When will signups be reopened?

June 11, 2004 10:20 AM

As long as I'm asking questions, when are new members going to be accepted again? A friend who I introduced Mefi to recently offered $ for my login. He was desperate. I said no. He cried.
posted by Dukebloo to MetaFilter-related at 10:20 AM (83 comments total)

After the server stabilizes, I'm going to open it back up. I'm still getting way too many jrun errors, but I think the site could use some new blood.
posted by mathowie at 10:29 AM on June 11, 2004

yay!
posted by amberglow at 10:33 AM on June 11, 2004

Best. News. Ever.
posted by rushmc at 10:38 AM on June 11, 2004

Yeah. I've been here almost two years and my user # still makes me look like a deer-in-the-headlights newbie. I need people to lord over.
posted by The God Complex at 10:52 AM on June 11, 2004

A friend who I introduced Mefi to recently offered $ for my login.

Don't let Keyser hear that.
posted by The God Complex at 10:55 AM on June 11, 2004

Who would pay money for a username like "Dukebloo"? Well... probably lots of people.
posted by DrJohnEvans at 11:15 AM on June 11, 2004

You're being a little snarky. What's up, Doc?
posted by The God Complex at 11:21 AM on June 11, 2004

cool!

allow me to quote myself for a second here:

unless Matt decides to start an affirmative action program to maximize diversity in his site's userbase and let only women -- hundreds of them -- get a login, the majority of users here is male and will remain so. it's numbers. it's a fact. we just have to deal with it. it's useless to pretend it's not true. it's the elephant in the room.


Matt? could we enforce more diversity in the new users pool? more diversity in national origin, gender, religion, sexual orientation, etc? more non-USians, more women, more gays/lesbians, more Muslims, etc...

is there a way?
posted by matteo at 11:43 AM on June 11, 2004

Yeah, we should have more diversity in the new users pool, like maybe some diversity of thought. You know, some more Conservatives, aside from the token ones that remain?
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 11:48 AM on June 11, 2004

Who would pay money for a username like "Dukebloo"?

I think the selling point would be Dukebloo's near lack of posting history. A newbie with that logon could almost start fresh. Some more well-known non-A-list user with *ahem!* embarrassments in his/her past might not be able to give it away.
posted by orange swan at 11:50 AM on June 11, 2004

Hmm, I have a lesser used username that's just sitting around gathering dust...
posted by bshort at 11:51 AM on June 11, 2004

Good point, matteo. We need people from groups that are likely to state more "progressive" viewpoints. These views are totally underrepresented here.
posted by trharlan at 11:52 AM on June 11, 2004

He was desperate. I said no. He cried.

GAH-HA-HA-HA-HA! I can't wait to make him cry HERE!
posted by scarabic at 11:56 AM on June 11, 2004

MoFi

You're so busted, Wendell.
posted by scarabic at 3:26 PM on June 11, 2004

I say more Scandianivans! The Vikings are coming! then maybe we can swing a little drunken beer meetup...
posted by dabitch at 3:36 PM on June 11, 2004

hehe, Scandi-wha? already drunk, it seems.
posted by dabitch at 3:37 PM on June 11, 2004

Maybe we could just photoshop the underrepresented in.
posted by keswick at 3:41 PM on June 11, 2004

Everyone, spread the word to your favored underrepresented group (even Steve)--if we make sure they all know about it, we're set.
posted by amberglow at 3:47 PM on June 11, 2004

Interesting how that fear of differing opinions things freaks people out. Don't let in the minorities, they might disagree with us!
posted by five fresh fish at 4:04 PM on June 11, 2004

I think Matt should raffle off the "bunnyfire" login. That could fund a few ponies while we were at it. I'd only want a ten per cent cut, is all.
posted by konolia at 4:10 PM on June 11, 2004

What we need around here is an infusion of arabic Republican lesbians. I can't wait to see their usernames.
posted by scarabic at 4:35 PM on June 11, 2004

"likely to state more "progressive" viewpoints"

"some more Conservatives, aside from the token ones that remain?"


yeah. damn women. keep them in the kitchen, right? God forbid they're actually allowed to express opinions here. they could be ... liberals!!!! AAAARGGGH!
let's just keep MeFi lily-white, male, Christian, American. so much more interesting.

funny how some people here are suddendly nervous when one mentions the possibility of having blacks, furriners (maybe even -- gasp! -- Middle Easterners!!!), women, Muslims and other Enemies of the State join the community

"I'm a Muslim!"
boo!

