Please ban people for crummy answers.

December 18, 2004 1:16 PM

There's been a lot of hand-wringing in re: askme lately, so, have we considered the idea of the temporary ban? I submit for your consideration this post. In my mind, that warrants, say, a 2-week ban from askme. Second offense is a 4-week ban and third offense is a permant ban. All from askme, mind you, I'm not talking about a mefi-wide ban.

Of course, this is all more administrative overhead for Matt and god knows I wouldn't bother were I in his shoes. It just sort of seems like a definitive "this sort of uselessness is not desired here" response would be nice.
posted by kavasa to etiquette/policy at 1:16 PM (88 comments total)

um, that's a comment.
posted by quonsar at 1:20 PM on December 18, 2004

Uh, why does the linked post warrant a ban?
posted by xmutex at 1:22 PM on December 18, 2004

does kavasa mean that the comment wasn't really an answer?
posted by dabitch at 1:23 PM on December 18, 2004

Why not just hang a sign up saying "Sense of Humor Not Welcome."?
posted by jonmc at 1:23 PM on December 18, 2004

Why not just hang a sign up saying "Sense of Humor Not Welcome."?

There's one at the bottom of every page.
posted by kickingtheground at 1:26 PM on December 18, 2004

Not only was it not an answer, it was him going "I am awesome, and you people are not." Or her, whatever. And it's not a ban, it's a temporary ban. You know, negative reinforcement? If you don't treat this resource properly, it will be taken away from you for a while?

jonmc, please. It wasn't a joke. Your post right there was a joke, that was not. It wasn't even a snark.
posted by kavasa at 1:26 PM on December 18, 2004

I guess I should be tempbanned, too; my reply wasn't an actual answer, but a thought on the common-sense of those who would risk their freedom for a joint.
posted by five fresh fish at 1:29 PM on December 18, 2004

He can't possibly be intentionally linking to squirrel's comment, can he? A two-week ban, for that? Start with that standard and by the end of the day, we'll all be in chains!

On preview: Holy shit, he's serious.
posted by bingo at 1:29 PM on December 18, 2004

I was asked, not told, to refrain from posting in askme for much worse. No offense, but get off your high horse.
posted by Keyser Soze at 1:32 PM on December 18, 2004

Fine, make it a one-week ban, or three days, what the hell ever. The idea being to make it clear that You Don't Do This Here.

fff - I counted that as an answer, to the effect of "this is why you shouldn't smoke dope in Morocco."

Keyser - was that addressed to me? Again, it's just a suggestion, and certainly not one I would bother implementing, were it my responsibility.
posted by kavasa at 1:34 PM on December 18, 2004

I thought andrew cooke's comment in the NYT thread was much worse, but still not worth bannination.
posted by monju_bosatsu at 1:38 PM on December 18, 2004

I thought andrew cooke's comment in the NYT thread was much worse, but still not worth bannination.

Agreed.

Question: "How do I reconfigure my browser to automatically display a printer-friendly version of nyt.com?"

Answer: "It's idiot brand-whores like you who are the problem, douchebag.
posted by _sirmissalot_ at 1:40 PM on December 18, 2004

Obviously, wisecracks shouldn't dominate AskMe, but do we want to make the place a humor-free zone? Cos sometimes helpful information and wisdom can be communicated quite well through humor.
posted by jonmc at 1:43 PM on December 18, 2004

Humor's okay, but invective?
posted by _sirmissalot_ at 1:47 PM on December 18, 2004

If you saw the obvious Midnight Express joke as invective, I have to say that you might be a bit oversensitive. And even if a joke is a little offensive, that's okay with me as long as it's funny.
posted by jonmc at 1:51 PM on December 18, 2004

Okay, if we're going to talk about this seriously, there are really (at least) two issues here: 1) The recurring issue of whether it's ok to respond to an AskMe question with something other than a true-blue answer of the sort the questioner was looking for (and if so, how, etc.), and 2) Whether squirrel's comment was a serious offense.

I think that squirrel probably did have something useful to say, but was reluctant to actually come forth as an international drug criminal, so was trying to compromise by expressing disdain without offering any info. This is, I would agree, uncool and a waste of time. Also, he might not have had anything to say at all, and was just blabbing, which is even more annoying.

Nevertheless, as far as temporary bans, even supposing that there was a way to do it, this comment of squirrel's is very tame stuff compared to the kind of things that get callouts around here, be it in the green or the blue.

