mefi member "a jerk," or worse is inappropriate, but not when one's remarks are directed towards a third-person or third-group who support some position. I owe civility to a Mefi member (part of the Mefi Social Contract), but none to Saddam Hussein, or a....um, fools who think he's no worse than George Bush.
posted by ParisParamus at 3:12 PM on January 21, 2003

How many more nails will it take to secure the lid on the coffin that is metafilter?

Lets take a breather from this little bit of FUD right now, shall we? None of us (well, not most of us) want MeFi to die. But it isn't up to us; not the trolls, or warhawks, or the a-hole pascifists, or the annoying wishy-washy centrists such as myself. Its up to Matt. When he's sick and tired of doin' this, its gone. Blaming other users for helping to bring that about is the worst form of social manipulation, (which is something we REALLY don't do well on MetaFilter). Appealing to the emminent demise of MetaFilter to make a point is Matt's perogative, not that of any of the rest of us.
posted by Wulfgar! at 3:13 PM on January 21, 2003

I'm Canadian

Moi aussi.
posted by timeistight at 3:22 PM on January 21, 2003

Wulfgar!:

But it isn't up to us; not the trolls, or warhawks, or the a-hole pascifists, or the annoying wishy-washy centrists such as myself. Its up to Matt. When he's sick and tired of doin' this, its gone. Blaming other users for helping to bring that about is the worst form of social manipulation

it's up to matt to decide within what limits he would like metafilter to operate in; it is up to the users to operate within those limits. if matt is the only one that matters, then i think metafilter has ceased to be a community website.
posted by moz at 3:35 PM on January 21, 2003

Can anyone get in on this?

Oh yeah? Well your mom... etc.
posted by blue_beetle at 3:36 PM on January 21, 2003

ParisP, its simple logic. A is a pacifist, A is a user of MetaFilter. A=p, and A=M. Saying that pacifists are pathetic delusion assholes is saying that p=pathetic delusion asshole. Hence, if p=A, and A=M, then A=p,d,a. So much for the sanctity of social contract. Do you get it yet?
posted by Wulfgar! at 3:41 PM on January 21, 2003

if matt is the only one that matters, then i think metafilter has ceased to be a community website.

moz, you're leaping logic here. I said that Matt is the only one who can shut down the site, not that he's the only one who matters. But pointing the finger of fear (you're gonna make Matt shut down the site!!!) isn't the same as requesting that users stay inside the lines. It's using FUD of an unrelated circumstance (crossing boundaries /= shutting down the site) to get what you want.
posted by Wulfgar! at 3:47 PM on January 21, 2003

Guys, the tightrope we're walking may result in falling without a net. Remember that when you comment, and you'll probably concentrate a little more before hitting *post*

I've emailed mathowie more than once, pointing to inappropriate comments on mefi. He almost always takes note. Sometimes, action.

All proprietors respond to customer feedback. Then they oil the squeaky wheel.

Trouble is, you have to oil all the wheels. Not just the squeaky ones. Mefi runs on 4WD. and bikes... and skateboards...

Imagine mefi as a unicycle... on a tightrope!!
posted by dash_slot- at 3:58 PM on January 21, 2003

...Because they poison the atmosphere a lot more than such things as sgt. serenity's (also unacceptable) recent comment diarrhea, IMO.

Amen to that rush! Because i can't stand it when someone who can't respond is mentioned, i'm passing on a message for all of metafilter from sgt. serenity via #mefi: I'm very sorry

And i'd like to add that at least he didn't insult and/or threaten anyone in his very minor indiscretion...and deserves another chance.
posted by amberglow at 4:00 PM on January 21, 2003

agreed
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 4:02 PM on January 21, 2003

Wulfgar!:

moz, you're leaping logic here. I said that Matt is the only one who can shut down the site, not that he's the only one who matters.

