Join 3,421 readers in helping fund MetaFilter (Hide)

Tags:

This is a community website. Chill.
January 28, 2005 5:23 PM   Subscribe

No. No, no, no. Frustration with ineffective enforcement procedures might be an excuse for revolution in a country, but this is a community website. Chill.
posted by stonerose to Etiquette/Policy at 5:23 PM (98 comments total)

Clearly thebabelfish was just trying to be direct, which explains the 0 times he emailed me, you know, directly.
posted by NortonDC at 5:30 PM on January 28, 2005


Norton: Word of advice, sarcasm only tends to make people's angers flare more.
posted by thebabelfish at 5:40 PM on January 28, 2005


thebabelfish, I have a whole sentence of advice for you: the colon, when used improperly, is catastrophic and far more destructive to the metafilter psyche than almost any known foe. You've just been gifted with some wisdom, gangsta. Now go listen to some Tujiko Noriko and let your troubles fall away.
posted by The God Complex at 5:45 PM on January 28, 2005


This better end up being another train wreck of a meta thread. This is like a fight that spilled out of the bar into the street. (Or maybe out of the street and into the bar)
posted by absalom at 5:47 PM on January 28, 2005


I'm either clueless or too entirely entwined in the business world. Seems fine to me.
posted by sled at 5:49 PM on January 28, 2005


The God Complex, you're a funny guy.
posted by thebabelfish at 5:51 PM on January 28, 2005


Please allow me to attempt to clarify the purpose of this MeTa thread: resolved that users should not post negative comments about MeFi threads or their posters in the threads; MeTa is the only place for such comments.

I'm not asserting this as my view, but this appears to be the issue at hand. Can we have a debate on the subject, or will this just be a pointless shit storm?
posted by squirrel at 5:52 PM on January 28, 2005


Amen, squirrel.
posted by stonerose at 6:01 PM on January 28, 2005


squirrel, it seems to me that such an idea would lead to MeFi threads which contain solely positive, "[this is good]" comments with no dissenting voices. Is that really what we want? I'd say no.

I'm all for using MetaTalk, and have in the past, but lately it's been seemingly ineffective (though not through the fault of anyone) for fundamental issues like this. I'm not saying that my choice was necessarily effective either, and I actually went to Norton's post history to find a good example of what posts should be like, but was rather taken aback when all I found on a cursory glance was posts in the same vain.
posted by thebabelfish at 6:01 PM on January 28, 2005


"Overnight, shit comes in from the northwest at 14 to 18 mph. Tomorrow will be brown and overcast, with a slick layer of fudge on the road slowing down the morning commute. As the day continues, expect rising temperatures to melt most of the accumulated shit. Bad smells may linger until Monday. Now, sports."
posted by trondant at 6:02 PM on January 28, 2005


"Robot Hero" is definitely the best track on From Tokyo to Naiagara, with the possible exception of Tokyo. I suggest starting there.
posted by The God Complex at 6:04 PM on January 28, 2005


thebabelfish, if people don't like a thread, there should be this:





.

[on preview: trondant, did you see that nervous/confident weatherman thread the other day? Are you Mark McManus?]
posted by stonerose at 6:04 PM on January 28, 2005


I meant to put quotes around that last one, not italicize it.

Dissenting voices in metafilter threads are ok if they're kept to a minimum (and if they're relevant). In my opinion, one comment probably wasn't necessary in that thread, but it would have been ok if thebabelfish hadn't felt the need to keep arguing his point.
posted by The God Complex at 6:07 PM on January 28, 2005


Thebabelfish: If MetaTalk is ineffective, feel free to use email.

squirrel, it seems to me that such an idea would lead to MeFi threads which contain solely positive, "[this is good]" comments with no dissenting voices. Is that really what we want? I'd say no.

I'm going to assume you're being intentionally obtuse. Correct me if I'm wrong. Such an idea would not lead to just "this is good". Look at the thread in question: Some people are saying giving free stuff to celebrities is good. Some people are saying it's bad. For all I know, in 24 hours there could be a multi-page sprawling discussion of ethics, morality, greed, and pancakes. And never once would it need to contain a negative comment about the thread or the poster.

I think you're equating "disagreement with something stated in the link itself, or in the discussion about said link" and "posting a negative comment about the thread."

Easy example:

Link: Wikipedia of recipes for cooking dogs.
Acceptable post: "This is good."
Acceptable post: "Why would anyone cook dog?"
Acceptable post: "That's absolutely sick and immoral."
Unacceptable post: "Why do you link to dumb shit like this?"

So, no, we don't want solely positive, "this is good" comments, but that's not what squirrel (or anyone else so far) is advocating.

