Acceptable to repost comments as FPPs?

February 7, 2005 3:16 PM

Two things:

1) When is turning a comment into a FPP okay? The poster acknowledges it as such in the FPP itself and the old thread is still open for new comments. Shouldn't the new links be added to the old thread?

2) Also, pepsi blue.
posted by Stynxno to etiquette/policy at 3:16 PM (47 comments total)

Who cares. Why won't steve@linwood shut the fuck up? That's a better question.
posted by The God Complex at 3:17 PM on February 7, 2005

Also, when you add a whole bunch of different links and people ask you to post it as an FPP--those are both good starting points.
posted by The God Complex at 3:18 PM on February 7, 2005

This post was deleted for the following reason: no need for a new thread, is there?

Thanks!
posted by Stynxno at 3:23 PM on February 7, 2005

1. I don't like it, personally. This post in particular makes Steve's general case that the people posting left political stuff on mefi are shrill attention-mongers.

2. Bothers me a touch, but more in a GYODB kind of way. It's a non-mainstream movie that inspired someone to do some research online and share what he found. Might not be best of the web, I guess...
posted by mzurer at 3:25 PM on February 7, 2005

On a more general note, though, I've seen several cases of someone linking to something in a comment and someone else saying that the link would be worthy of a post of its own, which was then made, and I think that's fine. So there's no hard and fast rule here. I think its more than the ceaseless iraqfilter rubs (some) people the wrong way.
posted by GeekAnimator at 3:35 PM on February 7, 2005

Who cares. Why won't steve@linwood shut the fuck up? That's a better question.
posted by The God Complex at 3:17 PM PST on February 7

Wow, just wow.
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 3:36 PM on February 7, 2005

Unfortunate that all of the complaints about the post were about IraqFilter and the fact that the it had been posted as a comment in a previous thread, but no one actually refuted the content of the links.
posted by driveler at 3:44 PM on February 7, 2005

Steve, I've been lurking here for quite some time, and I must say that I'm not sure I've ever agreed with any of your political views, but stuff like that is just completely out of bounds.

This site is a cool resource for sharing differing viewpoints. Too bad so many members are intent on turning it into a far-left echo chamber.
posted by casu marzu at 3:47 PM on February 7, 2005

Since I'm the poster, perhaps you'll indulge me while I make a few points:

1. Yes, the text of the post was essentially the same as an earlier comment I'd made to Metafiler. and I in fact linked to the original in the FPP. No attempt was made to hide this.

2. However, I spent about two hours looking up and adding a total of ten new links the post.

3. Two mefites -- without my prompting -- suggested I post it as an FPP. Again, this was noted by link in the FPP.

4. I asked about this in MetaTalk, and no one there suggested it wasn't an FPP. Indeed, it wasn't until I asked in Metatalk that I understood I was being encouraged to make my comment a FPP.

5. At least one other Mefite re-posted the comment to another thread.

6. Given points three, four, and five, above, it seemed to me that several Mefites saw the post as worthy of greater distribution.

That said, I've seen numerous FPPs that are credited as "via BoingBoing" or "via some other website"; these are verbatim reposts, but I don't recall seeing any pissing and moaning about those.

This, on the other hand, was purely my creation, and not a verbatim repost as it was fleshed out with ten additional links.

And the main pissing and moaning seemed to be not that the FPP was based on an earlier comment post, but that it was critical of the justification for the Iraq War. Were those posters so concerned about Mefi, or about panning an opinion they didn't like?

(Ironically, the main pisser and moaner, Steve_at_Linnwood, who has handed out snark for month after month, and who had previously said this and this, is now playing the martyr. )

Now, I understand it's a lot easier to piss and moan and shout "Mommy, look, unfair" than to spend the time to craft a rebuttal or make a reasoned response. But I did think Mefi would do a little better.
posted by orthogonality at 3:51 PM on February 7, 2005

This is what Metafilter commenters are really like. The reality is that they stand around thinking they are playing a video game until somebody gets hurt.
posted by inksyndicate at 3:51 PM on February 7, 2005

Ok, right-angles, you spent time finding these ten links; and while they may have been in a very literal sense 'new', they were links whose content has been covered here, thoroughly. More than thoroughly, in fact.
posted by Mark Doner at 3:59 PM on February 7, 2005

Face it, ortho, you pissed off the Cabal.
posted by mischief at 4:00 PM on February 7, 2005

but no one actually refuted the content of the links.

