How about a best answer counter?

February 20, 2005 11:30 AM

I Like Ponies: On the user page, where it says "posted X questions and X answers to Ask MetaFilter", it would be very nifty to add a counter of how many "best answers" this user has received on AskMe. It'll be a positive way to increase the signal/noise ratio -- and while it may provoke some competition, it'll be competition to be the most helpful and comprehensive, which should lead to good things for Ask MeFi.

This is a post from Jairus , who cannot post due to MetaTalk posting limits. Ironically, his last post was about changing the posting limits on MetaTalk.)
posted by LouReedsSon to Feature Requests at 11:30 AM (55 comments total)

No, this is a terrible idea. If you can see how many best answers you have, people will make 'best commenting' a competition, and will start filling MeTa with "omfg, my answer was far better, give me props too". Best commenting should be purely for people who end up at the question in the future because they have the same question.
posted by Plutor at 11:33 AM on February 20, 2005

I have said in the past that I wasn't planning on doing this because it had the potential to introduce a metric for folks to game (i.e., karma whoring they call it)
posted by mathowie (staff) at 11:34 AM on February 20, 2005

Also, the best answers were for making archives useful and they fulfill that goal.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 11:35 AM on February 20, 2005

Thanks for the reply. I really don't think that people will troll for 'best answer' props, but I understand your concern. It would be nice, however, to have some way of knowing if the person answering your question has a history of appropriate/good/factually corrent answers.
posted by Jairus at 11:46 AM on February 20, 2005

s/corrent/correct
posted by Jairus at 11:47 AM on February 20, 2005

I think you guys are abusing the niceness of the sysop.

Relax, enjoy the site. Post some nice links. Get off his back, why dontcha.
posted by Mean Mr. Bucket at 11:55 AM on February 20, 2005

Are you fucking serious, MMB?
posted by Jairus at 11:56 AM on February 20, 2005

It would be nice, however, to have some way of knowing if the person answering your question has a history of appropriate/good/factually corrent answers.

We already do have some way of knowing this. I can click on someone's user page, click to see all their AskMe answers, and start clicking through each one. That would give the idea pretty quickly if someone frequently posts "best answers" or not. No, it's not an instantaneous ranking or exact count, but it's not like the information is hidden or will take much time/effort to ascertain.

I guess I sort of understand the motivation for thinking this could be a good feature, but honestly, I don't think Matt needs to pony up (heh) code for every possible permutation of how people might want to interact with the site.
posted by scody at 12:00 PM on February 20, 2005

Scody, I don't think you have to click through the answers; a checkbox appears next to the answers on user pages that have been marked as a best answer. I really like this feature, by the way- it was a pleasant surprise to find the checkmarks, not having known that some of my answers were so marked. Automatically adding them all up, however, is probably a bad idea as Mathowie suggests.
posted by obloquy at 12:28 PM on February 20, 2005

No rankings for Metafilter. One of the things that sets this site apart is that everyone is equal. Having rankings might cut down on people giving partial answers because they don't want to hurt their rank if it's not picked as the best.
posted by drezdn at 12:43 PM on February 20, 2005

This is a post from Jairus , who cannot post due to MetaTalk posting limits. Ironically, his last post was about changing the posting limits on MetaTalk.)

And yet, those limits remain, perhaps for a reason that's being circumvented in cases such as this.
posted by ChrisTN at 1:19 PM on February 20, 2005

It would be nice, however, to have some way of knowing if the person answering your question has a history of appropriate/good/factually corrent answers.

At some point, you just have to trust your instincts and use common sense. For example, you can look at who provides links, and how credible the links are.

In any case, in AskMetafilter the vast majority of answers are helpful, and any factual errors are quickly addressed by subsequent posters.
posted by WestCoaster at 1:25 PM on February 20, 2005

And yet, those limits remain, perhaps for a reason that's being circumvented in cases such as this.

I agree. Clearly, my posting of three MetaTalk threads in the last five years is symptomatic of a much larger problem that requires limiting. Thank you for your helpful reply, good sir!

(And on a serious note, thanks again for the consideration, Matt.)
posted by Jairus at 1:37 PM on February 20, 2005

Jairus, I don't think it's bad that you've had this question, but really... the issue would still exist a week from now, and you could have posted it yourself at that time. The limit does exist for a reason. Perhaps a week from now, you would have reconsidered asking it, or something else would have come up that you thought was more important. I don't think the total number of MeTa questions you've posted has any bearing on whether the limit is a good idea or not.
posted by odinsdream at 2:02 PM on February 20, 2005

*had this question asked
posted by odinsdream at 2:02 PM on February 20, 2005

odinsdream, I've been meaning to ask this since the 'best answers' feature was introduced. It wasn't an impulse question, or anything.