And, as an aside, I can understand why you might feel that posting in the grey is inneffective, but whatever led you believe that shitting in the thread in the blue is more effective?
posted by Bugbread at 6:12 PM on January 28, 2005


The God Complex, you're a funny guy.

I will second that. TCG, for lack of a better word, rules!

This is like a fight that spilled out of the bar into the street.

*Takes up a position next to NortonDC to watch his back*
posted by mlis at 6:12 PM on January 28, 2005


Some of us don't want to be exposed to McManus, you know.

Actually, I think the . is taken - how 'bout an x ?
posted by trondant at 6:13 PM on January 28, 2005


x
posted by leotrotsky at 6:16 PM on January 28, 2005


I cleaned up the thread to give the actual topic of the post a shot at discussion, sorry if it makes this thread confusing. I'm sure someone can summarize what went down. thebabelfish one snark was already verging on too much, but three went too far. Saying you don't like a post is fine; saying NortonDC is in some way a jerk because you don't like the post really isn't.
posted by jessamyn at 6:17 PM on January 28, 2005


"Robot Hero" is definitely the best track on From Tokyo to Naiagara, with the possible exception of Tokyo. I suggest starting there.

I kind of like "Zipper."
posted by .kobayashi. at 6:25 PM on January 28, 2005


bugbread, it tends to call more attention to it. *shrugs* I never said it was any more or less effective.

jessamyn, how did I imply Norton was a jerk? I only implied that he didn't post much of the "best of the web." In fact, he's the one who implied I was lacking in intelligence, more of a personal attack than anything I did, in my opinion. I have a local copy of the thread pre-jessamyn-deletes.
posted by thebabelfish at 6:29 PM on January 28, 2005


Well, fuck. I thought I did. I guess when you do "Save page as..." Firefox refetches it.
posted by thebabelfish at 6:32 PM on January 28, 2005


I kind of like "Zipper."

Let's admit it: they're all good.
posted by The God Complex at 6:36 PM on January 28, 2005


thebabelfish, I seem to recall that you said something along the lines of "is this the best you can do? maybe it is" with the latter part linking to either another of NortonDCs threads or a posting history, I didn't see which. In any case, it was not post-specific and seemed fairly snarky to me, though perhaps "jerk" is the wrong word "bad at this" might be a better substitute. There's nothing wrong with the occasional "you suck" post, but belaboring it and not taking it either to MeTa or to email just derails things. On the other hand, that's a really nice 404 page.
posted by jessamyn at 6:41 PM on January 28, 2005


Is it unbelievably funny to anyone else that "Leo Trotsky has an x in this thread?" /DavidIvesDerail
posted by fatllama at 6:51 PM on January 28, 2005


I wrote, "You can do better... or maybe not," with the latter linking to his posting history, which as I said above, I went to originally to find a good post of his to compare to. Yes, it was a bit snarky. Yes, I probably shouldn't have included it.

As for the 404, thanks, I like it myself.
posted by thebabelfish at 6:52 PM on January 28, 2005


I DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT
But I do have a great Troksky joke. But it only works in Swedish, so, bad luck. Fattlama did good though, I laughed. Out loud.
posted by mr.marx at 7:33 PM on January 28, 2005


thebabelfish, I have a whole sentence of advice for you: the colon, when used improperly, is catastrophic and far more destructive to the metafilter psyche than almost any known foe.

I do not WANT to be exposed to colon.
posted by trharlan at 8:28 PM on January 28, 2005


So then, have comments been deleted, or am I too drunk to follow?


don't mind the :, tharlan, what you're worried about is the asterisk:

(_*_)

especially as such:

--E(_*_)B--

(goatse rhymes with ascii, don't it? - maybe ther'll be a character set named after it someday...)
posted by scarabic at 8:53 PM on January 28, 2005


or am I too drunk to follow?

Way too drunk.

(_._)
posted by Quartermass at 8:59 PM on January 28, 2005


I wonder if that was intentional.
posted by trharlan at 9:00 PM on January 28, 2005


Wasn't that Leon Trotsky? And can someone summarize what was deleted, so we can get a proper shitstorm on?

Perhaps the person who axed it could provide said summary?
posted by stupidsexyFlanders at 9:07 PM on January 28, 2005


Ah Quartermass, at last we know exactly how tight your ass is. It's no asterisk! It's a goddamn period!

Noted for future reference.

(lol omg jk ttyl)
posted by scarabic at 9:44 PM on January 28, 2005


I cleaned up the thread to give the actual topic of the post a shot at discussion, sorry if it makes this thread confusing.

Don't worry, it happens to just a great many of them. Because, see, there's no indicator that something was deleted.

