Metafilter is not for pyramid scheme

June 26, 2005 12:18 PM

It should be pretty obvious that stuff like this should not fly in the blue. Using this site as a quarry for pyramid schemes is inappropriate and action should be taken accordingly.
posted by baphomet to Etiquette/Policy at 12:18 PM (47 comments total)

Ignoring it doesn't work?
posted by ?! at 12:27 PM on June 26, 2005

Agreed.
posted by grouse at 12:28 PM on June 26, 2005

?!: Just because I can choose to ignore it doesn't mean it's not breaking the rules. Additionally, leaving it up sets a precedent and opens the door for more of this kind of stuff.

I guess I should qualify this MeTa: These pyramid schemes are an internet phenomenon and thus can be regarded as within the scope of MetaFilter for discussion. However, the linked site was not a general discussion of the phenomenon but a specific site actively engaged in the activity in question. That is the transgression- not discussing but participating.
posted by baphomet at 12:35 PM on June 26, 2005

Seconded.
posted by creeptick at 12:35 PM on June 26, 2005

I agree too.

The "skip over it" crowd is also welcome to skip over this Meta thread.
posted by vacapinta at 12:45 PM on June 26, 2005

Sixthed!
posted by dobbs at 12:45 PM on June 26, 2005

craigslist is/was plagued with free-iPod spam. I hope that post is the last such aberration of the blue.
posted by creeptick at 12:51 PM on June 26, 2005

I have no interest in trying to get an ipod this way, BUT I thought the FPP was interesting as I see tons of "go here and help me get an ipod" posts elsewhere and at least I know why now.
posted by weretable and the undead chairs at 1:01 PM on June 26, 2005

creeptick:"Such a simple rule: don't self-link."

...in Front Page Posts, self-links are fine in comments (not that Linkletter's added to the discussion but as a general rule it is fine.)

"Why is this so difficult to understand."
posted by Tenuki at 1:06 PM on June 26, 2005

In the thread, weretable posted: People have long posted self-links in the comments of FPPs if they thought the links were related to the content of the discussion.

The difference is that this self-link is financially remunerative to the poster.
posted by grouse at 1:08 PM on June 26, 2005

Ban Mroz and the the in-thread shill as well.
posted by LarryC at 1:29 PM on June 26, 2005

weretable, this was typed into my comment box, but I let it sit there:
Double post, kinda'
Old "news", Wired, Engadget, Gizmodo, sfgate, BBC, Boston.com
1st result from googlin' "ipod conga line".

"Sherlock Holmes and the Mystery(wtf!?) of the iPod conga line" cover goes here.
---->
The FPP was indefensible. Even with my additions it still would have been pretty much mildy informative crap. I would have posted an ass-slapping, but I think there are other people who are much more skilled and humorous ass-slappers than myself.
posted by Jack Karaoke at 1:30 PM on June 26, 2005

The FPP was indefensible. Linkletter, not so much. He made, at worst, a bad judgement call, but nothing horribly egregious enough to deserve a ban. Link deletion, fine, if it's that big a deal, but a ban is going far overboard.
posted by Bugbread at 1:41 PM on June 26, 2005

I agree with bugbread. Linkletter obviously sincerely apologized, and since I'm reasonably confident the whole thread will get deleted I'm not too worried about it. Mroz, however, should get the flat side of the ass padle, especially since they haven't bothered to offer any sort of defense or explination.
posted by baphomet at 1:58 PM on June 26, 2005

The difference is that this self-link is financially remunerative to the poster.

After making an honest recommendation what I feel is the most efficient way of going about finishing these sites, I decided that if someone was going to sign up anyway, it might as well be under me. I have apologized in the thread for offending anyone.

In my defense though, mine was one of the very few comments attempting to discuss the original topic. The rest were attacking me, with a few attacking the original poster as well.

It was always my impression that self-linking in comments was okay as long as the link was relevant. Self-linking within the comments of Metafilter is specifically mentioned as being okay. If it isn't okay because I get a buck when someone signs up, that wasn't in the rules for me to be aware of. I wasn't trying to exploit the community in any way (I'll be lucky to see a dollar from that link).
posted by Linkletter at 1:59 PM on June 26, 2005

Chill out people. The FPP sucked. Trash it. But I don't have any problem with Linkletter's link in the comments. His stuff was on topic, contributed to the discussion, and he clearly marked his link for what it was.
posted by weston at 3:18 PM on June 26, 2005

You mean I'm not getting a free iPod?
posted by cedar at 3:35 PM on June 26, 2005

His stuff was on topic, contributed to the discussion, and he clearly marked his link for what it was.

Which should be obvious to anyone who, um, read the post. At first I thought the self-link was a bad call on Linkletter's part (and as such, it surprised me, since up until that point the post was cogent and insightful), but upon further consideration, it really wasn't. He was honest about the entire situation, didn't use any kind of "marketing language," and let us know in no uncertain terms that the post was to his own site. Read it again: He says "If anyone wants to use my link to sign up, that'd be neat, but completely up to you." If that's spam, well, I wish all spammers were as self-effacing.

