Please no Iraq posts

January 24, 2004 8:28 PM

As ineffective as the injunction against Iraq-related threads on the posting page was, maybe something similar might be a good idea to head off what is certain to grow into an onslaught of suboptimal posts like this one over the coming months.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken to etiquette/policy at 8:28 PM (61 comments total)

if nothing else, such a policy will generate many amusing metatalk threads.
posted by quonsar at 8:31 PM on January 24, 2004

Which can't be a bad thing.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 8:35 PM on January 24, 2004

I thought it was worth posting because it's the first poll I've seen anywhere that suggests Bush is vulnerable in November.
It was a startling number. Most polls are not all that interesting, I agree. This one will get a lot of play for a day
or two, is my guess.

I don't really have any idea who I support for the Democratic nomination, and my feelings about Bush are ambivalent.

I was actually more interested in the strange disconnect on the so-called "electability" issue, as I explained in my longer post, which I had hoped would be th second post. Someone snarked me first.

I suppose you could ban poll posts, but I would argue that in some instances, they are of interest, when they show something unexpected.... as this one does.
posted by Slagman at 8:36 PM on January 24, 2004

No offense Slagman, but the point you were attempting to make (and see the previous thread about the wisdom of 'making points' in a post) might have been better served if you'd linked to some more interesting best-of-the-webish material, beyond just a pointer to an MSNBC poll. No one's talking about banning anything.

I deliberately chose the word sub-optimal.

Also : nader nader nader!
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 8:42 PM on January 24, 2004

Yeah, doleing out a little bit of hope is awful! How dare you, Slagman?
posted by Mayor Curley at 8:49 PM on January 24, 2004

Nader's insane.

And it wasn't a link to a poll. It was a link to an article re political analysis that included poll results. It was even
amusing, with a reference to Dean's "I have a scream"
speech.

And as I noted in the previous thread you reference, I reserved my political point for my second post in the thread for exactly the reasons outlined... Listing the results is a neutral thing; I waited until the body of the thread to give my spin or make a point.

I think "suboptimal" tends to be in the eye of the beholder, but if enough people agree, then you have a movement. I ignore most polls myself, but again -- I think this one had a surprising and noteworthy result worth mentioning.
More interesting than some of the half baked "look at my friend's blog" FPP I see here despite the rules.

Anyway, no offense taken. Nothing offends me. That is why I am the slagman.
posted by Slagman at 8:52 PM on January 24, 2004

The idea of electability is a fascinating one, as covered by the washington post and as the subject of this proclamation by harold bloom of wesley clark as being the only candidate heroic enough to be electable.

What stavros is saying is that you could have done a lot better.
posted by vacapinta at 8:53 PM on January 24, 2004

Yes, no doubt I could have done better. That's what I get for posting sober. But here is a poll that says a) most people don't want Bush to win a second term but b) they think he will because his opponents are not electable. As if someone is forcing them to vote for Bush. We don't need the Washington Post to think about the electability issue for us. There are capable smart people right here. I prefer raw data any time to some fatcat journalist's analysis.
posted by Slagman at 8:59 PM on January 24, 2004

Hey!
posted by amberglow at 9:02 PM on January 24, 2004

Today must be 'MeFi is NOT a discussion site' Day. Don't worry, Slag, tomorrow your FPP will be proper. ;-P
posted by mischief at 9:04 PM on January 24, 2004

amberglow -- dang. I did not see the earlier poll link in the body of the other thread. I would not object to the deletion of the thread I started.
posted by Slagman at 9:09 PM on January 24, 2004

no biggie, but when I first saw the story, I thought it fit in better in the Dean thread (which was a catchall discussion of the candidates/election pretty much) than as a separate FPP.
posted by amberglow at 9:11 PM on January 24, 2004

Fair enough. Just a thought.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 9:20 PM on January 24, 2004

Just want to say that unless something changes in the next 2:30 hours (pst), today's lineup of front page material is probably the worst in recent memory.
posted by Hildago at 9:22 PM on January 24, 2004

Uh-oh. This always happens when the flashing neon "Hot Dogs" sign at the seedy all-night diner next to Stavros' apartment flickers out, and stops rhythmically illuminating his faux brass monogrammed chicken-headed door knocker.
posted by Opus Dark at 9:28 PM on January 24, 2004

Just want to say that unless something changes in the next 2:30 hours (pst), today's lineup of front page material is probably the worst in recent memory.
Speaking of that, where are plep and crunchland's posts? They'd save the day (which is already over on this coast).
posted by amberglow at 9:36 PM on January 24, 2004

Hey slagman -- no hard feelings, I hope -- wasn't trying to be TOO snarky with my comment -- it just seemed a bit too "tame" for a FPP.
posted by davidmsc at 9:55 PM on January 24, 2004

Nothing offends me. That is why I am the slagman.