I'm sorry, but I thought andrew cooke's comment was hilarious.
posted by bingo at 1:57 PM on December 18, 2004

1) The recurring issue of whether it's ok to respond to an AskMe question with something other than a true-blue answer of the sort the questioner was looking for (and if so, how, etc.)

I definitely skirt the edges of what seems to be ok in AskMe, but I think an outright ban on humor might lead to less eyeballs which will (ok, possibly) mean fewer good answers.
posted by yerfatma at 2:00 PM on December 18, 2004

If you saw the obvious Midnight Express joke as invective, I have to say that you might be a bit oversensitive.

I meant Andrew Cooke's comment in the other thread, not the drug one . . . .
posted by _sirmissalot_ at 2:07 PM on December 18, 2004

jonmc, this is not your fight, and I'm unsure why you're trying to fight it. squirrel's post was not funny, nor was it intended to be. It was not invective. Its sole purpose was for him to toot his own horn. Well, I guess it might be, if it was in fact a reference to a movie from 1978. You'll have to forgive me for not catching a reference to a movie I've never seen. It's still pretty useless.

bingo, that's a much better way of putting what it was that so irked me. It seems to me that people offering some sort of thought on the answer, even if they do it in an insulting fashion, are contributing to some degree. People that make a conscious decision to add nothing and post anyways have no place on askme.

To reiterate, this is not about humor.

I'm also unsure if it is worth the time in terms of implementation. Matt has some sort of thing that keeps you from posting if you've posted in the past week or registered especially recently, so it seemed to me that it would fold into that. I certainly wasn' thinking of trying to keep people from even viewing it.

And really, is "not being able to post to askme" for 3 days that big of a deal?
posted by kavasa at 2:14 PM on December 18, 2004

kavasa, as a member of this community, any fight about what is allowed here is my fight, thankyouverymuch.

But, I think I mistook which comment started the disussion in the first place, so Igrant you that I may have missed the original thrust of the post. But squirrel, even though I've occasionally butted heads with him, is a consistently interesting contributor, so I'll give the benefit of the doubt by assuming there was a point to be made since he relly did no harm to the thread.

And humor is important to MeFi & AskMe. Generally, speaking, the best posters here are the funniest ones.
posted by jonmc at 2:22 PM on December 18, 2004

Is there some sort of personal history between kavasa and squirrel? I can't fathom any other reason for kavasa's ... whatever the fuck it is. Freakout? Witch hunt? Especially over such an inoffensive - nay, bland comment.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 2:24 PM on December 18, 2004

I'm a little confused about which comment kavasa believes deserves a two-week ban from AskMeFi.

Is kavasa talking about "So much fear; so little experience"? I agree that that wasn't a helpful comment, but I'm not seeing how it was offensive or inappropriate (other than not being helpful).

Or was there another comment that has been deleted?
posted by Sidhedevil at 2:26 PM on December 18, 2004

"but do we want to make the place a humor-free zone?"

I don't think anyone's advocating that. I think the problem is the growing number of replies that are not answers and contain no information. If an answer can be presented in an amusing or humorous manner, rock the fuck on. The real problem is the contingent of dickweeds who don't actually have an answer but can't resist chiming in and demonstrating how clever or funny they think they are.

Both the linked comment and the cooke comment in the NYT thread are examples of this, are purely worthless noise, and have no place in Ask.
posted by majick at 2:36 PM on December 18, 2004

I agree that this was not a helpful answer, but singling it out for a ban seems odd. People say much worse things on AskMeFi--why freak out about a six-word irrelevance?
posted by Sidhedevil at 2:38 PM on December 18, 2004

Squirrels comment wasn't funny, but wasn't harmful either. kavasa: Go lay down.
posted by puke & cry at 2:44 PM on December 18, 2004

kavasa - go find a better example to use. While terse, squirrel made a valid response: that the fearmongering perspective expressed by the responders isn't particularly informed. That's entirely fucking valid, and you are pissing into the wind. May it all come back to you.
posted by scarabic at 2:48 PM on December 18, 2004

I am pretty sure, though not positive, that Matt has deleted several of my AskMe answers. I wish when he deleted, the deleted answer would go to my email.

The problem I have is that I type answers or bullshit, and then on preview decide that I'd be better off silent and close the window without actually posting it. So if I return to a thread and don't see my answer, is it because I had the good taste to moderate myself, or is it because Matt axed it? There've been a few cases where I just don't know.