I always thought the spirit of the self-posting rule was to avoid people using MeFi as a cheap resource for directing people to their site, or fool people into going to a site they wouldn't otherwise go to. I also thought that the rules for self-posting were a bit more lax in discussions than on the front page.

And where the hell is Mroz in all this? Mroz, have we shamed you into silence?
posted by hifiparasol at 4:03 PM on June 26, 2005

These pyramid schemes are an internet phenomenon
What are you, 12? Pyramid schemes have been around almost, but not quite, as long as scumbags have roamed the earth. There is a good reason why these schemes are illegal here and the same reason dictates that they have no place in MeFi. The fact that someone tried to stack their own scheme by posting it here is about as low as it gets.
posted by dg at 4:22 PM on June 26, 2005

dg: Switch the digits and you've got it right. However, I might suggest that you have the contextual analysis skills of a 12 year old. I was specifically referring to the pyramid scheme that was the subject of the post, i.e. using the internet to get people to use their credit cards to sign up for various services, and to solicit their friends to do the same.

Using the qualifier "these," I thought, would be sufficiently explanitory that most readers would infer exactly what I was discussing. Apparently some people are too dull to grasp such things, and so I've spelled it out for you.

Seriously, did you really think that I thought pyramid schemes started with the internet? If you make such quick judgements about the intelligence of other people, your friends probably think you're an asshole.
posted by baphomet at 4:50 PM on June 26, 2005

!
posted by Baby_Balrog at 5:38 PM on June 26, 2005

Ignoring it doesn't work?

Asinine comment of the week. Maybe we should just ignore all self-linking, commercial posts, one-link op-eds, unhelpful snark in AskMe, and all other pat violations.

The general response here is good today but this comment is a good example of what really bugs me about MeTa: someone suggests something simple and direct that will be basically helpful in some small way, and immediately people show up just to chime in with "Aw quit your whining, dinghus. What a complainer you are."

your friends probably think you're an asshole.

Runner-up for asinine comment of the week.

Lighten up, baphomet Francis. Assuming that everyone intelligent will always understand exactly what you mean is, itself, stupid - as is overreacting to someone's misunderstanding of what you said. Welcome to the internet.
posted by scarabic at 5:44 PM on June 26, 2005

I deleted the post because I find the whole pyramid scheme junk so distasteful.

linkletter didn't violate the letter of the law (self-links in comments are ok), but certainly the spirit. I never in a million years thought someone would post a link to their free ipod signup scheme. It's ok to link to your site in a discussion as a comment, but linking to your site in order to gain financially is totally lame. If it was ok, half the links in anything music related would lead to bogus free ipod schemes.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 5:44 PM on June 26, 2005

Not only that, he's already got an iPod. From his blog:
"I fly out to Arizona with promises of IN and OUT burgers and a road trip through the Redneck States back to Jersey. I plan on using the time to work on my left and right arm farmer tan, burning through most of the 40gigs on my Ipod I've yet to listen to, and drinking the finest booze America's Heartland has to offer."
posted by tellurian at 5:55 PM on June 26, 2005

ReferralSwapper is not my site. I have apologized over and over for including my affiliate link, but stand by the belief that if I had made the exact same comment with a direct link instead of a link to my signup page, it would have been absolutely fine.

I received so much more grief than the original poster did, and the only reason for that is because I was a participant in the discussion. It doesn't make sense.
posted by Linkletter at 6:01 PM on June 26, 2005

tellurain, if you read his original comment, he explains he's gotten several ipods out of it.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 6:05 PM on June 26, 2005

but stand by the belief that if I had made the exact same comment with a direct link instead of a link to my signup page, it would have been absolutely fine.

That's exactly what I was saying. I just wanted to restate it because you seemed to be waffling on what rule you broke.

I don't want to see people stuffing affiliate links into their comments because their reason for leaving a comment begins to grow suspect. It's not the case here, my problem is this starting a trend when people see it and think "oh, we can do that now? great!"

I received so much more grief than the original poster did

Because you left a comment with a link that financially rewards you. You did fully disclose that, but it still feels like a very dangerous turn of events if others were to do similar things (mefi would officially become usenet, loaded with spam).

Members here really, really don't want to see this starting a new trend. You got a lot of grief because it was the first instance of it and hopefully the last.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 6:09 PM on June 26, 2005

Using the qualifier "these," I thought, would be sufficiently explanitory that most readers would infer exactly what I was discussing.
It would have, if you had actually been indicating something with your "these" - a link or some explanation perhaps. Without any context, your statement refers to all pyramid schemes. If this were real life, you might be pointing to something and saying "these", but this is not real life, so you need to find another way to tell the reader what you are specifically referring to.

Seriously, did you really think that I thought pyramid schemes started with the internet? If you make such quick judgements about the intelligence of other people, your friends probably think you're an asshole.
Well, given that there are thousands of people who think that everything started with the internet, it didn't seem to be such a stretch (see above paragraph). It was not in any way intended to be a judgement of your intelligence, rather a question about the extent of your life experience, hence the comment about your age.