Instead I read the thread and say, huh? Why is this person saying "TBF?" Is that some IRC abbreviation? To Be Fair? I got to the end of that thread and actually remarked to myself on how confused it seemed, without figuring it out. I thought the MeTa ref. was going to be a thread calling out the lameness of the FPP (it was, after all, kinda lame), and only tripped across this one much later.

Not your fault, or anything, I'm just saying: when Matt claims it rarely happens that a thread is screwed up by deletion without any indication, I completely disagree, and here's yet another example.
posted by soyjoy at 10:48 PM on January 28, 2005


I suggest that in future if you're going to point to a user's comment that you find noteworthy for its baditude, you copy and quote it in the Metathread in question, as it may be deleted, and we won't know what the fuck you're talking about. 'You' meaning 'anyone'.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 11:34 PM on January 28, 2005


Acontextualism marches on. To where, or for what reason I couldn't tell you.
posted by trondant at 12:17 AM on January 29, 2005


> "Wasn't that Leon Trotsky?"

His name was ??? (pronounced Lev), which means "lion," as do Leo and Leon and maybe some other western versions of the same name.

posted by pracowity at 1:22 AM on January 29, 2005


Crap. Why do Russian characters show in preview but not in the post?
posted by pracowity at 1:24 AM on January 29, 2005


Go on mr.marx, tell the joke in Swedish. You know everyone will laugh at that anyway.
posted by dabitch at 3:06 AM on January 29, 2005


With the deletions, the <small> part of my first comment in the thread is now out of context. matt/jessamyn, I don't know whether you can easily make edits within a comment, but if you want to delete that part of my comment now it's fine by me.

But as long as we've got a MeTa thread going about it, what the hell is this:

scarabic: Oh shit! Looks like you need to die! Seeya in the next life, asshole!

I mean, if there's something terribly horribly wrong with "gifting" that I'm failing to see, I'm happy to have it explained to me, but this seems utterly uncalled for.
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 4:51 AM on January 29, 2005


Well, I see this thread is still open to comments. The previous one is closed; I guess people were being too funny and not worrying about the Big Picture. Because MetaFilter is all about the Big Picture. Mature discussion of politics and art, good; jokes about forgetting to hit Post, bad. Just so we know.

This is seriously creeping me out. I remember when Matt said something like "I've closed comments on five or six threads that were getting out of hand. It's not a regular practice. What's the big deal?" It's beginning to look like a regular practice to me.
posted by languagehat at 6:58 AM on January 29, 2005


Den som äter palsternackor,
han går inte av för hackor

Annat var det med Trotskij


Ok, not that funny
posted by mr.marx at 7:41 AM on January 29, 2005


It is we ask the anglos-spekears here to try and say that ten times fast. ;))
Den som ä-ter pal-ster-nack-or,
han går in-te av för hack-or

posted by dabitch at 7:50 AM on January 29, 2005


It is if... drats.
posted by dabitch at 7:51 AM on January 29, 2005


That FPP, jessamyn's reaction and this thread together show how acceptable incoherent write-ups are.

So from this debacle, we conclude:
Good FPP = lame newsfilter article + abstract summary
This equation should be the first line in the posting guide.
posted by mischief at 8:37 AM on January 29, 2005


"Some things I know about moderating conversations in virtual space." - by Teresa Nielsen Hayden
posted by ericb at 9:03 AM on January 29, 2005


I like this part: 7. Things to cherish: Your regulars. A sense of community. Real expertise. Genuine engagement with the subject under discussion. Outstanding performances. Helping others. Cooperation in maintenance of a good conversation. Taking the time to teach newbies the ropes.

We're totally cherishable. We do that stuff--mostly. ; >
posted by amberglow at 9:08 AM on January 29, 2005


oh, but disemvowelling is a really really dumb idea.
posted by amberglow at 9:10 AM on January 29, 2005 [1 favorite]


Ha. "Disemvowelling". How wonderfully bloody! (examples here.)
posted by taz at 9:20 AM on January 29, 2005


Jessamyn - I think you're abusing your deletion powers a bit too much.

It's nice that you want to prune a MeFi thread to keep it on "topic", but I think it's generally unneccessary. Dragging someone into MeTa for public reprimand is the way we've been handling this sort of thing for quite some time and it's been working just fine.

All that you've accomplished is a MeFi thread that makes very little sense, a confused user population that can't see what bad behavior looks like, and a MeTa thread that now has no referent.
posted by bshort at 10:00 AM on January 29, 2005


She's running amok! Amok!
posted by smackfu at 10:11 AM on January 29, 2005


Jessamyn - I think you're abusing your deletion powers a bit too much.

