Let's argue in threads instead of in MetaTalk October 26, 2004 1:03 PM   Subscribe

Perhaps it's time to reconsider using MetaTalk to denounce single comments and only slightly contentious single posts. [More inside.]
posted by MiguelCardoso to Etiquette/Policy at 1:03 PM (53 comments total) 1 user marked this as a favorite

Apart from the disagreeable Thought Police aspects, singling out one or two comments unnecessarily amplify them and naturally provoke strings of comments on that comment.

Lately, a growing number of complaints in MeTa seem misplaced, as they could adequately have been dealt with in the thread, either with a quick dismissal or by just carrying on as if it made no difference to the discussion.

Isn't a certain amount of in-thread cut-and-thrust a good thing? The old excuse of "not wanting to detour the thread" is, imho, being abused. Subjects in MeTa should be just as important as links on the Blue.

Persistent obnoxious patterns of behaviour (attitude, language, agenda) should, of course, be called out as they might be curtailed by a collective condemnation, but there should be some effort to present a posting history and some sort of theme.

Otherwise, it appears very counter-productive. It's a caricature, I know, but recently MeTa has been dominated by simple expressions of stuff people happened not to like. Surely a lot of these protests could be usefully absorbed by the original threads themselves - and probably make them livelier and more diverse - rather than giving them a(nother) life of their own and risking turning MeTa into a bit of a rubbish dump.
posted by MiguelCardoso at 1:04 PM on October 26, 2004


I agree with you miguel, but how do propose to change this? As you know, many people don't read MeTa, and of those that do, many of them like things the way they are/are unwilling to change/are willing to change but don't know how/etc. Unfortunately, simply by wishing it were so doesn't make it so.
posted by ashbury at 1:14 PM on October 26, 2004


You can't stop the call-outs....might as well try and hold the tide back.
posted by SpaceCadet at 1:15 PM on October 26, 2004


I'm going to vote for a radical option--eliminating the "etiquette/policy" category in the Gray entirely.

That might make it less of a Parade of Wounded Sensibilities and more of its original purpose--bugs, feature requests, meetups.

Either that, or let's make a new section for the increasingly frequent visits of the waaaaaaaahmbulance.
posted by Sidhedevil at 1:17 PM on October 26, 2004


a growing number of complaints in MeTa seem misplaced, as they could adequately have been dealt with in the thread

"Complaints" are not supposed to be dealth with in-thread; thus, MetaTalk.
posted by rushmc at 1:45 PM on October 26, 2004


All grievances brought to MeTa should be relegated to the Thunderdome.

I've also noticed the trend of impromptu, incendiary call-outs. Keeping with the theme of denouncing single comments: You are all a bunch of pussies.
posted by naxosaxur at 1:48 PM on October 26, 2004


rushmc, I think Miguel has a point. A simple direct response (in thread or not) is much better than posting a thesis of why you think someone sucks to Metatalk ... especially concidering that so few brave souls anymore seem willing to let the offending person know that they've been served as ego/morality fodder.
posted by Wulfgar! at 1:52 PM on October 26, 2004


I really, really, really disagree. Not because I think we need all these callout threads, but because what you propose will mess with the signal/noise ratio of the MeFi and AskMe threads.

For example, I think that what Mayor Curley did here was wrong, and the AskMe thread became as much about Red Sox and bagels as it was about how people felt about living in Tokyo or London (or New York). Encouraging people not to post in MeTa but to muck up the thread with their petty grievances will not improve things here on the whole.

Instead, keep making people take things to MeTa, and let this be the place for annoyances like that. People already treat MeTa wounded sensibilities threads with scorn, and that deters them at least a little. It almost (but not quite) goes without saying that people who get really annoyed by the waaaahmbulance of course don't have to read (and certainly don't have to participate in) the MeTa threads. But telling people in effect that they can have a free for all for their smaller grievances in the threads themselves is not something that I want to sign on to. And I think such a rule would have a particularly detrimental effect in AskMe.