you said "None of us ... want MeFi to die." death has been ascribed, twice here by my quick count, to metafilter: once, by ashbury, as he pleads to others and makes his remark about the nails in the coffin of metafilter; and once by matt, when he said that some posters are killing Metafilter.

i don't think that metafilter's death necessarily coincides with its shutdown. if mefi is shut down, then yes, it is functionally deceased. but when matt and ashbury wrote their comments, i did not envision threats to take metafilter down: but rather scenarios where metafilter is a hostile place, where people are unhappy. a place that, though it exists, few want to be.
posted by moz at 4:06 PM on January 21, 2003

moz, apologies. I see your point. I would hope that you as well see mine.

amberglow, was there any comment from the sarge resembling a promise not to do it again? (I say let 'im back in. Every community could use more wacky Scots.)
posted by Wulfgar! at 4:10 PM on January 21, 2003

Actually Wulf, there was that promise...and he also said so to matt in private.

(I like those wacky scots too!)
posted by amberglow at 4:16 PM on January 21, 2003

observe
posted by Pretty_Generic at 4:30 PM on January 21, 2003

Pretty_Generic, I think you were looking for this thread.
posted by Wulfgar! at 4:35 PM on January 21, 2003

And--and I don't mean this at all in a critical way, although you seem wont to get defensive over everything I say in Meta lately

rushmc, I'm being critical of your comments because more often than not, if someone is criticizing my methodology, saying what needs to be fixed, or pointing out all the worst atrocities on the site, it's often your name I see attached to the post. To be clear, I'm not merely shooting the messenger here, but I am growing tired of the same message, and especially because it's not really helping anymore.

I know there are people acting like insensitive assholes from time to time on the site, and it's all over, but what can I do about it? Instead of pointing out the daily faults of the site and my work, offer some solutions. I've got a full time job doing other things. I don't actually read the entire site anymore. I can't be spending hours each night sending emails to people asking them to be more considerate, so I'd appreciate some suggestions. This entire thread is about someone overstepping the bounds of respect and good taste when talking to another member, and above I've sort of written it all off because I can't go around personally policing people one by one, and since it seems to happen often in political posts, I've sort of given up on anything approaching civility in a political setting thanks to the conduct in the threads.

But again, what can I possibly do to rectify the situation?
posted by mathowie at 4:59 PM on January 21, 2003

Duh. Ban rushmc. Or did I miss what you were trying to rectify?
posted by yerfatma at 5:03 PM on January 21, 2003

rushmc, I'm being critical of your comments because more often than not, if someone is criticizing my methodology, saying what needs to be fixed, or pointing out all the worst atrocities on the site, it's often your name I see attached to the post.

!

Very well. You won't hear another word.
posted by rushmc at 5:04 PM on January 21, 2003

I don't think there is anything mathowie as one person can do, but I think the problem would be greatly reduced if we all refused to engage with trolls and hotheads.
posted by timeistight at 5:07 PM on January 21, 2003

Look. This place is like the neighborhood pub...and occasionally you expect to see a barfight break out.
posted by konolia at 5:14 PM on January 21, 2003

Also, what timeistight said.
posted by konolia at 5:16 PM on January 21, 2003

The problem is that all the trolls and hotheads are engaging with each other, and their behavior is spilling over to the rest of the site. The old adage of "If you don't like the show, you don't have to watch" isn't working here.

I don't have a solution either.
posted by Stan Chin at 5:19 PM on January 21, 2003

hello !
posted by sgt.serenity at 5:54 PM on January 21, 2003

god bless you Mr Haughey!
posted by sgt.serenity at 5:54 PM on January 21, 2003

welcome back sgt! now play nice! Don't be a pottymouth like paris over there...
posted by amberglow at 5:58 PM on January 21, 2003