I, in fact, do think the number of MeTa questions I've asked is relevant to if the limit is a good idea or not. I don't want to turn this into a discussion on posting limits, but the problem with MeTa/AskMe threads that caused Matt to put in a posting cap isn't relevant to a member who posts threads as infrequently as I do. Which, of course, is why I asked for the cap handling to be changed.

The cap was to cut down on the signal/noise ratio. I'm not going to be posting 52 threads a year, and I'd still post this question with another week of thinking about it. Thus, if I take Matt at face value for his reasoning behind the cap, there's no reason the cap should apply to this post. Which is why I asked someone to post it for me.
posted by Jairus at 2:47 PM on February 20, 2005

I don't see why it would be bad to let people keep track of their checkmarks, if they're actually producing good answers. The only downside would be if people received checkmarks when they weren't entitled to them.
posted by crunchland at 3:38 PM on February 20, 2005

The cap was to cut down on the signal/noise ratio. I'm not going to be posting 52 threads a year, and I'd still post this question with another week of thinking about it. Thus, if I take Matt at face value for his reasoning behind the cap, there's no reason the cap should apply to this post.

"I'm not part of the problem, so the rules don't apply to me."
posted by Vidiot at 4:16 PM on February 20, 2005

"I'm not part of the problem, so the rules don't apply to me."

"I contribute nothing worthwhile to this thread aside from snarky one-liners."
posted by Jairus at 4:20 PM on February 20, 2005

Jairus, the limit was to cut down on signal-to-noise overall, not per-user. It doesn't matter if you post once every seven days for three years, or once every year.

The way it stands now, if you were going to ask this a week from now, well, now you don't have to, because you used up someone else's post, so a week from now, you can post Another question. I'm just saying, your question is not at all more important TODAY than it will be LATER, so you should have written it down on a sticky note, and posted when you're allowed to. I have a whole boatload of stuff I'd like to ask about, but I'm not going to conscript people who otherwise don't ask questions in order to put all my questions up RIGHT when I want to ask them.

What's wrong with that? I understand using this workaround if it's something that NEEDS to be fixed RIGHT AWAY (which would also warrant emailing matt, you know), but this Isn't one of those issues.
posted by odinsdream at 4:31 PM on February 20, 2005

odinsdream, I agree that my question isn't at all more important today than next week. I asked it today because it was on my mind, and it seemed like there was an uncharacteristic lull in feature requests, which I thought would make it a better time for Matt to hear this particular request.

I know why Matt implemented the limit. I felt comfortable that this post was not contributing to the problem that made the limit necessary. Thus, I felt comfortable sidestepping the limit based on the fact that I was not, in fact, contributing to Matt's worries, and trying to make life as easy as possible for him by posting when he's not already deluged in 8-12 requests in a 3 day period.

In regards to rules/guidelines, I conduct my behaviour in any community based on what I feel contributes to the good of that community. I felt this requests was, at the time I posted it, contributing to the good of MeFi in spite of the fact I had posted a week previous. That's all there is to it.
posted by Jairus at 4:43 PM on February 20, 2005

"I contribute nothing worthwhile to this thread aside from snarky one-liners."

Nope, I'm pointing out how you don't seem to feel like you need to play by the rules that Matt has set up, because you feel that your behavior is so pristine that you're not part of the problem that caused Matt to set up the limits. That's akin to saying that because you're an excellent driver, it's okay for you to not use your turn signals every now and then.

And I contributed one snarky one-liner. Singular. Not plural.

And the reason why I didn't say anything else? The points I agreed with had already been made. I've seen the karma/rating argument a bunch of times before, and the first two points (one of them by Matt) articulated my position nicely.

On preview: I conduct my behaviour in any community based on what I feel contributes to the good of that community.

Regardless, evidently, of whether or not this is breaking the rules set up by the founder of the community.
posted by Vidiot at 4:46 PM on February 20, 2005

An excellent driver or not, if it's four in the morning on an empty dirt road in the country, I would argue that turn signals are pretty fucking useless.