As is often the case with MeFi: if you can't be bothered to control the tone of your post, you run the risk of the content being ignored (See also). It's a rule we all try to follow. The hamfisted sarcasm ("Not valid in....nyah, nyah!") and the fact it was partially regurgitated did not help the thread's chances for survival either, for better or worse. Anyone who's been around Metafilter for more than a few months shouldn't be surprised the thread crumbled.
posted by dhoyt at 4:14 PM on February 7, 2005

I think we should make this thread more about Steve_at
posted by angry modem at 4:18 PM on February 7, 2005

This site is a cool resource for sharing differing viewpoints. Too bad so many members are intent on turning it into a far-left echo chamber.

I'm not sure what my response to steve@'s attempt to derail the thread with off-topic foolishness has to do with echo chambers or being far left. There's nothing more destructive on this site than annoying pedants who take it upon themselves to derail discussions because they don't think it's a good fpp.
posted by The God Complex at 4:21 PM on February 7, 2005

somewhat like taking a meta callout about some bad posts and turning into an attack on s@l, no?
posted by andrew cooke at 4:24 PM on February 7, 2005

somewhat like taking a meta callout about some bad posts and turning into an attack on s@l, no?

I think steve@'s behaviour in that thread is far more destructive than--oh my god--the possibility that ten new links about an interesting topic isn't worthy of our perusal. However, it appears I am in the minority. Or should I have started another topic about the same thread?
posted by The God Complex at 4:29 PM on February 7, 2005

There's nothing more destructive on this site than annoying pedants who take it upon themselves to derail discussions because they don't think it's a good fpp.

"Destructive" comments have no domain in which to exist without bad FPPs providing the battleground.
posted by dhoyt at 4:30 PM on February 7, 2005

"Destructive" comments have no domain in which to exist without bad FPPs providing the battleground.

Or perfectly reasonable FPPs, provided the annoying pedant is sufficiently dogged.
posted by subgenius at 4:34 PM on February 7, 2005

"Destructive" comments have no domain in which to exist without bad FPPs providing the battleground.

Sure they do. People have demonstarted here time and time again that their opinions of "bad fpps" are often baffling. There have been a number of documented instances where Matt has had to delete entire strings of comments because a few users took it upon themselves to ruin a perfectly good thread because it was "bad" (and I'm not talking about hilariously bad self-links or something).

However, in hindsight, I should have used the preferred "STFU" instead of typing it out, because typing it out seems far harsher than intended.
posted by The God Complex at 4:34 PM on February 7, 2005

orthogonality's post was good, and would have been a great FPP if it wasn't a comment first. It was probably not needed as a FPP in itself, and I really hope this isn't a growing trend, but it's really not that big a deal. is it? please say no.

Regardless of S@Lly's shitting in the thread, I thought TGC's call was disruptive to this callout, and made it more painful than it needed to be (and this is coming from someone who agrees with ~90% of what you say, TGC).

Face it, ortho, you pissed off the Cabal.

Rule #1: Don't talk about...etc.
posted by cosmonik at 4:38 PM on February 7, 2005

Who cares. Why won't steve@linwood shut the fuck up?

Maturity-wise, that's worse anything Steve said (and what ortho posted originally), so you guys' High Road-posturing is a bit shaky.

opinions of "bad fpps" are often baffling.

Technically, a "bad FPP" is whatever mathowie says it is, for better or worse, and since he deleted the thread--draw your own conclusions.

Damn--is anyone noticing all kinds of JRun weirdness today?
posted by dhoyt at 4:48 PM on February 7, 2005

I second dhoyt. People are jumping on Steve because they don't like Steve. That's fine but when you jump on Steve in a FPP that you create and Steve hasn't even commented on the content yet, there are good chances that you're shitty in your own thread.

And it's interesting that ortho attacked Steve rather than, say, xmutex or dhoyt who both posted before Steve did.

I can't understand the anmosity directed towards Steve. Did he steal your SO's or something?
posted by Stynxno at 5:23 PM on February 7, 2005

I can't understand the anmosity directed towards Steve. Did he steal your SO's or something?

Well, my man steve's a pimp, but that's beside the point.

TGC, steve, I like you both, but cut this shit out or you'll both wake up in the trunks of several different cars, savvy?
posted by jonmc at 5:26 PM on February 7, 2005

"Rule #1: Don't talk about..." : I'm not a member, so rule 1 does not apply.
posted by mischief at 5:36 PM on February 7, 2005

Who cares! Shut the fuck up!