Having the deletions emailed to me would at least let me know Matt's tolerance for my silliness. I'd be able to better self-moderate.
posted by five fresh fish at 3:08 PM on December 18, 2004

kavasa, i'm surprised nobody has yet pointed out that you are being an overbearing prick. in no instance does "so much fear, so little experience" translate into "I am awesome, and you people are not."
posted by quonsar at 3:12 PM on December 18, 2004

And humor is important to MeFi & AskMe.

No. It's important to MeFi; it's an occasional side benefit in AskMe, but AskMe would get along fine without it. And frankly, no offense, but you're not going to be seen as objective here, since you've been slapped down for inappropriate joking/snarking on AskMe yourself. AskMe is about answering people's questions; it is not about amusing people.

That having been said: Jesus, kavasa, chill out. (Also, what quonsar said.)
posted by languagehat at 3:33 PM on December 18, 2004

If an answer can be presented in an amusing or humorous manner, rock the fuck on. The real problem is the contingent of dickweeds who don't actually have an answer but can't resist chiming in and demonstrating how clever or funny they think they are.

This is exactly right. Matt had made it perfectly clear that he wants everyone to provide nothing but helpful answers in AskMetaFilter. He even put it right below the comment box, so that we would be reminded every time we think of posting a comment. Why is this hard?

That said, squirrel's comment is certainly not the best example to use here, as it was arguably intended to be a helpful answer (as scarabic points out).
posted by gd779 at 3:36 PM on December 18, 2004

Thats OK, l-hat mah brothah, I'm too happy dancing in my underwaer to "I Want You Back," to get upset at the usual MeTa goings on.

But to paraphrase Mother Jones, if I can't crack wise, I don't want any part of your revolution.
posted by jonmc at 3:38 PM on December 18, 2004

I do NOT get it. Someone care to explain? What is the joke?
posted by xammerboy at 3:40 PM on December 18, 2004

"but do we want to make the place a humor-free zone?"

I don't think anyone's advocating that.

Actually, I'll take that position if it's free. There have been way too many unfunny attempted wisecracks in AskMe lately. (Though far worse than squirrel's which seems pretty tame in comparison). If you can answer the question in an amusing way, fine. But the noise level is going up dramatically. I don't even like the "hey, I have that question too" comments. (I've thought better of posting several of those of my own.)

Maybe we could have an extra window after preview that asks if your answer is really an answer....just another little nudge.
posted by CunningLinguist at 3:47 PM on December 18, 2004

CunningLinguist, I gotta beg to differ. Wisecracking and humor are what separates us from the animals. It deflates our pomposities and pretesions, which are the root of all evil. It brings us down to earth from our most insane moments. It keeps us from choking on our own hubris. Yes, in AskMe, practicality is of the utmost importance but a laugh sure as hell never hurt anybody.
posted by jonmc at 3:51 PM on December 18, 2004

Wisecracking and humor are what separates us from the animals.... Yes, in AskMe, practicality is of the utmost importance but a laugh sure as hell never hurt anybody.

"Please limit comments to answers or help in finding an answer. Wisecracks don't help people find answers. Thanks."

RTFM.
posted by gd779 at 3:57 PM on December 18, 2004

Ah but what you consider rip roaringly funny may not to someone else....and the place is already turning into a chat site.
posted by CunningLinguist at 3:57 PM on December 18, 2004

Not that I don't agree that one of the great charms of MeFi is the wisecracking snarkery, but not in AskMe damnit!
posted by CunningLinguist at 3:58 PM on December 18, 2004

Yes, I agree the focus should be on answering the question, but there's so many witty people on this site that asking them to restrain themselves might be a) asking too much and b) depriving us of some remarkable hilarity.

Honestly, as long as people remeber not to take it personally, I don't see whatt harm is done.
posted by jonmc at 4:02 PM on December 18, 2004

Two week ban? For squirrel's comment? Maybe deletion, just to drive the point home, but banning.... nah.

Scary/fun thread, tho'.
posted by namespan at 4:06 PM on December 18, 2004

I say we nuke the site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.
posted by loquacious at 4:18 PM on December 18, 2004

Maybe deletion, just to drive the point home

What point, exactly?

A paraphrase of squirrel's comment, as I read it, is "It strikes me that the preceding answers here are a bit paranoid and alarmist, and mot backed up by much direct experience."