*shakes head*

you guys are sad, sad, sad. you should get out of the house more. maybe even... travel?
posted by matteo at 5:07 PM on June 11, 2004

so, cutting through the snark, you're saying it's more of the people who are under-represented here, except people you disagree with?
this "diversity" is rather like your idea of "free speech", isn't it?
posted by andrew cooke at 5:20 PM on June 11, 2004

> He was desperate. I said no. He cried.

He wants to be slapped around some. That's another no.
posted by jfuller at 6:12 PM on June 11, 2004

More diversity (whether of gender, politics, ethnicity, nationality, age or social class) would be a good thing. How would you acheive it?
posted by timeistight at 6:37 PM on June 11, 2004

You there! Be more diverse! Yeah, you too, buddy. Let's see some diversity around here!
posted by ook at 7:13 PM on June 11, 2004

funny how some people here are suddendly nervous when one mentions the possibility

Who are you and FFF talking about? Is anyone here advocating keeping user signups closed? Or complaining that their views are about to be challenged? If you're thinking of what I said, I was 100% serious. Fucking bring on the diversity, already! Not that I'm tired of re-educating the pudgy white married hetero geeks of the world, I'm just ready to do more.
posted by scarabic at 7:19 PM on June 11, 2004

You there! Be more diverse! Yeah, you too, buddy. Let's see some diversity around here!

done, and done : >
posted by amberglow at 7:25 PM on June 11, 2004

Fucking bring on the diversity, already!

Er, okay. Figure out how to let in more different people, and do it. More different people == people who aren't me. Me = white geeky male in north america, atheist from christian background, middle-income, and utterly familiar with all the political and socio-economic bullshit we got in this country and its cursed blindness toward the harm our ever-conservative idiocy keeps leading us into.

Which means prefer to take on people who are not white, are not male, are not geeks, are not north american, of diverse religious backgrounds, of any income, who isn't a political, social conservative that is blind to the harm it causes us.

Sounds easy to me. Close access to North Americans.
posted by five fresh fish at 9:15 PM on June 11, 2004

Its all true. Users like hoder, to name one, really carry their weight in bringing in perspectives from around the world (Persian weblogs in particular in his case)

I know a few active Spanish/Latinamerican, Portuguese and French webloggers who'd love to have an account. As it is, I think the Brazilian weblogging commmunity is huge, and under-represented here.

But I don't know how to solve the general problem. How to increase diversity without developing some college-like admissions board. Truth is, Metafilter is great and all, but it isn't exactly Harvard.
posted by vacapinta at 10:15 PM on June 11, 2004

funny how some people here are suddendly nervous when one mentions the possibility of...

Conversly, it's funny how some people here are suddendly nervous when one mentions the possibility of having more conservatives.
Oh, and believe it or not, not all conservatives are lily-white, male, Christian, American- or shall we continue with the stereotyping?
posted by jmd82 at 10:20 PM on June 11, 2004

I'm all for non-white, non-male (and/or non-American), conservatives! That'd be great. Go find some. They'd make a great addition to MeFi. Freepers and the like, not so much. Er, not fucking at all, actually.

The difficulty of verifying a non-USAian is a problem. Otherwise, I think it'd be a great idea for Matt to have open signups for non-USAians.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 10:34 PM on June 11, 2004

matteo-- it saddens me that you fuel the despicable conservative characterization of liberals as people who care more about promoting identity (for its own sake) than fostering genuine diversity.
posted by Kwantsar at 10:44 PM on June 11, 2004

oh, and we need more furries in here
posted by Kwantsar at 10:46 PM on June 11, 2004

Er, not fucking at all, actually.

Was there a point to this comment, Ethereal Bligh? Or did you think that you had not yet demonstrated that you are a prick to every last memeber of this site?

MISSON ACCOMPLISHED!
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 10:46 PM on June 11, 2004

could signups be turned on (if matt hasn't changed the system) at a far from convenient time for north americans? this way, north americans aren't banned but by turning signups on in the middle of the night, it becomes much less convenient. i know this has been brought up before but perhaps--in the context of increasing diversity--worth mentioning again...
posted by lumiere at 10:46 PM on June 11, 2004

I'm all for non-white, non-male (and/or non-American), conservatives! That'd be great.

I actually work with some down here in GA. However, my point was moreso that stereotyping exists on both sides of the spectum and sucks either way.