...5 minutes later...

WHY WON'T YOU GUYS RESPECT MY OPINION?!
posted by Krrrlson at 5:38 PM on February 7, 2005

I second Stynxno and third dhoyt, People are jumping on Steve.

But steve, honestly, aren't you inviting it by the way you dress? Your outfit just screams MAN PILE!!!
posted by kuatto at 8:52 PM on February 7, 2005

Why the thread got ruined...
1. The post was bad because it was a repost of an comment as well as the tone, that dhoyt mentioned.
2a. Steve couldn't just call it out as a bad post and leave it at that.
2b. Steve wasn't able to leave it at that, because every time Steve makes a comment, several people have go after him even when he makes a valid point.
posted by Arch Stanton at 8:53 PM on February 7, 2005

Let's dance!
posted by LouReedsSon at 10:01 PM on February 7, 2005

There is no "cabal"... I suggest you all go back home and forget about all this "cabal" nonsense.

:-0
posted by Dreamghost at 10:29 PM on February 7, 2005

Steve's as good a conservative sock puppet as any, and he's self-powered.
posted by Space Coyote at 11:16 PM on February 7, 2005

Who cares! Shut the fuck up!

...5 minutes later...

WHY WON'T YOU GUYS RESPECT MY OPINION?!

I didn't say anything about people respecting my opinion. I simply wondered what it had to do with "far-left echo chambers" and things of that nature.
posted by The God Complex at 11:54 PM on February 7, 2005

dhoyt comments: "Maturity-wise, that's worse anything Steve said (and what ortho posted originally)...."

dhoyt, "maturity-wise" what's your complaint about my original (not FPP) post?

Stynxno asks, "you jump on Steve in a FPP that you create and Steve hasn't even commented on the content yet.... And it's interesting that ortho attacked Steve rather than, say, xmutex or dhoyt who both posted before Steve did."

Actually, you've unwittingly hit upon the answer in your question.

The difference is, xmutex made a comment about the content of the post itself -- and xmutex is entitled to his opinion.

dhoyt more or less made a comment about the post itself -- saying, essentially he thought the content inflammatory -- obviously I don't agree, but it's his honest opinion of the post's content and he's welcome to make it.

Steve_at_Linnwood didn't address the post itself at all, just the meta-issue that he believed it was a re-posting of a comment. In fact, unlike xmutex or dhoyt, Steve addressed me personally: "you reposted your own comment...?"

Discussing the meta-issue belongs, properly, in MetaTalk. Had Steve addressed the content or the argument being made I'd have had no reason to single him out in response. But he didn't; addressed me, not the content of my FPP.

And I've previously seen both xmutex and dhoyt make comments that were well-reasoned and well thought-out -- whether or not I've agreed with those comments.

To be quite frank -- and I wouldn't be if you hadn't asked so directly -- I can't honestly say that for Steve_at_Linnwood. Of his comments that I remember, he seems to me to mainly engage in passive-aggressive grumbling or attacks on the arguer rather than the argument. And because of that, I guess I just take Steve less seriously.

In short, xmutex and dhoyt often add to the discussion, and so I learn from them.

Steve, although I'm sure he means well, just adds snark, and all I "learn", over and over, is that Steve's opinions are strongly held.

Of course, that's only my opinion, and I'm sure others have divergent opinions.
posted by orthogonality at 1:11 AM on February 8, 2005

"maturity-wise" what's your complaint about my original (not FPP) post?

I think that your original sarcastic STFU and TGC's STFU dilute your criticisms of Steve. TGC's quick attempt to convert this MeTa thread into a Steve-roast ("Why won't steve@linwood shut the fuck up? That's a better question.") just reinforces the idea that it's okay to hijack a thread, and does nothing to to show Steve, by example, how tone can make a difference. On Steve's end, he should have probably stopped himself after a single comment since it was obvious the thread would not stand.

I thought the subject of the post would have been ok if it "told a story" using links we hadn't seen before, rather than being clever & confrontational. I know other forums encourage that (FreeRepublic, Democratic Underground), but not so much MeFi.

