There should be a comment limit per thread in MetaTalk. January 6, 2005 9:39 AM   Subscribe

There should be a comment limit per thread in MetaTalk. There are people who made 50+ comments in the Alex Reynolds thread. That is just wrong. No one should be allowed to make more than a fixed number of comments per MetaTalk thread. I say five. Pile ons are not cathartic releases, mob psychology is not self-policing. This place has gone from Harrison Bergeron meets Lord of the Flies to The Jerry Springer Show meets the Married With Children studio audience. It's a waste of bandwidth, creates nothing but ill feeling and a collective sense of entitlement to say shitty things. We might as well be bearbaiting or throwing cats into bonfires.
posted by y2karl to Etiquette/Policy at 9:39 AM (245 comments total)

Amazing. Simply amazing. It's like watching people under no duress willingly hurl themselves into spike pits.
posted by Ryvar at 9:42 AM on January 6, 2005


WTF, y2k?

I swear, Alex must be contagious.
posted by five fresh fish at 9:43 AM on January 6, 2005


metametametametameta? MeFi just imploded.
posted by dabitch at 9:46 AM on January 6, 2005


Throwing cats into bonfires sounds like fun. Who is game?
posted by xmutex at 9:47 AM on January 6, 2005


y2karl, who was it that came to your house and forced you into the thread?

Seriously, what the fuck?

It's a waste of bandwidth, creates nothing but ill feeling and a collective sense of entitlement to say shitty things. We might as well be bearbaiting or throwing cats into bonfires.

I disagree. The thread began as a pile on on Alex for being too thin skinned about a false insult. And then it quickly morphed into what it is now. Wasting bandwidth? You mean like this thread?

Creating ill feelings? Maybe, maybe not. Who are the injured parties? Why don't they come forward? Some folks are going to get their noses bent out of shape for the littlest thing, should be sanitize the site for our most offendable members?

Collective sense of entitlement? Oh come the fuck on, people have been tossing around whatever they felt like spewing for years. Pile ons don't add or detract from that practice and actually condense alot of the shit into one easily skipped over thread for the more delicate.

Throwing living animals into a fire is the same as a thread that spiralled out of control? Remind me not to ask you to dog sit.

And lighten up.
posted by fenriq at 9:49 AM on January 6, 2005


What the fuck ever.
posted by me3dia at 9:50 AM on January 6, 2005


I prefer chihuahuas, xmutex, they make a more satifying POP! at the point of explosion.
posted by jonmc at 9:50 AM on January 6, 2005


y2karl bitching about someone else's verbosity is probably the funniest shit ever. I'VE GOT LOGS MAN.
posted by angry modem at 9:53 AM on January 6, 2005



posted by shawnj at 9:54 AM on January 6, 2005


y2karl, who was it that came to your house and forced you into the thread?

I made no comment in that shit pile whatsoever.
posted by y2karl at 9:56 AM on January 6, 2005


y2karl, above comments aside, I really don't think it's at all necessary. Apart from the now infamous AlexReynolds thread, the number of comments don't generally get that long. If a thread like that happened on a regular basis, you'd have a point. As it stands, I think this isn't something that's going to happen with any real frequency.
posted by unreason at 9:58 AM on January 6, 2005


y2karl has a point. If Metatalk threads are to have any value, if they're to be considered anything but stupid snarking and back biting and insults, then it should be made clear that pile ons, no matter how silly, won't be tolerated. I don't think anything as drastic as a per-thread comment limit is needed but we should probably start by deleting the Alex Reynolds Thread.

On preview shawnj just proves the point. The level of discourse on Metatalk has plummeted and it may never recover. This is a day that shall live in infamy.
posted by nixerman at 9:58 AM on January 6, 2005


No limits, but aren't threads like these the reaseon 9622.net was started?
posted by adampsyche at 10:00 AM on January 6, 2005


yes, yes nixerman. the barbarians are at the gate, there goes the neighborhood, etc. etc.
posted by jonmc at 10:00 AM on January 6, 2005


I think metatalk would be a lot better if everyone just stopped posting and commenting on it.
posted by sebas at 10:02 AM on January 6, 2005


we should probably start by deleting the Alex Reynolds Thread.

Why? It's off of the metatalk front page now, no one will have their eyes polluted by its presence unless they're specifically looking for it. I really don't see that there's any real problem with it now, as long as that sort of thread doesn't happen on a regular basis.
posted by unreason at 10:02 AM on January 6, 2005


As the most egregious Mefi member in said thread (in the last few hundred comments), I have to say, no. Oh, fuck, there wasn't a question mark in there, was there....

You all know, right, if you had not posted seventeen MeTa, MeFi, AskMe, etc posts as a consequence of this extraordinarily odd, unusual, and very, very uncommon MeTa thread we wouldn't even care.

You know that great image one of the sniping bastards you hate (can't remember the all their names, as that's half the site) -- well, they have all these great "Shut the Fuck Up Noob" pictures. I think maybe we might have hit the point were we need a "Shut the Fuck Up" picture. No age, neither old nor new. Some people just need to calm down.
posted by theatrical matriarch at 10:03 AM on January 6, 2005


y2karl your idea is, frankly, stupid. There have been several threads on MeFi and MeTa both which merited more than five comments from yours truly because there were more than five people with completely unrelated questions/objections to whatever I was saying.

Secondly, and this is directed at both y2karl and nixerman; whether or not you agree with the attitude of some of the more vicious pileons around here is not truly relevant. Websites are like ships at sea - Matt acts as a rudder, but quite frankly if the wind is blowing in the opposite direction, it doesn't matter one goddamn bit which way he attempts to influence the course of Metafilter.

The people have spoken in one awfully-close-to-unaminous voice on this matter already, and frankly you, y2karl, have lost. Moreover, the AlexReynolds thread is - you must recognize if you are to have any credibility at all - an aberration brought about by someone who really and truly not only deserved it, but as far as most of us were able to discern, was actively encouraging the opprobrium being heaped upon him.
posted by Ryvar at 10:04 AM on January 6, 2005


"The puritan hated bear baiting, not because it gave pain to the bear, but because it gave pleasure to the spectators."

--Thomas B. Macaulay, 1800-1859
posted by LarryC at 10:05 AM on January 6, 2005


God Damn! Everyone wants more rules - but only their rules.

Is it really necessary?

I'm just sitting here being bummed out about not being able to post an Ask.Me question despite the amount of help I have given others in the past. I legitimately have two questions, and the rules are chafing me. Ow!
posted by milovoo at 10:05 AM on January 6, 2005


unreason makes sense... Goofoffs like that happen only once every blue moon.

And no, please don't delete the funniest thread evah.
posted by dabitch at 10:05 AM on January 6, 2005


y2karl, above comments aside, I really don't think it's at all necessary.

There should be a cap. Subtract the comments by the principals and the 50+ club and that thread would be in the tens and not the hundreds. The baiting may be a pleasure for those who like to bait but it is not self-policing--it is self-indulgence and it does not help make this place better.
posted by y2karl at 10:06 AM on January 6, 2005


I can't imagine not being able to post, for instance if some thread just happened to turn in to a free-association word game or something like that.
posted by milovoo at 10:07 AM on January 6, 2005


I am just using this comment to reach toward my quota in this thread.
posted by sebas at 10:08 AM on January 6, 2005


milovoo, I'll post one for you if you want.
posted by dabitch at 10:08 AM on January 6, 2005


I dunno. I feel the sentiment, but 5? Do we really need to curtail lots of interesting discussions to prevent another AlexReynolds pileon?
posted by scarabic at 10:10 AM on January 6, 2005


People need the freedom to hash things out.

There is usually a chance stresses between people can be resolved in MeTa, but with a commenting limit, that chance is lowered. And then the animosity would spill out into the blue and green all of the time. Rather then just some of the time.

[/it seems to me]
posted by catachresoid at 10:11 AM on January 6, 2005


milovoo, I'll post one for you if you want.

Thanks, but it's delayed chafing, I only have another 2 days to go. I'm using it as an exercise to develop patience, but it bugs me in theory, I miss the good old days of free questions and answers, even though I watched the need for that limit evolve and become necessary.
posted by milovoo at 10:12 AM on January 6, 2005


There should be a cap.

You realize the workaround to such a cap would be to post enormous comments full of text, right? I feel silly even asking.
posted by yerfatma at 10:14 AM on January 6, 2005


y2karl, I don't get it, if the thread didn't impact you then why are you trying to impact the thread?
posted by fenriq at 10:16 AM on January 6, 2005


I dunno. I feel the sentiment, but 5?

It is a lowball figure. But 50 is way, way, way too much.
posted by y2karl at 10:19 AM on January 6, 2005


No one should be allowed to make more than a fixed number of comments per MetaTalk thread.

Why?

And no, "look at that thread!!!!!" doesn't count as an answer. Give us an argument for it.
posted by lodurr at 10:20 AM on January 6, 2005


for what its worth, I think y2karl has a point. If some users have no self-control and think every thought that pops into their head is a nugget of gold that must be shared with the world, then implementing something like this would help out. As it is, I suspect there are only about 10 people who this would affect, and applying that limitation to those 10 dumbasses would accomplish the same effect.
posted by crunchland at 10:21 AM on January 6, 2005


Christ people -- it doesn't matter !

My account was created less than twenty-four hours ago. I have yet to hit the limit of my 50 comments in a single thread. Tune it down - ok, but actually go read what I wrote. Seriously. We have a 700+ comment thread. It's effectively dead but to nonsense images and yet more me too, I was here, for another 30 days. Why not try to make some constructive, semi-pointless from it... Is it curing cancer? No. That's my fucking day job -- as dancingbapist likes to say -- I want to put my hair down now and then.
posted by theatrical matriarch at 10:22 AM on January 6, 2005


crunchland: if a person goes overboard with idiocy, then Matt can very easily ban them for a week. If they don't get the hint, they get to pay another $5 to post. If they STILL don't get the hint, an IP ban will block them out because people that dumb aren't smart enough to use proxies in the first place.
posted by Ryvar at 10:23 AM on January 6, 2005


The thread began as a pile on on Alex for being too thin skinned about a false insult.

For which it should have been deleted right there, nevermind what it later "became." Piling-on is not the purpose of MetaTalk.

Why? It's off of the metatalk front page now, no one will have their eyes polluted by its presence unless they're specifically looking for it.

To clearly make the point to people like you who seem to just refuse to get it, that MetaTalk is not a place to post nonsense. If mathowie doesn't make this statement by deleting the thread, he invites more of the same.

People need the freedom to hash things out.

That thread didn't hash anything out. "Hashing out" would mean debating a legitimate issue relating to MetaFilter (the stated purpose of MetaTalk), not piling-on and playing around.
posted by rushmc at 10:32 AM on January 6, 2005


As it is, I suspect there are only about 10 people who this would affect, and applying that limitation to those 10 dumbasses would accomplish the same effect.