Ahh – to be fourteen again!
posted by timeistight at 9:55 PM on January 24, 2004

I don't know about 14, but I wouldn't mind 24. I've been in the roto rooter business for about 20 years now, and man, the shit I've seen...
posted by Slagman at 10:17 PM on January 24, 2004

I thought it was worth posting because it's the first poll I've seen anywhere that suggests Bush is vulnerable in November.

Exactly the point, I think... Will you post the next poll, when that one shows Bush back above [Insert Democrat] ? Or again when [Insert Democrat] is (again) above Bush? etc, etc...

With the 2004 Iowa Caucus as an example, polls this far out from an election tell us very little.
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 10:18 PM on January 24, 2004

davidsmc

sorry it was tame. I'll try to find some quicktime movies of porn stars vomiting on cats. I'm sure that is of much greater interest than the future of the country.
posted by Slagman at 10:19 PM on January 24, 2004

Steve, the polls have for more than two years consistenly shown Bush on top. This was something new. Now that it's a tighter race, I would expect there to be some trading back and forth in polling in the coming months. That kind of shifting would be less worthy of a FPP. But this was a moment. Also, technically speaking, the relevant election is in two days, in New Hampshire.
posted by Slagman at 10:22 PM on January 24, 2004

But this was a moment.

No, it was a blip... And you got all excited because for a moment you thought someone might unseat the Dark Prince.... so you thought you would make a FPP to share the good news with the rest of of your like-minded minion...

A single poll this far out doesn't tell us much...

Kerry commanded a three-point lead over the President
The margin of error is plus or minus 3 percentage points
(By the way, I like Newsweek's usage of "commanded"... Would you say a 3 lead [when the margin or error is 3 points] is a "commanding lead" or a "statistical tie"?)


My point is not that Bush is invincible, or that at no point a Dem might lead him in the polls... But when you have multiple polls showing a lead larger than the margin of error, then you might have something worth making a FPP about. Until then, you don't.
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 10:34 PM on January 24, 2004

porn stars vomiting on cats. I'm sure that is of much greater interest than the future of the country.

slagman, he future of this country *is* porn stars vomiting on cats.
posted by quonsar at 10:37 PM on January 24, 2004

Ron Jeremy/Tabby in '04!
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 10:39 PM on January 24, 2004

Steve

Dark Prince? Minions? Wacky. I don't care for Bush much, but I don't have a big problem with hiim. The interesting numbers here were not Kerry v. Bush but Kerry v. other Democrats and the results showing a majority don't want to see Bush in a second term, even though, weirdly, they don't see these Democrats as electable. I wasn't spinning the poll one way or the other in the FPP. It could just as easily been read as a shout out to my Republican pals, hey, we got some work to do, our leader's message didn't come across on Tuesday, let's redouble our efforts. It is a moment. But I guess Dems should be happy if Bush supporters don't realize it. As Howard Dean weeps in his oatmeal in N.H., which is the relevant data.
posted by Slagman at 10:39 PM on January 24, 2004

By the way, Steve, I think you are veering away from the etiquette issue and into politics. Maybe you should take this to the metafilter thread.
posted by Slagman at 10:51 PM on January 24, 2004

Am I the only one who thinks Slagman should have just let this MeTa thread go after his first post?

If you reply to every single quip, issue, and nod in a MeTa thread about your post in the blue, then you're a rod.

I don't mean this as a direct, stabbing, deadly personal attack. More like a friendly sort of shoulder check I guess.

I have never seen someone reply more than twice to a MeTa thread regarding their post and have it not just make them look worse and worse.

Sometimes the less you say the better off things are.

Also, while I'm handing out un-asked for advice, saying things like "nothing offends me" also make a person look foolish.
posted by christian at 12:05 AM on January 25, 2004

posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 12:24 AM on January 25, 2004

Also : nader nader nader!


Nader Nader Nader Nader Mushroom! Mushroom!

Sorry, but now it's stuck in my head.
posted by Shoeburyness at 12:53 AM on January 25, 2004

Speaking of that, where are plep and crunchland's posts?

Been too busy with various projects to post much of late, but *I'll be back*.
posted by plep at 5:46 AM on January 25, 2004

Imagine a new post for every new poll and you have the crux of the problem. A new post about the latest poll at least every day. Posters from each side posting each time a poll shows their guy in the lead, with the this-news-story-proves-what-I've-been-saying-all-along subtext that made I/P and Iraq threads so much fun to ignore.