How is that not a valid part of the discussion? How is it a joke? Why should it be deleted? What is the airborne velocity of an unladen swallow?
posted by scarabic at 4:20 PM on December 18, 2004

Why is a carrot more orange than an orange?
posted by jonmc at 4:23 PM on December 18, 2004

Do you remember rock and roll radio?
posted by jonmc at 4:29 PM on December 18, 2004

By the way, does anyone know if drinking cigarette ash can kill you?
posted by jonmc at 4:40 PM on December 18, 2004

loquacious wins.
posted by xmutex at 4:43 PM on December 18, 2004

jonmc, are you actually posting from the bar?
posted by monju_bosatsu at 4:54 PM on December 18, 2004

no, from my apartment, I just think I might've ashed into the wrong bottle. You can't smoke in bars in NYC anymore, didn't you know that?
posted by jonmc at 4:56 PM on December 18, 2004

Does anybody remember laughter?

On preview: That's one of the things that helps reconcile me to not living in NYC anymore. Can't smoke in bars? WTF??
posted by languagehat at 4:59 PM on December 18, 2004

It gets in the way of healthful drinking, languagehat. But you can still smoke if you know the right bars. (And no, I'm not telling.)
posted by dame at 5:55 PM on December 18, 2004

She's not telling, but if you show up at a few meetups that she has considerable influence in picking the location of, you might happen to accidentally notice someone smoking.
posted by bingo at 6:12 PM on December 18, 2004

*makes note to call dame the minute she arrives in NY next month*
posted by CunningLinguist at 6:28 PM on December 18, 2004

I thought I was going to have to do my drinking in Hoboken
posted by CunningLinguist at 6:29 PM on December 18, 2004

well, theres always the Bowery, CL.
posted by jonmc at 6:57 PM on December 18, 2004

I haven't read this whole thread yet, (My first callout! *blush*) But I've posted this clarification to the AskMe thread in question. I would have done it earlier, but it's a time-zone thing.

I'll post again when I've read this whole thread.
posted by squirrel at 6:57 PM on December 18, 2004

I agree heartily with what squirrel said in his second post in the thread (semi-offtopic as it was), think kavasa overreacted to squirrel's initial snark (which was, agreed, unhelpful), but would nonetheless agree that if you're going to consume illegal drugs in countries outside your own, you'd better know what you're doing and who you're doing it with. And be prepared for consequences. Perhaps not so wise for the Let's Go Morocco! kind of traveller.

As far as the demonization of tobacco, well, there's yet another reason I'll probably never go back to North America. Not that y'all'll miss me, or anything, of course.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 7:07 PM on December 18, 2004

loquacious wins.

loquacious carries on a tradition of unfunniness in which I share.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 7:11 PM on December 18, 2004

Laff. I post to meta a fraction of the time of most of you folks and yet, when I am moved to make my semi-annual post, I am an "overbearing prick". Most drole, quonsar, tell us another. I mean, you actually cared enough to post about comments vs. posts and, uh. That is a strange and mysterious thing to care about in this context. And of course calling people needlessly frightened and ignorant doesn't denote that one's courageous and wordly self is at all superior. How silly of me.

Also, I like how I posted saying "hm, perhaps x would be reasonable", and 95% of the responses are along the lines of "How can you possibly suggest y!" and "I disagree with you, and think your suggestion of z is wrong". The normally clear reading comprehension of the mefi population goes to shit in the gray.

squirrel - it wasn't a callout of you in particular. It was just a handy example. And it's my opinion that, since we've already had tons of meta threads on this, and there's the reminder when you go to post, and matt has already deleted several posts, and you're a reasonable person who still posted a bad answer, well. Maybe a stronger reminder would serve the purpose better than just deleting posts. Especially since, as fff noted, it doesn't leave the line especially clear.

But no, no, I am obviously a power-mad tyrant who is raging out of control! Quick, call in the airforce to pepper my steely hide with missiles!

Oh no they are ineffective! HE'S DESTROYING EVERYTHING! HE'S COMING RIGHT AT-*kssshk!zzz!*
posted by kavasa at 7:20 PM on December 18, 2004

FWIW, I originally intended to post more than those six words: something along the lines of what scarabic and others interpreted as "don't let fear and ignorance be your tour guides." I was trying to be helpful, albeit in a terse way. From what I've seen here, some readers found my comment at least tangentially helpful.

On preview: ???
posted by squirrel at 7:30 PM on December 18, 2004

i retract my previous assessment, kavasa. clearly you are bugshit insane.
posted by quonsar at 7:35 PM on December 18, 2004

quonsar is most wise. Pay heed to quonsar, all you who browse here.
posted by Pretty_Generic at 7:40 PM on December 18, 2004

I will never pay heed to false idols.
posted by Keyser Soze at 10:21 PM on December 18, 2004

Not in reference to Squirrel's post itself, but the general issues relating to AskMe: I've heard a few people talking about whether or not humour hurts the discussion in AskMe.

