Clean up in Aisle 7. March 14, 2006 9:15 AM Subscribe
Clean up in Aisle 7.
Thanks nixerman. I sent mischief an email asking to stop, or take it here. Since when are links to blog posts taboo on metafilter? There are also NYT and Village Voice links. Or, even better, if mischief not interested in The New World, he could just read a different thread.
posted by muckster at 9:20 AM on March 14, 2006
posted by muckster at 9:20 AM on March 14, 2006
mischief: Is it wrong to try to improve the quality of discourse around here by trying to raise the standards of links? heheh
Yeah, the heheh is a pretty good indicator that he couldn't give a toss about the topic, and just wants to be a twat.
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 9:25 AM on March 14, 2006
Yeah, the heheh is a pretty good indicator that he couldn't give a toss about the topic, and just wants to be a twat.
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 9:25 AM on March 14, 2006
heheh you said twat
Stewardess: Thank you for flying TransWorld Airways. Would you like some of our TWA coffee?
Passenger: No, but I'd love some of your....
posted by dersins at 9:38 AM on March 14, 2006
Stewardess: Thank you for flying TransWorld Airways. Would you like some of our TWA coffee?
Passenger: No, but I'd love some of your....
posted by dersins at 9:38 AM on March 14, 2006
heheh twat SCIENCE
posted by loquacious at 9:39 AM on March 14, 2006
posted by loquacious at 9:39 AM on March 14, 2006
mischief = tired hypocrite. Try and ignore the troll(s).
posted by bardic at 9:40 AM on March 14, 2006
posted by bardic at 9:40 AM on March 14, 2006
On the one hand, there are a lot of FPP that I think could have been better done or would have been better off not being posted at all, but on balance, they annoy me a whole hell of a lot less than comments like mischief's.
posted by empath at 9:41 AM on March 14, 2006
posted by empath at 9:41 AM on March 14, 2006
Just think of it as another example of MeFi's embrace of double standards...
posted by mischief at 9:46 AM on March 14, 2006
posted by mischief at 9:46 AM on March 14, 2006
Why do I think this is going to play out as some kind of devil's-advocate-cum-contrarian-object-lesson-type-thing about newsfilter posts?
posted by PinkStainlessTail at 9:48 AM on March 14, 2006
posted by PinkStainlessTail at 9:48 AM on March 14, 2006
Yep, I was right.
posted by PinkStainlessTail at 9:48 AM on March 14, 2006
posted by PinkStainlessTail at 9:48 AM on March 14, 2006
Well, when you put it that way, you're still a twat.
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 10:02 AM on March 14, 2006
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 10:02 AM on March 14, 2006
Just think of it as another example of MeFi's embrace of double standards...
Waaaaahhhhhhh!!! My worldview isn't constantly being affirmed by my community!
Suck it up, you big baby.
posted by sonofsamiam at 10:03 AM on March 14, 2006
Waaaaahhhhhhh!!! My worldview isn't constantly being affirmed by my community!
Suck it up, you big baby.
posted by sonofsamiam at 10:03 AM on March 14, 2006
Just think of it as another example of MeFi's embrace of double standards...
"Do I contradict myself? Very well, I contradict myself. I am multitudes."
posted by cortex at 10:18 AM on March 14, 2006
"Do I contradict myself? Very well, I contradict myself. I am multitudes."
posted by cortex at 10:18 AM on March 14, 2006
MetaTalk: Suck it, baby.
posted by loquacious at 10:22 AM on March 14, 2006
posted by loquacious at 10:22 AM on March 14, 2006
As long as you've meta'd it; I really couldn't get past the gushy breathless purple prose of the blog links, and stopped reading there. It was like Harry Knowles without the street cred. Lead with your strengths, I guess, is the lesson, muckster. Your strength wasn't Matt Seitz' blog.
posted by boo_radley at 11:03 AM on March 14, 2006
posted by boo_radley at 11:03 AM on March 14, 2006
It was like Harry Knowles without the street cred.
Knowles has street cred? Sesame Street cred, maybe.
(Damn, I was really hoping that I had just coined the phrase "Sesame Street cred".)
posted by PinkStainlessTail at 11:22 AM on March 14, 2006
Knowles has street cred? Sesame Street cred, maybe.
(Damn, I was really hoping that I had just coined the phrase "Sesame Street cred".)
posted by PinkStainlessTail at 11:22 AM on March 14, 2006
OK, back from working out. Let's see what I missed...
posted by mischief at 11:36 AM on March 14, 2006
posted by mischief at 11:36 AM on March 14, 2006
Lead with your strengths, I guess, is the lesson, muckster.