This is true--for example, Ryvar, among others who argue against the concept, has rarely made more than five per thread here. Only twice has he gone above 10. I'm fine with 10-15 per thread. Just because people can't back down when being slammed from all sides doesn't justify 50 slams per member. Comment limits would stop both people who can't back down and those who love to attack them for it.
posted by y2karl at 10:32 AM on January 6, 2005


This place has enough moderation as it is.
posted by m0nm0n at 10:34 AM on January 6, 2005


How about a per-post cap instead of a per-user cap?
posted by scarabic at 10:34 AM on January 6, 2005


This place has enough moderation as it is.

Well said.
posted by Ryvar at 10:37 AM on January 6, 2005


WHAT
THE
FUCK
EVERYBODY?

It's just a silly thread where people blow off steam and have some dumb fun with images. No, it's not What MetaFilter Is All About, but it's not the Beginning of the End either. It happens once in a while, those who enjoy that sort of thing have a lot of fun, most people ignore it, and life goes on. Why so many normally sensible people are getting their panties in a twist over this one is beyond me.

Props to LarryC for the extremely apposite Macauley quote.

On preview: rushmc, I often feel like you are among those who "seem to just refuse to get it"; fortunately, neither of us has the ability to do anything about our convictions other than mouth off. The only one who has any power is Matt, and he's left the thread alone. Selah.
posted by languagehat at 10:37 AM on January 6, 2005


y2karl has a point. If Metatalk threads are to have any value, if they're to be considered anything but stupid snarking and back biting and insults, then it should be made clear that pile ons, no matter how silly, won't be tolerated.

The pileon was the value. No matter AlexReynold's response ("My head is bloodied, but unbowed! I'll take you all on -- you'll see!"), it is *extremely* clear that most of the community (at least, anyone who cared to speak) disagreed with him and thinks he should tone it down.

Still, maybe it's possible that even greater numbers of people would have said something if fewer people were saying lots of somethings.
posted by namespan at 10:38 AM on January 6, 2005


Just thought you all should know -- #1 is back, and the EVIL thread hasn't been deleted. Let that sink into your concepts of the reality we live in...
posted by theatrical matriarch at 10:39 AM on January 6, 2005


scarabic, guess how many metametametametaposts that would create.....
posted by dabitch at 10:39 AM on January 6, 2005


Oh, and y2karl - by your own rule, you only get one more comment in this thread, and then you'll stop, right? Because you don't want to be a giant flaming lying hypocrite, right?
posted by Ryvar at 10:40 AM on January 6, 2005


By the way, y2karl, I haven't really checked but isn't AlexReynolds the only one in the thread with 50+ comments?
posted by fenriq at 10:41 AM on January 6, 2005


theatrical matriarch, he's probably not done reading it yet. Or maybe he thought that there was some value in there that made it worthy of non-deletion?

I've seen Matt's hand on the site this morning but no comments from him on last evening's wildness. Anyone else heard word from the man?
posted by fenriq at 10:43 AM on January 6, 2005


I swear, Alex must be contagious.

Just like The Gay.

Oh, and y2karl - by your own rule, you only get one more comment in this thread, and then you'll stop, right? Because you don't want to be a giant flaming lying hypocrite, right?

Ryvar, you jumped the gun, man! You should have waited to call him on it until after he hoisted himself up by his own petard.
posted by pardonyou? at 10:46 AM on January 6, 2005


How about a per-post cap instead of a per-user cap?

What ends up happening is that people just start a second thread "Alex Reynolds part II" on MeTa to continue the crap. It turns into a giant eyesore with maybe four entries on the front page of MeTa for what is in reality one thread, maybe it gets deleted and there's just bad feelings directed against Matt for 'ruining their fun', maybe it doesn't and the interface just starts to really suck. Either way: sub-par outcome.

Similarly, if people are limited to 5 comments per account per thread, they'll just use sock-puppet accounts and proxies if necessary to bypass that limit as well. Some of these sockpuppets are clearly connected to the parent account (y3karl, etc.) and some are not. Suddenly it turns into a huge mess where nobody is really sure who is anybody and communication breaks down even further, and people get angry not only over the actual issues and insults, but over miscommunication and the general mess.

In short both of you are encouraging people to make huge gaping eyesores on MeFi or are attempting to dictate your laughable standards of "WHAT IS RIGHT TO POST", rather than streamlining. If you want an idea that will help the site function more smoothly, ask Matt to break up the comments section of each thread into multiple pages of 100 comments. That would be a useful addition to the site that would help immensely in these situations.

pardonyou? : I'm sorry. Patience, it turns out, is not one of my virtues. Nor brevity, it would seem.
posted by Ryvar at 10:52 AM on January 6, 2005


Ryvar has made 6 comments to this thread, and y2karl has made 4. By my count, Ryvar is a third more diarrhetic than Karl.

On preview, 7.
posted by crunchland at 10:59 AM on January 6, 2005


I'm at or nearing the top. The thread has less and less value, but I always have hope.
posted by theatrical matriarch at 11:02 AM on January 6, 2005


Crunchland: I'm attempting to point out that sometimes a person legitimately has more than five things to say in a thread. I'm sorry if this point was lost on you.
posted by Ryvar at 11:03 AM on January 6, 2005



Just thought you all should know -- #1 is back, and the EVIL thread hasn't been deleted. Let that sink into your concepts of the reality we live in...


just thought YOU personally should know, nothing #1 does has any inherent meaning, especially things he doesn't do, like delete threads.
posted by quonsar at 11:05 AM on January 6, 2005


If we would just put a limit the number of queers around here, you'd see a lot less AlexReynolds-type threads. That's your problem right there. I say, leave the comment numbers alone and limit the number of "alternative lifestyles". It's too volatile.
posted by Witty at 11:08 AM on January 6, 2005


Do trainwrecks of AlexReynoldian proportion happen all the time? If so, there might be a need for some rules governing something to do with post count in some way. If it doesn't happen all the time, then perhaps there is something unique to this situation that created the whole mess, and that for the most part, people are pretty good at policing themselves with restrictions.
posted by 23skidoo at 11:12 AM on January 6, 2005


Y2Karl gets grouchy and sometimes overreacts. His suggestion is a bad one. But I wholeheartedly agree with the complaint that inspired it. That thread is awful, awful, awful. And I'm surprised that LH doesn't think so—but then, LH, like the rest of us, varies in his subjective judgments of things. He's in a generous mood, I guess.

Y2Karl: there's an ugly mood on meta lately, as you can see—the pitchforks are out. You are, like me (though I've been working damn hard to change it around here) thin-skinned and so, please, don't allow yourself to get baited into a thread you'll regret later.

As I said in another meta thread about the rise in toxicity lately, the best solution is just for Matt to be more liberal in his use of (temporary) bannings. That'll remind people to behave better. The gray, anyway, seems to really have the vibe of a classroom just about to go completely out-of-control. Trying to exert authority after that's happened is much harder (and painful for everyone) to do than before.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 11:16 AM on January 6, 2005


Holy shit, quonsar, you made a wholly coherent sentence! Did your account get hijacked?

Witty, I honestly hope that you're joking because otherwise you just leapt to the top of the asshole list.
posted by fenriq at 11:18 AM on January 6, 2005


There WILL be peace in the Valley.
posted by ackptui at 11:19 AM on January 6, 2005


This thread here gives me the giggles. Thanks y2karl for a nifty troll (as it has to be, considering the source, right?), and thanks Mefites for biting!
posted by davy at 11:20 AM on January 6, 2005



Black Sabbath
posted by dhoyt at 11:20 AM on January 6, 2005


I'm pretty sure that Witty was making (or attempting to make) some sort of droll joke.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 11:22 AM on January 6, 2005


And I'm surprised that LH doesn't think so
Who is "LH"?
posted by thomcatspike at 11:26 AM on January 6, 2005


What languagehat said.

When I read the AR thread (meta-AR threads), I though most people were being deliberately glib as if to say "this whole thing is sooo ridiculous -- let me put in something completely ridiculous". I think it is probably a result of the "rise in toxicity" to which EB alluded.

I think this is an anomaly. I can only speak for myself, but I don't plan on posting any more silly images any time soon.

(On preview: however, others may feel differently...)
posted by theFlyingSquirrel at 11:26 AM on January 6, 2005


I mentioned something like this the other day but I didn't particularly think it would work. Bottom line, as has often been said here before, is that better programming won't solve an essentially social problem.

But I wonder why any experienced reader of Metafilter would imagine that adding a 526th, or 813th, or whatever, comment is really going to improve a thread. Take it to a chat room.
posted by coelecanth at 11:28 AM on January 6, 2005


I'll tell you one thing I would like, and that's to ban the use of images in metatalk. That just gets annoying.
posted by unreason at 11:28 AM on January 6, 2005


Amusingly, there have been those that thought I was a quonsar alter-ego. So is his berating of me a clever ploy, or a clear separation of "entities"?

(And for what it is worth: #1 is not arbitrary, he has a clear, though perhaps subtle aesthetic clarity, those that have been here a year or two or three or four or five more than me must see it, too....)
posted by theatrical matriarch at 11:29 AM on January 6, 2005


That thread was a shit-storm and everyone came out brown.

I don't think that it's the end of MetaFilter, but it does set a bad precedent for lots of new users.

Or maybe it doesn't and that's the way all sites with a large membership become.
posted by rks404 at 11:29 AM on January 6, 2005


That's my fucking day job -- as dancingbapist likes to say --

ah.

Amusingly, there have been those that thought I was a quonsar alter-ego.

that is hard to believe. quonsar is actually quite funny.
posted by mdn at 11:34 AM on January 6, 2005


hoisted himself up by his own petard.

that's a particularly grammatical obscenity i'd gladly pay to see.
posted by quonsar at 11:34 AM on January 6, 2005


it does set a bad precedent for lots of new users.

Or maybe it doesn't and that's the way all sites with a large membership become.


Or it's the kind of thing that happens in pretty much any community from time to time (er, except the Amish), and the strength of the community is seen in whether it's a frequent or rare occurrence, not whether it occurs at all or not.

I'm not saying it is. Just positing the possibility.
posted by Bugbread at 11:39 AM on January 6, 2005


"That thread was a shit-storm and everyone came out brown.

I don't think that it's the end of MetaFilter, but it does set a bad precedent for lots of new users."

I disagree. AlexReynolds as a term rather than an identity enters the MeFi lexicon in much the same way that Seth has and Faze almost has.