/monday morning quarterback
posted by dhoyt at 6:23 AM on February 8, 2005

I feel like dhoyt's right on this. Ortho: aside from steve, did you really feel like there was nothing confrontational about your post? I can understand not seeing it when you first posted it-- I mean, it really did seem like a good idea, it's smart and well-linked-- but, reading it now, doesn't it seem the slightest bit, well, in-your-face? Maybe I'm just reading it wrong. I don't know.

also, dhoyt: yeah, jrun was down for me for almost an hour last night... strange... but #1's doing a lot of work these days on the site, I suppose...
posted by koeselitz at 7:59 AM on February 8, 2005

This is a brilliant moderation scheme!
I post a friendly, non-offensive comment to someone I know and it gets deleted for "being off-topic."

However, TGC gets to come into a thread that doesn't involve S@ and make such an offensive, off-topic ad hominem insult as this comment.

Let worthless, obvious, petty, insulting crap slide, but delete other comments that you don't even understand. Is there some rule that attacks against right-leaning people are exempt from typical posting comments?

Worst. Moderation. Ever.
posted by dios at 11:26 AM on February 8, 2005

Is there some rule that attacks against right-leaning people are exempt

Yes, you get a free pass if you tell someone to fuck off when they disagree with even a single lefty talking point.
posted by casu marzu at 11:53 AM on February 8, 2005

However, TGC gets to come into a thread that doesn't involve S@ and make such an offensive, off-topic ad hominem insult as this comment.

Dios, read the deleted FPP. S@L had already tried to derail that thread (for better or worse) using the same logic as Stynxno. The comment was probably out of line -- hence the right-wing whingefest in this thread -- but it's not hard to figure out why it was directed at S@L.
posted by subgenius at 12:40 PM on February 8, 2005

hence the right-wing whingefest in this thread

Oh, yeah, and you also get to call anyone who disagrees with you a right-winger and neocon.
posted by casu marzu at 1:42 PM on February 8, 2005

Oh, sorry. I thought there might have been an ideological bent to the different sides in this thread. Silly me. Clearly it was a coincidence that S@L and dhoyt spent so much time and energy criticizing that FPP.

I also thought that the aggrieved side was making hay of these transactions. What was I thinking? We all know that well-intentioned, neutral individuals such as yourself would never tolerate the naughty words on MeFi.
posted by subgenius at 4:05 PM on February 8, 2005

Clearly it was a coincidence that S@L and dhoyt spent so much time and energy criticizing that FPP.

Because as everyone knows, I'm NeoCon #1 around these parts, and all the people who agree with my assessment of iffy FPPs—including High NeoCon Priest Mathowie, who vanished the thread—are just fellow partisan conspirators.

You're batting .000, subgenius.
posted by dhoyt at 4:45 PM on February 8, 2005

Seems to me that this particular post illustrates what's wrong with op-ed type posts.

If the post was primarily about one or two really good links that would interest most people, no one would object to it being posted even if it had been a comment first. But people are saying that since it was a comment, it shouldn't have been a post.

There's probably a host of reasons for this, but one that comes to mind is that an op-ed post is all about the poster's point of view. By already having presented that POV as a comment, re-presenting it as a post seems self-indulgent. A really good link, on the other hand, is about the link and not the poster; and if it's a really good link, no one will object to it being presented as a post since many probably would have missed it as a comment but, being a really good link, most would want to have seen it.

I strongly agree with what orthogonality is saying in his post. But I don't think it's a good post because I don't think that mini op-eds are good posts.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 4:49 PM on February 8, 2005

subgenius: you got me, I'm part of the neocon cabal. As for the naughty words, God knows where I picked those up.

You're a lying SOB. Fuck off.
posted by casu marzu at 7:33 PM on February 8, 2005

Uh oh, I think maybe Matt shoulda [closed] this one...
posted by koeselitz at 8:16 PM on February 8, 2005

Dhoyt: You're right, of course. What was I thinking?

Casu marzu: At least you were able to disprove dios's complaint that only personal attacks on conservatives are allowed, right? Hopefully the next time TGC throws the f-bomb around, you'll remember your own fun-minded experience with expletives and relax a little.

koeselitz: True, true, true.
posted by subgenius at 9:08 PM on February 8, 2005

I wish you would all just dress up in your furry suits and go play "Spock Falls in Love With Chewbacca and They Make a Scrapbook together."
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 9:19 PM on February 8, 2005

I'm a pretty brown pony.... NNNNAAAAAAAYYYYYYYY
posted by Dreamghost at 1:01 PM on February 10, 2005