This is why I fear for Metafilter.

July 20, 2001 2:46 PM

"I thought I told you to go screw yourself, you fascist piece of shit."

This is why I fear for Metafilter. Not that people get away with this--he got called on it--but the fact that people feel it's necessary or desirable to say things like this to each other, increasingly, in all kinds of contexts. I don't care how vehemently you disagree, nobody here is "a piece of shit." I'm not asking for "sanctions" or anything, just wondering: is there any way to cultivate a sense of civility here, or should we just give up and leave the place to the jackals?
posted by rodii to Etiquette/Policy at 2:46 PM (55 comments total)

I hate to suggest it, but I'm starting to think that our little socialist commune may need a bit of the communist iron hand.

Call someone a fascist piece of shit, go to jail. Or, at least, lose some posting privileges for a while.

Probably a terrible idea that would bring down MeFi faster than an army of Pat McGroins, but I'm pretty frustrated.
posted by jpoulos at 3:31 PM on July 20, 2001

Every user should have a place in their profile for the most recent highly inflammatory things they said -- which can only be edited by other MeFi users, not themselves. A quick glance at a user's profile would then reveal whether they're a troll or not. ;)
posted by kindall at 3:42 PM on July 20, 2001

The camps, The camps I say! With extra salt mine priveliges. Every so often Matt could have a Stalinist purge of all of the A-list to satisfy the proles. Plus show trials, many show trials.

Ok. It would not be a good idea. Probably. But think of the possibilities...
posted by nedrichards at 3:47 PM on July 20, 2001

What I really, really long for is for everyone to have a valid, working e-mail address in order to be able to post here. I don't know if it would be a sufficient deterrent, but I'd really like to be able to send dr. zoidberg mail to let him know I felt that kind of comment is inappropriate.

I'd also like killfiles so I wouldn't have to read his posts ever again, but that's a separate issue, I suppose.
posted by webmutant at 3:52 PM on July 20, 2001

toad the fukr.
posted by holgate at 4:13 PM on July 20, 2001

It was a weak thing to say, but it's not Zoidberg's usual style to attack others.
It's pretty obvious he's feeling the tragedy of the way the cops treated the dead kid at the G8 protests.
Mindless comments only become a problem to the group at large when people over react to them.
posted by dong_resin at 4:37 PM on July 20, 2001

I used to use valid e-mail addresses in Usenet, then I discovered SPAM (and where it was coming from). Now, I know Matt would do anything to protect people from this, but technology moves faster than we can keep up.

I know it's a community and all, but I think anonymous profiles can work within that context. I mean do you think your e-mail would have any effect on this guy - other than allowing you to get into a flame war outside the context of a MetaFilter thread?

Now as to bozo filters, that's an idea I can get behind. Maybe we need to go contribute some more to the feature kitty.
posted by willnot at 4:40 PM on July 20, 2001

I used to use valid e-mail addresses in Usenet, then I discovered SPAM (and where it was coming from). Now, I know Matt would do anything to protect people from this, but technology moves faster than we can keep up.

I know it's a community and all, but I think anonymous profiles can work within that context. I mean do you think your e-mail would have any effect on this guy - other than allowing you to get into a flame war outside the context of a MetaFilter thread?

Now as to bozo filters, that's an idea I can get behind. Maybe we need to go contribute some more to the feature kitty.
posted by willnot at 4:42 PM on July 20, 2001

sorry about that - I swear the first post didn't show up the first time.
posted by willnot at 5:08 PM on July 20, 2001

get him...

I also like Kindall's idea... :-) Oh, and we really need to ignore the trolls, or at very least, reply saying that you are not responding to them until they address the public forum in a tasteful/meaningful way and suggest others do the same.
posted by fooljay at 5:58 PM on July 20, 2001

Zoidberg "inspired" me to post this thread, but my intent wasn't to say "get him" or to come up with enforcement measures. Kindall's idea is clever but a little reminiscent of "In the Penal Colony."