...and yes, I conduct my behaviour in a manner that I feel best contributes to the community, regardless of the rules set up by the founder of the community -- be that community MetaFilter, Canada, or a community of any size or importance between the two.
posted by Jairus at 4:55 PM on February 20, 2005

when stopped by the police, though, that excellent driver could point to the empty road. you don't have an empty metafilter to point out.

which leaves you making up your own rules. fair enough. matt's playing the game like you - making up rules he thinks best. he runs the site, you don't. he's the driver, you're not. so what the hell are you doing complaining about what signals matt makes? it's his road and his rules. fuck the community. right?
posted by andrew cooke at 5:08 PM on February 20, 2005

andrew, I think you're confusing the (already confused) metaphor.

Vidiot's idea is that the driver is breaking the rules by not using a turn signal, which helps with traffic.. I am this bad driver, and the posting limit is my turn signal. I'm saying it doesn't matter if you're in the middle of an empty road. To extend this crappy metaphor, my posting history is this empty road.

Matt's free to make up all the rules he thinks is best, and I always take them into consideration, as well as the reasons he felt the rules were necessary.

...and you can fuck the community if you like, but, as I said, I am trying to contribute to it.
posted by Jairus at 5:13 PM on February 20, 2005

We don't even need a metaphor. Everybody gets to post something every 7 days. You too. You're conscripting other people to post your questions ahead of schedule, and it isn't helping anything. Raise your hand if Jairus helped today.

Your question was not time-sensitive. Write it down and ask later. Just because something enters your mind right now doesn't mean you should pop in #mefi and find someone to post it for you.
posted by odinsdream at 5:20 PM on February 20, 2005

You could always just make a list of the answers that you are proud of, even if they are not the 'best', on your own user page. I did that. Encoding it yourself allows you to highlight your better moments and ignore your worst.
posted by milovoo at 5:28 PM on February 20, 2005

You're conscripting other people to post your questions

You really don't know what words mean, do you, odinsdream?

As I said before, I asked someone to post it today. There were several reasons for this, not the least of which is that I'd rather ask favours of Matt when he's not already deluged with feature requests. You may not think that's helping. As I was trying to help Matt, and not you, I really don't care if you feel it helped Matt or not.

As I said before, the question didn't enter my mind "right now", and I felt there was an element of timeliness to asking it today.

This was a non-issue until everyone started shitting up the thread. You'll notice that Matt addressed the issue I raised without dressing me down for irresponsible use of MeTa.
posted by Jairus at 5:32 PM on February 20, 2005

I don't see why it would be bad to let people keep track of their checkmarks, if they're actually producing good answers.

Make the list of bests viewable only by the user in question (who has received the plaudits). Problem solved.

Jairus, one of the inevitable consequences of membership in communities of any size is the tyranny of the lowest common denominator. You or I or Billy-bob over there may not be idiots, but there are nonetheless idiots everywhere, and rules are generally made to protect them from themselves (and the rest of us from them).

Euthanize the stupid, and the problem is solved. But most people balk at mass murder, so whatcha gonna do?
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 5:39 PM on February 20, 2005

At the very least, it seems like following the rule would have avoided your making an ugly scene and many enemies very quickly and needlessly, Jairus. Isn't that enough of a case for it?
posted by soyjoy at 6:43 PM on February 20, 2005

Jairus, WTF is your problem?

That's not the kind of thing I say very often around these parts, but it seems like you're almost going out of your way to irritate people in this thread. (And not just in your responses to my comments, but in how you've addressed others.)

Yeah, I used a crappy metaphor. My point is, though, that rules apply to everyone. Not "everone - Jairus", not "everyone - (those people who think they have exemplary histories)", not "everyone - (those who think the rule is stupid)", not "everyone - (those who think they're not part of the problem", but everyone.

Yes, there can be a place for civil disobedience at times. But in general, I think that attitude you're displaying -- that you're going to decide which rules you are and aren't going to follow -- is needlessly harmful to the community.

And if that's an example of my "shitting up the thread", then so be it.
posted by Vidiot at 7:02 PM on February 20, 2005

soyjoy, if I had known that people were going to spaz out because I posted twice in a week, I would've taken that into consideration before posting.

Vidiot, I address people in the manner that they address me. If you have a problem with my attitude, you should've checked yours at the door. However, you didn't. You jumped in and shitted up the thread with your I'm not part of the problem, so the rules don't apply to me snark. If you want to have a civil conversation, don't be a jerk and then complain that the person you're being a jerk to is being irritating.