Many people do, indeed, think I am an arsehole but there are other reasons for that. Furthermore, I suspect they may be correct. I don't see the relevance here, though. You, no doubt, disagree.
posted by dg at 6:14 PM on June 26, 2005

Oh, also, in case you didn't realise - I support your call for this to be deleted wholeheartedly.
posted by dg at 6:18 PM on June 26, 2005

mathoiwe, I've read his original comment but see no explanation that he's gotten several iPods.
posted by tellurian at 6:23 PM on June 26, 2005

and a road trip through the Redneck States back to Jersey

*Falls out of chair, rolls on the floor laughing at the unintended irony*
posted by mlis at 6:44 PM on June 26, 2005

Besides being a crap post, it was hastily and badly formatted.

Oh, and unwanted, unloved iPods can be sent to me, even ones with dead batteries.
posted by loquacious at 8:05 PM on June 26, 2005

Just "of the week?" Wow, I guess I wasn't smart ass enough for you, scarabic.

Baphomet posted "It should be pretty obvious that stuff like this should not fly in the blue."

I asked a serious question. Baphomet answered why he thought ignoring it didn't work for for him.

It seems though that some prefer we are more caustic when posting to MeTa. Let me see if I can adopt that style: "Hell yes it's pretty obvious. Do we really need yet another meta thread complaining about a FPP? If you don't like it just mark it and let mathowie and jessamyn deal with it."

But then I guess some people don't follow the advice that "Most of the time, we can even do without the MeTa callout."
posted by ?! at 10:55 PM on June 26, 2005

I'm guessing that baphomet found the post so beyond the pale of what's acceptable that a callout was warranted. New people arrive all the time and sometimes it is necessary to repeat old debates about fundamental principles. Flagging it and waiting for M/J to delete is also a valid option. Though that's not what you said. You didn't ask a serious question. You popped off with a one-liner before you could stop yourself. Anyway, in the end I'd say any callout where Matt feels it necessary to offer a significant explanation was probably worth having.

Congratulations, btw. Your no-prize is in the mail.
posted by scarabic at 11:53 PM on June 26, 2005

dg : "Without any context, your statement refers to all pyramid schemes."

dg : "There is a good reason why these schemes are illegal here and the same reason dictates that they have no place in MeFi."

Well, now, son, we got's ourselves a problem here. Without context, your "these" also refers to all these schemes as well, but there are free iPod schemes which don't involve credit card numbers, cash, or any kind of payment by anyone whatsoever. Those schemes are not illegal. The ones involving paying money are.

Just bein' precise.
posted by Bugbread at 2:35 AM on June 27, 2005

I find the whole pyramid scheme junk so distasteful

Well, well, well. Once again, the disgusting bias of this site raises its ugly, deformed head and howls menacingly at the moon on a cold, starless night in a little German village near Munich. How predictable.

Obviously I haven't read the thread, but just because someone wants to build a pyramid have his or her Akhu soul pass unhindered into the western lands via the celestial barge of Ra, I think you should just respect their religion and stop blabbering on about Zeus all the time.

In any case, aren't Hermes and Thoth really the same manifestation of the transcendental psychopomp? I hope great Horus bites off your nuts, you horrible, horrible people.
posted by the quidnunc kid at 2:36 AM on June 27, 2005

scarabic: you post so often that I believe you have become confused. "Congratulations, btw. Your no-prize is in the mail." is a one-liner. Trite, of no value, and does not ask a question or add anything to the conversation.

"Ignoring it doesn't work?" is a question. You can see so by the oddly shaped symbol at the end. It is also good advice, of which I will follow now myself.
posted by ?! at 6:04 AM on June 27, 2005

Okay I will also ignore you. Starting....now!

lol
posted by scarabic at 8:28 AM on June 27, 2005

I will start ignoring all of you in 17 minutes.

(setting timer)
posted by Bugbread at 8:45 AM on June 27, 2005

Ok, I'm done now. Hope y'all didn't say anything funny or interesting, because I was ignoring you.
posted by Bugbread at 9:03 AM on June 27, 2005

What? I think I missed something. I was ignoring all of you too.

Is it cheating to ask for a recap?
posted by loquacious at 9:27 AM on June 27, 2005

Somebody said something, some other folks disagreed, some other folks disagreed with them. Accusations were tossed, somebody probably used a catchphrase, and, statistically speaking, somebody probably compared somebody else to Hitler.
posted by Bugbread at 10:03 AM on June 27, 2005

Lalalalalalalalalalalalalallalaaa
posted by scarabic at 2:40 PM on June 27, 2005

At least I'm not playing The Game.
posted by Balisong at 7:33 PM on June 27, 2005

Without context, your "these" also refers to all these schemes as well, ...
Damn, hoisted by my own petard. Point taken.
posted by dg at 7:54 PM on June 27, 2005

Hello Matt. See what I mean?
posted by If I Had An Anus at 11:21 AM on July 28, 2005

Flag this post!
posted by If I Had An Anus at 11:31 AM on July 28, 2005