I've always believed, or tried to believe, in the idea that the community can act as a civilizing agent. I've seen it work wonders--flamers come in, make a big splash, cause lots of resentment and MeTa threads, and then a couple weeks/months later I notice they're the most restrained, collegial and friendly of posters. To pick a couple people at random who have caused some consternation lately, UncleFes and ljromanoff--now they're contributing without giving in on their positions but also without that constant friction. Some magic change in tone happens, that I think comes in part from coming to see the other people here as people and not just names on a screen.

Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. Sometimes it takes longer. I guess my question is, how can I as J. Random User facilitate the transition from flamer/asshole to solid citizen. Or are the flamers just coming too fast to stop it anymore?
posted by rodii at 7:35 PM on July 20, 2001

Venting a little...

UncleFes has definitely "gotten it". ljromanoff has not. I swear to god that its not because I disagree with him.

here's a typical exchange illustrating my point-

me: It's not specifically stated in the constitution - so what? We've grown up since then.

ljr:Your casual disregard of some of the greatest political thinkers of the millennium is mind-blowingly arrogant.

it's all tone. i mostly ignore him, but he tends to "beat up" on people instead of actual debate, something I don't see with others I disagree with (aaron, ezrael, rebeccablood)
posted by owillis at 1:19 AM on July 21, 2001

I mean do you think your e-mail would have any effect on this guy - other than allowing you to get into a flame war outside the context of a MetaFilter thread?

I have found that in almost all cases, people are much more civil after a heated discussion moves to e-mail.

If MetaFilter offered a preference where I could exclude all posts by people without an e-mail or homepage link (ahem), I'd use it.
posted by rcade at 7:32 AM on July 21, 2001

I do hope that everyone mentioned in this thread has been emailed about it?
posted by darukaru at 8:46 AM on July 21, 2001

re: spam through metafilter, i have not gotten one single spamail through mefi. i don't think that is due to matt's mangling the email addresses as they appear on our user pages -- the mailto links are still correct. even if spam were a problem to consider for people using mefi, you might consider this solution: there could be a link on our user pages which might actually be javascript or something which could send a query to the server, get the proper email address, and report it via popup window from which you can cut and paste. or something similar. but basically you could just inject a layer of indirection to the process of emailing someone, which would be enough to fool the spambots. there may be a far simpler solution than that, because this one was just off the top of my head.
posted by moz at 9:48 AM on July 21, 2001

the mailto links are still correct.

The mailto links also use %40 instead of "@".
posted by rcade at 11:37 AM on July 21, 2001

wow, you're right. if you copy and paste my email info for example, you'll see the %40. but using ie5, when you see the link in window.status, or if you view the properties of the link, you'll see %40 interpreted as the "@" symbol. sorry about that.
posted by moz at 11:54 AM on July 21, 2001

Mindless comments only become a problem to the group at large when people over react to them

Sorry doug_resin, I don't buy that. I too was upset by, "the way the cops treated the dead kid at the G8 protests" but I didn't use that as an excuse to make inappropriate comments in a public forum. That insult was one of the most shocking and unprovoked personal attacks I've ever witnessed here.

Imagine if that thread were the first MetaFilter thread you ever saw? What would you think of this place? Those type of comments, even one of them, reflect poorly on the entire community. There is no excuse for insulting another member, and in civilized discourse such attacks are not tolerated. It is possible to disagree and continue to argue one's point politely. We all know that, it just takes some discipline to do so.

I for one would like to see some consequences for lashing out. Right now the system is very black and white: you can post or if you're really bad, you're banned. What about being put on probation or being forced to take a "time-out"? I know it's sort of reminiscent of being sent to one's room, but there's a reason children are sent to their room: to reflect on what they've done and to learn the lesson that that behavior is not acceptable.

What if a person could be given a "time-out" (or something maybe less juvenile-sounding) and when it were given the duration would be specified. The post that incurred the time out would indicate that it had received a time-out somehow, so everyone in the thread would know the poster's privileges had been revoked and wouldn't have to continue to publicly chastise him/her.

This would do several things: demonstrate that there are consequences for acting inappropriately; allow the thread to continue on topic without diverting into a fight or chastisement session; and give the offenders a way to cool off without banning them completely.