The question of where the dividing line is between good post and weak post generates half the arguments on MetaTalk. I don't think the issue here is whether this post was weak -- in some people's view, it's slight, but then so are many, many other posts -- but whether it signals something that, left unchecked, is going to overwhelm and annoy us, and detract from the overall quality of the site.
posted by mcwetboy at 5:58 AM on January 25, 2004

then you're a rod

*wakes up from slumber induced by tedious back-and-forth nitpicking*
What's a "rod"?
posted by languagehat at 6:49 AM on January 25, 2004

I've come to the conclusion that people here will bitch about everything.

"Whaaa! I don't like your post!! Let's have it banned!"
posted by drstrangelove at 7:28 AM on January 25, 2004

Christian

But nothing does offend me in this kind of forum. You can call me a fool if you like, but what do I care, really? Who are you? Nobody to me. You may have a point that it weakens my argument to respond to a meta thread like this, but it's my argument after all, and if I fail to persuade ... I fail to persuade. Oh well. I actually think the original metafilter thread turned into an interesting debate about polling, even a grown up one without a lot of the usual partisan b.s. But I could be deluded. And for the record, in response to others, yes, it would be a bad thing if polls were posted every day for the next nine months. What a healthy discussion this has been! Thanks to everyone for helping me to understand better the kind of debate you are seeking here. It is always interesting and entertaining to see many different points of views and minds blend in the great stew that is public opinion. God bless all of you, fellow netizens. You are the great hope of civilization.
posted by Slagman at 7:37 AM on January 25, 2004

I've come to the conclusion that people here will bitch about everything.

Yeah, they'll bitch about people bitching about posts. And they'll bitch about people bitching about bitching about posts. Isn't it great?
posted by Stauf at 8:56 AM on January 25, 2004

Speaking of that, where are plep and crunchland's posts?
Been too busy with various projects to post much of late, but *I'll be back*.
cool, plep--I always enjoy your posts : >
posted by amberglow at 9:30 AM on January 25, 2004

Thanks to everyone for helping me to understand better the kind of debate you are seeking here.

See, this is the problem, Slagman. I think you still don't get it. This site isn't supposed to be about seeking debate, it's supposed to be about seeking out and sharing the best of the web. Which another pol poll ain't.

See, now it's my turn to sit back and wait for the 'Metafilter is just a discussion board these days and who are you to say what it is and isn't supposed to be' gang to come out of the woodwork. All part of the fun!
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 3:11 PM on January 25, 2004

*steals stavros's lunch money, and then pulls out switchblade comb to zhuzh him a little*
posted by amberglow at 3:26 PM on January 25, 2004

What's a "rod"?

a dork without the bend.
posted by quonsar at 3:50 PM on January 25, 2004

More commonly known as a blort.
posted by y2karl at 9:31 PM on January 25, 2004

stavros,

If it's just a link-posting board, then I don't know why comments are allowed. They should be eliminated.

I've been lurking here since the site started, and posting almost as long, and if you think there are no discussions here, you are deluded.

The resulting thread from my post was rather interesting, I think, and metafilter was one of the first places to highlight a report/analysis/poll that has been cited widely yesterday and today throughout the media, by people of all ideological stripes, as something remarkable. It was certainly one of the few things happening on that particular day. Most of the links were lame, and I was bored.

So anyway, I retract any comments here that might be interpeted as apologetic or conciliatory. I don't regret my post, and I think those who objected to it are whiners. Ptooie.
posted by Slagman at 6:18 AM on January 26, 2004

This sure looks like someone trying to stimulate a discussion....

Generation Jones : If you were born between 1954 and 1965, ask yourself this question: "Do I feel like a member of The Baby Boom Generation, Generation X, or neither?" Does this seem to you like splitting the hair too finely? Or do you think they've got something here?
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 4:35 AM PST [trackback] (6 comments total)
posted by Slagman at 6:22 AM on January 26, 2004

slagman, the site is supposed to be about finding interesting things on the web that people might find interesting and thus may talk about it, otherwise known as discussion and/or debate. Unfortunately, Newsfilter posts can fall under the category of interesting and new on the web, but for the most part, they are frowned on. Your poll post, altho it may have generated an interesting discussion, is something that many people can find under their own steam and most definitely not need you or anybody else help them find it.

It's often an invisible line between what people accept as Metafilter-worthy and what isn't, and some people do it well and some don't. An example of somebody who does it well and yet still gets the snot beaten out of him is Miguel, who specializes in chatty posts that generate chatty threads. Crunchland, plep, y2karl, moonbiter are examples of people who adhere to the hard and fast, "most people haven't seen it before, there is something interesting about the content on the page, and it might warrant discussion from others..... A good thread values uniqueness over novelty."

Your post was very worthy of discussion; it simply may not have been suitable for MetaFilter according to the guidelines as they have been laid out. Of course, as stav mentions above, mefi has changed from its original course - maybe it is a discussion site as well as weblog for unique things on the web.