If you don't like how I approach rules, good on you. Treat the rules in whatever manner you feel is best for you and your community. I'll do the same.
posted by Jairus at 7:16 PM on February 20, 2005

Jairus, your ability to tell the future is amazing. I have no idea how you are able to tell that today there are fewer feature requests in MeTa than there will be later when you're actually allowed to post something.

Yet, astoundingly, you can tell the future, and you know it's best to post this question RIGHT NOW. Better for Matt, right?

Does anyone else who posted a question yesterday have something really important they'd like me to put up for them? I'll be glad to, because, you know, if it's really important, or if you just think it's a good time for Matt to read it, that works too.
posted by odinsdream at 7:18 PM on February 20, 2005

odinsdream, I have not yet learned how to tell the future. I did, however, take a science class once, which taught me how to read data and extrapolate.

You see, sometimes Event X happens very frequently. Sometimes it does not. In this case, Feature Requests were happening Very Frequently. From Feb 16-17 there were 8 requests. Then, from Feb 18-20, there was 1. Seeing as how this appeared to be a lull/break in the deluge of feature requests (as there had even been a day with 0 feature requests), I figured it was the right time to ask.

But, as I have said many times, it was not my only consideration.

And if you're offering, odinsdream, I wouldn't mind if you could put up a post for me. I've already hit my limit for this week, you see.
posted by Jairus at 7:29 PM on February 20, 2005

In any case, I'm done this conversation with odinsdream/Vidiot, unless they have something positive to contribute. My request was made, and addressed.
posted by Jairus at 7:36 PM on February 20, 2005

You know, I had a long, semi-thoughtful comment all typed up and ready to go, but my browser crashed and I had to re-boot. In short, I think you overreacted and have been kinda presumptuous and nasty throughout, starting with your replies to MMB and ChrisTN. So I guess that rubbed me the wrong way, and I don't see why my admitted snark (a fairly innocuous one, truth be told) seems to have set you off so. However, if you're truly offended, then I do apologize to you.

I also think that maybe Matt should be the one to decide if a MeTa thread would "contribute to his worries", and that doing an end-run around the rules he set up is Not Good for the site. (I think that more appropriate ways to deal with a rule that you think is unfair/bad/poorly worded might be to start a MeTa thread to invite discussion of the rule or to e-mail Matt.) I think that part of being a member of a community is to respect its mores and rules, which you are not doing (and justifying with specious sophistry, IMHO.)
posted by Vidiot at 9:57 PM on February 20, 2005

I think everyone is letting metaphors get in the way.

Matt instituted the 7 day rule because the grey was getting too many posts, and scrolling off too fast.

Any attempt to circumvent the policy results in another post to the grey, contributing to the overpopulation of the grey, and posts scrolling off too fast.

The issue isn't your post history, or whether you're a nice person, or anything else. By circumventing the policy, you're contributing to the problem that the rule was made to solve. That's just not nice.

To bust out a new metaphor (probably a bad idea, but I'll give it a shot), it's like those traffic policies (is it in Madrid? London? I've forgotten) that say "Only people with odd numbered license plates can park in downtown today, to relieve parking congestion." In this case, Jairus, you're being the person with an even numbered license plate who buys a second, odd numbered license plate in order to park in downtown, arguing that the rule shouldn't really apply to you because you seldom park downtown, and therefore, while you will obey the letter of the law, you won't obey the spirit of the law.

And everybody else is the person saying, "Ok, sure, fine, he seldom parks in downtown, but here he is today, contributing to the problem, purely on the grounds that he normally doesn't contribute to the problem."

Being part of the problem is being part of the problem, even if you haven't in the past.

And, on topic, I don't really see any pressing need for publication of good answer ratios. It might stimulate people's posting of good answers, but I suspect the kind of people who want to post good answers do it anyway, without a ranking system. And many of the kind of people who are going to be stimulated by a ranking system are the kinds of people who put more importance on ranking than actual good answers: that is, the kinds of karma whoring you used to see strongly on Slashdot, where someone will post something pro-Linux just to get ranked up, whether what they post is actually good or not. That is, it will, for some people, move the focus from "Good Answers" to "Popular Answers". Just my suspicion, of course.

And:

Are you fucking serious, MMB?