I don't want to see MeFi turn into a police state, but I also don't want it to continue down this path of incivility and personal attacks.
posted by megnut at 1:24 PM on July 21, 2001

Megnut, once you start trying to punish people for expressing their thoughts, no matter how puerile the thought, you erode the freedom of the forum. I'd rather run into the occasional childish attack, than wonder if I'm going to face repercussions for a joke that some one didn't take properly, or a point of view too contrary to the norm, or "improper" language.

It's the freedom to express oneself that makes MetaFilter viable. Once you start to chip away at that, no matter how well intentioned, you have destroyed what makes this a vibrant community.

Being contrary in a community is only appealing for so long. If someone is acting childishly here, s/he will get bored with being an outsider and pass on, community intact.

If you change the nature of the freedom of expression to deal with that one offender, you have permanently made the community a less worthy place to be.

The responsibility to deal with something you don't like is the responsibility of the individual. If you try to make it the responsibility of the group, you get MSN chat.

You want MetaFilter to become MSN chat? Keep having these little meetings back here about what is appropriate.

People who make statements you disagree with, Megnut, are not your children to raise with time-outs.




posted by dong_resin at 2:48 PM on July 21, 2001

You made me feel cranky.
I'm going to go take a shit on the neighbors lawn, now.
They and their damn Boston albums all day long.
More than a feeling?
I'll give you more than a feeling you stupid 80's throwback fuck ..grrr.......

posted by dong_resin at 2:54 PM on July 21, 2001

i think that accountability is the thing to have here on metafilter. and accountability is something that dr. zoidberg is facing here right now as he had faced on the metafilter thread. the only thing that bothers me is when trolls come to metafilter and sign up new accounts with the express intent of pissing people off. to that end, a verifiable email account would be useful.

meg:

i don't know that forcing the bad apples to take a sort of time-out would be terribly helpful. it's one thing if you lash out with anger, or say something -- as dong_resin points out -- without having considered that it might really hurt someone; those people, most likely, will apologize and feel badly later. the real problem children are the ones who don't give a fuck that you're upset with them, and those are the ones for whom timeouts will not help.

there are consequences for acting foolishly on metafilter; being a community site, things are not said here in a vacuum. people will remember those things. negative karma, though not an explicitly instituted system of mefi, is still very much a part of the site implicitly.
posted by moz at 4:25 PM on July 21, 2001

Being contrary in a community is only appealing for so long. If someone is acting childishly here, s/he will get bored with being an outsider and pass on, community intact.

I agree with all of that except for the "community intact" part. There is such a thing as poisoning the well. While our hero is still in his "outside pissing in" mode, thoughtful participants are being turned off, as Meg says, and less thoughtful people are being given a model of how to act that ends up coarsening everything. I don't especially like the "time out" idea either; the challenge is to bring people past that "outsider" phase quicker and less painfully.

You want MetaFilter to become MSN chat? Keep having these little meetings back here about what is appropriate.

I think you're totally off-base here. Metatalk is a vital part of Metafilter, and these "little meetings" are how a community stays self-critical and vital. You'll notice we have never gone in the direction of legalistic determinations of "what's appropriate" yet. This community values freedom of expression as much as any other I know, which is why I framed the original question here the way I did and why it's not a "get him" thread.

I have darker thoughts about this too but I can't quite articulate them. I think I'll mull things a bit.
posted by rodii at 4:28 PM on July 21, 2001

I'm repressing my darker thoughts. They'll emerge in some horrifying way in the future, I'm sure.

Matt's mentioned before that he's been working on a "MeFi Pro", which would provide all sorts of fun features for a small monthly fee. How about (a) the ability to "ignore" users whose comments you don't want to see, PLUS (b) the abillity to see who, in a thread, is currently ignoring me. If I'm a troll and I see everyone's comments in red, indicating that they're no longer listening to me, I'm less inclined to bother. That way, we can all show our disgust at the troll just by clicking "ignore", while keeping the thread on-topic.
posted by jpoulos at 5:20 PM on July 21, 2001

doug_resin, settle down. No where did I say anything about shutting down freedom of expression, or worse, that statements not inline with my belief system would be subject to "time-outs." Give me a break.