In the end, though, I don't like the idea of quotas. Favoring one group over another for admittance is still active discrimination.
posted by jmd82 at 10:52 PM on June 11, 2004

Yeah, my point was that Freepers and the like would make horrifying additions to the MeFi membership. What part didn't you understand? 'Cause I'll be glad to clarify, if necessary.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 10:55 PM on June 11, 2004

could signups be turned on (if matt hasn't changed the system) at a far from convenient time for north americans

Upon preview: This could work if matt doesn't annouce openings and doesn't allow posting untill they're filled. IIRC, the server was flooded with people trying to sign in that I would think the time does't matter.
posted by jmd82 at 10:58 PM on June 11, 2004

From the Friday afternoon White House press gaggle:

2:34 PM EDT

Q Who was responsible for the "Mission Accomplished" HTML banner?

Mr. Mclendenon: That banner was a spontaneous expression of honest sentiment on the part of Mr. Steve_at_Linwood. The White House and Captain President Bligh had nothing to do with it.

Q But didn't it take a lot of preparation and perhaps unusual materials to construct?

Mr. Mclendenon: These sorts of banners are well within the means of S@L's technical facilities.

Q Is it true that there's growing discontent in the ranks?

Mr. Mclendenon: They are happy to be doing their patriotic duty and believe in President Bligh's vision. They do miss their wives, however. This is not unanticipated.

Q But Secretary of State F Christian said...

Mr. Mclendenon: I'm sorry, I will not discuss hearsay.

Q ...it was on the record, published in yesterday's Times.

Mr. Mclendenon: I'll have to take your word for that. Nevertheless, I think I've adequately answered your question.

Q I'd like to go back to Steve_at_Linwood's banner. Are you saying that the White House had nothing to do with it?

Mr. Mclendenon: What do you mean by "nothing to do"?

Q Well...

Mr. Mclendenon: ...because I can't answer your question until you've clarified that, can I?

Q Um, no. Well, was Captain President Bligh's staff in any way involved in the inspiration, production, or installation of the "Mission Accomplished" banner?

Mr. Mclendenon: I would say, yes, that Steve was inspired by the President to produce that banner.

Q But it was his own initiative?

Mr. Mclendenon: Of course it was. Do you have any reason to believe otherwise?

Q As a matter of fact...

Mr. Mclendenon: ...because I, for one, would love to be presented with such evidence.

Q ...right here I have a photograph of a well-known White House press office aid hard at work typing on S@L's keyboard—see, you can clearly see it—the words, with html markup, "MISSION ACCOMPLISHED".

Mr. Mclendenon: Are you going to believe me or your own lying eyes?

Q Is that a rhetorical question?

Mr. Mclendenon: Now, Helen, we all know that you're getting a bit long in the tooth and your eyesight isn't what it once was. We still love you, dearly, of course. Am I right? (Mr. Mclendenon's staff nods in agreement.) Right. The gaggle wouldn't be the same without you. But, frankly, I think you're a fucking lunatic. That photograph has obviously been doctored.

Q But there's also a videotape, and a signed afidavit.

Mr. Mclendenon: I believe I've already answered your question.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 11:42 PM on June 11, 2004

quonsar is Helen Thomas?
posted by trharlan at 12:56 AM on June 12, 2004

Shh. He thinks it's a secret. Don't let him know we know.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 1:27 AM on June 12, 2004

Sounds easy to me. Close access to North Americans.

What a truly myopic comment. Not everyone on this continent is like you, FFF. You're talking to a fucking Arab, for one.There's diversity all around you. And, like all Affirmative Action debates, we're stuck at the point where one of us is saying "we need more people who aren't white guys" and the other is saying "well it's stupid to make unreasonable efforts to recruit for non-white-guys."

This conversation has been had, and I mean in the Biblical sense. I'm not advocating that Matt or anyone else recruit brown people, I'm just saying that perhaps we'd benefit from a greater variety of viewpoints, should they come our way.

People say that all the time around here. They just generally assume that one's viewpoint is related to one's user number, and the new blood is better. Or that it's all a Republican/Democrat thing, and we need more conservatives to balance the liberal tsunami.

I think if we do manage, somehow, to attract some *REAL* new blood, as in 'genes we've never seen before,' it will be difficult but good for us. Otherwise, we're on autopilot toward a bunch of white guys dying from heart attacks during slapwanks with each other.

P.S. We seem to have knocked craniums more than once recently, but I love your attitude, and I hope you take my engagement as much for love of argument as anything.
posted by scarabic at 1:57 AM on June 12, 2004

I say more Scandianivans! The Vikings are coming! then maybe we can swing a little drunken beer meetup...