I find it odd that people can tell others what should be (or to be fair, suggest) and yet dismiss the simple idea of not reading a thread you don't care for (and those that inviolate are taken care of anyway.) Perhaps I'm being too simplistic.
posted by juiceCake at 11:40 AM on January 6, 2005


900 -- here we come.
posted by Lola_G at 11:40 AM on January 6, 2005

Pile ons are not cathartic releases, mob psychology is not self-policing. This place has gone from Harrison Bergeron meets Lord of the Flies to The Jerry Springer Show meets the Married With Children studio audience. It's a waste of bandwidth, creates nothing but ill feeling and a collective sense of entitlement to say shitty things. We might as well be bearbaiting or throwing cats into bonfires.
That was a really cool, spot-on rant. Kudos.
It just seemed appropriate to quote y2karl in small tags.
posted by Shane at 11:57 AM on January 6, 2005


This kind of crap is typical... perhaps just an American-thing, I dunno. But's it's typical these days to totally overreact and suggest that there's real problem where there is none... because something only happened ONCE.

The playground has been there for 25 years. But Billy fell off the monkeybars yesterday and split his lip open. So now we should tear the whole damn thing down and replace it with as much pussified round-edged plushy plastic bullshit as we can stomach.

y2karl's suggestion is no different. When he starts following suit when it comes to comment and FPP fonts and formats, I take his other protocol suggestions more seriously.
posted by Witty at 11:58 AM on January 6, 2005


Ahh, so you WERE joking? Okay, back down into the middle of the list with you then.
posted by fenriq at 11:59 AM on January 6, 2005


One thing though: can we please cool it with the inline images? Seems like there's been a spate of them recently, here and in Metafilter proper, and not just in the recent debacle.
posted by coelecanth at 12:03 PM on January 6, 2005


yeah, witty pretty much got it.

and luckily, i thank the mathowie did, too.
posted by theatrical matriarch at 12:08 PM on January 6, 2005


"meta-meta-meta-meta
meta-meta-meta-meta-
meta-meta-meta-meta-
Pancake pancake

meta-meta-meta-meta
meta-meta-meta-meta
meta-meta-meta-meta
Pancake Pancake

meta-meta-meta-meta
meta-meta-meta-meta
meta-meta-meta-meta
Pancake Pancake

Post! Post! oh, it's a Post!
posted by konolia at 12:10 PM on January 6, 2005


I don't think we should rush to things until we make sure that Seth is cool with it.
posted by terrapin at 12:19 PM on January 6, 2005


Ok, I'll put it on tentative hold until I get Seth's OK, but I'd like to float the motion that I agree with Witty entirely.
posted by Bugbread at 12:32 PM on January 6, 2005


There should be a comment limit per thread in MetaTalk.

No one should be allowed to make more than a fixed number of comments per MetaTalk thread. I say five. Pile ons are not cathartic releases, mob psychology is not self-policing.

Agree, in this example Alex Reynolds would have been able to comment 5 times ending the thread earlier. Um, how would AR post back to every comment directed to him after he used his 5th comment up?
posted by thomcatspike at 12:35 PM on January 6, 2005


I second the motion.
posted by Juicylicious at 12:36 PM on January 6, 2005


I'll tell you one thing I would like, and that's to ban the use of images in metatalk. That just gets annoying.

One thing though: can we please cool it with the inline images? Seems like there's been a spate of them recently, here and in Metafilter proper, and not just in the recent debacle.


Personally, I like the images. I guess if someone is on a slow connection or is reading mefi on their cell phone it could be a pain, but I think it makes things more intereresting. Also, in a very few rare cases they are actually helpful.
posted by milovoo at 12:41 PM on January 6, 2005


No limit to comments, but there should be limits to the number of threads (about threads... (about threads... (about threads...(...)))).

Damn drama queens.
posted by bonehead at 12:52 PM on January 6, 2005


Throwing cats into bonfires sounds like fun. Who is game?

I vote yes to the bearbaiting, no on the cats in the fire.

Unless of course we're using the cats in the fire to bait the bears, then I'm game...
Although, I thought you were supposed to use dogs, with no fire.

posted by togdon at 1:03 PM on January 6, 2005


Um, how would AR post back to every comment directed to him after he used his 5th comment up?

Easy, start a new thread.
posted by sebas at 1:05 PM on January 6, 2005


damn you konolia, I'll never get that song out of my head!
posted by dabitch at 1:28 PM on January 6, 2005


TCS, LH is me.

And I'm surprised that LH doesn't think so

I've always enjoyed the wacky MeTa threads with the jokes and the images and the snakes swallowing their own tails; they provide a truly cathartic laugh that's hard to come by elsewhere. I feel bad for those who don't find them funny, but they are of course free to ignore them.
posted by languagehat at 1:29 PM on January 6, 2005


If we would just put a limit the number of queers around here, you'd see a lot less AlexReynolds-type threads. That's your problem right there. I say, leave the comment numbers alone and limit the number of "alternative lifestyles". It's too volatile.

OMG II. Witty finally said something deserving of the name!

Witty, that was very droll. Kudos!
posted by five fresh fish at 1:35 PM on January 6, 2005


Funny that y2karl hasn't said a word here since Ryvar pointed out he was one comment away from his limit. And yet the thread continues...
posted by me3dia at 1:36 PM on January 6, 2005


This place has enough moderation as it is.

More effectual, rather than just more, is what is needed.

rushmc, I often feel like you are among those who "seem to just refuse to get it"; fortunately, neither of us has the ability to do anything about our convictions other than mouth off.

And I often think that, based upon your comments, you are a rather bad citizen, despite what you often do contribute to the community. C'est la vie.
posted by rushmc at 1:42 PM on January 6, 2005


I feel bad for those who don't find them funny, but they are of course free to ignore them.

And you are, of course, free to go somewhere where they are appropriate.
posted by rushmc at 1:49 PM on January 6, 2005


Anyway, the thread is now deleted. Draw the appropriate conclusions from that.
posted by rushmc at 1:52 PM on January 6, 2005


TCS, LH is me.
Sorry Language Hat...I realized later after I posted EB was referring to you. I thought the comment was referring to Matt as the reason for me asking.
posted by thomcatspike at 1:52 PM on January 6, 2005


Can I make a request? Now that the (two!!) completely out-of-control threads have apparently been deleted, can we not turn this one into the same thing?

Simply put: let's let it die. It was painful to watch, and a horribly sad commentary on this site.

Please?
posted by delfuego at 1:55 PM on January 6, 2005


I have to say, I have absolutely and completely lost track of which Meta threads are what...Which makes me pretty damn scared of limiting the number of posts per thread, as I see people taking a lot more liberties with branching arguments into new threads.

And, yeah, delfuego, I agree, either this thread should die, or it should be maintained as a discussion of whether limiting the number of posts by a user in a thread should be limited, with no references to that topic.
posted by Bugbread at 2:01 PM on January 6, 2005


...with no references to that topic.

Hmm. How in the heck would that be tracked?
posted by Specklet at 2:06 PM on January 6, 2005


OMFG. You delicious asshole! I just ruined my new shirt by snarfing in my coffee over that!


Can we get a remix of that flash toon? I don't know what we'd use as an image to represent dancing, singing meta, but pancakes are easy. And the post would have to be, of course, just a lonely little dilapidated wood post, the last one standing from some fence for something or other..
posted by loquacious at 2:30 PM on January 6, 2005


Ding-dong the thread is dead. Ding-dong the evil thread is deaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaad.
posted by attentionwhore at 2:33 PM on January 6, 2005


I don't know what we'd use as an image to represent dancing, singing meta,

User #1, perhaps. Or bunnies .
posted by konolia at 2:40 PM on January 6, 2005


Funny that y2karl hasn't said a word here since Ryvar pointed out he was one comment away from his limit.

A rule Ryvar imposed upon me after I said, let it be noted, I'm fine with 10-15 per thread.

Because you don't want to be a giant flaming lying hypocrite, right, Ryvar? So, hoist thyself on thy own petard.

Otherwise, your pointson discussion, as I noted before, Ryvar, have merit. But discussion is one thing but pile ons are another. It's dimbulbs on parade then.

And I'm surprised that LH doesn't think so—but then, LH, like the rest of us, varies in his subjective judgments of things.

Playing the venerable statesman is easy when you're having your venerable ass perpetually kissed by the common polity, not so when taking the heat. languagehat squeals like a stuck pig when you criticize him even once--to this I can testify. It's amusing to see a guy with such parchment thin skin say it's amusing when he hasn't endured a real pile on. I 'd like to see him take one on first before commenting on the amusement factor again. It's easy to magnanimous about pile ons when you are on the firing line. Not so much when you have been the target.

Otherwise, what thomcatspike said.

And again, what crunchland said.

I'll take davy seriously when he stops doubleposting me. Well, no, not even then.
posted by y2karl at 2:42 PM on January 6, 2005


But discussion is one thing but pile ons are another.

And therein lies the problem. It's a distinction that would have to be made on every single thread, ad hoc, in order to limit pile-ons but not legitimate discussion. And the posting guard would have to be quite vigilant, since MeTa discussions have a habit of turning into pile-ons (or pancake fests) midway into a thread. (This one, for instance, could go that way any moment.)

There is no easy way to do this without harming the site or mathowie's ability to do other work, and for that reason I say it's a non-solution.
posted by me3dia at 2:53 PM on January 6, 2005


1/5/04. nevar forget.
posted by keswick at 3:03 PM on January 6, 2005


Don't you mean 1/5/05?
posted by konolia at 3:06 PM on January 6, 2005


No, he meant 5/1/05. :)

TWIAVBP
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 3:15 PM on January 6, 2005


Please, would you just type it: 1/*/05?
posted by Specklet at 3:25 PM on January 6, 2005


languagehat squeals like a stuck pig when you criticize him even once--to this I can testify.

Hahahaha! Thanks, karl, I needed a good laugh.
What the fuck are you talking about? Are you pissed off because I disagree with your stand in this thread? I very carefully didn't join in the anti-karl pileon, but I guess that's not good enough for you. Get some sleep, OK?
posted by languagehat at 3:25 PM on January 6, 2005


Can I make a request? Now that the (two!!) completely out-of-control threads have apparently been deleted, can we not turn this one into the same thing?

Simply put: let's let it die. It was painful to watch, and a horribly sad commentary on this site.

Please?


What delfuego said.

Or, in language more wonderchickeny, please shut the fuck up. Please stop it now. Take it to 9622.net (where all are welcome) or start your own wacky hijinks site, where you can post droll bon mots like 'nevar forget' (but hopefully marginally more clever), but just take it outside. Please. A group of us who love the japery cared enough about the community a couple of years back to do it when asked (although some seem to have forgotten the reason why we started 9622). Have the same consideration, I'm beggin' you, you assholes.

Moderation in all things.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 3:30 PM on January 6, 2005


Bad pony! Bad! *spank*

I'm not so sure imposing artificial constraints on threads is the way to go. Sure it's a problem, but it also inhibits two or more people having a good, productive discussion (which does happen, believe it or not).