Well, I'll offer a contrary view. I don't. Is she using them more than Matt would? Sure. But for a long time I've wished Matt's touch wasn't nearly so light.

All that you've accomplished is a MeFi thread that makes very little sense

Huh?? It makes sense just fine now. What in the thread doesn't make sense to you?

a confused user population that can't see what bad behavior looks like

This argument seems bizarre at best. Are you really arguing that having examples of bad behavior are a greater good than having on-topic threads? Maybe next Matt and Jessamyn should leave up double-posts--especially when the double comes right after the original--so users can see what double posts look like!

and a MeTa thread that now has no referent

That one I'll concede. But I'd still prefer to see threads without extraneous bitching, even if the price is MeTa threads with no referent.
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 10:12 AM on January 29, 2005


Sorry DevilsAdvocate. I just don't think a trade show is a good analogy for a film festival.
posted by scarabic at 10:15 AM on January 29, 2005


Then by all means say so, and explain why.

"Looks like you need to die! Seeya in the next life, asshole!" neither expresses what part of my post you disagree with, nor why you disagree with it.

What did I do to provoke such a personal attack?
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 10:21 AM on January 29, 2005


Don't worry, it happens to just a great many of them. Because, see, there's no indicator that something was deleted.

This is the second metatalk thread in a row to demonstrate that making comments just disappear is a bad interface.
posted by Armitage Shanks at 10:44 AM on January 29, 2005


Look, I said I was sorry.
posted by scarabic at 11:39 AM on January 29, 2005


Not only what everyone else has said, but the deletions are subjective and not evenhanded. I would offer examples, but they would not make sense as comments have been deleted.
posted by Juicylicious at 11:48 AM on January 29, 2005


making comments just disappear is a bad interface

True, as established in many discussions like this one. The problem is: what's a better interface?

A [comment deleted] marker lets you know you're missing something, but how useful is that to know? In a lot of cases, a comment deletion leaves the flow of conversation intact, and a bunch of [deleted] markers would just serve to clutter and interrupt it. And you wouldn't know what was deleted in any case.

And if the [deleted] marker did link to the text of the comment, so you could see what was deleted, you'd have a system that basically called lots of attention to deleted comments by providing them a special flag on the site.

The basic problem is that some comments are bad, and there's not much good you can do with bad.
posted by scarabic at 12:11 PM on January 29, 2005


Every time I've commented about a new poster maybe not having a grasp on what mefi links are supposed to be (ok, ok, I've been harsher than that but not tons), they've been deleted.

But I figured that's just because Matt doesn't want the newbs to feel unwelcome, 'cause he misses out on money if potential new members see that newbs get shitpiled when they post dumb crap.

I think it's dumb but far be it from me to try to keep a man from his money.
posted by u.n. owen at 12:12 PM on January 29, 2005


A [comment deleted] marker lets you know you're missing something, but how useful is that to know?

It stops people asking "was my comment deleted?"

It leaves the anchor in place so people don't make links to anchors that disappear.

When there is confusing followup, it give the reader a hint as to why the followup is confusing.
posted by Armitage Shanks at 12:54 PM on January 29, 2005


For what it's worth I thought I'd join the chorus and say that in my opinion the deletions and closing of threads is starting to feel a bit heavy-handed.

Comment deletion without notice just breaks the continuity of a thread and has the effect of drawing more attention to the aberrant behavior. I see a pointless flame in a thread it's simple enough to write it off as a jerky comment and move on. I see a lack of context and I get confused and start to wonder what I'm missing.

Please build in a means of letting us know when a comment has been deleted. I know it's just a website but it's crazy to create a situation where people are referring to something that has vanished without a trace. To me, it's simple. If a member is in good standing his/her post should stand. If the post is so far out there that you are ashamed to have it on your site, that individual shouldn't be permitted to post -- maybe for a day, maybe forever, depending on whatever criteria you use to judge the severity of a transgression.

As far as closing MeTa threads goes: Matt, this isn't what you said would happen. Sure, if something has turned into a 300 post bandwidth sucking snarkfest complete with pancakes and vibrating newbies, pull the plug. But, that doesn't seem to be the case and it appears threads are being closed somewhat arbitrarily.

Jessamyn, please don't take this wrong, my respect for you is unbounded and I understand what an unenviable position you are in. However, I think you should ease up a bit. There are people here who have spent years making a study of thehowies tolerance and boundaries, now we have whole new person to adapt to. The line in the sand is pretty damn squiggly. Please, give us a chance to adjust or make the effort to create explicit guidelines. We're not mind readers.