See, Mayor Curley? You thought nobody followed you, but look!!!
posted by onlyconnect at 1:53 PM on October 26, 2004


I think the call-outs are funny.
posted by Mayor Curley at 1:54 PM on October 26, 2004


Parade of Wounded Sensibilities

Sidhedevil:
This is a repeat of your comment in the Meta thread I started on yankeenewsfilter. Seeing as I don't habitually make callouts, I take this as a red herring. A genuine polite request that we attempt to hold the line on NewsFilter is unacceptable to you when you like that particular link. I made a rational argument - you deem it a parade of wounded sensibilities.

I'm not rehashing that dispute: I am objecting to your characterisation. I lost that one, and have been invited to post to the Front Page a UK Banking link, which will of course be about as welcome as a beggar in the Mansion House. Still, it'll be interesting to see who objects to it, if & when it arrives...

Back on topic: if we stop calling out newsfilter posts, fine. Add it to the guidelines.

Plus, what rushmc said.
posted by dash_slot- at 1:56 PM on October 26, 2004


Onlyconnect, I actually agree with you that there shouldn't be endless wrangling in the Blue or Green; but saying "Mayor Curley, don't muck up this thread with your petty grievances; as for the question, I live in Luxembourg City and I find that the rest of Luxembourg is just hick country" or whatever doesn't "muck up" threads at all.

I really think that "So -and-so needs a time-out because he/she said something mean" doesn't belong in the Gray, either. In most online communities, if one poster thinks that another poster said something outrageously rude, you email the moderator(s) and they decide whether the person needs a time-out or not.

Isn't that how we should handle that here? I mean, we can't give whoever said "Death to all Unitarians!" a time-out; only Matt can. So what is the point of opening a discussion of whether or not "Death to all Unitarians!" deserves a time-out? It has absolutely no connection to whether or not the person gets a time-out.
posted by Sidhedevil at 2:00 PM on October 26, 2004


dash_slot, I've been talking about the Parade of Wounded Sensibilities for weeks on here, so don't take it personally. Your call-out was, frankly, far less of an exemplar of that than this one.
posted by Sidhedevil at 2:02 PM on October 26, 2004


And, dash_slot, your argument didn't seem rational to me--you made an FPP about something highly UK-specific that had been widely covered in all media, and then complained that someone else's FPP was highly US-specific and had been widely covered in all media.

I honestly don't see how that is rational.

However, I think that questioning the appropriateness of entire threads is a much better use of callouts in the Gray than complaining about individual rude statements (which is the behavior that gave rise to my "Parade of Wounded Sensibilities" characterization, and therefore perhaps yours shouldn't have been included in that.) So I am sorry.
posted by Sidhedevil at 2:06 PM on October 26, 2004


Ultimately, I think the purpose of MeTa call-outs is to draw Matt's attention to something in the hope he'll "do something about it", generally involving deletion.

However, Matt is probably induced in error if he uses MeTa as a quick way of knowing what's bothering people as he can't possibly be expected to trawl through every thread. There is a lot of theoretically objectionable behaviour on the Blue but the great majority deal with it in loco, as it were, or move on with their reading, rather than amplify their complaint and give it a whole new dimension here.

The prominence given to single objections skews the system and risks having the perverse effect of condoning slightly objectionable behaviour - best reacted to in the thread or just ignored - which then becomes the focus of a series of "that's not so bad" opinions.

The great MeFi cops of the past - scourge of my days - used MeTa only as a last resort, conserving its energy and its (already limited) potential for discouraging behaviour which they though destructive to the community.

By actively using the original threads to voice their dissent they were more effective. Also, since the form was just a comment, it respected the relativity and subjectivity of the complaint and eschewed the amplification and single-focus of any MeTa thread.

"Take it to MeTa" has sometimes become a sort of "piss off to the Grey and stop spoiling my thread", when certain threads are just screaming to be intelligently subverted.