Since when is AskMe about discussion? I thought it was about getting questions answered...
posted by Bugbread at 11:34 PM on December 18, 2004

squirrel's post was not funny, nor was it intended to be. It was not invective. Its sole purpose was for him to toot his own horn.

How in the world did you get that from squirrel's comment? I read it as genuinely being helpful, if only slightly. The questioner asked about how to go about smoking in Morocco, a bunch of people responded by saying "smoking pot in foreign places is WRONG!", and squirrel's comment was a pithy way of pointing out that they hadn't really answered the question and were giving out poor information.

As far as humor goes, I don't see too much wrong with the occasional quip. Discussions in AskMe don't usually get bogged down. No bannings are necessary - this is a non-existent threat.
posted by painquale at 12:38 AM on December 19, 2004

But no, no, I am obviously a power-mad tyrant who is raging out of control!

No, just being kind of an idiot about all this.
posted by scarabic at 2:34 AM on December 19, 2004

As far as humor goes, I don't see too much wrong with the occasional quip.

Why is this so hard for everyone? Right below the comment box, Matt wrote: "AskMetafilter is as useful as you make it. Please limit comments to answers or help in finding an answer. Wisecracks don't help people find answers. Thanks."

It doesn't matter what you think about humor in AskMetaFilter: Matt hosts this place out of the goodness of his heart, and he doesn't usually lay down laws, but he seems deadly serious about this one. So please listen to him. AskMetaFilter is for nothing but helpful answers.
posted by gd779 at 4:18 AM on December 19, 2004

This attitude, by the way, is, I suspect, why kavasa was suggesting a ban. As an example, so that Matt can show how serious about this he is. Because, clearly, just talking about it repeatedly and taking the unprecedented step of putting the rules just below the comment box wasn't enough to get the point across.

You can chat in MetaFilter and in MetaTalk; stop chatting in the green.
posted by gd779 at 4:21 AM on December 19, 2004

I don't want to hate the baby, but I think Matt needs to put a little time into AskMe, or our "self-policing" will be as effective as it was for PoliticsFilter: completely non. People are already talking about things like "interesting" questions, the use of questions for "community building", the use of questions to promote discussion, and the role of humor, not in answers, but just as humor. None of this contributes to the stated purpose of AskMe, and, while none of it necessarily sounds a death knell, if Number One doesn't put start pulling the weeds while still young, they're eventually going to overgrow the garden, at which point weeding it will be pretty much impossible. Or, to be trite but accurate, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure (feel free to convert to metric if you're more logically minded).
posted by Bugbread at 4:31 AM on December 19, 2004

I agree. But calling for squirrel's banning, however temporary, is batshit insane.

To reiterate: there's nothing wrong with humor, as long as it's part of a helpful answer. A response that's nothing but humor for its own sake is against the rules and should be deleted; I hate saying this, because I love humor and some of the things people have put in AskMe threads have left me laughing helplessly and generally made my day, but yeah, if something doesn't get done the whole point of the site is going go get lost. I'm quite sure some people are already afraid to ask sensitive questions for fear of snarks, and "aww, poor sensitive baby" is not an acceptable response.
posted by languagehat at 6:00 AM on December 19, 2004

Smoke it up, gothamites.
posted by liam at 9:29 AM on December 19, 2004

Here is the thing:

It's possible that a rational person might think "squirrel's post wasn't helpful, and therefore should be deleted."

However, I don't see how the rational person would get from one possibly-unhelpful post on AskMe to a two-week ban.

There are many other people who post many more wisecracks much more often on AskMe. Singling out squirrel's innocuous post, and squirrel in particular, was the completely irrational part of the call-out.
posted by Sidhedevil at 9:54 AM on December 19, 2004

Nice, liam. I propose that we have the next meetup there.
posted by bingo at 10:04 AM on December 19, 2004

as long as people remeber not to take it personally, I don't see whatt harm is done.

Everyone's got a limited amount of time and energy that they can spend reading AskMe, policing AskMe and using AskMe. The more relevant it is, the more signal and the less noise, the more useful it is to everyone. Saying that asking people to "reign themselves" in might be asking too much or bumming you out because it deprives you and others of hilarity is missing the point; neither of those are the purpose of AskMe. Hilarity and lack of restraint may be what MeFi is for, they are beside the point in AskMe and have been, time and time again, politely sanctioned against. I didn't mind squirrel's comment because it was short and I sort of got it, but the more AskMe fills with offhanded comments the less it's useful for its intended purpose. It's easy enough to include an aside like that and as well include something that would be helpful to the poster, or to the discussion at large.