haughey in 04 !
posted by Shane at 6:31 PM on January 21, 2003

Uhhmmm, hello and excuse me. In the several times that I've gotten out of line, there have been many who have been willing to call me on my behavior, and even civilly and forcefully debate with me when I have felt I was in the right. Conflict is not in itself bad. I believe that there are those who've been willing to take ParisP to task in this thread without being disrespectful or unnecessarily combative. I don't fault rushmc for bringing it up, though I do think he has gone too far in the direction of trying to force mathowie's hand. They are incidents, not the norm, even for political threads. The truth for me is that I don't see this discourse as broken. The cumulative effect of insensitivity can feel overwhelming, but I don't feel that wholesale changes need to be made. As I'm sure some will attest, when a user goes too far Matt will act. Lately it does seem as if we're spending too much time debating whether Matt should act, as opposed to saying "hey you, you do realize that what you've said is out of line, don't you? Here's why ..." In summery, if someone breaches etiquette, lets keep the focus, instead of making it about the site itself, m'kay?

Sarge, welcome back. I lift my kilt and flash the lasses in your honor. Better yet, I'll just lift a glass of Glenmorangie (12 year old, of course).
posted by Wulfgar! at 6:36 PM on January 21, 2003

i did not envision threats to take metafilter down: but rather scenarios where metafilter is a hostile place, where people are unhappy. a place that, though it exists, few want to be.

Well said, moz.

There is no simple solution, Matt, and none that you are willing to undertake as of yet, such as the oft mentioned rating system or deletion powers to certain members.

PoliticalFilter? Have yet another place where people can discuss politics to their hearts content. Not that it has to be your job to build it, Matt, but perhaps somebody here has the skills, ambition and desire to build a metafilter clone that is for politics, a la sportsfilter? I'm certain that it would quickly become a very popular place, especially if it's endorsed by metafilter.

Wulfgar!, what's FUD?
posted by ashbury at 6:44 PM on January 21, 2003

Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt.
posted by iconomy at 6:54 PM on January 21, 2003

what's FUD?

Sorry; its Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt.
posted by Wulfgar! at 6:54 PM on January 21, 2003

But again, what can I possibly do to rectify the situation
Temporary ban is a solution, a time out to cool off and to let the person rethink why he/she is on MeFi. It's a community blog not a soapbox.
posted by riffola at 6:58 PM on January 21, 2003

Oh, those thugs who live down the road from me. I try not to let the Brothers FUD get to me. Thanks for the acronym lesson, guys.

According to this page, FUD also stands for:
Female Urinary Device, Field Use Designator, File Update, Fire Unit Display (my personal favorite), First Unit Deployed, and Fouled Up Disinformation

Riffola, banning is a fine solution, but Matt has already said that he isn't here anywhere near as often as he used to be and therefore can't catch all the infractions. I'm getting the impression that he's getting tired of being sheriff around here. FWIW.
posted by ashbury at 7:02 PM on January 21, 2003

Very well. You won't hear another word.

That wasn't at all my intention. Look, I built MetaTalk specifically so others could give suggestions and input into how things are going, problems that arise, and what might solve problems. I've just grown tired of the constant pointing out that everything is going poorly and something must be done by me, without any suggestions for how to do that. Pointing out problems and suggesting solutions is helpful. Pointing out problems many times without any suggestions approaches nagging. I've grown tired of the latter is all.

I would have liked to see you step up to the plate and offer up some ideas to go with your criticism, but if you prefer the slient treatment, so be it.
posted by mathowie at 7:07 PM on January 21, 2003

perhaps somebody here has the skills, ambition and desire to build a metafilter clone that is for politics

I copied this site (or at least most of it) as a way to learn PHP. I'd be happy to tweak the code and make it actually implementable for someone else who was familiar enough with PHP and willing to run their own site. PHP and MySQL is all you need (it would be easy to modify for a different RBDMS if necessary).
posted by yerfatma at 7:16 PM on January 21, 2003

One problem that has been often discussed here is that most measures that you could take to rein things in, Matt, involve more of your time, and as you mentioned upthread, you've got a full-time job and limited time to spend shepherding people here.