A future historian will have the headache of having to check MeTa in search of any additional comments to the threads in the Blue - and he will be irked and confused, because the audiences aren't the same. He or she will deem "controversial" any post or comment that started a MeTa thread. And this too will skew things.

MeTa should explicitly be presented as a last resort, for serious offenses, backed up with proof of consistently destructive behaviour.

This is very rarely the case, I think.
posted by MiguelCardoso at 2:07 PM on October 26, 2004


I disagree with migs and I think sidhedevil and others mischaracterize these posts as evidence of offended sensibilities. In many cases, they're good faith efforts to have a discussion about an FPP, an Ask, or a comment that the poster believes is beyond the bounds for whatever reason. Whether it's the first or the 21st incident of its kind, who cares? A discussion on the merits could be valuable either way.

And by the way, Miguel's got a brass pair, to complain about contrived MeTa posts taking up screen real estate. ;)
posted by stupidsexyFlanders at 2:08 PM on October 26, 2004


A discussion on the merits of an FPP or an Ask could certainly be valuable, and I think some of them have.

A discussion on the merits of an individual comment doesn't seem like an appropriate thing for the Gray. And I don't remember seeing one that seemed even remotely valuable.
posted by Sidhedevil at 2:12 PM on October 26, 2004


Oh, and Miguel's concern for the needs of future historians is about the most ridiculous argument for crapping threads I think I'll ever hear.
posted by stupidsexyFlanders at 2:12 PM on October 26, 2004


So instead of using MeTa as a tool to alerting Matt about potentially offensive behavior, it would be better if we made Matt read each comment in each thread???? I don't think we should change things so that Matt has to work harder.

If someone has created a whiny, crap MeTa thread, they will be whipped mercilessly in MeTa. I agree with the others who don't want to encourage more unnecessary noise in the blue or the green. I also agree with Sidhedevil that callouts of threads are more likely to be productive than callouts of a single comment, though I'm wary of calling for the end of the latter entirely in case of particularly egregious behavior.
posted by onlyconnect at 2:25 PM on October 26, 2004


Miguel does have a brass pair, of course, and they're ever-so-well polished. Elegant, in their way. However, I think he's right, and the analogy to his old-school navel-gazers is pretty specious, ssFlanders. There's a big diff between threads focusing on some aspect of the community, through which people who choose to enter them can learn something about their fellow members, however trivial it might be, and a parade of callouts where the basic antagonism (caller-out vs. callee) is prominently displayed on the front page of MeTa.

This doesn't mean that over-the-line behavior, especially when repeated, shouldn't be called out. But over the past few months it's gotten so any insult coupled with a possibly obscene term generates a thread.

If someone has created a whiny, crap MeTa thread, they will be whipped mercilessly in MeTa.

And often are. But so what? How does that help? It doesn't stop the parade of new whiny, crap MeTa threads.
posted by soyjoy at 2:33 PM on October 26, 2004


Single-comment callouts are indeed generally lame... but every once in a while, something standout comes up, or someone is being used as an illustration rather being singled out, so eliminating the behavior wouldn't be helpful.

Discouraging it might. I think we should pick on people for crappy single comment callouts.
posted by weston at 2:37 PM on October 26, 2004


No, onlyconnect, I think that people who are concerned about single offensive comments and think that individuals need time-outs should email Matt directly rather than posting to the Gray.

A lot of web communities have a little "whistle" icon you can use to report an infraction of the site's rules to the moderator(s). I'm suggesting that it might be more useful to do something more like that when we see one particular offensive comment or poster, rather than starting a discussion in the Gray.

(I realize I didn't explain that particularly well before, though.)
posted by Sidhedevil at 2:40 PM on October 26, 2004


People are going to shit. You can either give them a designated place to shit (which won't entirely prevent them from shitting in other places, but will reduce it), or you can deny human nature and ask them not to shit anywhere, with predictable consequences.
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 2:43 PM on October 26, 2004


I don't think MeTa should be used for single comment callouts. If an FPP is suspect then it should be brought up here. But single comments? Unless they are entirely over the top then let them slide.