(Disclaimer: I also hate it when any post and comment - no matter how poor it is - gets deleted. I think readers should filter out what content they do or do not like themselves, by not visiting lame threads, etc. Historical revisionism only destroys the context of the site.)

I like MetaFilter for it's flow of information and ideas. Whether it's a y2karl Patented Annotated Post or an Ethereal tirade or a finely distilled one-liner of wisdom. A reactionary sphincter-clench against a couple of unfortunate incidents is no solution, and locks down that flow.
posted by cosmonik at 3:31 PM on January 6, 2005


Um, you people have jobs, right?
posted by elwoodwiles at 3:33 PM on January 6, 2005


At the risk of angering #1, the thread is mirrored (well, the thread up until 6:30 am PST today) here.

If you have a later version I can mirror, please let me know, email in profile.

If this comment goes away, take that as a sign #1 doesn't approve
posted by John Kenneth Fisher at 3:33 PM on January 6, 2005


Um, you people have jobs, right?

Yep.
posted by Bugbread at 3:38 PM on January 6, 2005


Nope.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 3:39 PM on January 6, 2005


Um, you people have jobs, right?

Strange place for a random MeFi employment survey.

(Yep)
posted by cosmonik at 3:49 PM on January 6, 2005


I also hate it when any post and comment - no matter how poor it is - gets deleted.

So do I. But if you can't see the difference between an unpopular comment and an 800-comment thread consisting of nothing but a bunch of buffoons goofing around in flagrant disregard of the stated purpose of MetaTalk...well, I don't know what to tell you. It's the difference between stating an unpopular opinion while at Thanksgiving dinner at a friend's house and pissing all over his drapes and furniture.
posted by rushmc at 3:59 PM on January 6, 2005


Ah! So that's why I wasn't invited back to my aunt's house this Thanksgiving.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 4:00 PM on January 6, 2005


Of course there is a difference, but why not keep the 800-comment thread anyway?

Deleting it does not undo the damage it did. It happened. Wear the scar and learn from it.

To continue your analogy, deleting the thread is like sweeping the drape-pissing incident under the rug and getting invited back to Thanksgiving the following year.
posted by cosmonik at 4:03 PM on January 6, 2005


Deleting the thread is a message from the moderator that that sort of thread (as rushmc correctly repeats) simply does not belong here. It allows Matt to comment without commenting, as it were, a style of management of the community he's always (as far as I can recall, at least) seemed to prefer.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 4:12 PM on January 6, 2005


konolia, that was hilarious...

And, for what it's worth, while the original thread in question got old pretty fast, at least it was totally self-contained. If you weren't into it, all you had to do was tear yourself away from the train wreck--it was all in one place.

This kind of metastasis is the really unfortunate part, I think--this is, what, like the third or fourth MeTa callout regarding that original MeTa thread? It was ugly, it was occasionally funny, but it's _over_.

Let the damn thing die, already. Now that Matt's apparently deleted it, it would already be reduced to an in-joke--"This AlexReynolds...he vibrates?"--if we would just stop. posting. MeTa. threads. about. it.
posted by LairBob at 4:17 PM on January 6, 2005


So, let's switch the topic to...I dunno...the question of theoretical post limits per person per day. It is the supposed topic of this thread, right? Seems like nobody wants to discuss it...
posted by Bugbread at 4:22 PM on January 6, 2005


And, for what it's worth, while the original thread in question got old pretty fast, at least it was totally self-contained. If you weren't into it, all you had to do was tear yourself away from the train wreck--it was all in one place.

When it spilled out into 4 (or was it 5?) pointless Metatalk threads, all posted, apparently, to be 'funny' (nice scare quotes, huh?), then cruisiera's performance threads in the green and the blue, all with identically inane hahahah-we're-teh-funney comments in tow, was when I lost it. For what it's worth.

But all that is gone now, so yeah, enough.

With regard to y2karl's idea, it's clearly not a good one, I don't think. More rules means more people deliberately trying to break and circumvent those rules, sadly. Appealing to people's better instincts and asking them to give a damn about the community and its members -- that's worked, more or less, so far, and I hope it will continue to do so in the future. Personal responsibility and all.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 4:24 PM on January 6, 2005


Deleting it does not undo the damage it did.

No, it prevents the damage it would do in future.
posted by rushmc at 4:29 PM on January 6, 2005


I find that leaving turds on the carpet to dissuade the dog from shitting there tends to annoy me more than it dissuades the dog. In fact, it doesn't dissuade the dog at all, it encouarges him.

Okay, fine. I don't actually have a dog. Instead, I conducted a Gedankenexperiment. My hypothesis was confirmed.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 4:37 PM on January 6, 2005


OK, everybody's kissed and made up, and hashed out their gripes. Can we all go have oatmeal now?
posted by jonmc at 4:37 PM on January 6, 2005


Porridge. :)

TWIAVBP
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 4:39 PM on January 6, 2005


Fruity Pebbles, maybe?
posted by jonmc at 4:42 PM on January 6, 2005


Most other people don't eat breakfast cereal, right? Isn't the whole breakfast cereal thing the invention of some really, really wacky turn-of-the-20th-century American snake-oil salesmen touting amazing health benefits of their product? Kellogg was one of them.

I'd just suggest some hard liquor. That's universal. And appropriate.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 4:47 PM on January 6, 2005


at least it was totally self-contained.

With this I disagree. The attitudes exhibited in that thread are running rampant all over the blue (as well as the grey) ... chips on shoulders, egoist hijinks, virtual counting coup. Right now there's too many people trying to make their mark in the Mefi hierarchy, a pecking order of illusion. If this place is to remain at all usable, then this ego driven crap has got to stop. And those long term members who are enabling need to chill out A LOT. (Yes, I am looking at you, jonmc and Steve at Linwood.)

Last night, I wrote several angry comments to that thread and summarily deleted them. I'm glad y2karl brought this up, though I don't agree with his solution. Like it not, I think the only adequate recourse is the one that was taken, for mathowie to gird his temples with thunder and fire, and strike out with the mighty axe of deletion and the banhammer of justice. It's his website, behind all this community (which appears more each day like a prison yard rumble). I think the rest of us can do our part by canning the puppet accounts, and voluntarily shutting-the-fuck-up, as a wise old wonderchicken would say.

Oh, and one rule I would adore to see is a block on the image tag. This ain't filepile, and inline images just invite any peckerwood who thinks he's got a cute little montage saved to further screw this place up. Some of them are funny, but the egos behind them are ugly. Very very ugly.
posted by Wulfgar! at 4:48 PM on January 6, 2005


That's part of what led to last night, I think.
posted by jonmc at 4:48 PM on January 6, 2005


The hard liquor, I mean. It's the combination of booze, semi-anonymity, and (paradoxically) the fact that we know we're being watched that brings out the ego-driven stuff and the unwillingness to back down. I described last nights debacle to pips and she said it sounded like a bunch of guys brawling in a bar. And not in a good way.
posted by jonmc at 4:52 PM on January 6, 2005


So, hey, how about those post limits, eh? You know, post limits. Topic of this thread. Reason this thread is being in an existing way. You know?
posted by Bugbread at 4:57 PM on January 6, 2005


No, it prevents the damage it would do in future.

Sure, except that it doesn't. The deletion hasn't stopped us talking about it and other unfortunate incidents.

Regardless, the chicken of wonder was right in that it's how Matt wants to administer the Filtering, and so everyone with user number > 1 had best learn to love it.

Now, to

Bligh - I'd heard that too about the 'invention' of breakfast cereals...it's why as a market it never took off in Asia, since brainwashing marketing efforts weren't directed towards replacing their morning rice-based meal with a different, more expensive wheat-based meal.

On preview: what Wulfgar! said about girding temples with thunder and fire (minus the image tags bit...seeing AlexReynolds commit photoshop-suicide was worth some of the other painfully unfunny imagery.)

posted by cosmonik at 4:57 PM on January 6, 2005


So, hey, how about those post limits, eh?

Eeep, it's the topic police! Decamp, decamp!
posted by cosmonik at 4:58 PM on January 6, 2005


Jonmc: I think that's the tone around here most of the time, sans alcohol. And I'd also venture a guess that this atmosphere, more than the other things folks have objected to in this context, are what makes mefi a noxious "boyzone" for many woman and keeps them away (or at least not commenting). I mention that because of your friend's comment to you.

On Preview: Duchamp! Duchamp!
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 5:00 PM on January 6, 2005


Forget a number-of-posts-per-day limit, and institute a number-of-characters-posted-per-day limit. Whether you burn them all on one massive post, or two hundred one-line comments- once you've hit the limit, you're done.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 5:01 PM on January 6, 2005


When I read 'Duchamp', all I can see is Corey Feldman in 'Stand By Me' screaming 'My father stormed the beach at Normandy!'

(FYI, no, decamp is not a breeder way of saying 'be less gay')
posted by cosmonik at 5:08 PM on January 6, 2005


the best solution is just for Matt to be more liberal in his use of (temporary) bannings.

There's a word for people who urge Authorities to improve the Community by deleting things and banning people.
posted by davy at 5:17 PM on January 6, 2005


When it spilled out into 4 (or was it 5?) pointless Metatalk threads, all posted, apparently, to be 'funny' (nice scare quotes, huh?), then cruisiera's performance threads in the green and the blue, all with identically inane hahahah-we're-teh-funney comments in tow, was when I lost it. For what it's worth.

That sounds like the kind of crap I'd wholeheartedly support the removal of. The 800-post thread was just good fun, though, and I'd hate to think that Alex's comments were lost to us (there's the mirror, but that's not the same as having it linked from his userpage).

In any case . . . y2karl, whoa, sister! You're the one who started this thread with the statement that five posts was a reasonable limit, not me - which makes you the hypocrite if you can't live up to your own standard, not me. Saying I imposed a limit upon you is wonderfully dishonest and all (and I admire your gall), but still completely untrue - you imposed it on yourself, I just called you on it. Over here in this corner wearing the purple shorts, I'm the one shouting that five (or ten or fifteen) is most certainly not enough - all I have to do is demonstrate that in a medium-high traffic thread I need more comments than your arbitrary-limit-of-the-day to sufficiently respond to everyone, and I think I've done that here. In my opinion there is no set limit which is 'enough', there is only mathowie demonstrating that someone has gone way, way over their limit via direct action . . . or not.

I get the impression most people here tend to agree with that, because we all realize we can't forsee every future circumstance and there might come a time when a topic near and dear to any of us requires quite a few posts to properly explain, defend, or whatever.

Also, see my points about people just creating multiple threads/accounts to work around such artificial limitations. Hopefully, this idea is officially stone-cold dead now.