It was certainly one of the few things happening on that particular day. Most of the links were lame, and I was bored.

I see.
posted by ashbury at 6:46 AM on January 26, 2004

Slag: All you can know for sure is that some vocal people will complain about an FPP like yours, but they have no evidence whatsoever that their distaste is shared by any more than a very small (and perhaps insignificant) minority of MeFi users.
posted by mischief at 8:46 AM on January 26, 2004

their distaste is shared by any more than a very small (and perhaps insignificant) minority of MeFi users.


.... including the founder, creator and User # 1.



And since this is his site, to some extend ought you be a bit more respectful about what he thinks is appropriate, mischief?

Or, do you completely personify the descent into the Me-First mindset where things are only suppose to exist to please you and your wants.
posted by Seth at 9:50 AM on January 26, 2004

Also, mischief always makes the same comment in these same discussions that happen every few weeks. It's like clockwork.

This has been happening for the last few years, and although he has been proven right that the newsfilter contingent is the (metatalk silent) majority, he consistantly fails to see that newsfilter has slowly destroyed everything good about Metafilter.
posted by Stan Chin at 9:57 AM on January 26, 2004

.... including the founder, creator and User # 1.

And this is where somebody digs up some obscure Mathowie quote, followed by a FPP by him that refutes this.

See? It's fun to follow the script! Bonus points to who knows what comes next in the discussion!
posted by Stan Chin at 10:02 AM on January 26, 2004

"get your own blog, you ..." ???
posted by amberglow at 10:42 AM on January 26, 2004

No, what follows is about 10 or so comments that argues about whether MeFi has either:

1) Always been like this (Usually cites a circa 1999 Mathowie Newsfilter post)

2) Naturally Evolved to this through the wants of the majority of the members and the state of world affairs. (Which is odd, because the world has *always* been fucked up, we just now decided to talk about it constantly here)

3) Who's more important? Metatalkers who are the minority but care about the quality of the site (All about the Links), or the free-for-all Axe Grinders who believe that discussing these important events everyday will lead to Metafilter saving the world (All about the Discussion).

And then it will devolve into injoking and stupidity.

Then someone will note how to fix all of this.

But then nobody realizes that the reason that it hasn't been fixed so far is because Mathowie is the only person who can. However it's impossible for him to fix it as it would require work he doesn't have time for. And this has been going on for years, so chances are it's not going to be fixed. Metafilter shall naturally evolve for better or worse. Then the thread falls off the Front Page, and we forget everything we talked about, so we are doomed to the next Metatalk post where we go through the same thing again.

I also randomly leave asinine comments in these threads just like this one.
posted by Stan Chin at 11:32 AM on January 26, 2004

Plus ca change, plus ca meme chose ... < /clichefilter>
posted by plep at 11:49 AM on January 26, 2004

I blame Miguel.
posted by crunchland at 12:51 PM on January 26, 2004

I blame Miguel.

Finally! Somebody said it.

I'm probably kidding. Heh.
posted by BlueTrain at 12:57 PM on January 26, 2004

Phew! Thanks. I haven't been blamed in quite a while and sort of feared I was doing something right.
posted by MiguelCardoso at 1:01 PM on January 26, 2004

It was a pity call out--you're just not that polarizing anymore
posted by y2karl at 2:07 PM on January 26, 2004

except I wasn't really kidding. I mean, Miguel probably wasn't the first chatty person on Metafilter, but he certainly has turned it into a perverse art form, and was never sufficiently slapped enough, or if he was, he was undeterred.

Miguel added the schmaltz to the slippery slope and, more than anyone else I can think of, has turned Metafilter from a site about cool stuff on the web to a site about "do you like toilets? I like toilets. What's your favorite kind of toilet?"
posted by crunchland at 6:37 PM on January 26, 2004

I also randomly leave asinine comments in these threads just like this one.

And then I come by and quote them.
posted by yhbc at 6:39 PM on January 26, 2004

What's your favorite kind of toilet?

Not German, from what I have read here.
posted by y2karl at 6:44 PM on January 26, 2004

I think a good test would be "if I posted this link to my own blog, would someone who stumbled on my site think 'hey, this guy has some good stuff on here' or would he think '*yawn* more news linking'?"

It's a pretty simple rule I think.
posted by Space Coyote at 7:07 PM on January 26, 2004

... but Stan, I word it differently each time, and I don't think I ever used 'insignificant' before (although I may be wrong on that one). ;-P
posted by mischief at 9:38 PM on January 26, 2004

What's your favorite kind of toilet?

Not German, from what I have read here.

y2karl,
One of the funniest randomly left asinine comments I have read in a while.
posted by dness2 at 4:55 PM on January 27, 2004