I would suggest - even though it would mean more unpleasantness you would have to deal with - that anyone who tells another user to 'shut the fuck up', or 'fuck off' or 'eat shit' or whatever other choice phrasing they might choose (and this, I'm aware opens up a thorny question of 'what is unacceptable'), anyone who engages in vitriolic personal attack against another user, should be banned, no questions asked.

Simple policy.

Just because you can say something, doesn't mean you should.

No doubt you've thought of doing something like this before, Matt, and decided against it, I imagine. But I think it might have an effect on the most egregious of the infractions against civility. I realize that such a policy would have meant the (at least temporary, if not permanent) expulsion of a few people appearing in this thread (and possibly myself, too, for a past freakout or two), and I don't mean to single anyone out, nor would I want to lose anyone (even Sarge :-) ). I wouldn't mind losing the ad hominems and nastiness, though.

Just a thought.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 7:27 PM on January 21, 2003

I was wondering about that.....I didn't think the actual technology was that obscure or expensive (cheap, actually, and amenable to an inexpensive yearly subscription model)....

So one simple solution is to pick up the sword, like Solomon, and threaten to cleave the infant assunder - but, unlike Solomon, to really do it!. Presto! - Fewer headaches for Mathowie, and people who want to shout at each other are free to do so (maybe).
posted by troutfishing at 7:38 PM on January 21, 2003

But....Stavros' solution is better, I think - but maybe with the modification of adding the sort of "time outs" (no-post periods for violations) that parents use with children (bad for some kids, I've heard, but I think adults can handle it). "Time outs" would reinforce good behavior quite effectively, I think.

And.......maybe this is taboo? why not a paid subscription model? Mefi is smewhat influential (according to the french, anyway...) and most of it's members would be willing, I would guess, to pay a little each year - enough to hire a part time manager, at least.
posted by troutfishing at 7:45 PM on January 21, 2003

I have a solution in mind, but first I'll restate the problem:

The issue at hand is what, if anything, to do about posts that go beyond debate and cross over into flameland. I've read here in MeTa more than once that Matt doesn't want to hand the reins over to moderators, and I can see why.

What if, however, there were a "moderated" option on MeFi, where users could choose whether or not they wanted to view the modded version of the site? Each post and each comment could have the potential for moderation, and a vote or votes from the moderation staff could push a post/comment below the moderated threshold. That's it. On the development side, not an exceptionally complex matter: adding a database field here and there and a bit of code. On the user side, those who wished to participate in the moderated version of the site could opt-in in their user preferences, and those who didn't wouldn't. Appoint a couple of moderaters (I'm sure there are a few who would gladly do it out of their love for the site) and you're in business.

Am I a Pollyanna for believing that this could tone down a lot of the issues we're talking about?
posted by vraxoin at 8:07 PM on January 21, 2003

I would suggest - even though it would mean more unpleasantness you would have to deal with - that anyone who tells another user to 'shut the fuck up', or 'fuck off' or 'eat shit' or whatever other choice phrasing they might choose (and this, I'm aware opens up a thorny question of 'what is unacceptable'), anyone who engages in vitriolic personal attack against another user, should be banned, no questions asked.

Simple policy.

How 'bout letting it roll off your back with a laugh and a question? (Excuse me, but did you actually mean that I should fuck off because you're in an emotional pique and can't be bothered to refute me? That's rather self-serving wouldn't you agree? Why participate in this forum with such a weak grasp of self control?) Yes, that can be derisive and hurtful, but it calls for no moderation and begs for a reasoned response. If vitriol follows, well then you have an issue to approach the moderator with. Otherwise, we are all simply requesting that he adjudicate every instance in which someone else bugs us.