I think you're making a mistaken assumption here regarding freedom of expression. When you are at MetaFilter, you are a guest. People who behave inappropriately are banned. You have as much freedom of expression here as you do when you are a guest in someone's house—if you say things to insult the owner or guests, you are asked to leave.

My suggestion (in response to the question that was asked) was simply an attempt to find some middle ground between posting always and never posting again. It was also an attempt to enforce accountability for one's statements.

If you change the nature of the freedom of expression to deal with that one offender, you have permanently made the community a less worthy place to be.

Perhaps, but if you don't, you allow to community to degrade and it becomes a less worthy place to be. As rodii said, poisoning the well ruins it for everyone.

The responsibility to deal with something you don't like is the responsibility of the individual.

This isn't the Wild West doug_resin, this is a community. It is the responsibility of the group to regulate itself and come up with rules under which it is willing to operate, just like we do in real life. That's what MetaTalk is about. That was the point of rodii's post in the first place.
posted by megnut at 5:57 PM on July 21, 2001

I'm thinking of something similar to what exists in AIM: the warning system. out-of-line posts wouldn't be met with a time out immediately, you'd have to work up to that by posting inappropriately numerous times. but a series of posts would revoke your posting privileges for a period of time.

additionally, each "warning" would have to be conveyed to the poster in question so that they'd know they were stepping over the line.

accountability in any form is a good thing.
posted by rebeccablood at 6:48 PM on July 21, 2001

Trying to clarify my own thoughts on this. Warning, this is long and probably obvious or inane.

I see two classes of standard solutions to problems here:

1. Technical solutions (killfiles, bozo filters, posting delays, etc.)
2. Rules (no self-linking, no linkless posts, etc.)

Both of these have their place, but they also have weaknesses. I mistrust technical solutions in general because they're often reactions to symptoms rather than underlying problems, and because they often have unintended consequences. When slashdot introduced karma, I'm sure the idea of users moderating in the aggregate seemed like a really cool idea, but it led to the "karma whore" idea and a lot of other weirdness. Something like that is a fairly major perturbation in a complex system, and you probably shouldn't expect to get what you expect (so to speak).

I don't like the idea of rules much--or rather, I like a fairly minimal set of rules, mainly because laws beget lawyers. When we have rules, we get a class of people who are determined to be the voice of "we, the Metafilter community", scolding miscreants for their lack of respect for the collected wisdom of the founding father. How many stuffy little references to "the guidelines" do we need?

I wish I was better at a third approach, which I don't quite know what to call, but I'll label for the nonce,

3. Tactics

These are individual actions, not some voice of the community thing. When I think someone is behaving badly, what's the best way to intervene? (One reason I agree with Rogers that being able to contact people privately is important.) How can I model "good behavior"? What are some good ways of taking a "fucked thread" and turning it around? How can I disagree with someone in ways that engage their civility rather than their hostility? Etc.

Imagine in a "real" community that your neighbor's dog keeps crapping on your lawn. You can
1. Build a fence (the technical solution option)
2. Get a law passed and call Officer Kruppke to enforce it (the legalistic option)
3. Talk with your neighbor and try to resolve the problem.

Option 1 leads to shitty communites of wary, fenced-off neighbors. Option 2 leads to shitty communities of hostile, feuding neighbors. Only option 3 really leads to healthy relationsships in a community, only many of us lack the social graces to do it well, so we end up yelling "keep yer GODdamn dog off'n my grass!"

I would like to learn those social graces. There are people here I admire who just seem to be able to keep things on track, make people respected, find nuggets of shared perspective in vehement disagreement, or differ strongly without causing everything to spiral into hostility. I wish I knew how they did it.

Small footnote 1: Interestingly, those people seem to be people that post strategically, with some restraint, instead of just having at it over and over again in thread after thread. Maybe that means they have some distance from the discussion, and that comes across in their writing.