I'm Viking enough for this whole damn place.
posted by KevinSkomsvold at 3:39 AM on June 12, 2004

I would love to see more non-USians. I'd like to know what's going in the rest of the world. And, as a USian, I'd like to hear first hand how our actions affect others and how the other nations view the current overlords, and our new 'freedoms', like our policies for 'freedom-haters', er journalists. And how all of this is costing us whatever international esteem and/or affection we once enjoyed.
posted by marsha56 at 4:45 AM on June 12, 2004

maybe matt can put a statement expressing a desire to broaden our horizons on the signup page? (and my suggestion above is still viable)
posted by amberglow at 5:24 AM on June 12, 2004

Matt? could we enforce more diversity in the new users pool?

Enforce?

"Excuse me sir, please state your ethnic background, politics and sexual preference?"

"I am a gay buddhist Madagascan communist for Jesus."

*pulls gun*

"You're going to MeFi!"

"But I don't want to."

"We're enforcing diversity, now come along and post..."

Seriously, my main concern of new members is that they have something interesting to say and an interesting way of saying it. Being a member of whatever demographic is no guarantee of that. Multiculturally bland people are still bland people.
posted by jonmc at 7:49 AM on June 12, 2004

What about an invitation system?

We want people who express their opinion in writing, so it is likely they are already present on the web somewhere. From time to time, I find some interesting comments, web pages, etc. and I would like to have the author posting on MeFi.

Let's have a place to submit such links (MetaTalk is OK), and then let people vote. (A justification for each vote might be helpful.) Matt has the final decision and he keeps it private (if he wishes so). If he decides the candidate would be a great addition to MeFi, he sends him/her an invitation by email. The person might accept or not.

This eliminates the essay contest problem (one time effort to get into MeFi), and, since Matt's decision is not public, the new member might post anonymously (if s/he wants to do so).

From a technical perspective, a poll attached to the comment box would be needed for a specially created MetaTalk category. A field should be provided for the email address - it makes #1's life easier. A summary page with votes, comments and two buttons: [sent invitation] and [not this time] would also simplify things.

The above method should not be the only way to let people in, just one of possible many. Opening the gates from time to time helps a lot.
posted by MzB at 8:54 AM on June 12, 2004

metafilter: as much for love of argument as anything.

I say we institute signups that only have random success -- approximately 1 in 100 signups actually work. Also, we have a spider that grabs random addresses off of the internet and send invitations only to those people.

Or, if we want more plutocrats here, we could just charge $1000 per account.
posted by namespan at 10:27 AM on June 12, 2004

who isn't a political, social conservative that is blind to the harm it causes us.

How about politcal or social conservatives that aren't blind to the harm it causes us?

But seriously, calling for diversity and then leaving out people whose political views are opposed to yours isn't cool.
posted by namespan at 10:31 AM on June 12, 2004

people who care more about promoting identity (for its own sake)

sez the guy calling himself 'Kwantsar'...

:-)
posted by quonsar at 10:49 AM on June 12, 2004

Not everyone on this continent is like you, FFF. You're talking to a fucking Arab, for one.

I'll admit to sometimes browsing MeFi pantsless, but never while fucking. And, frankly, I didn't need to know that you do.

There's diversity all around you.

Yes. And the further afield I go, the greater the divergence. Most of the people in my town are mostly like me in most respects. Most of the people in, say, Chechnya, are very likely to be quite a bit different from me in many respects.

The random success idea is good, except then we end up mainly with obsessive-compulsives...
posted by five fresh fish at 10:50 AM on June 12, 2004

The invitation system has been suggested at least one billion times in the past. It strikes me as quite possibly the best way to guarantee a complete lack of diversity, if that is in fact the goal. (On the other hand, the idea of any sort of MeFi affirmative-action program, or worse yet somehow verifying and enforcing diversity fer chrissakes, just makes me cringe. C'mon, folks; if we added a bunch of 'race' and 'political viewpoint' and whatever checkboxes to the signup form, and rejected admissions based on any combination of those criteria, people would think we're a bunch of elitist bastards. And they'd be right.)

Lumiere's suggestion of non-USian hours is at least practical and inoffensive.
posted by ook at 11:17 AM on June 12, 2004

It strikes me as quite possibly the best way to guarantee a complete lack of diversity, if that is in fact the goal.