I don't bring my little tiffs into the grey, I deal with them in the thread. Sometimes that thread is in the grey (you reading me, bob sarabia?) but I don't go out of my way to do so.

My main complaint with the comments lately is that people don't even seem to bother reading the linked article, they just jump into the comment fray and start laying waste with wildly inaccurate accusations. I know its probably not possible but it would be great to "gate" comments until the would-be commenter has actually read the linked piece.
posted by fenriq at 2:43 PM on October 26, 2004


I totally agree, Miguel, and in fact the thought crossed my mind to make this very same post. Callouts need a timeout. Seriously, if I were Matt, I'd pull the plug on the Grey for a week.

Giving the shit a separate place to land is one thing, but in the process, Matt has given the shit a place to shine and sparkle.

I enjoy the Grey and it fascinates me; I'm interested in how a community manages itself. But lately, it's been too much "micromanagement by committee."
posted by scarabic at 3:37 PM on October 26, 2004


As you know, many people don't read MeTa

This is a recent, oft-repeated meme that I have seen little to no supporting evidence for.

Ultimately, I think the purpose of MeTa call-outs is to draw Matt's attention to something in the hope he'll "do something about it", generally involving deletion.

Nope. The purpose of MeTa is (or should be, and as any good ethical philosopher knows, there is an oceanic gulf of difference between the two, which in itself is an interesting discussion) a place for the community to collaboratively discuss and argue and hash out what we collectively think the unwritten (at least in terms of written-in-stone commandments) should be. Behaviour that is anti-communitarian or downright dumb is pointed out, argued about, supported by some and condemned by others, and with any luck, made in the process a little less likely to recur. It's like democracy, mate. Messy and ineffective, but it's the best we got. This is what 'self-policing' means.

Of course, that's just my opinion.

I enjoy the Grey and it fascinates me; I'm interested in how a community manages itself. But lately, it's been too much "micromanagement by committee."

I'd probably agree with that, if not with Migs' suggestion. There's a point at which diminishing returns kick in, and at which things like 'Shut up dash_slot. I appreciated the thread. Scroll down and shut yer trap' and people subsequently popping up to say 'fuck you' or 'no, fuck you' add nothing but noise. So it goes. But I don't think anything is fundamentally broken, and Matt's policy of allowing without comment all but the most egregious assholery is a wise one.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 4:16 PM on October 26, 2004


That should be '...unwritten rules...'
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 4:30 PM on October 26, 2004


I agree completely, Migs. A mean, shit, calling someone out because they said they were glad some journalist was dead? Which Metafilter rule does that one break?

I'm starting to imagine all the people making these callouts are the kind of people who write a letter of complaint to television stations everything they think they see an erect nipple, or who try to get letters published in their local newspaper complaining about how "society's standards of public conduct have fallen" because their neighbour plays their stereo too loud.

Callouts on systematic, personal attacks? Fine. Calllouts on illegal activities? Fine. Callouts because someone made a comment you didn't like? Get the fuck over it.
posted by Jimbob at 4:59 PM on October 26, 2004


That does it Jimbob. You just bought yourself a callout.
posted by Krrrlson at 5:20 PM on October 26, 2004


16,922 users.

Maybe 20 assholes.

The silence of the polite, respectful, and intelligent users is deafening at times.....
posted by NotMyselfRightNow at 5:27 PM on October 26, 2004


Matt's policy of allowing without comment all but the most egregious assholery is a wise one.

Absolutely; I agree with you. But when MetaTalk becomes an alternative to protesting or disputing someone's one-off opinion or comment in the original thread where it's casually aired, as just another comment in the stream it turns tiresome and even a little "cry wolfish".

MeTa amplification of a single comment dignifies that off-hand remark with a thread of its own, as if it were a fully-fledged ideology designed to bring down Civilization As We Know It, procuring definitive statements in perfect Latin from all the Elders, along with all the vapid snarks from the restless, easily-deranged hoi polloi.