Small footnote 2: it's easier to let your dog crap on your neighbor's grass if you don't know your neighbor. When she introduces herself and brings over a beer, she becomes real to you and you start sending your dog over to your OTHER neighbor's yard. ;) Similarly, it's easier to be an asshole on MeFi if you don't see those names on the screen as people. When you start developing a personal history with them, when you have conversations on other topics, when you exchange email, you find yourself starting to become civil. Even if you think they're utter shit-for-brains, they still have become real to you, and you respond differently. Right?
posted by rodii at 7:18 PM on July 21, 2001

make people respected,

That was suppose to be "make people feel respected"
posted by rodii at 7:30 PM on July 21, 2001

Ooops! Dong_resin, I apologize for referring to you as "doug_resin." Upon reflection, I realize the latter handle makes much more sense. For some reason I've always read it as "doug." Anyway, sorry for the mix-up.
posted by megnut at 7:40 PM on July 21, 2001

Ugh. I am utterly stupid this evening. The Former handle makes more sense. Former.
posted by megnut at 7:44 PM on July 21, 2001

That was suppose to be "make people feel respected"

That was supposed to be "that was supposed to be 'make people feel respected.' "

(How far can we take this correcting-the-corrections thing? I have the damnedest urge to type Zippity™ something. But I won't. I won't.)

posted by rodii at 8:10 PM on July 21, 2001

Zippity Brand!™ correction fluid? (self-2x4s)
posted by darukaru at 11:38 PM on July 21, 2001

You're not the first to mess up my handle, Megnut, and frankly, by this point I'd wish I'd been a little less "clever" with it.
Never pun with your name, it wears out real fast.

Okay, as far as I can tell, the whole point of MetaFilter seems to be having civilized discussions.
Civility comes from control of the self, not just your external behavior towards others, but control of your own perceptions. Here's where I seem to differ with some of you.
(Yes, I know you don't need someone named after smegma to tell you how civility works, but please go with me for a moment.)
I see it like this :
You can't control people saying things you don't like, because even after you carefully prune all the objectionable material out of what is allowed to be said, you'll still be left with something that will piss you off. Mention "the will of god", for example, and I want to bite through a steel girder. Such remarks reek of an arrogance that really does offend me in a way that almost defies description.
I have come to realize that this is a bug up my particular ass, however, and so I don't type the evil, scathing responses I formulate in my mind whenever I run into even the most reasonable faith-based remark. I just let it go.
This is what I meant by "The responsibility to deal with something you don't like is the responsibility of the individual." If you're going to exchange ideas, you can't decide for others what is an exceptable idea, only how you take it in.
Your ideas probably piss me off. Telling you not to express them doesn't get either of us anywhere.

Accountability is a good thing? Really?
What is more likely to scare off thoughtful participants, bumping into a comment they don't like, or being mommied for some preconceived notion of tone that may not be immediately clear to them?
And, accountability to whom, Frykitty? To your particular standards? To Matt's? If you want that, why make it a public forum? Why not e-mail each other with pithy remarks, and leave the great unwashed out of it.

You can't legislate tone with threats of punishment.
Once you start to try to curb the behavior of others , you then have to decide what is acceptable.
This is a slippery slope that never resolves itself in a discussion forum, because everyone has a different comfort level with different ideas. For example, I wouldn't have noticed Zoidberg's faux pas if I hadn't happened by this thread on metatalk, it seemed like a simple overstatement that any of us might have made at some point in our lives. Inappropriate, but not the end of the world.

I admit my "little meetings" remark was snippy, but that sort of goes to illustrate my point. Emotion took over, as is likely to happen in a discussion forum, hence I typed with my ass for a moment. You've all done it. Zoidberg did it ugly this time. He'll redeem himself with his next posts, or he will remain ill-regarded by some of you.

Water seeks it own level, and I think moz is dead on with "negative karma, though not an explicitly instituted system of mefi, is still very much a part of the site implicitly"
Get anymore aggressive than that, and you kill the freedom intelligent thought needs to thrive.