Agreed. Though certainly not an absolute, people tend to associate with people similar to their background. I would think the law of averages would cause more of influx of like-minded people than anything else.
I still think the best idea is to let people in regardless of who they are. Though, I would suggest not announcing to the world when sign-ups are. Randomly allow ten signups at times geared towards non-North Americans. I happened to get lucky and had never even heard of this place two minutes before I got a user name.
Then, we can deal with them in MeTa per usual and let God sort out the casualities.
posted by jmd82 at 11:33 AM on June 12, 2004

The devil is in details. Do not discard a suggestion just because looks like something you have seen before. Alter all, Metafilter is just another discussion board, the design has no relevance what so ever, right? Right?


The invitation system has been suggested at least one billion times in the past.

Yes, I know. But, my suggestion was little bit different. One has to justify his/her nomination, plus the evidence is already there, not one time effort.


It strikes me as quite possibly the best way to guarantee a complete lack of diversity, if that is in fact the goal.

Agreed. Though certainly not an absolute, people tend to associate with people similar to their background. I would think the law of averages would cause more of influx of like-minded people than anything else.

This problem will never be completely solved, it will always exist. Even with random access, people have to know about this site and to visit it regularly (your case, jmd82, is an exception). Using my suggestion, one can invite somebody who does not even heard about MeFi in the first place - which is good for diversity.

If one wants to have more diversity, it is enough to vote "no" and add as explanation "reduces diversity"; if Matt cares about diversity, he will reject the nomination. Moreover, we could have a rule: nominate somebody who thinks like yourself (based on your previous history) and you got yourself a reason to be banned for, let's say, a month.


Finally, why have only one system? Have several: invitation, April 1st floods, random success (pop-up at random - "would you like to become a member?"), not so random based on no-US IP address success, time based, etc. Not all of them have to be implemented at once (easy for Matt), and some of them require more work than others (e.g. IP based).
posted by MzB at 12:27 PM on June 12, 2004

I think Matt should grab a bunch of email addresses off of the personals sites—say, of mid-thirties, hot, intellectual but alternative women with a hankering for bald men.

Now that's the kind of diversity I can get behind.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 12:31 PM on June 12, 2004

mid-thirties, hot, intellectual but alternative women with a hankering for bald men.

Both of them are busy doing other things.
posted by trharlan at 1:20 PM on June 12, 2004

Damn.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 1:23 PM on June 12, 2004

Yeah, Bligh, but I'll let you know when I'm through with them.
posted by wendell at 1:50 PM on June 12, 2004

The devil is in details. Do not discard a suggestion just because looks like something you have seen before.

Can I discard it because it looks like something I've seen a billion times before? Your details make it even worse than most of the usual variations on the idea. The implication of any 'invitation-only' scheme, whatever the details, is that we're sitting in judgement on each new member, picking and choosing who we like, based on arbitrary criteria. Yuck. Your suggestion that we play out that judgement in a public forum would only increase the acrimony and the perception of elitism. Watering it down by making it just one of several schemes doesn't make it any better an idea.

But that's just my opinion.
posted by ook at 3:34 PM on June 12, 2004

I don't care too much about the new-blood problem, for the most part. But should it be used, I've one small note regarding the "invitation plan." Having borne witness to the gmail invitation feeding frenzy, I would suggest that any and all accounts transferred via ebay and/or craigslist, etc., would automatically be deemed forfeit. An ebay and craigslist search every couple of days would surely provide enough enforcement. If Matt wants to charge new members (or old ones, for that matter), and it helps the site, I'm all for it, but I feel strongly that the last thing this place needs is scalpers.
posted by Sinner at 4:04 PM on June 12, 2004

Yeah, Bligh, but I'll let you know when I'm through with them.

No one here's interested in corpses.
posted by yerfatma at 4:11 PM on June 12, 2004

On reflection, I'll retract the bit about the public forum; however nasty and elitist that would appear, it'd be even worse to do it behind closed doors. The rest I'll stand by. You want to invite somebody who's never heard about MeFi in the first place? Great. Email them and tell them about MeFi. Done. Don't need to implement a board of admissions, or put Matt into the position of personally vetting each new user, for that.
posted by ook at 4:27 PM on June 12, 2004

I think we should choose new members based on their willingness to humiliate themselves.
posted by five fresh fish at 7:28 PM on June 12, 2004

Fish, just wanting a membership here proves that.
posted by konolia at 7:38 PM on June 12, 2004

I thought we were already using that system.
posted by orange swan at 7:38 PM on June 12, 2004

That implies people here don't not have any shame.
posted by jmd82 at 10:13 PM on June 12, 2004

OK, I take back my proposal for the following argument:

Any kind of invitation scheme would work only together with other methods admission. (If invitation would be the only way to let people in, I would argue against it. Heck, I would have not been here if such a system were in place.)