The other day (yesterday?) you pulled the first of a double post. That's just wrong. Sure, maybe the second was more interesting but the first was a part of the record and it does the original poster a disservice. Where is my motivation to find the best of the web when someone can come along months later, post the same thing, and remove mine in the process?

Who cares what Mrs. Hayden thinks. I like Electrolite as much as the next guy but we've been doing it longer and better. Electrolite is a lovely weblog but considering better than 20k people have posting privileges here while there are probably two or three there, the parallel isn't particularly useful.
posted by cedar at 1:14 PM on January 29, 2005


What cedar said, except 1) I do care what Mrs. Hayden thinks, and 2) Electrolite isn't her blog, it's her hubby's.
posted by languagehat at 1:37 PM on January 29, 2005


languagehat: I know that, but Patricks is the one I read and has, "Welcome to Electrolite's comments section. Hard-Hitting Moderator: Teresa Nielsen Hayden." at the top of the comments. Still, the principle applies, it's not as though Making Light has >20k people posting to the front page. Moderating your own blog is quite different than moderating a community blog where any schmo with five bucks can have his say.

Fucking apostrophes. Maybe somebody could point me at an easy to understand reference? I spent third-grade getting high under the bleachers, watching General Hospital and fondling Susan Freda. I'm far more literate when I'm not writing.
posted by cedar at 1:47 PM on January 29, 2005


Every time I've commented about a new poster maybe not having a grasp on what mefi links are supposed to be (ok, ok, I've been harsher than that but not tons), they've been deleted.

You have been here what? 5 - 6 months now? Just because you swindled a low id# from some putz who wanted a gmail account does not give you instant street cred.

But I figured that's just because Matt doesn't want the newbs to feel unwelcome, 'cause he misses out on money if potential new members see that newbs get shitpiled when they post dumb crap.


How much did you kick into the war chest?

I'm sure the hosting company just gives away the 2 servers & oodles of bandwidth for free. And oh i bet Macromedia comped Mr. Haughey a free copy of Coldfusion. Not to count the time he spent coding the site, & the babysitting he has todo for people like me & you. I guess that is free to.

Contrast that with you...

Who has gloated that you rake Metafilter for news stories for your editorial job at some rag.

Not to forget that you have posted more then your fair share of questions on Askme.

And members here have even offered to put you and your boyfriend up for a night or two.

...

I think it's dumb but far be it from me to try to keep a man from his money.


I think 85% of your posts & comments are dumb but far be it from me to try to keep a ungrateful sod like yourself from enlightenment.

:-0
posted by Dreamghost at 2:15 PM on January 29, 2005


Christ Almighty, Dreamghost.

What are you thinking here? In a thread about deletions and closings you decide to fire off a flame at someone who dared to express an opinion. Thanks, dude. Thanks for diminishing the point of everyone who is pleading for a lighter touch.

I don't care if she has been here two days, Mr. 14k. She is just as entitled to an opinion as anyone who got in when it was free, snuck in through a backdoor, refreshed the sign up page every day for a week or traded a gmail account.

As far as what she, or anyone else, kicked into the 'war chest', I'm having a hard time seeing how that's any of your business.

Oh yeah, in case you haven't guessed I happen to enjoy the bulk of u.n.owen's contributions to this site. You, sir, I can't say I've ever noticed before. Then again, considering the tone of your most recent post, that's probably for the best.
posted by cedar at 2:38 PM on January 29, 2005


u.n. owen's "opinion" was extraordinarily obnoxious. Also, moronic. Matt deletes snarky comments out of greed? You really think that's worth sticking up for, cedar?
posted by CunningLinguist at 2:57 PM on January 29, 2005


Yeah, I do.

I think her point was that user #1 has a financial stake in the site. That's pretty much a given. I didn't say I agreed with her. Still, I don't think a personal attack, especially in the context of this thread was warranted.

Obnoxious, sure. Badly phrased, almost definately. Flameworthy by a uninvolved party, absolutely not. Matt is quite capable of taking care of himself and I'm sure if he is concerned he will deal with it as he sees fit.
posted by cedar at 3:06 PM on January 29, 2005


This thread wasn't about deletions and closings. It was a callout of bad behavior in the blue, and it devolved into a lot of whining about a perceived increase in deletions. I thought that u.n.owen's post was both ungracious and idiotic, and I'm glad dreamghost called her on it. He might have scaled back his rhetoric a bit, but only a bit. I wouldn't call it a flame.

Anyway, when you call him "Mr. 14k," aren't you using the same argument that you accuse him of using? It seems like a not very subtle reminder that he's not exactly an eminence gris himself. And your tone towards him isn't all that much less harsh than his tone towards u.n.owen.
posted by anapestic at 3:26 PM on January 29, 2005


She said Matt deleted her comments "correcting" newbies because he wanted to keep the place nice so the money kept rolling in. That's not just noting that he has a financial stake in the site.