On to better and brighter things - elwood I can't even remember what a job tastes like. I think I had one once, a long time ago, but it's like trying to remember when you were three years old and Bobby Horneface stuffed an ice cream cone down your pants - somehow sharply demeaning and yet hazed and fleeting all at the same time.
posted by Ryvar at 5:17 PM on January 6, 2005


I'm frankly disgusted that it was pulled. What is this *damage* it was going to do, again?
posted by scarabic at 5:21 PM on January 6, 2005


There's a word for people who confuse an entire social order and a website. I leave it as an exercise for davy to discover what it is. It's got eight letters, starts with a "d" and ends with a "t".

Scarabic: it's a very bad example. It violates almost every implicit and explicit rule of Matt's about MeTa. It was over 800 comments in length. It was filled with stupid inline graphics. It was ugly when it wasn't trying to be funny.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 5:24 PM on January 6, 2005


I think we should just go for it and put MeFi on Slash, so anything that doesn't meet the stringent MeFi groupthink standards can be downmodded into oblivion. And maybe we could have a subqueue like Plastic, where the requirements for submissions are slightly less stringent than those for a MIT doctoral thesis.
posted by keswick at 5:26 PM on January 6, 2005


I really think Ryvar's right about the sock puppetry. Then again, even here at the bottom of this 120-comments-and-counting thread about limiting comments, you'll find some of the same people nattering away as if they were in a chat room. My problem is that it makes the thread a lot harder to read later. On-topic comments, especially short ones, get overlooked by people just trying to scroll past the crap. It's a minor point but the original complaint wasn't only about long, argumentative threads.
posted by coelecanth at 5:26 PM on January 6, 2005


Is there anything that doesn't have a word?
posted by cosmonik at 5:27 PM on January 6, 2005


What rule did it break?
posted by scarabic at 5:29 PM on January 6, 2005


Oh and just for the record, I don't see "drama queen" as an anti-faggot slur; in Real Life it gets used most often about straight women anyway. Unlike, say, "sob sister" (definition 2). What I want to know is, why is a "storm trooper" usually assumed to be male?

Ethereal Bligh, if you can't see the link between your behavior on a website and its implications for the "entire social order", there's no point in arguing with you. (And by the way, what in the fuck makes you think I'm so right-wing as to be a Democrat?) Personally, I'm amused that I'm again agreeing with Scarabic.
posted by davy at 5:38 PM on January 6, 2005


OK, everybody's kissed and made up, and hashed out their gripes.

Actually, I'm still waiting for you "aw, shucks, we wuz just having fun" crowd to suck it up and admit that you were wrong.

It's the combination of booze, semi-anonymity, and (paradoxically) the fact that we know we're being watched that brings out the ego-driven stuff and the unwillingness to back down.

Booze? What booze? I find your assumption that we're all a bunch of drunks offensive (but, please, no apologies!).

Sure, except that it doesn't. The deletion hasn't stopped us talking about it and other unfortunate incidents.

Good! Talking about it is a good thing, as it raises awareness of the problem. Talking about it isn't the problem, the bad behavior is.
posted by rushmc at 5:50 PM on January 6, 2005




Booze? What booze? I find your assumption that we're all a bunch of drunks offensive (but, please, no apologies!).

I know via #mefi and real life interactions with other members that a lot of people are drinking when they post. I figured it just might be a factor.

Actually, I'm still waiting for you "aw, shucks, we wuz just having fun" crowd to suck it up and admit that you were wrong.

In the now deleted second thread, I did just that, and I've spoken directly to Alex and I advised both him and dhoyt to take stock and mellow out. What would satisfy you, ritual suicide?
posted by jonmc at 5:56 PM on January 6, 2005


I think the only thing that would satisfy rushmc would be for everyone to cave in to him and the other killjoys and start posting all their comments as formal logic proofs.
posted by Ryvar at 6:01 PM on January 6, 2005


rushmc, I totally agree that talking about it is a good thing. I think we differ in that I think leaving it there makes it easier to refer to, talk about, etc. and deal with it.

AlexReynolds...there's a word for people who post german ontological pieces on english language sites, no matter how interesting die Seinsfrage is.
posted by cosmonik at 6:02 PM on January 6, 2005


What rule did it break?

I'm surprised at this from you, scarabic. The point (or a point, at least) is that we're supposed to be adults here, without the need for a list of rules posted somewhere about what we are 'allowed' to do.

That's the spirit of the self-policing thing. It's at the heart (with the disclaimer that I always offer: as I understand it) of the way Matt consciously decided to run this place, and it's always worked, more or less, I think. The last couple of days have seen a low ebb at the 'less' end of the spectrum, which is fine, but if it were to become normal, this place would be unendurable.

I think the only thing that would satisfy rushmc would be for everyone to cave in to him and the other killjoys and start posting all their comments as formal logic proofs.

I disagree with rushmc about most everything, lately, but not this. I think you mischaracterize his meaning, or maybe I'm just projecting. This place would suck if it were humourless, of course. Jocularity=good, in moderation.

A few drinks make you feel nice. A whole bottle of Jack Daniels, and you're puking in the gutter† and egtting in fistfights. [/tortured metaphor]



† Well, unless you're me.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 6:06 PM on January 6, 2005


It's this damn competition to be supremelowercasemc between jon and rush.

They Will Stop At Nothing. There Can Be Only One.
posted by cosmonik at 6:14 PM on January 6, 2005


Well, look at what you're saying, there, stavros. EB is the one who said it's a good thing it's gone because it broke all the rules. I never said rules were good, I just don't know what he's talking about.

And it's my opinion that there is no self-policing here. Any and all good-faith efforts to convince people to do anything here for the common good are met with scorn and derision. Sure, Matt only steps in on occasion, but when he does his instrument is the iron fist. Often, he makes exceptions to the few rules he has deigned to articulate, to the confusion and consternation of anyone who tries to get others to "play by the rules" around here. Matt's inconsistent, not always very communicative, but he keeps the place above water. Him, not us.

That's the spirit of the self-policing thing. It's at the heart (with the disclaimer that I always offer: as I understand it) of the way Matt consciously decided to run this place

BAAARRFF! Kool-Aid drinker! True self-policing communities have mechanisms and tools in place whereby the community members can actually effect some kind of influence. The group-vote banning thing that was suggested is a good example. Some places have that. Not us. This place is more or less a free for all. One guy has a delete button. He doesn't say much about when he'll use it. He's deliberately vague. The rest is just self-bitching, not self-policing, and I've grown increasingly frustrated with #1's pretensions to anything else over the years. It's just not true.
posted by scarabic at 6:16 PM on January 6, 2005


And I still don't know what rule was broken or damage done by that thread. "It set a bad example and broke the rules" is too vague.
posted by scarabic at 6:19 PM on January 6, 2005


I felt a great disturbance in the Force, as if millions 850 voices suddenly cried out in terror, and were suddenly silenced.
posted by LarryC at 6:27 PM on January 6, 2005


drama queens
posted by mb01 at 6:33 PM on January 6, 2005


It set a bad example

Yes, by far, yes it did. If that isn't enough, scarabic, I would be interested in hearing your opinion of what is.
posted by Wulfgar! at 6:34 PM on January 6, 2005


This is the topic police! You have been found discussing a topic whose threads get closed again and again. Come out with your hands up! Failure to do so will result in...well, not a lot...hold on...Hey, Bob, do we even have jurisdiction here? Huh...oh, really...you don't say...huh...

Um, Never mind, citizens.
posted by Bugbread at 6:36 PM on January 6, 2005


in Real Life it gets used most often about straight women anyway.

That's probably exactly what makes some people think it's a homophobic slur when used in reference to men.

(not saying I agree, but -)
posted by mdn at 6:36 PM on January 6, 2005


Drama Queen is kinda played out anyway. Why not Comedy Baron or Tragedy Earl or Science-Fiction Lady-In-Waiting?
posted by jonmc at 6:38 PM on January 6, 2005


It set a bad example

Yes, by far, yes it did.

What I mean, Wulfgar!, is: in what way? I'm not sticking up for the thread necessarily but I am waiting for anyone to tell me what about it specifically, was the problem.
posted by scarabic at 6:47 PM on January 6, 2005


Matt's inconsistent, not always very communicative, but he keeps the place above water. Him, not us.

Not you, clearly. The rest of us? Some more, some less. Some people need a daddy to keep them in line, some are capable of doing it themselves.

BAAARRFF! Kool-Aid drinker!

Thanks. You're right, I'm brainwashed, a dupe. Clearly haven't spent any time thinking about this on my own. have just been compelled by the Power of Matt into a foolish misapprehension of the harsh dog-eat-dog world of virtual community.

True self-policing communities have mechanisms and tools in place whereby the community members can actually effect some kind of influence. The group-vote banning thing that was suggested is a good example. Some places have that. Not us. This place is more or less a free for all. One guy has a delete button. He doesn't say much about when he'll use it. He's deliberately vague. The rest is just self-bitching, not self-policing, and I've grown increasingly frustrated with #1's pretensions to anything else over the years. It's just not true.

Welcome to being part of the problem.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 6:48 PM on January 6, 2005


Drama Queen is kinda played out anyway. Why not Comedy Baron or Tragedy Earl or Science-Fiction Lady-In-Waiting?

Great idea. What about:
King Provocation
Earl of Schadenfreude
Duke & Duchess of Satire
Baron non Sequiter
Count Quip
posted by fandango_matt at 6:55 PM on January 6, 2005


The arguments against my suggestion have convinced me as well. It's not a good idea.

I don't like witchhunts, even when people bring it on themselves by sticking around, trying to refute everything everyone else says. They may be fools but you don't know who they really are or what their lives are like. It's just not funny to me. It's the part of MetaTalk I hate. I have no more suggestions as to what to do.

I hate the name calling, too. And yet I do it. I'm sorry I called jonmc a prick elsewhere. Or yelled at languagehat. You can disagree with a person without belittling him or her. I manage, most of the time, to follow that. Saying cruel things to strangers online doesn't appeal to me that much anymore. I can't stand to do it in real life. I would hate to have people I know personally read some of the things I've written here. But there's always someone who just rubs me the wrong way and at some point I blurt out something demeaning. I just hate it when I do it.

The constant belittling is what I hate about this place. Everyone's counting coup, so proud of the mean things they can say. What a poverty of soul to be proud of your capacity to demean strangers.

I am not having the best time in real life and not at my best here now. This is something you should remember--you don't know who you are talking to or the circumstances in their lives. I'm not preaching--I forget it all the time. All the time.
posted by y2karl at 6:57 PM on January 6, 2005


You're right, y2karl. FWIW, I'm sorry I got snippy with scarabic just then.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 7:01 PM on January 6, 2005


I'm sorry I called jonmc a prick elsewhere.