I sure hope MMB is serious. He posted something pretty sane and rational, and I have no idea what you find is so fucking unbelievable about it.
posted by Bugbread at 10:06 PM on February 20, 2005

There was no urgency about this question. None at all. It was wrong for you to sidestep the rule this way. Your belligerent defense isn't helping your case.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 11:38 PM on February 20, 2005

Vidiot, I wasn't offended, exactly, but thanks for the apology. We deal with our communities in different ways, and while you feel that being part of a community is to respect its rules, I feel that being part of a community is to respect the ideals that make the rules necessary, if not the rules themselves.

bugbread, you said "by circumventing the policy, you're contributing to the problem that the rule was made to solve" -- which isn't true, by my understanding of why Matt instituted the posting limits. And, again, this appeared to be a non-issue to Matt, it's only everyone-who-isn't-Matt who finds my behaviour so barbaric. In regards to MMB, what I found fucking unbelievable is that posting a feature request is considered to be abusing the niceness of a sysop, and warrants a "get off his back" reply. Based on that reaction, I should expect he would explode immediately upon reading any post by quonsar.

Bligh, there's no 'case'. I'm not on trial. This isn't a MeTa callout thread. It's a feature request.
posted by Jairus at 4:42 AM on February 21, 2005

I don't understand why people who break the rules feel the need to point that out to everyone. Think about how stupid that is. Drop that sentence from the post and no one would care that A was posting for B.
posted by smackfu at 6:33 AM on February 21, 2005

That's a big part of the problem, smackfu. Posting the feature request wasn't enough - Jairus had to use the opportunity to add another swipe at Matt's rule, and now thinks that the fact that Matt let it roll off his back rather than ban him is some kind of endorsement. In this universe, apparently everything is perfectly clear and logical to Jairus, in a way that none of the rest of us, mysteriously, can fathom.

I would say it sounds like a fun world to live in, except it doesn't seem to be making Jairus very happy.
posted by soyjoy at 7:59 AM on February 21, 2005

I asked it today because it was on my mind, and it seemed like there was an uncharacteristic lull in feature requests

In this case, Feature Requests were happening Very Frequently. From Feb 16-17 there were 8 requests. Then, from Feb 18-20, there was 1.

I do think Matt has been particularly busy with the site recently, though, and coding like mad, so it's certainly not like he's got a dearth of things on his To Do list.

Also, in case you hadn't noticed, between February 16th and 17th, there were thirty one MetaTalk posts. Thirty one in two days!!! That's not the standard we should all be aiming for. One feature request every 2-3 days should not be considered an "uncharacteristic lull." (And many of the bug and etiquette/policy questions over the Feb 18-20 weekend were basically feature requests in disguise, anyway.)

Can't people just enjoy the site, and not require it to conform to their every desire at any given moment? Just because Dad gave us lots of ponies at once doesn't mean we should feel like he's neglecting us if we don't get a few more every 3 days.
posted by onlyconnect at 8:00 AM on February 21, 2005

soyjoy, on the contrary: I asked LouReedsSon to add that line in an attempt to be light-hearted and straightforward about my request, not to take a swipe at Matt.

And everything about this situation is indeed clear and logical to me, and logistical clarity does indeed make me very happy. I think you overestimate the emotional impact of Strangers Who Disagree With Jairus On The Internet.

onlyconnect, have I stated anywhere that I require Matt to do anything at all, or that I think he's neglecting us? If you show me where I said that, I will mail you a shiny Canadian dollar.
posted by Jairus at 11:08 AM on February 21, 2005

I think you overestimate the emotional impact of Strangers Who Disagree With Jairus On The Internet.

Yeah, I guess it was that 15 comments on your own thread arguing vociferously with most of the other posters that threw me off. But now it's all clear.
posted by soyjoy at 2:24 PM on February 21, 2005

Jairus, if you can find any other MeFite who agrees with you that there was an "uncharacteristic lull" in MeTa over the weekend, either in feature requests or generally, I will mail you $5 so that you can buy another MeFi account. People have been clamoring for Matt's attention like baby birds for food over here. Again, there were thirty-three MeTa posts in 2 days last week (and twenty-seven more from Fri-Sun, including crash's 300+ comment suicide note). Your two questions added to this pile on. I do not agree that yesterday was a good time for you to break the rule on posting limits because of the "uncharacteristic lull" in MeTa. I think your decision to break the rule came at precisely the wrong time.