Eh, no. I very much doubt that the order of the links would've prevented mischeif's behavior. The lesson is that mischeif is an asshole who, like so many others, exploits "self-policing" to shit on threads.
posted by nixerman at 11:37 AM on March 14, 2006
Eh, no. I very much doubt that the order of the links would've prevented mischeif's behavior. The lesson is that mischeif is an asshole who, like so many others, exploits "self-policing" to shit on threads.
posted by nixerman at 11:37 AM on March 14, 2006
Guh. I don't care about mischief, and I didn't point that out so that anyone would be able to prevent him from turding up posts.
My comment was an aside on style. By and large, blog entries are personal, touchy feely noise in my estimation of best of the web. The linked blog wasn't too notable, and the dude's google hits consisted mostly of links to his blog, making him even less notable. I figured if he was going to lead with filler, why read further into it myself.
You may continue railing against mischief now.
posted by boo_radley at 11:50 AM on March 14, 2006
My comment was an aside on style. By and large, blog entries are personal, touchy feely noise in my estimation of best of the web. The linked blog wasn't too notable, and the dude's google hits consisted mostly of links to his blog, making him even less notable. I figured if he was going to lead with filler, why read further into it myself.
You may continue railing against mischief now.
posted by boo_radley at 11:50 AM on March 14, 2006
"You may continue railing..."
Sure, shoot the messenger.
posted by mischief at 12:02 PM on March 14, 2006
Sure, shoot the messenger.
posted by mischief at 12:02 PM on March 14, 2006
it's funny, because mischief WAS being snotty in that thread, and for no good reason, but I just so fucking tired of callouts over every little thing, right now, that I couldn't care less.
posted by shmegegge at 12:44 PM on March 14, 2006
posted by shmegegge at 12:44 PM on March 14, 2006
Funny, I couldn't care less that you couldn't care less about this callout.
posted by sic at 12:52 PM on March 14, 2006
posted by sic at 12:52 PM on March 14, 2006
MetaFilter: Some kind of devil's-advocate-cum-contrarian-object-lesson-type-thing.
posted by S.C. at 12:54 PM on March 14, 2006
posted by S.C. at 12:54 PM on March 14, 2006
OK, back from working out. Let's see what I missed...
Isn't that the essence of the problem? You post before reading?
posted by cell divide at 1:01 PM on March 14, 2006
Isn't that the essence of the problem? You post before reading?
posted by cell divide at 1:01 PM on March 14, 2006
Bailiff? Whack his pee pee. Get it caught in a car door or something.
posted by loquacious at 1:30 PM on March 14, 2006
posted by loquacious at 1:30 PM on March 14, 2006
See? See what threatening a man's priceless family heirlooms can accomplish? World leaders, take a page from my book.
Hey, wait. That's not an apology. That's a first degree mocking!
posted by loquacious at 1:47 PM on March 14, 2006
Hey, wait. That's not an apology. That's a first degree mocking!
posted by loquacious at 1:47 PM on March 14, 2006
I would really like to see a hard line taken by the moderators with bitching about a post in the comments. There is a clearly defined place for that activity, here in metatalk. Choosing to discuss the posts validity in the blue, deprives the reader of the choice whether to read such meta-commentary. It basically amounts to spamming, and degrades the overall quality of the commentary, which IMO is still one of the key features of this site.
If I were to post a spam advertisement link in a thread, I should think it would be deleted in short order. Why not take the same tack with meta-meta posts in the blue?
posted by Manjusri at 1:51 PM on March 14, 2006
If I were to post a spam advertisement link in a thread, I should think it would be deleted in short order. Why not take the same tack with meta-meta posts in the blue?
posted by Manjusri at 1:51 PM on March 14, 2006
"Mr. Speaker. I said the honorable member was a liar it is true and I am sorry for it. The honorable member may place the punctuation where he pleases."
posted by blue_beetle at 2:54 PM on March 14, 2006
posted by blue_beetle at 2:54 PM on March 14, 2006
I agree with manjusri.
I'll just keep uselessly flagging them as derails in the meanwhile.
posted by empath at 3:02 PM on March 14, 2006
I'll just keep uselessly flagging them as derails in the meanwhile.
posted by empath at 3:02 PM on March 14, 2006
"Choosing to discuss the posts validity in the blue, deprives the reader of the choice whether to read such meta-commentary."