Don't sweat it.

What a poverty of soul to be proud of your capacity to demean strangers.

I have a theory about that. We go through our daily lives, accumulating the usual indignities and annoyances of life. But we keep our anger inside for fear of getting fired/arrested/punched out. Then we're here in virtual land, someone pushes our buttons and we figure, what the hell, I'll never meet them so it's safe, and we go OFF!

The other thing that makes it worse, paradoxically, is knowing that we're being watched by a large audience of members and lurkers. For the males here especially (myself included) the old schoolyard impulse against letting someone humiliate you publicly kicks in and nobody wants to be the first to back down. For all our high-minded pretensions, we often wind up playing a very literate version of the dozens, at the end of the day.

I'm not defending any of this mind you, merely proffering an attempt at an explanation.
posted by jonmc at 7:05 PM on January 6, 2005


"[A] lot of people are drinking when they post."

Sometimes. But I don't need "substances" to do it.

"What would satisfy you, ritual suicide?"


Whose Amazon Wish List are we talking about here?
* * *
Oh and Captain Fandango, it's NON SEQUITUR. Catch the Spelling Meme.
* * *
Y2karl said: "The constant belittling is what I hate about this place. Everyone's counting coup, so proud of the mean things they can say. What a poverty of soul to be proud of your capacity to demean strangers."

And who should know that better than you, dear! ITOTKO,IYKWIM.

"I am not having the best time in real life and not at my best here now."

You neither? Gee, what a small world.

"This is something you should remember--you don't know who you are talking to or the circumstances in their lives."

Uuuuhhh....

"I'm not preaching--I forget it all the time. All the time."

Yeah, you do.
posted by davy at 7:07 PM on January 6, 2005


I am not having the best time in real life and not at my best here now. This is something you should remember--you don't know who you are talking to or the circumstances in their lives. I'm not preaching--I forget it all the time. All the time.
posted by y2karl at 6:57 PM PST on January 6


This is the best thing I've ever read here.

who will belittle it first?
posted by mudpuppie at 7:10 PM on January 6, 2005


"[W]e often wind up playing a very literate version of the dozens, at the end of the day."

Yer momma!

No, really, I don't often see much around here I'd call "very literate".
posted by davy at 7:12 PM on January 6, 2005


What would satisfy you, ritual suicide?

It's not about that, jonmc. You are a very visible member and you argued at great length and with some passion a position (that it was "okay" to fuck around in MetaTalk, even to the extremes we saw in that thread) that has now been discredited (by the deletion of the thread, if nothing else). I just think an acknowledgement of that might spare us a lot of ugliness in the future when people misbehave and use YOUR example and approval as justification. Despite how it can appear, I know that you care about the site and would not want to see it self-destruct.

I think you mischaracterize his meaning, or maybe I'm just projecting. This place would suck if it were humourless, of course. Jocularity=good, in moderation.

Thanks, stavros, but just let them continue to propagate this image of rushmc as humorless drone. They do so enjoy it—I'd hate to take that away from them.

And I still don't know what rule was broken or damage done by that thread. "It set a bad example and broke the rules" is too vague.

MetaTalk is a place to discuss issues relating to Metafilter, to identify technical (and sometimes social) problems, not a place to show off or do performance art or standup comedy. Do you truly not recall mathowie's prior requests to refrain from this sort of behavior (see 9622 and, um, that other infamous thread for particularly visible examples). He's said time and time again, DON'T CHAT FOR CHAT'S SAKE, take it to #mefi (or anywhere else offsite). What part of that is so difficult to understand? It's not about what you want, it's about what mathowie wants (and to a lesser extent, the consensual community standard). Stop being so damned selfish.
posted by rushmc at 7:15 PM on January 6, 2005


The arguments against my suggestion have convinced me as well. It's not a good idea.

That's against Mefi code: you can't ever change your mind. Thanks for saying so though. Made my day. Thanks for the rest of the comment too.
posted by yerfatma at 7:25 PM on January 6, 2005


...whereby the community members can actually effect some kind of influence.

Thank you.

</pedantically>

What a poverty of soul to be proud of your capacity to demean strangers.

Indeed.

As you know, though, sometimes some people behave so stupidly, maliciously, or hurtfully that it is nigh impossible to let it pass unaddressed.

There's no need to beat oneself up when one occassionally slips up and lets loose with a sharp-edged tongue. We're all human. The problem is only when one frequently does so: that indicates the problem lies within, not without.

</aunt agony-ly>

And who should know that better than you, dear! ITOTKO,IYKWIM.

Davy, fuck off and die. No, seriously.

Oops.

Still, I mean it. Well, maybe not the "die" part, but it would be really nice if you'd STFU. I've yet see anything from you that doesn't make me want to smack you hard.

</seriously>
</grumpily>

...just let them continue to propagate this image of rushmc as humorless drone.

Rush, please -- and I do mean this seriously -- show us some of your humour. I can't remember the last time you seemed to be anything but a humourless, nagging bore. You have been especially tedious in the last several threads. I look forward to seeing some good wit, wisdom, and humanity from you over the next few days.

</wistfully>
posted by five fresh fish at 7:42 PM on January 6, 2005


I just think an acknowledgement of that might spare us a lot of ugliness in the future when people misbehave and use YOUR example and approval as justification.

I did acknowledge that it all got way out of hand, and that yes, I was one of the people to blame, in one of the latter deleted MeTa. I'm just a little tired of typing it.
posted by jonmc at 7:49 PM on January 6, 2005


Twenty or thirty comments ago a few people said:
Can I make a request? Now that the (two!!) completely out-of-control threads have apparently been deleted, can we not turn this one into the same thing?

Simply put: let's let it die. It was painful to watch, and a horribly sad commentary on this site.

Please?

...

Can I make a request? Now that the (two!!) completely out-of-control threads have apparently been deleted, can we not turn this one into the same thing?

Simply put: let's let it die. It was painful to watch, and a horribly sad commentary on this site.

Please?

What delfuego said.

[Etc., bold font mine.]
My God. Don't you people, especially the old-bies, realize that THEY DON'T DIE UNLESS YOU BASH THEIR BRAINS OUT, SHOOT THEM IN THE HEAD, OR DECAPITATE THEM?!

How the hell have you survived this long, anyway?

"Let it die." Ha! Move quickly away somewhere else and let it shamble off, drooling and moaning, into the woods ... that's more like it.
posted by Shane at 7:52 PM on January 6, 2005


Re: "[A] lot of people are drinking when they post." davy said: Sometimes. But I don't need "substances" to do it.

Translation: "I don't need alcohol to be a jackass."
posted by fandango_matt at 7:53 PM on January 6, 2005


I am glad to see it gone because it was a pecking party, and I am here for links and interesting conversation, not to watch someone get stabbed by a few hundred tiny beaks, even if he was wearing a "beak me" shirt at the time.

I fundamentally don't get it, and I don't get why some people I respect get it and I don't, but I'm grateful it's done and dead. y2karl, thanks for being compassionate and kindhearted. I sincerely hope things get better for you soon.
posted by melissa may at 7:53 PM on January 6, 2005


I don't get where people get the idea that rush is humourless. He reads serious when it comes to most MeTa subjects, but in the blue, it's champagne comedy all the way.

Well, maybe not, but it certainly shows a sense of humour in recent posts, so long as the discussion isn't around a serious issue. What's the problem? He's certainly not as humourless or boring or nagging as a third of regulars around here.
posted by cosmonik at 7:56 PM on January 6, 2005


It was a voyeuristic circle jerk. like watching pron. You had your fun and now its over. A bit like eating an ice cream - good while it lasted. It had no lasting merit so Matt has emptied the garbage can and deleted the thread. Meta needs no posting limits - if its crap it will be dumped.
And yes AlexReynolds is a drama queen.
posted by adamvasco at 8:03 PM on January 6, 2005


Aw, Damn it!!
I was not finished reading that thread! I was saving it until after work – deletion couldn’t have waited a few more hours?? There’s too much deletion around here lately for my taste.
And, it was not porn; it was soap opera. I can find best of the web links at dozens of other sites but I come here for the interesting characters – and that thread was great character development.
Y2K – you’ve always been one of my favourite characters. I wish you well.
posted by Zetetics at 8:16 PM on January 6, 2005


Zetetics, just in case you're serious...
posted by cosmonik at 8:30 PM on January 6, 2005


"... then this ego driven crap has got to stop."

Bwahahahahaha!!! Wulfy wins the 'funniest line' award.

The last week's worth of MeTalk has truly been the Best Of The Web. ;-P
posted by mischief at 8:43 PM on January 6, 2005


Okay, I can't think of search terms that will find only the jokes saying "y2k, you've passed your limit for this thread." So I'll assume the rest of you lugheads didn't think of it.

Y2k, you've passed your limit for this thread.
posted by NickDouglas at 9:17 PM on January 6, 2005


I am here for links and interesting conversation

I think you've mistaken The Grey for The Blue. Go thataway [points vaguely in The Blue's direction]

I don't get where people get the idea that rush is humourless. He reads serious when it comes to most MeTa subjects, but in the blue, it's champagne comedy all the way.

You're right.

I apologize, rush. The postings that you've made that I've noticed the most lately have been those in MeTa, which create quite the false impression.
posted by five fresh fish at 9:48 PM on January 6, 2005


I never thought I would agree with Y2karl, but this isn't Something Awful. Leave the stolen macros at home, kids.
posted by Dean Keaton at 10:45 PM on January 6, 2005


Wow. A member since 12/31/04 feels qualified to dictate what makes appropiate posts. Right on.
posted by keswick at 11:06 PM on January 6, 2005


Sad, isn't it.
posted by Dean Keaton at 11:18 PM on January 6, 2005


FWIW, I'm sorry I got snippy with scarabic just then.

Thanks, stavros. I was about to say: jeezus. But I suppose I had a moment of despair myself and blamed it all on Matt. That isn't exactly part of the solution.

I'm confused anyway. Forget it. I could spin you one serious sob story right here right now, but I'll confine myself to: what karl said.
posted by scarabic at 1:45 AM on January 7, 2005


Awesome, it's like Jerry Springer in text. Can I throw a chair at someone? Please?
posted by cj_ at 1:47 AM on January 7, 2005


What a poverty of soul to be proud of your capacity to demean strangers.

!


Wow. A member since 12/31/04 feels qualified to dictate what makes appropiate posts. Right on.
posted by keswick at 11:06 PM PST on January 6


Keswick since I've been a member slightly longer than you am I within my rights tell you that your opinion is stupid? I thought not. To be clear, I can tell you are being stupid, because it's my opinion, but my opinion is not inherently superior to yours because my first login date is older than yours.



That's my fucking day job -- as dancingbapist likes to say --

ah.