And now you seem to be saying it's not okay for anyone to flame another poster for impugning Matt's motives, but it is okay for him to take measures against a poster who impugns his motives?
I think a lot of the Matt-groveling around here is icky, but please.
posted by CunningLinguist at 3:37 PM on January 29, 2005


Your not seriously accusing me of 'groveling', are you?

I just went on at great length about how much I disliked the new policies on thread closure and comment deletion. I just defended u.n.owen for what, is in reality, an unfair criticism of Matt.

I don't see a contradiction between being critical of a post attacking another user in a quite personal way and defending a poorly phrased post questioning a new policy that baffles a great many people. I don't agree with u.n.owens's conclusion but cannot, in light of the total lack of consistency or clear guidelines around her, blame her for drawing it.

Dreamghost could easily have made his point without the 'dumb' and 'moronic' part. I might have even paid attention rather than reacting to the, what I feel was uncalled for, vitriol.
posted by cedar at 3:52 PM on January 29, 2005


I wasn't accusing you of groveling - I was trying to disassociate myself from the groveling, while criticizing the accusation.
Oh never mind.
posted by CunningLinguist at 4:04 PM on January 29, 2005


Okay.

Thanks. I may be a little touchy. My apologies.
posted by cedar at 4:24 PM on January 29, 2005


cedar:

Fucking apostrophes. Maybe somebody could point me at an easy to understand reference?

Try Bob the Angry Flower.
posted by chundo at 5:57 PM on January 29, 2005


I think a lot of the Matt-groveling around here is icky

Yes! As a newbie I have noticed this. In every other MeTa thread it seems someone saying, "Well, Matt has said. . ." or "You have to remember it is mathowie's decision to make. . ."

Ugh.
posted by mlis at 6:20 PM on January 29, 2005


u.n. owen's "opinion" was extraordinarily obnoxious. Also, moronic.

I second that (and not for the first time). Yes, it's irresponsible to deny that money does enter this picture somewhere. Don't forget that money also leave's mathowie's pockets every month to make this all happen, so money had better damn well enter the picture, too.

That said, what a ridiculous interpretation. Matt wants the newbs to feel welcome because he wants everyone to feel welcome. Matt wants to have a good site. Matt wants to have a good community. This means new blood from time to time. Matt deletes all kinds of snarking and biting, not just the kind that maybe-somehow threatens the huge profits he's raking in on this shit.

Sheezus, u.n. owen.

I think a lot of the Matt-groveling around here is icky

I happen to agree with this, and that's not what I'm doing, fwiw.
posted by scarabic at 6:37 PM on January 29, 2005


I think there's a big difference between groveling and agreeing with policy. You have to realize that there are many, many MeFites who feel that the site is out of control and desire a firmer hand. The fact that they don't agree with you does not mean that they're groveling.

And, you know, while we're all free to disagree with him, the decisions really are his to make. I think that there are some isolated incidences of people who might otherwise have disagreed with something he did or said coming out in support instead just because it was he who did or said it, but I don't see a culture of sycophancy around here.
posted by anapestic at 8:46 PM on January 29, 2005


I think a lot of the Matt-groveling around here is icky

Yes! As a newbie I have noticed this. In every other MeTa thread it seems someone saying, "Well, Matt has said. . ." or "You have to remember it is mathowie's decision to make. . ."


"Matt groveling". Cute. Pull your heads out. This isn't about grovelling for favor, because nobody gets any. This isn't about reminding anybody about Matt's decisive rights, because anybody who forgets shouldn't be here in the first place. This is about property ... Matt's property. His work, his code, his design, his bandwidth. Don't ever forget that, newbie or otherwise. If'n you don't want somebody telling you what to do in your basement (other than your mom who owns the house), then don't be whining about what Matt does with what he owns ... period. If you want to question it, go right ahead. But talking smack about people who clearly recognize who owns this little playpen and what rights he has in some pathetic will to power is futile, irresponsible and likely just to piss some people off.

If you want to recognize that Matt's will does control this site (pleasant or not) feel free to state your case for over-moderation. If you irrationally think your desires are the equal of the site owner, then I suggest you go to USENET.
posted by Wulfgar! at 10:00 PM on January 29, 2005


“This isn't about reminding anybody about Matt's decisive rights... This is about property ... Matt's property.” Exactly the point. No one needs to be reminded of this at every turn. The users are not, for the most part, morons. People feel free to tell Matt that they disagree with him. You may want to research the concept of moral suasion.
posted by arse_hat at 12:21 AM on January 30, 2005


This is about property ... Matt's property. His work, his code, his design, his bandwidth

Bull fucking shit.