Tomorrow I might be feeling silly and say I wished Ralph Nader was run over and killed by a bicycle (which I don't - I greatly admire the man). It would be spur-of-the-moment; stupid; just joshing. Or that Dubya should have a permanent pretzel placed crosswise in his esophagus.

There's a difference of emphasis. A single comment in a MeFi thread is just a single comment. Bring it to MeTa and it becomes a thread of its own. Not only that but the fellow member who chanced the (supposedly) unfortunate remark is brought to public attention and judged. Casual readers (perhaps a majority) will tag him or her as someone contentious or potentially problematic. Not fair.

In extremis everyone is entitled to one or two obnoxious comments and one lame post. Singular concerns are best voiced in the thread itself - politely and gently is best, so that we don't scare them off - rather than turn into an issue what was quite probably intended as just another contribution.

We're all very different, thank God. This means we have the pleasure and knowledge of being shocked and dumbfounded. One person's simple truth is another's outrage. Expressions such "Oh I wish he just died", "fuck you" or "you're despicable" ought to be received in the spirit we ourselves would vent them in a conversation with friends.

I think we are friends here on MetaFilter and it's because of this feeling I wish we'd concentrate our energies on those (very, very few) who might be conceivably deemed to be enemies - although they almost certainly aren't.
Complaints on MeTa, imho, should be restricted to matters which impoverish and demean our common lot - and endanger our freedom - rather than single out those unfortunate but honest individuals who deviate from what we expect.

In any case, my post wasn't against all these things - it only proposed that single, individual comments and guideline-respecting but apparently less than stellar posts be addressed in the original threads on the Blue and not made into a mountain on the Grey.


(Apologies for the rant!)
posted by MiguelCardoso at 5:46 PM on October 26, 2004


the kind of people who write a letter of complaint to television stations everything they think they see an erect ...

I'm writing in the to FCC over your typing the very WORD erect onto my information monitor!

I can't even bring myself to sully my clipboard with the other scandalous syllables you utter so casually!! My eyes are scarred forever, the Love of the Lord compressed from my mortal coil as I writhe in the effulgence of SIN!! The snake has left the garden and coiled under our streets and sidewalks in the guise of CAT-5 ethernet cable! Punch me down, lord! Punch me down! WE'RE YOUR FCC!!!

[lights own hair on fire, eats Bible]
posted by scarabic at 5:57 PM on October 26, 2004


I wished Ralph Nader was run over and killed by a bicycle (which I don't - I greatly admire the man but wish he'd be run over and killed by a Corvair)
posted by soyjoy at 6:28 PM on October 26, 2004


...but wish he'd be run over and killed by a Corvair - do we really need comments like this on the MetaFilter of today? In a forum where Miguel and others were seriously discussing community issues, I think awkward flippancy such as this is entirely inappropriate.
posted by soyjoy at 6:32 PM on October 26, 2004


What's that, soyjoy? You're breaking up.
posted by scarabic at 7:17 PM on October 26, 2004


A simple direct response (in thread or not) is much better than posting a thesis of why you think someone sucks to Metatalk

Yes, because that always ends the matter and never leads to a derail where everyone feels obliged to put their two cents in...

I don't remember seeing one that seemed even remotely valuable.

Opinion, cavalierly dismissed as such.

So what this boils down to is that the people who couldn't bear to pass up even those Metafilter threads that they knew in advance they wouldn't like now feel similarly compelled to read every METATALK thread, even those which strike them as unnecessary or frivolous? And the rest of us are supposed to subvert the structure of the site to accommodate their lack of self control?
posted by rushmc at 7:45 PM on October 26, 2004


No, you're right, rushmc, addressing a post's flaws in the post often leads to derail. If the proposal were to do away with MetaTalk, then obviously we'd have to favor that point.

But there is another side to it, namely that creating MetaTalk as an alternative location for gripes and whines actually services griping and whining. The result is what you see before you: one gigantic whinge so fat it keeps its diaphragm in a pizza box.