I think Matt needs to put a little time into AskMe

I don't know about other people, but I just email him a comment number if I think a thread looks to be getting out of hand. You'd be suprised how responsive he can be.
posted by jessamyn at 10:20 AM on December 19, 2004

"No, just being kind of an idiot about all this."

This is why I'm laughing. A sugestion is made and people look at you as if you've just vaporized an orphanage with your atomic breath. Get a grip.

"But calling for squirrel's banning, however temporary, is batshit insane."

Ok, two things.
1. As I said before, this has nothing to do with squirrel in particular. It was a convenient example of a Bad Answer.
2. The notion that any ban at all is "batshit insane" is itself what is batshit insane. Not being able to post to askme for x period of time is trivial. I repeat: get a grip.

"Singling out squirrel's innocuous post, and squirrel in particular, was the completely irrational part of the call-out."

Ok I'll quote a previous comment of mine because oh lord, the reading comprehension, it is so lacking.

"squirrel - it wasn't a callout of you in particular. It was just a handy example."

Go ahead, scroll up. It's there. What, would it have been better if I obsessively catalogued 15 bad answers from different people?

I don't understand why everyone seems incapable of grasping that my suggestion has nothing to do with "degree". Nothing. The only criteria is "is this post a genuine attempt to be helpful?" If not, negative reinforcement would be a handy reminder. That is all. Maybe you don't agree, that's fine, but pretending that the very idea is over the top is ridiculous.
posted by kavasa at 12:13 PM on December 19, 2004

Look, here's why bans suck.

I am now working to join the GNAA to troll slashdot because I post there often enough I regularly trip their anti-troll moderation system bullshit with legitimate posts that get downmodded due to people disagreeing with my politics. So, basically, I've given up on the place and want to work with the trolls to show what a shithole slashdot is.

No, I would never do that to here because this place isn't run by a mean editor that hates the fact his site exists.

Anyways, someone like myself that regularly posts to AxMe is probably going to get banned so often Matt will:

(a) Get angry at me.
(b) Then get angry at himself after I remind him that 99% of my comments are ontopic (that would leave about 7 that aren't, or a perma-ban).
(c) Have to start auto-undoing bans for regular posters
which leads to:
(d) Constant MeTa threads about why users like me get preferential treatment.

Matt is best to ban people at his discretion rather than on some arbitrary rules. That way someone like me still gets to contribute.
posted by shepd at 12:45 PM on December 19, 2004

Okay, kavasa, let's try this:

Suggesting a policy that banned people for two weeks every time they made a possibly-unhelpful comment in AskMeFi is absolutely batshit insane.

Suggesting that MH might want to be more vigilant about deleting possibly-unhelpful comments, or requesting that he be so vigilant, is not batshit insane. Suggesting bans for frequent offenders is not batshit insane.
posted by Sidhedevil at 1:02 PM on December 19, 2004

"squirrel - it wasn't a callout of you in particular. It was just a handy example."

"Don't take it personally, fellow; we're not shooting you because you're you, in fact we have nothing against you, but we want to discourage the mildly annoying activity you were engaged in, and we feel fining you or locking you up for a bit won't send the right message, whereas if we shoot you, it will really cause everybody to think twice before engaging in said mildly annoying activity. So buck up; here, we'll even help you make your will!"

Batshit insane.
posted by languagehat at 1:11 PM on December 19, 2004

So, wait, is kavasa batshit insane or bugshit insane? Or should I take this to AskMe?
posted by cosmonik at 2:36 PM on December 19, 2004

This is why I'm laughing. A sugestion is made and people look at you as if you've just vaporized an orphanage with your atomic breath. Get a grip.

Not only was it not an answer, it was him going "I am awesome, and you people are not."

1. As I said before, this has nothing to do with squirrel in particular. It was a convenient example of a Bad Answer.

Not only was it not an answer, it was him going "I am awesome, and you people are not."

That is all. Maybe you don't agree, that's fine, but pretending that the very idea is over the top is ridiculous.