Excuse the fucking shit out of me, but we all contribute to what MetaFilter is and what makes it great. Matt more than anyone, but it is not a 100% one-man show like kottke and boingboing are. No sir. No way.

Matt must keep a symbiotic relationship with the members of this site going in order to maintain such a great site as this. And he does. He understands that. People who love to rattle on about how it's ALL ABOUT MATT do not get it, and their railings reveal a lack of understanding of the give-and-take involved. This is a group effort. Matt owns it, but he couldn't make it what it is ALL on his own. Get that through your head.

I don't imply that you're kissing Matt's ass to win points, Wulfgar!, I say unequivocally that you misunderstand the value of MeFi if you think it's something Matt Haughey could carry off solo. It's no disrespect to say "we're all in this together." It's a goddamn tagline. Peel your lips away from the admin's anus for 5 seconds and you'll realize that people don't show up here for the privelege of being subjected to his whims. They show up to create a great site, and they do, and he deals with us as best he can.

We love him and owe him, but if he cares at all about the quality of this site (and you know he does) then he knows damn well he has to work with us, too.

Fuck ownership. If you could own this kind of magic then some goddamn corporation would have bought this place by now.
posted by scarabic at 12:21 AM on January 30, 2005


FUCK YOU scarabic! Every damn time I say something here you pop in and say it better. I hate you, I hate you, I hate you! ;-)
posted by arse_hat at 12:27 AM on January 30, 2005


I do have to apologize to Wulfgar! for tone, though. I came home with a few meetup pints in me last night. A meetup is, however, an excellent way to be reminded of how many cool people it takes to make this place happen.

Sorry, Wulfgar!
posted by scarabic at 9:34 AM on January 30, 2005


If you want to recognize that Matt's will does control this site (pleasant or not) feel free to state your case for over-moderation. If you irrationally think your desires are the equal of the site owner, then I suggest you go to USENET.

Dude, fuck off. How's that for a suggestion? You are a user just like everybody else here, so shove that little plastic badge of yours up there and quit speaking for Matt.

There are way too many goddamned self-appointed deputies in this thread.
posted by c13 at 1:23 PM on January 30, 2005


Since 13 obviously refers to your age, c, I'm certain that you won't have the acumen to understand things like property rights, or the defense of same. That's hardly speaking for Matt, it's explaining a simple truth. But thanks for your suggestion, and no. You, on the other hand, would be very happy if you followed my suggestion.

scarabic, thanks for the apology, but no sweat. I was reacting myself rather harshly to the whines that people are just kissing Matt's butt when pointing put what he has to say about his site. And though I agree that this is a community weblog, that hardly excuses the passive-agressive tact of getting others to silence themselves lest they be seen as advocates for the owner, (as if that's somehow bad).
posted by Wulfgar! at 1:47 PM on January 30, 2005


This is about property ... Matt's property. His work, his code, his design, his bandwidth. Don't ever forget that, newbie or otherwise.

Wulfgar! Sound advice and I accept the rebuke you provided in the spirit I think it was offered (a brown bear boxing a yearling in the head in a not-quite-friendly yet not vicious way).

Still, I think there is a difference between members pointing out what Matt has said reference an issue in the past and members invoking Matt's name to bolster their own argument or just to drop his name.

I do disagree with the "passive-agressive" bit - nothing "pa" about it - after all someone made a statement expressing what she felt and those of us who agreed "signed" our name to the statement - I saw no intent of silencing others.
posted by mlis at 2:51 PM on January 30, 2005


I'm certain that you won't have the acumen to understand things like property rights, or the defense of same.
Yeah, I suppose you're right. Like you said, This is about property ... Matt's property. So unless you're Matt posing under a different name, I don't understand why you blabber about what others should or should not question. If someone questions Matt, it's up to him to answer, not you. Cause you not him, get it? So when you suggest to Pull your heads out., first look around. Pretty dark, ain't it? Smells kinda bad... Well, guess what?..
posted by c13 at 2:52 PM on January 30, 2005


I have never lost so much respect for so many posters in a single thread.

squirrel said: "...or will this just be a pointless shit storm?"

So presentient, and the only comment - besides the flood of apologies - to make any sense.
posted by cosmonik at 4:36 PM on January 30, 2005


So unless you're Matt posing under a different name, I don't understand why you blabber about what others should or should not question. If someone questions Matt, it's up to him to answer, not you. Cause you not him, get it?