It's kind of like designating one room in the school the "fight room." It might keep more fights out of the cafeteria and classrooms, but it does mean more bloody noses going home.

Do away with the Grey? No way. But do people need to chill on the callouts? Fuck yeah. Are you even disputing that?
posted by scarabic at 7:52 PM on October 26, 2004


I think "callouts" is a very unfortunate way to think of/refer to MetaTalk posts. I don't think what is important is the person whose transgression (real or perceived), but rather the transgression itself, and I think most posters intend this to be the focus. When MeTa worked, something would result from attention being brought to things that were contrary to the best interest of the site and its members. Granted, that was a long time ago now, and given that, perhaps those pleading for anarchy and chaos are right and those continuing to try are wasting their time.

But it IS their time and impacts the rest of us very little, so I have to wonder why it bothers some people so much. Perhaps they simply can't bear to be reminded of good behavior because it contrasts so poorly with their own in their minds.

Also I think this is representative of another problem that a lot of people seem to have lately, which the Village Voice recently summed up thusly: Most people would rather vote for the guy that stole the other guy's lunch money, rather than the guy who complained that his lunch money was stolen. Think about it.
posted by rushmc at 10:16 PM on October 26, 2004


Regarding rushmc's point: A rule of thumb about group dynamics is that people expect there to be a few assholes, there's no avoiding it. Consequently, the people the group really resents and lose patience with are the minority that are constantly making a fuss about the assholes. Because, possibly correctly, they perceive that the complainers are just adding to the annoyance, not reducing it.

I don't agree with this view, as I think it implicitly capitulates to the assholes. But it's very practical. A lot of people generally perceive complaints about a problem to be a bigger problem than the problem. Especially when it concerns bad behavior by someone who habitually behaves badly.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 10:49 PM on October 26, 2004


rushmc: I hear what you're saying about the productive callouts / MeTa threads of the past. If someone is pointing out a pattern of bad practices or a good principle that will make the site better, great. It's fully possible to do this without making an example of anyone, and in many instances, it's benefitted us greatly.

But if someone gripes about all the callouts recently, it's because people are literally calling for another member to be banned, by name, because one of their comments was offensive in content. "Matt, I don't like what he said, please ban him." That's a far cry from starting a discussion about how to do things better around here in general, and, as a targeted personal accusation, I think callout is quite the appropriate term.

When people's callouts are derided as whiny, etc, I don't usually get the impression that people actually side with the "offender," just that they think the MeTa thread is a stupid way to redress the "offense." If whiny callouts are annoying, it's because they generally devolve into pissing matches, just like lots of other thread-types that are widely-understood to be trouble.

Another I/P newsfilter post, anyone? Ooh, or how about a MeTa callout where someone is offended by disparaging remarks about someone who's died? Hm... so hard to choose.
posted by scarabic at 1:03 AM on October 27, 2004


I think "callouts" is a very unfortunate way to think of/refer to MetaTalk posts.

Yes. I have frequent fantasies of strangling the tone-deaf bonehead who first came up with that one (not that I know who it was), and everyone who has used it since.

*strangles scarabic, in a friendly kinda way*
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 2:15 AM on October 27, 2004


Miguel's comment here is excellent, and deserves a... ahem... callout of its own, as it perfectly encapsulates the spirit of what MeTa should be. Aside from discussions about technical issues, feature requests, etc., its focus should be on two things:

- People who break explicit rules of the site (bad posts).

- People whose continued behavior creates a generally counterproductive atmosphere.

Users have completely perverted the second and become, effectively, tattletales. As rushmc and EB smartly pointed out, the only thing worse than a rulebreaker is a tattletale.