Amusingly, there have been those that thought I was a quonsar alter-ego.

that is hard to believe. quonsar is actually quite funny.
posted by mdn at 11:34 AM PST on January 6



mdn typed the words right out of my hands.

.
posted by sic at 2:32 AM on January 7, 2005


That was Geraldo, cj_.
posted by scarabic at 3:00 AM on January 7, 2005


MetaFilter: Pony-spanking since 1999. BAD PONY!

They throw chairs on Springer, too, but they're often tied/bolted together it seems. Also, Springer has referees, and he's too smart to get beaned by a chair thrown by a neo-Nazi. Besides, it already looks like his nose has been broken.

Anyways, a plea of sorts:

There's certainly something about the internet or any form of semi-anonymous telecommunication that lends itself to the whole flaming phenomenon. This is not a new observation.

People shout things on the net that they'd never even whisper quietly to themselves, much less to others.

Ask yourself when you post: "As I write this, am I pissed off? Am I delighting in my own asshattery? Am I engaging in a pile on or pecking order? What's the purpose and intent of my post? How the fuck would I feel if someone wrote this directed at me? When's lunch?"

One of the most fantastic things about MeFi is the back and forth arguing that happens. I've seen it get exquisite here. Abso-fucking-lutely delicious. World class. But it seems to have gotten way out of hand, and left the realm of any semblance of balance or entertainment. Not nearly all of it, mind, but more than enough.

Tastes may vary of course, some may say there's never enough. Others would say any is too much. I'd rather have too much than none at all, and I think that most folks here would agree with that. None at all would be dreadfully boring.

But, as dobbs said, things have become quite negative around here. It's all too easy to be negative, and much harder to be positive. I'm pretty sure I've contributed my share of purposeless negativity. Humans like to complain. It seems we rarely praise things is often as they deserve. Hi there, MeFi. You're a scintillating jewel, you know that? I really dig you. Thank you for everything. Thanks to everyone for bringing something for this bubbling pot of stone soup. May the fire beneath it never grow cold. May there always be new and excitingly exotic things to throw in the pot - but please, don't poop in the soup.

We can self-correct. Be nice to each other, but be brutally honest. Yeah, it's not easy. It's quite the fine line. But I know that of all the web communities out there, this one should have it the easiest.

After all, we aren't Fark or Something Awful.
posted by loquacious at 5:46 AM on January 7, 2005


We are Devo
posted by terrapin at 8:18 AM on January 7, 2005


King Provocation
Earl of Schadenfreude
Duke & Duchess of Satire
Baron non Sequiter
Count Quip


I predict at least four of these five (or six) names [(c) fandango_matt] will become usernames in the next 30 days. And welcome they shall be.

I'm sad the thread is gone, but it's the kind of sad that comes with having to get back in the car after a day at Six Flags or someplace. After the first 200-post burst of hate, the fun got pretty harmless. But I wouldn't want to spend all my days in a place like that.
posted by chicobangs at 8:55 AM on January 7, 2005


Alright everyone, let's take this one to the top.
posted by angry modem at 9:23 AM on January 7, 2005


"It's not about what you want, it's about what mathowie wants (and to a lesser extent, the consensual community standard)."

So why is there a handful of people, not including mathowie, trying to tell us what the "consensual" community standard is? Given that it's Matt's blog so he can delete things and ban people at will, I doubt he or his MetaRealm needs youse to prop him up as an Authority Figure and "interpret" for the rest of us what the Blog God wants. The Southern Baptists and Presbyterians have seminaries here; is there a MetaSeminary somewhere?
posted by davy at 9:42 AM on January 7, 2005


Re: "[A] lot of people are drinking when they post." davy said: Sometimes. But I don't need "substances" to do it.

Translation: "I don't need alcohol to be a jackass."
posted by [368]fandango_matt


Were you born convinced you're clever or did someone hypnotise you? Unless you're complaining that you can't manage to be a goat without some ethanol in you, in which case you just envy how much cheaper I've got it.

***
"I've yet see anything from you that doesn't make me want to smack you hard."

FFF, assuming I've correctly deciphered your syntax, I hope your problems controlling your violent impulses are your problem only. Or have you had Protection Orders taken out on you already?

***
One free clue here: people who don't want to hear from me can help that cause by not insulting me. That way there'd be a lot less traffic from me in general, and you'd be insulted back much less. On the other hand, if you want a good flame war, step right up and piss me off. Just don't get all goofy about it by claiming I'm wrong to hold up my end of our "discussion"; that "turn the other cheek so I can slap you there too" shit is patently bogus, and only makes it go harder for you.
posted by davy at 10:11 AM on January 7, 2005


I hope your problems controlling your violent impulses are your problem only.

Considering that he hasn't smacked you, it appears he has no problems in controlling his violent impulses. In fact, I bet even if you went to his house in person, he'd probably just glare, and not raise a finger.
posted by Bugbread at 10:32 AM on January 7, 2005


In my experience the people who threaten to slap are the last ones to do so. You have to watch out for the ones that don't say anything.
posted by Dean Keaton at 10:36 AM on January 7, 2005


*says nothing*
posted by mr_crash_davis at 10:50 AM on January 7, 2005


crash, I hate to break this to you, but the "keep-your-silence" train left the station a long time ago, and you weren't on it.
posted by chicobangs at 11:34 AM on January 7, 2005


Also, 200!
posted by chicobangs at 11:43 AM on January 7, 2005


Mathowie hasn't said anything in this thread, so I'll just assume it's because he's prepping his guns and sharpening his combat knife.
posted by Bugbread at 11:47 AM on January 7, 2005


"crash, I hate to break this to you, but the "keep-your-silence" train left the station a long time ago, and you weren't on it."

Crap.

Can I still carry a big stick?
posted by mr_crash_davis at 11:58 AM on January 7, 2005


After all, we aren't Fark or Something Awful.
People get banned at SA. ;)
posted by darukaru at 12:11 PM on January 7, 2005


If it makes people feel better, the deletion disappointed the folks at otf_wank, too.
posted by Karmakaze at 12:46 PM on January 7, 2005


I really wish those threads hadn't been deleted.
posted by m0nm0n at 1:38 PM on January 7, 2005


One free clue here: people who don't want to hear from me can help that cause by not insulting me.

The tone you use in your comments is pretty hot, davy, with sneering asides about y'all here often inserted--it's as if you are itching for a fight. You against MetaFilter. Given the nature of this place, people are going to react to it. It seems disingenous--it's as if you are trying to provoke people. Which is too bad, because you sometimes have interesting things to say but you seem to have to insult people in general and then in particular when anyone responds--and respond and escalate.

The thing is, responding to every attack by ratcheting up the insults is noise. It's all about you. Like with Midas, it's that weird combination of ego and think skin. We really aren't interested in how thin skinned you are. Or how your manly honor demands you whack back. We're always dissin' you--after you diss us in what comes across a tone ofc'mon buddy, take a swing at me passive-aggressive challenge. Your multiple whack jobs just clutter up the page. Can you write things in a neutral tone?

And for a fact, if you get into it with anyone, you hurl insults at them long after they've stopped saying anything to or about you. Insults are something you dole out with great relish.

The same thing happened with MidasMulligan--he had an arrogant, patronizing tone which irritated people--they would comment and he would commence to getting to a flamewar because someone said something personal to him. If you are saying things in an insulting tone, people are going to react. When they do, they evidently get on your shitlist. Then it's open season. Tit for tat is one thing but continuing the gratuitous insults after one comment is another. If you don't want to be insulted, stop using an arrogant, insulting tone. If you want to be treated with respect, treat people here--in general, mind you, the whole of us--with respect. We're interested in what you have to say--if you have something to say rather than just be here to pick fights with people.
posted by y2karl at 1:50 PM on January 7, 2005


(psst...it's not worth stopping to argue with something you've stepped in, y2karl...)
posted by rushmc at 2:26 PM on January 7, 2005


I'm not arguing. I'm saying how it seems to me and asking if that's how it is or is not with him. He's interesting--as is anyone when you take a closer look.
posted by y2karl at 2:36 PM on January 7, 2005


I'm not.
posted by yerfatma at 3:10 PM on January 7, 2005


Me, either. Davy's a fuckwit.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 3:36 PM on January 7, 2005


Way to stay on message here, kid.
posted by yerfatma at 3:41 PM on January 7, 2005


Well the fact that both Alex and Davy have posted in this thread indicates to me that they both enjoy being the object of abuse. In the case of Davy, so that he can be abusive to as many people as possible, he really seems to enjoy dragging the level down to pure bile. How unfortunate. And in the case of Alex, well, that's for his psychoanalyst to say. I suspect that with all of the new signups there will be a score more of this personality type just waiting for their moment in the sun . . . to be blotted out by shit. The question is: can the rest of MetaFilter simply ignore these attention whores? I doubt it. Especially since so many people appear to enjoy the other side of this coin, that is, heaping steaming piles of abuse on people like Alex and Davy while give each other high fives. In the end we'll have to create a new site, MetaAbuse, to just let the people who want to do this every damn day get on with it...
posted by sic at 3:48 PM on January 7, 2005


thanks for the otf_wank link - it has a link to a saved copy.

i guess i've underestimated the importance of those link thingies that you can make to other users.
posted by andrew cooke at 3:49 PM on January 7, 2005


Saved copy provided by me.

/*tooting own horn*/
posted by Bugbread at 3:51 PM on January 7, 2005


Well the fact that both Alex and Davy have posted in this thread indicates to me that they both enjoy being the object of abuse.

Benefit of the doubt from me--people get their backs up when there's a pile on and get stubborn. Others, when perceiving insults, throw them back and then succumb to the urge to throw in a couple of extra licks--that'll teach 'em!
I checked out the first links where he commented and he's not combative. I'm just curious.
posted by y2karl at 4:21 PM on January 7, 2005


y2karl, you do remember that chip-on-shoulder thingy I mentioned? If scarabic still needs an example of the harm done by the atrocious example of the dread 8762, davy offers it aplenty. I agree that his earlier comments had merit, but now he seems to want the notoriety that comes with being a tough guy on this here website. I think the appropriate response to davy is:

Chill out, Francis.
posted by Wulfgar! at 4:33 PM on January 7, 2005


Okay, so davy is a big jerk and pisses people off. He can do that in any thread, though. I think all this establishes is a problem member, not a problem thread, per se. Deleting threads where literally hundreds of people have posted, all because davy and alex are writhing in the throes of idiocy, is rather throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Or maybe more like throwing out the potty with the poopy. Whatever.

Any of you faggots touch me, and I'll kill you.
posted by scarabic at 4:39 PM on January 7, 2005


y2karl: Your considerable energy is better spent elsewhere. Check out its first post in this thread and the second. Nobody insulted it, but it barged through the door seeming to want someone to say something nasty to it. When it got a minimal response (from you, no less), it began generating its standard issue bile. Don't forget that it has also set a negative behavior precedent, which gives people itchy trigger fingers whenever it "announces" its arrival. It knows this. It likes this.