And fwiw, both of the questions that you found so compelling to post to MeTa within the past three days had been dealt with previously. [Matt Explains Why He Won't Facilitate Karma Whoring / Jairus Asks Again] [jpoulos Asks for 4-per-Month AskMe Feature / Matt Implicitly Denies It / Jairus Asks Again for 4-per-Month Post Limit in AskMe & MeTa]
posted by onlyconnect at 2:26 PM on February 21, 2005

But now it's all clear.

Good. I'm glad we had this little talk.

onlyconnect, you think my timing was bad. I don't. You gave your reasons why, and made comments about what 'people' require. I replied, asking you what you were talking about. You ignored my reply, and kept talking about my bad timing. Is there anything more you have to say about my timing, or are you ready to have a conversation now?

In regards to Matt's previous comments on these topics, perhaps they should be added to the FAQ and not tucked away in MeTa threads with 60 comments, so as to prevent other people who'd like these features from posting.
posted by Jairus at 3:03 PM on February 21, 2005

Yes! It's precisely this sense of entitlement that I'm talking about, Jairus. Instead of imposing a duty on yourself to follow MeTa, or at least look through some archives before posting, let's require Matt to add all his MeTa comments to a FAQ! What a monumental time sucker that would be for him!

My previous point about neglect was about timing. Matt's recent addition of features to the site and the glut of MeTa threads didn't make it okay for you to break the rules in order to get him to keep adding features at the same frenetic pace. It's not like Matt's been neglecting us -- there's no need to break the rules to get his attention. Wait your turn like everyone else.
posted by onlyconnect at 4:11 PM on February 21, 2005

Jairus, I've been meaning to build a FAQ for the past 5+ years and will have one someday soon. It's my hope that most all of the past metatalk traffic can be answered on the faq and thus diminishes the repetitiveness, nastiness, and chattiness that MetaTalk has been known for lately.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 4:18 PM on February 21, 2005

Oh, and Jarius, I agree with everyone here that you're stepping on toes aplenty here, especially considering all the heat I've had to endure the past few days.

There are so few rules in the MetaFilter Universe that few folks ever figure them out, but for you to say they don't apply to you and to circumvent them is exactly how not to act in a community of others. It's a shared space, so starting sharing it ok?
posted by mathowie (staff) at 4:22 PM on February 21, 2005

onlyconnect, I wasn't saying that Matt is the only person who can add to a FAQ. As I understand it, there's a FAQ on a wiki somewhere. But I appreciate you (again) jumping to the worst possible conclusion about what it is I'm saying (and feeling, this time around). I find that to be very helpful.

Matt, I treat this space with the respect I'd hope my own community and shared spaces are treated with, and I don't think I have any magical status that makes me some kind of super-user. You can believe that, or not.
posted by Jairus at 5:17 PM on February 21, 2005

Matt, I treat this space with the respect I'd hope my own community and shared spaces are treated with, and I don't think I have any magical status that makes me some kind of super-user. You can believe that, or not.

Wow, how about maybe "Sorry, I won't break the rules like this anymore." ?

You've continually used Matt as a scapegoat for your reasoning behind posting this, saying that it's "better" for Matt this way, or that your post isn't "what Matt intended" to prevent with the limits, but here he is, telling you otherwise, and you can't even apologise?
posted by odinsdream at 5:47 PM on February 21, 2005

Anything further I have to say to Matt will be said privately, odinsdream.

Oh, and a funny thing happened; I did a search on that "what Matt intended" quote to see where I said it, and it turns out that I didn't. It's a lot easier to win an argument when you just make shit up, isn't it?
posted by Jairus at 6:36 PM on February 21, 2005

Gee, I have no idea where I got the impression that you already had Matt's intentions all figured out:

• Thus, if I take Matt at face value for his reasoning behind the cap, there's no reason the cap should apply to this post.
• I know why Matt implemented the limit. I felt comfortable that this post was not contributing to the problem that made the limit necessary.
• You'll notice that Matt addressed the issue I raised without dressing me down for irresponsible use of MeTa.
• ... by my understanding of why Matt instituted the posting limits. And, again, this appeared to be a non-issue to Matt ...

And yet:
There are so few rules ... but for you to say they don't apply to you and to circumvent them is exactly how not to act ... - Matt
posted by odinsdream at 7:01 PM on February 21, 2005

There seems to be a lot of shutting down of discourse on this site of late.

3...2...1.....
posted by troutfishing at 9:54 PM on February 21, 2005

wow, seems I done a bad thing. Sorry all. It won't happen again. Peace.
posted by LouReedsSon at 10:43 PM on February 21, 2005