I recognize that we're all guests in Matt's house here, and I would be the last to second guess how he runs the joint, as he obviously knows what he's doing. I also recognize that being told to "suck it" every other post by disgruntled posters with no spleen control whatsoever would kill whatever it is that MetaFilter has to offer. The problem is, the instant you start to trade the ability to say crapy things for the instant gratification of being able to curb behaviour you don't like, you start to kill the free exchange of ideas that is MetaFilter.


My dark thoughts drive me to work. I give them espresso. It's a nice arrangement.

I need a nap. How do you guys who post these long posts do it?
posted by dong_resin at 11:46 PM on July 21, 2001

dong_resin has just reaffirmed my belief in dopplegangers, at least of the situation-specific variety. Go kino-boy.
posted by Opus Dark at 2:07 AM on July 22, 2001

That smegma-boy speaketh the truth.
posted by lagado at 7:34 AM on July 22, 2001

It is the will of god.
posted by rodii at 8:07 AM on July 22, 2001

Guh...... *shakes fist like Col. Klink and bites sizeable chunk out of own lip*
posted by dong_resin at 8:53 AM on July 22, 2001

Anonymity. if this 'community" cannot handle that concept, then it ceases to be a community. telegraphy with some digital pictures and some sound does not make us neighbors. it is supposed to do more then that.
posted by clavdivs at 8:59 AM on July 22, 2001

Homer: "tehheehe, Did you know Kinch kept a radio in the coffee pot"

Klink: "HHHMMMNNNNUMN"
posted by clavdivs at 9:02 AM on July 22, 2001

Diogenes to plato-
"I trample upon platos carpet" (sorry matt, i think your tops)
posted by clavdivs at 9:05 AM on July 22, 2001

Five or more years ago in an active Usenet group which attracted its very own troll, we developed a technique that seemed effective and satisfying.

A trolling comment gets an immediate response:

"Trolling is not cool."

That's it. No other commentary. And it has to be posted quickly. The comment is publicly labeled as a troll for those that might not pick up on it instantly, but the post has been criticized, not the poster, lessening the chance for a cycle of insults.

And it is satisfying to be the one that posts the "not cool" response; it feels like some sort of public service.
posted by NortonDC at 9:31 AM on July 22, 2001

Anonymity. if this 'community" cannot handle that concept, then it ceases to be a community.

I'll have to break the news to the people in my neighborhood that we've ceased to be a community.

It's a little difficult for me to explain the concept that we can only come together as long as we don't know how to contact each other.

Maybe you could help me with that, clavdivs. How can I contact you?
posted by rcade at 10:11 AM on July 22, 2001

"How" is not the question. why would seem more fitting.
posted by clavdivs at 11:13 AM on July 22, 2001

rcade - I think the fact that you just asked clavdivs how you can contact him/her and that (s)he then responded is a question that answers itself.

Of course your real question seems to be how can I contact you privately. Given that there is a means by which people can provide contact information and that some choose not to provide it, then the answer is clearly “I would prefer that you didn’t.” You may feel that means I have nothing to say that you want to read. You’re welcome to that opinion, but I feel that may be a little short sighted.

As to the question of how can MetaFilter better police itself which seems to be at the root here. What about something like Amazon's "Was this Review Helpful?"

If every link and comment posed the question did this add anything to MetaFilter and every member could vote only once, then when people exceed what the community finds appropriate, it would have additional tools to step forward to police itself. I know it would make me think twice if I went back into a thread and saw that 2 members felt my comment added to MetaFilter and 1543 felt it did not.

Of course I’d like to see it go further and provide the ability to filter on that although others have suggested that could better be accomplished via client software. At that point I have to wonder why we don’t just take it to Usenet which already has clients designed to do that, but that’s another discussion entirely.

posted by willnot at 1:13 PM on July 22, 2001

You may feel that means I have nothing to say that you want to read.