I get the feeling you are going to regret extending an olive branch to this one, but you are a better man than me for trying.
posted by sic at 4:39 PM on January 7, 2005


Thank you, sic.

Davy and AR both are maladapted and maladjusted in any number of ways.

Both create confrontation: one through passive-aggressive attacks, the other through direct and inciting provocations. DSM-IV might be useful in sorting out the clinical indications, but that's not MeFi's function.

This is a community. A remarkably forgivingly flexible community. If you can't conform, even minimally, by these norms, then you are seriously troubled.

AR, you refused to let go of an arbitrary and nonsensical rhetorical point, and repeatedly poked at a MeFinest when it had moved on beyond your finicking issues. What the hell is that about?

Davy, you phrase your posts in the most provocative way possible, and then you're outraged when someone responds. You seem to think that a pugilistic presence among these pixels means... something. Say nasty shit, attack any soft spot you see. It doesn't mean anything in the real world.

Not that there's any possibility that this will mean anything...

[yet I'm posting! how nihilistic can i be?]
posted by vetiver at 5:56 PM on January 7, 2005


Every time I try to get past my negative attitude towards davy, he does something irredeemably dickheaded like linking to the NAMBLA site (using an opaque URL) in this comment ("reminded me of this"). I have no idea what he's trying to prove, but I hope he either cleans up his act or flames out.

Great comment, y2karl. Thanks.
posted by languagehat at 6:07 PM on January 7, 2005


scarabic, you forgot to mention, "or any of my stuff."
posted by yerfatma at 6:14 PM on January 7, 2005


I just wanted to say that I hope that both y2karl's and scarabic's personal tribulations at the moment work out OK.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 8:16 PM on January 7, 2005


You're a gem, sir.
posted by scarabic at 8:46 PM on January 7, 2005


What do you guys think of Robert Patrick?
posted by angry modem at 9:42 PM on January 7, 2005


In my first ever college ID picture I had hair that looked just like his in Terminator 2. Years later, when I was doing the long hair thing everyone who saw the old ID said it was better the way it used to be.

So then I buzzed it and have saved a fortune on shampoo since.

Was there a point to this?
posted by Cyrano at 9:59 PM on January 7, 2005


Also, scarabic, even though I'm pretty sure you were pissy with me last year in a Superbowl post (but then again, maybe you weren't...fuck...it's not like I remember stuff...) and would probably be pissy again in about four weeks, your presence would be missed.

Hang in there.
posted by Cyrano at 10:06 PM on January 7, 2005


My college id is 10 years old (good god) but they never bothered to put a year on it. I'm gonna wait a few years and try to get discounts.
posted by yerfatma at 11:33 PM on January 7, 2005


8762.net is still available.
posted by chicobangs at 5:13 AM on January 8, 2005


Holy shitake. This is FUN! I just got my money's worth.
posted by PuppyCat at 2:54 PM on January 8, 2005


LH, I was pointing out that Davenport's fiction, while perhaps having nothing to do with his conduct in his private life (which I know nothing about), reminds me of relatively soft-core pederastic pr0n, such as could be expected to arouse a typical NAMBLA member. (Don't you think Juggs Magazine might arouse those who like to look at big boobs?) But all everybody was talking about was his nonfiction scholarly stuff -- like they had no idea he wrote fiction, or if they did know refused to acknowledge his "lay" publications.

And the '"opaque" URL' was what Google gave me first, so I cut & pasted that. (Later I saw www.nambla.org also works; I apologize for any confusion or pain that caused. My bad.)

Why any of that would mystify you mystfies me. It's not like you're stupid, LH.

***
y2karl typeth: "Benefit of the doubt from me--people get their backs up when there's a pile on and get stubborn. Others, when perceiving insults, throw them back and then succumb to the urge to throw in a couple of extra licks--that'll teach 'em!"

And some do both.

Whaddaya know, y2karl eventually figured it out. Oh it's bit more complex than that, like you'd be wrong to assume I'm saying what I say only for effect (as opposed to the way I say it sometimes), but he's on to something.

(I would say "What took him so long to figure out something so obvious?" and/or "What's wrong with the rest of you?", I might even point out that I plainly said so myself more than once, but ... I'll exercise restraint.)

"I checked out the first links where he commented and he's not combative. I'm just curious."

Not only the first. E.g., I meant nothing "combative" by my comment in the Davenport thread either, though languagehat seems to have a problem with the subject of "Greek love." But anyway.

So: hey folks, harken unto what y2karl just said.

But "perceiving" insults? If I called you an asshole and worse, subjected you to cheap lame "analysis", and told you I hope somebody caves in your head, would you think I wanted you to be my Valentine? Should I be surprised if you took umbrage?

An "intelligent, rational" person would also be hard-pressed to see anyplace where I said someone should be "popped in the nose" for expressing their opinion (even about me!), nor will you see gobs of posts where I said I wish people would go away. But I realize that might be jumping ahead a bit here so I won't "put this in the test" just yet. Till then I'll just hope somebody will begin to figure that out too.

Free additional hypothesis: because some folks have trained themselves to want to smack me every time they see anything by me or about me, I could post something like "2+2=4" and they'd salivate and snarl. I find this...sad. For them.

(Y'know, as an object lesson in "Mob Psychology" this place is priceless.)
posted by davy at 3:57 PM on January 8, 2005


OK, I still think posting a hidden NAMBLA link, even if it was the first one Google came up with, is not being a very good citizen -- I don't have a problem with the subject of "Greek love," but I don't think I'm the only person who isn't thrilled about having a NAMBLA link on his computer history -- but I accept your explanation and apologize for assuming the worst of you. I realize you're a smart fellow and I share a number of your ideas and attitudes, but your style is, well, terse, and it lends itself to misinterpretation. I'll get the hang of it. Anyway, no Pavlovian snarling from this quarter.
posted by languagehat at 5:22 PM on January 8, 2005


But "perceiving" insults? If I ... subjected you to cheap lame "analysis" ("...stems from your own bigotry against white people")

nor will you see gobs of posts where I said I wish people would go away ("...you're a narrow-minded violent dickwad who belongs sedated in a padded cell alone")

What davy thinks he's all about: I enjoy picking on liberal fascists

What davy really is all about.

Smart fellow, my ass.
posted by five fresh fish at 7:50 PM on January 8, 2005


Being unable to respond without having to get in yet another condescending little dig, without ever taking the chip off one's shoulder, replying to a single mildest of comments with fusillades of passive-aggressive insults, being unable to address others without truckloads of contempt, well, this tends to support the perception that one is feeling threatened and is on the defensive. The more one asserts oneself by demeaning other people, the weaker one appears and the more the perception is reinforced. By your own words people will know you. Funny how that works

The record speaks louder than any self-flattering and self-excusing self-description you can spin. If you choose to belittle other people over and over, well, that is all people will remember and all people need to remember. Don't make other people responsible for your behavior, for what you choose to say. You painted your own self into that corner. No one else did. No one held a gun to your head. It was your choice all along..
posted by y2karl at 9:59 PM on January 8, 2005


There are times when calling someone a troll seems too generous. I honestly don't think that every inflammatory moron who posts on the internet is, in fact, a performance artist, disattached from their statements and only spouting them to get a rise. In fact, some of them are just argumentative pricks with outrageously stupid opinions who were, unfortunately, encouraged as children.
posted by scarabic at 11:26 PM on January 8, 2005


Yes, well, the other day when I called "paleocon" a "troll" I later was startled by the realization that I had accepted this latter-day definition of "troll" as someone who's just an argumentative prick. Unlike the older, USENET definition (which I've preferred) of a "troll" as someone who cleverly catches fish by, say, erroneously claiming that the "T" in "James T. Kirk" stands for "Tiberius".
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 12:15 AM on January 9, 2005


When we all know it really stands for... "Troll"! All that "prime directive" stuff? Totally arbitrary. Willfully fabricated to make Bones and Spock crazy.
posted by taz at 1:44 AM on January 9, 2005


There are times when calling someone a troll seems too generous. I honestly don't think that every inflammatory moron who posts on the internet is, in fact, a performance artist, disattached from their statements and only spouting them to get a rise. In fact, some of them are just argumentative pricks with outrageously stupid opinions who were, unfortunately, encouraged as children.

Amen, brother.


EB and taz: chuckle, chuckle.
posted by sic at 6:45 AM on January 9, 2005


"I don't think I'm the only person who isn't thrilled about having a NAMBLA link on his computer history"

Can't that be deleted? Or are youse Internetting from work, where for one reason or another they won't let you do that?
posted by davy at 10:34 AM on January 10, 2005


Hey Mr. Millenium, I thought you were trying to meet me half-way in your own special way and so I tried to likewise in mine . Silly me, to imagine you capable of honorable intentions. And from what you recently posted about the best time in life that you're not having (shall I hunt it down or do you recall it?), I somehow thought you might actually be human, i.e. not nothing but an asshole. Again, silly me. You've blown the nickel's worth of credit I gave you; you and your opinions now count for less than nothing.

As for shitbuglike and that foulfishyfascist who thinks he has has the right to hurt physically hurt people he disagrees with (which should make him glad he don't live next door to me), what the fuck ever.

Again: as the record shows, you whom I'm addressing attacked me personally like a pack of frothing curs, then you somehow object that I bite back. Or is it befuddlement that one lone mutt would dare defy what you flatter yourself is your authority? Perhaps you've been too long rabid.
posted by davy at 11:22 AM on January 10, 2005


davy, I'd love to see you make an attempt to be civil and not condescending for one entire comment.

Until then, I'm not going to consider most of what you say to be terribly credible.

I believe you can.
posted by chicobangs at 2:29 PM on January 10, 2005


The record speaks louder than any self-flattering and self-excusing self-description you can spin. If you choose to belittle other people over and over, well, that is all people will remember and all people need to remember. Don't make other people responsible for your behavior, for what you choose to say. You painted your own self into that corner. No one else did. No one held a gun to your head. It was your choice all along.
posted by y2karl at 6:34 PM on January 10, 2005


You are still making other people responsible for your intemperance, davy. There is a word for that: weak.
posted by y2karl at 6:42 PM on January 10, 2005


Oh, and, davy--don't forget the con[s]tant denigration of others... that's required to maintain one's image of oneself as "better than them"...

There you are your own poster boy in your own words.
posted by y2karl at 6:58 PM on January 10, 2005


Constant-denigrating-of-others-boy--that shall be your Indian name.
posted by y2karl at 7:05 PM on January 10, 2005


« Older Chicago Meetup   |   UNICEF ad display issue Newer »

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