If someone acts like an ass in a particular thread, the odds are the relevant people (e.g. those reading and participating in the thread) know already. What good is served by broadcasting to the rest of the users? Grow a damn spine. The only good MeTa threads in this area, IMHO, are the ones that point out an ongoing pattern of bad behavior.
posted by mkultra at 5:47 AM on October 27, 2004


While I rather enjoy an erect nipple under any circumstances, I cannot stand assholes who invade my space with their frig'n choice of music instead of using earphones and blowing out of their own brains, if any.

I'm just sayin'.
posted by semmi at 7:54 AM on October 27, 2004


If someone is pointing out a pattern of bad practices or a good principle that will make the site better, great.

That sounds good at first glance and I want to agree with it, but I think it's a mistake to not allow room for public opposition to one-off offenses. Are you really suggesting that if someone, in the course of an argument, called another member a racist name, that no one should say anything till they'd done it a few more times to establish a "pattern of behavior?"

And to repeat what was said above, I don't think anyone has ever called for the banning of another member. What some of us would like to see more of is time-outs given to those individuals for whom no other milder form of corrective ever registers. Some people will push push push at the boundaries of what is acceptable within a community until they hit a wall. But obviously this isn't going to happen, as mathowie has made it clear that he is willing to accept a very high level of antisocial behavior here (in the name of tolerance, I guess). Which is a pity, because people always behave better when they have a sense that there might be some negative consequence to bad behavior.

As rushmc and EB smartly pointed out, the only thing worse than a rulebreaker is a tattletale.

Actually, I think both of us were disagreeing with this attitude.
posted by rushmc at 8:24 AM on October 27, 2004


Yeah, I misread, sorry. I still have my view, though :)

And if someone calls you a fag, nigger, or whatever, by all means call him out... in the thread. I'm sure no one will object to that. No need to drag it out here unless they continue to be abusive.
posted by mkultra at 9:14 AM on October 27, 2004


>> As you know, many people don't read MeTa

This is a recent, oft-repeated meme that I have seen little to no supporting evidence for.


In my gut I think it's right, though.

We could get empirical, though: Matt could compare ip traffic to mefi proper against ip traffic to metatalk.
posted by cortex at 9:40 AM on October 27, 2004


Are you really suggesting that if someone, in the course of an argument, called another member a racist name, that no one should say anything till they'd done it a few more times to establish a "pattern of behavior?"

Well, no. That is clearly over the line in any community, and is actually illegal in some contexts. But there are multiple instances recently of someone calling an "over the line" foul that just plain isn't. Lack of respect for the dead? Using the word "cockface?" These can't possibly be compared to the n-word, in all seriousness.

I don't think anyone has ever called for the banning of another member. What some of us would like to see more of is time-outs given to those individuals

Well, that's what I mean by banned. If one is banned from the site for a brief period, one is still banned. Tomato/Potahto.
posted by scarabic at 9:53 AM on October 27, 2004


But there are multiple instances recently of someone calling an "over the line" foul that just plain isn't.

That is your opinion, I get that. Others feel differently about it. Which is why we have MeTa to hash it out.

What's the problem again?
posted by rushmc at 2:20 PM on October 27, 2004


rather than giving them a(nother) life of their own and risking turning MeTa into a bit of a rubbish dump.

"quick, on the roof"
posted by clavdivs at 2:36 PM on October 27, 2004


Okay, rushmc, so you (and unnamed others) think the "cockface" thread was worthwile?

Just want to be clear. If that's so, then we can agree to disagree and call it a day.
posted by scarabic at 2:54 PM on October 27, 2004


clav!!!! : >
posted by amberglow at 4:05 PM on October 27, 2004


Okay, rushmc, so you (and unnamed others) think the "cockface" thread was worthwile?

Stands to reason that I do, since I posted it. :)
posted by rushmc at 4:39 PM on October 27, 2004


Heya, clav! Good to see ya!
posted by languagehat at 6:18 PM on October 27, 2004


Thought hindsight might've changed your mind :)
posted by scarabic at 9:39 AM on October 28, 2004


« Older "I'm glad the silly fucker's dead"??   |   monkeyfilter meetup photos Newer »

You are not logged in, either login or create an account to post comments