We can deal with this ourselves, people, without having to ask for moderation or parenting from Matt. To be honest, I'm getting somewhat frustrated with the idea that many persons, as well as myself, have suggested that we are getting reactionary and thin-skinned, and yet we are ignored; the cries still go forth for additional moderation. Why? If it bugs you, deal with it politely and forwardly. If its really wrong, you'll find others like-minded who will assist. Come on folks, this isn't kindergarten, this isn't little green footballs, and this isn't fark. Most of us have a pretty good idea of the goals, and asking Matt to give us our desires without our effort is ... well ... kinda lazy.

(I'm getting this weird Island of Dr. Moreau image where each of us struggles against our base animal nature hoping that Dr. Matt can find the cure and the law. As if its a mystery, I'm born of a wolf.)
posted by Wulfgar! at 8:45 PM on January 21, 2003

I have little to no personal investment in this, other than dismay and disgust at the parade of pinheaded yahoos that are 'killing' this place, or at best turning it into a more pretentious version of Fark. I agree with you that the best way to respond to vitriol and ranting is with reason and gentle mocking, and I think the record will show that I for one do deal with it 'politely and forwardly', for what it's worth.

But it is also abundantly clear that that sort of polite and gentle chiding clearly isn't working. It seems obvious to me that appealing to people's better natures is a fool's game when there is no spirit of community present in the attack dog to which we can appeal.

(Oh I would love to use this as a metaphor for American culture, but I don't want to derail the conversation...)

Come on folks, this isn't kindergarten, this isn't little green footballs, and this isn't fark.

I am concerned that it is heading in that very direction, slowly, inexorably. Not that I still don't love the place, of course, and people have been crying 'the sky is falling' since there was a MeTa in which to cry it, but it is worrisome, to me at least.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 8:58 PM on January 21, 2003

Lately it does seem as if we're spending too much time debating whether Matt should act, as opposed to saying "hey you, you do realize that what you've said is out of line, don't you? Here's why ..." In summery, if someone breaches etiquette, lets keep the focus, instead of making it about the site itself, m'kay?

Well put, Wulfgar!.

dash_slot: Imagine mefi as a unicycle... on a tightrope!!

There's your new tagline right there.

MetaFilter: A Unicycle...On A Tightrope!!
posted by Vidiot at 9:18 PM on January 21, 2003

Oh heck, never mind. I need to unclench a little, I think.

Waiter!
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 10:32 PM on January 21, 2003

The America's Terrorist Training Camp thread prompts me to suggest that the obscenity filter be turned up on Mefi and be more of a basis for being "evicted." Obscenity is an excellent predictor of uncivilized, vapid, ad hominem debate. Not a ban on it, just less. Please.
posted by ParisParamus to etiquette/policy at 11:57 AM PST (November 12, 2001)

Using that as a baseline, were there 50K people who matter at the rally? 10K. Again, looking forward to this overwhelming majority crowd of a-hole pacifists yelling and freaking out when the war starts.
The thing is, this will likely be a 14-day or even 7-day war, so watch as the pacifists quickly move from telling us how evil President Bush is, to how, The Occupation is destroying Iraqi society.
Once again: PATHETIC, delusional, A-HOLE PACIFISTS.
posted by ParisParamus at 9:28 PM PST on January 20

~chuckle~

The hypocrisy rampant among a certain group here (and in America at large) never, ever fails to amuse.
posted by fold_and_mutilate at 6:56 PM on January 22, 2003

A-HOLE

A-hole is not an obscenity.

Neither is "pathetic", "delusional", or "pacifists".

Well, "pacifists" maybe. Nice to see Captain Hypocrite-Finder is busy keeping the streets safe.
posted by hama7 at 7:21 PM on January 22, 2003

Come on folks, this isn't kindergarten, this isn't little green footballs, and this isn't fark.

I am concerned that it is heading in that very direction, slowly, inexorably.

muhahaha. my secret plan is working. muhaha.
posted by quonsar at 2:29 PM on January 26, 2003

hey, that was almost haiku.
posted by quonsar at 2:30 PM on January 26, 2003