If one wants to invite somebody to Metafilter, it is enough to let that person know about the other possible ways of getting in (hypothetically speaking, as stated above, there should be several). If that person really wants to become a member, he or she would succeed after a while. Thus, no invitation scheme, of any kind, is needed in the package of admission methods.

ook, I do not want to invite anyone to MeFi, at least right now. This thread gave me the idea. However, your circumstantial ad-hominem argument helped me to see why would not work, so, thank you.
posted by MzB at 7:10 AM on June 13, 2004

OoOooh, konolia! Zing! :-)
posted by five fresh fish at 10:21 AM on June 13, 2004

More diversity (whether of gender, politics, ethnicity, nationality, age or social class) would be a good thing. How would you acheive it?

The only ethical way to achieve it is to allow more people to self-select themselves in. More people = more diversity. Any system which seeks to force greater diversity than naturally occurs is inherently biased from the outset.

I can't believe that anyone actually thinks that allowing members to invite new people in will result in anything other than more members like the old members.

Just open the door as often and for as long as you feel comfortable doing so, mathowie. Then those who want to participate in the community can and those who don't can not; any discrepancies (real or perceived) that crop up are beyond our ability to "repair," in any case.
posted by rushmc at 10:41 AM on June 13, 2004

ad hominem? How do you figure? I was criticizing the idea, not you personally.
posted by ook at 12:13 PM on June 13, 2004

You know, I suddenly became very aware that I have no idea how I became part of Metafilter...how did it used to be?
posted by effugas at 5:11 PM on June 13, 2004

ook: circumstantial ad-hominem
posted by MzB at 5:41 PM on June 13, 2004

I can't believe people are seriously advocating having an Affirmative Action policy for new MeFi sign-ups. Or that they're actually stating that they seek diversity in color and gender and nationality, but are opposed to people who might, you know, have a really different political viewpoint or ideology. Apparently, diversity only counts if you can see it in your face or on your driver's license, not what's in the content of your posts or comments.

*IF* there were some sort of AA policy for new sign-ups, ideological diversity should be the *first* thing to be considered.

What we need around here is an infusion of arabic Republican lesbians

Hey, I'm 50% there.
posted by Asparagirl at 6:32 PM on June 13, 2004

You mean 1.5 out of 3, Aspy?

And you love all your 2.5 children equally.
posted by wendell at 6:53 PM on June 13, 2004

Huh. No, all I've said is that there's a particular group I don't want to see represented more heavily on MeFi. Ideological diversity...great. I'm all over that. But I'll have my ideological diversity without more right-wing cranks, thank you very much.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 8:10 PM on June 13, 2004

I'll say it: I don't give a shit about ideological diversity - not on individual websites, at least. The fact is, diversity of interest or perspective can lead to interesting links and discussion. Diversity of ideology (which is actually a narrowing of interest towards the politics-obsessed) just leads to the same fucking fights over and over and over and over and over again - the entire history of the internet backs me up on this. You think Metafilter's bad now. Get some people who really want to discuss things besides U.S. politics. (My dreams have pretty colors.) The more of that there is, the less ideology is even an issue.
posted by furiousthought at 9:26 PM on June 13, 2004

So, we have a waiting list of people who really want in. I'm sure they will all be honest and truthful on their diversity questionnaire...

It's a moronic idea anyway, but practical problems should kill it dead.

Let those who wish to join, join. Let those who would post, post. Let there be comments from all who would comment. And lots of bananas for everyone.
posted by i_am_joe's_spleen at 10:01 PM on June 13, 2004

I'm totally with the spleen.
posted by tracicle at 10:03 PM on June 13, 2004

MzB, my phrasing was sloppy. Read "you want to invite somebody, you can..." as "if anybody wants to invite somebody, they can..." That was, as I thought would be obvious, what I meant. If you read it as meaning you, specifically, then I apologize; that was not my intent.
posted by ook at 10:03 PM on June 13, 2004

Metafilter: I'm totally...

...aw, crap. I promised I wouldn't do this.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 10:35 PM on June 13, 2004

But I'll have my ideological diversity without more right-wing cranks

I think we can defuse that statement and achieve the same results by editing it to read "...without more cranks."
posted by rushmc at 8:57 AM on June 14, 2004

ook, all right, no harm done
posted by MzB at 6:05 AM on June 16, 2004