Not only was it not an answer, it was him going "I am awesome, and you people are not."

it was all about YOU, thinking HE was dissing you, and you can't really blather that out of view now that you've revealed it.
posted by quonsar at 3:05 PM on December 19, 2004

Jesus chocolate-coated christ in a tutu, leave kavasa alone. His heart was in the right place, even if he made a silly with the banhammer thing.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 3:07 PM on December 19, 2004

I don't understand why everyone seems incapable of grasping that my suggestion has nothing to do with "degree". Nothing.

I think everyone grasps it. We just think that it's...well, you know.
posted by bingo at 3:18 PM on December 19, 2004

I don't understand why everyone seems incapable of grasping that my suggestion has nothing to do with "degree". Nothing.

I think everyone gets it. That's where the problem comes from. A ban isn't a huge thing from the perspective of real life, but in the context of the site, it's the second biggest thing you can do (first being permanent bannage). The fact that you're saying tempbans should be issued for all infractions, regardless of degree, is precisely why people are gettin' all riled up.

And the concept of "comments that aren't answers" is really easy to understand. While there's nothing wrong with providing an example, it certainly isn't necessary, and there are so many more egregious examples that you shouldn't be surprised that people are reading things into your selection. I'm not saying you should spend hours looking for the absolute worst, but in a case where an example is unnecessary, providing the lightest case as an example is just asking for conflict and misunderstanding.
posted by Bugbread at 3:51 PM on December 19, 2004

Yup.
posted by bingo at 8:45 PM on December 19, 2004

stavros - believe me, I can take an infinite quantity of what quonsar has to dish up.

Speaking of, I never even posted in the askme thread, q - how was he dissing me? Might it be that, in fact, I read into the post, sorry, comment, a dismissive attitude? Considering the text of the comment, is that really off the wall? And if I reasonably saw a dismissive attitude in it, and wanted to direct discussion away from the "humor" question, isn't that a reasonable thing to say?

Hint: it is!

But, no, you're right. Just as I was totally correct in my reading of squirrel's tone, you're 100% on with your reading of mine.

bugbread - the regardless of degree thing is definitely not the source of rilation. If it was, why would there be so many (so very many) responses along the lines of "Singling out squirrel's innocuous post, and squirrel in particular, was the completely irrational part of the call-out." Emphasis mine. Finally, "posting to meta" is just asking for conflict and misunderstanding. Let's be honest with ourselves.

Clearly I disagreed (possibly incorrectly) on the "innocuous" bit, but that didn't factor in to the idea too heavily.

languagehat - what's crazier, suggesting tempbans or equating tempbans with execution, even in jest, to prove your point? Doesn't fly. But then, this is metafilter, and differences of opinion are an indication that the Other Side is an elder god arisen from the slumbering depths to devour etcetc.

shepd's had the best answer so far in this thread. I don't really agree with it, but I can see that viewpoint. I mean, I'd just cut my losses from ./ and spend my time elsewhere, were I him, but whatevs. I suspect part of my attitude comes from the time I've spent adminning a game server with a healthy base of regulars, which is something I'd say mefi has. When that's the case, it becomes more important to me to keep the weeds down, and freely distributed tempbans were one of the things that kept the place playable. In fact, I was one of the few members of the admin stuff that hadn't been tempbanned at some point before becoming an admin.

"Suggesting a policy that banned people for two weeks every time they made a possibly-unhelpful comment in AskMeFi is absolutely batshit insane."

It really isn't. Especially since, you know, it's a suggestion, and I heard from some shady guy on the street that those are open to discussion. So someone can see something that gives them an idea, post it 5 seconds later, and then others can talk about it and adjust the idea! Craaaaaaaaaaazy!

"Suggesting that MH might want to be more vigilant about deleting possibly-unhelpful comments, or requesting that he be so vigilant, is not batshit insane."

What? You're not cool with an actual "this may improve things" statement, but you are cool with me poping in to meta and going "this post sucked! Matt! Get off your fat ass and put more time into this website!" What the hell is wrong with you people? I actually hesitated to suggest this because I thought some people might go "way to demand more of Matt's time, you know, from his real life, where he has people he loves." But no! The scary world away from the monitor is immaterial, the REAL danger is not being able to post to askme for a while!

Bizarre.
posted by kavasa at 4:36 AM on December 20, 2004

bugbread - the regardless of degree thing is definitely not the source of rilation. If it was, why would there be so many (so very many) responses along the lines of "Singling out squirrel's innocuous post, and squirrel in particular, was the completely irrational part of the call-out." Emphasis mine.

Whahuh? I don't follow. The fact that the responses talk about the "innocuous post" supports the idea that the "regardless of degree" thing is the source of rilation.