I do. I know that's obnoxious, but the time spent wading through anonymous postings is a wasted effort that's getting worse with every passing day.
posted by rcade at 2:25 PM on July 22, 2001

I realize that the issues are linked, but could y'all debate the anonymous/email one in the thread that's already devoted to it? Thank you.
posted by rodii at 2:54 PM on July 22, 2001

MY dream is user filters....make yourself a list of people you never want to hear from, and their posts don't show up in threads.

Or, as they do on vodkatea, a rating system - don't have more than a 50% rating from the community? Can't post in all the threads.
posted by kristin at 7:16 PM on July 22, 2001

How about this?

Each comment comes with a tiny "SMACKDOWN this comment" link. Each Mefite can click that link on a particular comment once. There is no displayed tally of SMACKDOWN nominations, but if the number of SMACKDOWN clicks surpasses a certain threshold (which may be dynamic in relation to the number of visitors to the thread or what have you), either the user gets a temporary (one day? a few hours?) suspension from posting/comment privileges (along with notification either via email or on the site about why this is occurring). Subsequent problem posts would result in longer suspensions.

Optional addition: review of each case by a trusted user or by Mathowie himself.

Maybe it's not a good idea, but it's what came to my mind.
posted by daveadams at 8:18 AM on July 23, 2001

I can just see that line after every comment getting longer and longer and longer...

posted by solistrato at 12:27 PST on July 23 - rated a 2 - how do you feel about solistrato? - how does solistrato feel about others? - people who have enjoyed solistrato - if you've enjoyed comments about solistrato, you'll also enjoy comments by bozo, wankdankadoodle, and smegmatatron - did you know solistrato enjoys a vigorous donkeypunch now and again? - do you like tea? solistrato likes tea. wouldn't you like some tea? DRINK THE DAMN TEA, NANCY-BOY!!!

Okay, I've hopelessly derailed, but I don't need the screen cluttered with even more nonsense than I have to put up with normally. :)

You can't regulate stupidity. The best we can hope for is that if someone makes a comment like Zoidberg's, everyone jumps on him and he either apologizes or storms off in a huff.

Still, I'd like a filter so that I never have to read another word by that mathowie. What a troll.
posted by solistrato at 9:39 AM on July 23, 2001

See the problem with any group concensus auto-implemented feature is the whole groupthink deal.

Yeah, sure, it would be great for someone who just posts about how everyone's mother chases troop ships, but then you also just have the unpopular opinion that gets hazed by everyone because they take it personally, and the oringinal poster is left to battle his or her way up, explaining and converting people.

But they can never get there because evryone lays the smack down and silences them.

If you want to filter your life, then maybe there should be tools for that.. but I for one don't want to get filtered commentary - I'll either ignore or consume on my own.

posted by rich at 9:45 AM on July 23, 2001

I hate tea! Why would MetaFilter's collaborative filter think I'd want tea. Oh, I see because I once bought a book on needlepoint as a gift for a friend. Man, this collaborative filtering thing still has a whole mess of kinks to work out.
posted by willnot at 2:30 PM on July 23, 2001

There's a difference between having an unpopular opinion and being obnoxious. What we need is some way to smack down people for smacking down others merely for holding an unpopular opinion, while rewarding people who smack down others for obnoxiousness. in other words, we need some way of rating the ratings, so your collaborative filtering would not be done by everyone but only by people who have a history of good filtering.

Of course... I'm being silly.
posted by kindall at 3:12 PM on July 23, 2001

There's a difference between having an unpopular opinion and being obnoxious. In the eyes of the beholder, in which case, its a disagreement. I move for my.metafilter (if and when it eventuates) to allow for personal killfiles. Also groups and wishlists. And antiwishlists.
posted by rschram at 3:16 PM on July 23, 2001

DRINK THE DAMN TEA, NANCY-BOY!!!

I'm slipping that in next year's tax form, just to see if anything happens.
posted by dong_resin at 9:55 PM on July 23, 2001

jesus, im walking around town with this hat, screaming nancy-boy to people. I lOVE THIS PLACE.
posted by clavdivs at 6:17 AM on July 24, 2001

Me = way after the party, clavdivs, but I love it too. That's all I have to say about that.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 12:33 AM on July 26, 2001