ZOOMMMM! Completely missed it, didn't you? This isn't about questioning Matt. 'You want to question him, go right ahead. But if someone else dissents by pointing to what Matt has said, accept it and go on. Refering to them as a butt-kiss is a low tactic, and one of which I obviously don't approve. Does that clarify anything?

MLIS, I'm not very subtle, and I know I'm not always correct. Where you saw no intent to stifle argument, I did. That is precisely what I reacted to, and if you take a look, you'll find that that's usually what I react to. The problem at hand is that there are those who feel that Matt stifles argument because he has admin powers. Well, no shit. Though its not likely a popular view, I believe that once Matt has acted/spoken its over. End of discussion. Not because he's infallible, or that I will gain anything by agreement, its just rather more a question of acquiescing to the will of the owner. I don't go to people's blogs and tell them how to run the show ... I don't intend to start here. Being held to blame for that doesn't sit too well with me. That's all I was trying to say.
posted by Wulfgar! at 5:16 PM on January 30, 2005


Exactly. It is not about questioning Matt. What I'm trying to tell you, unsuccessfully, that your suggestion, this one: then I suggest you go to USENET is unacceptable. It's just as stifling to an argument as a referral to a higher authority. I don't know about ass-kissing, but it looks to me that some people around here, yourself included, are trying way to hard to be Matt's little deputies, and that annoys me.

On second thought, nevermind, just don't hurt yourself with that cap gun.
posted by c13 at 6:44 PM on January 30, 2005


it looks to me that some people around here, yourself included, are trying way to hard to be Matt's little deputies
So what definition do you propose for that old warhorse, 'self-policing'? Or was that concept officially retired?
posted by darukaru at 7:41 PM on January 30, 2005


Self-policing has nothing to do with it. If you think the thread or a comment is inappropriate, and you bring it up, state the reason why. YOUR reason. It may very well be similar to Matt's, but let him say so himself and don't put words in his mouth. Don't invoke his authority or his property rights to bolster your argument. Especially in such a condescending tone as, for example, this:If'n you don't want somebody telling you what to do in your basement (other than your mom who owns the house), then don't be whining about what Matt does with what he owns ... period.
Am I being unreasonable in expecting people behave as adults and not bring up the father figure all the time?
posted by c13 at 8:10 PM on January 30, 2005


not at all--it's very annoying and does come off as brownnosing.
posted by amberglow at 8:13 PM on January 30, 2005


"Jessamyn - I think you're abusing your deletion powers a bit too much."

So, if she cuts back a bit, she'll be abusing them just the right amount?
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 8:23 PM on January 30, 2005


c13, you might want to loosen those diaper pins a little. Let's be clear about the obvious. Bringing up what Matt has said is not putting words in his mouth, its quoting him. Hence, your first argument fails. Invoking his authority or property right is just that; it may bolster an argument or not, depending on the situation. Your example doesn't show anyone (me) actually doing that, now does it? Your argument fails. Third, ownership rights and paternal images are not the same. Again, your argument fails. Try some Desenex and kindly get back to us with an argument that does work, m'kay?
posted by Wulfgar! at 9:45 PM on January 30, 2005


And just for the record, c13upcake, its pretty obvious I hit a nerve with that earlier snap. I'm not terribly sorry about that, 'cause I certainly wasn't trying to piss you off individually. You just chose to bark back, and that's fine. Try not to take it too seriously, 'cause I guarantee you that my fur is thicker than yours; and if you want to keep up your yapping to prove what an awful dog I am, I'll keep shooting your psuedo-arguments down. Your choice, of course.
posted by Wulfgar! at 9:56 PM on January 30, 2005


You two may want to consider taking it to email at this point.
posted by taz at 10:18 PM on January 30, 2005


taz, you are correct. However, neither or us has a listed email address, though my website is listed. If he wishes ...
posted by Wulfgar! at 11:13 PM on January 30, 2005


what dreamghost said.
posted by matteo at 3:29 AM on January 31, 2005


He he.. Is this the best you can do, Wulfgar?
Just wondering, do you always, in an argument, imagine yourself as a furry dog (or a brown bear, or whatever) and your opponent as a little child? Does this really work? For the confidence and all, I mean?

You don't have to answer this, it's more of a rhetorical question, besides, we're beginning to annoy others.

Taz, no need for that. It was a stupid thread to begin with and it continues to degenerate. So I'm uninvolving myself from it.
posted by c13 at 6:26 AM on January 31, 2005


Troll declares victory, retires from thread.

I guess the 17k+ crew does know their history.
posted by darukaru at 9:11 AM on January 31, 2005


« Older Did I forget to hit "post...  |  Disappearing comment in this t... Newer »

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