*People see the post as innocuous.
*You recommend tempbans for all bad AskMeFi posts, including the innocuous.
*People dislike the idea of administering tempbans regardless of degree, because the find a tempban for an innocuous post to be excessive.

If you had posted a suggestion regarding banning egregious offenders (folks who say "I'm not gonna answer your question 'cuz yer a nigger", or something equally horrible), people wouldn't be disagreeing with you. This disagreement is coming precisely because you are advocating tempbanning for all infractions, regardless of degree.


Before I go further, let me just say that I don't think your idea is crazy. I would disagree with the length of the proposed ban, but I've been in forums that are quick with the banhammer, and I agree that it does help keep things in line. So what I'm saying is not in disagreement with your central idea, but just addressing side rhetorical or logical points.

"Suggesting a policy that banned people for two weeks every time they made a possibly-unhelpful comment in AskMeFi is absolutely batshit insane."

It really isn't. Especially since, you know, it's a suggestion, and I heard from some shady guy on the street that those are open to discussion. So someone can see something that gives them an idea, post it 5 seconds later, and then others can talk about it and adjust the idea! Craaaaaaaaaaazy!

Are you positing that suggestions, ipso facto, cannot be insane? If we suggest forcing all Mefi members from Northern Europe to cut off their left hands and eat live roaches for using any words that start with "a", it isn't insane because it's just a suggestion? I don't get why a suggestion or something open to discussion cannot by nature be insane.
posted by Bugbread at 5:29 AM on December 20, 2004

stavros - believe me, I can take an infinite quantity of what quonsar has to dish up.

Actually, I posted simultaneously with q, timestamps notwithstanding. I was talking to people upthread.

But hey, no need to be gracious or nothin'.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 6:03 AM on December 20, 2004

Hooray for posting to meta when I ought to be studying.

bugbread - how I read the quote was this:

"If you'd made this post by linking to a more egregious example, I would have been more in support of the idea."

Reading that again, I think we're saying mostly the same thing. To wit, I think alot of the response has been to the example I gave without any (or at least very much) thought given to the idea itself. You seem to think alot of the response has been due to the idea itself. I'll admit that's possible! But I remain cynical.

I chose that specific comment because (seriously) it seemed non-controversial. I did not then and still don't think it was a quip, I read it as a fairly self-evidently unhelpful answer. Therefore, my reasoning went, if I want to discuss tempbans for "not answering the question," this should work well. Tee hee! How wrong I was. Thanks, jonmc.

And, granted, suggestions can be crazy. But this particular one was not, and the fact that it was a suggestion factors into the lack of crazy.

stavros - you put me in a strange position. On the one hand, it is nice that someone isn't questioning my mental competency. On the other hand, it was kind of patronizing.

To put it another way: I don't need someone to shepherd me away from the other children and dry the tears from my eyes (as I am in fact not crying). I prefer shepd and bugbread's comments to "hey guys, lay off". And yet I do not want to be rude to someone who is trying to help me, even if the variety help in question isn't really desired. Thus my response. Well that and I didn't look at timestamps.
posted by kavasa at 6:39 AM on December 20, 2004

Okay, kasava, you're not crazy. Now stop waving that spoon around. ;^)

FWIW, I generally support the idea of temporary bans on repeatedly abusive users. I don't support any punishment other than deletion for merely unhelpful answers, unless there's a pattern of malicious intent.

As many in this thread have indicated, your presumption of my non-controversial unhelpfulness was in error: some others don't share your opinion, and recognised my attempt to be helpful in a pithy way. I hope my second post to the thread in question cleared up my intent. You're welcome to not see it that way.

In any case, let's not be enemies. I figure it was chance that my comment happened to fall into your crosshairs, and I'm willing to let it go with no hard feelings.
posted by squirrel at 7:20 AM on December 20, 2004

Kasava and other whiners, take it from me, but masturbating with your penis is a lot more fun than masturbating with Metatalk. I can't believe this thread is as long as it is.

Part of the charm of AskMe is the snark and humour. Do any of you "no snark in AskMe" people have real friends to ask questions? You'll notice that if you ask a large group of them a question, you'll probably get at least one silly answer. Sometimes people laugh. Since many AskMe questions are quite ridiculous, this sort of thing should be expected.

Some "answers" are going to be snarky and unhelpful, but there is no plague of non-answerness here. Suck it the fuck up, you sugar plum fairies.

[On preview: Wait, is the thread over? Shit.]
posted by Kleptophoria! at 7:50 AM on December 20, 2004