Just the name of the shop, love.
posted by klangklangston at 3:05 PM on March 14, 2006
Just the name of the shop, love.
posted by klangklangston at 3:05 PM on March 14, 2006
I totally agree with manjusri. Whether or not I even pick through an FPP is usually determined by the quality of the discourse i the comments. Shitting all over threads rather than just...say...moving along is a disservice to everyone.
(This is not directed at you specifically, mischief.)
posted by rollbiz at 3:49 PM on March 14, 2006
(This is not directed at you specifically, mischief.)
posted by rollbiz at 3:49 PM on March 14, 2006
Whether or not I even pick through an FPP is usually determined by the quality of the discourse i the comments.
How can you determine the quality of the discourse in the comments without picking through them?
posted by cortex at 4:35 PM on March 14, 2006
How can you determine the quality of the discourse in the comments without picking through them?
posted by cortex at 4:35 PM on March 14, 2006
I would really like to see a hard line taken by Terence Trent D'Arby.
posted by yerfatma at 4:38 PM on March 14, 2006
posted by yerfatma at 4:38 PM on March 14, 2006
I ATE A BEE
posted by killdevil at 12:38 PM EST on March 14 [!]
Holy copyright infringement! Don't make me go DMCA on your ass.
posted by Krrrlson at 5:01 PM on March 14, 2006
posted by killdevil at 12:38 PM EST on March 14 [!]
Holy copyright infringement! Don't make me go DMCA on your ass.
posted by Krrrlson at 5:01 PM on March 14, 2006
I completely disagree with manjusri, and everyone who agrees with him as well, I suppose. There are simply too many possible objections to have a metatalk page for every damn thread. What manjusri is basically saying is "I'd never read metatalk if this happened, and that's okay because I don't actually care about the quality of posts, so long as no one discusses that quality or lack thereof any place that I'd have to read it."
clearly, that may not be what he intended on saying, but that's what it means either way. metatalk would become an unreadable wasteland of talkpages for every fpp on the blue, and other community related stuff would be drowned in an absurd number of callout posts.
further, this idea is basically the same thing as saying "it's not too much to ask that you just ignore a bad post, but it's too much to ask that I ignore a bad comment."
posted by shmegegge at 5:06 PM on March 14, 2006
clearly, that may not be what he intended on saying, but that's what it means either way. metatalk would become an unreadable wasteland of talkpages for every fpp on the blue, and other community related stuff would be drowned in an absurd number of callout posts.
further, this idea is basically the same thing as saying "it's not too much to ask that you just ignore a bad post, but it's too much to ask that I ignore a bad comment."
posted by shmegegge at 5:06 PM on March 14, 2006
"I would really like to see a hard line taken by Terence Trent D'Arby."
I know it did wonders for George Michael.
posted by cedar at 5:10 PM on March 14, 2006
I know it did wonders for George Michael.
posted by cedar at 5:10 PM on March 14, 2006
that said, I'm all for the concept of wiki style talk pages for each thread as outlined by mathowie a while ago.
posted by shmegegge at 5:24 PM on March 14, 2006
posted by shmegegge at 5:24 PM on March 14, 2006
Choosing to discuss the posts validity in the blue, deprives the reader of the choice whether to read such meta-commentary.
I agree that discussion of a post's validity is inappropriate in the blue.
Feedback on the validity of the post is, imo, entirely appropriate in the blue. This feedback is what guides the majority of users of MeFi in making FPPs.
Very few people read MeTa. It is useful in helping us MeFi addicts sort out our problems. It has next to no use for the majority of the MeFi population.
I do think in-thread commentary needs to be brief and should not devolve to discussion.
It's like driving: MeFi is the car hurtling down the highway at high speed; in-thread bitching is the small, unconscious steering corrections that keep the car on the road; and MeTa is the off-ramp that takes us a new direction.
Also, I'm stoned on cold medications.
posted by five fresh fish at 5:43 PM on March 14, 2006
I agree that discussion of a post's validity is inappropriate in the blue.
Feedback on the validity of the post is, imo, entirely appropriate in the blue. This feedback is what guides the majority of users of MeFi in making FPPs.
Very few people read MeTa. It is useful in helping us MeFi addicts sort out our problems. It has next to no use for the majority of the MeFi population.
I do think in-thread commentary needs to be brief and should not devolve to discussion.
It's like driving: MeFi is the car hurtling down the highway at high speed; in-thread bitching is the small, unconscious steering corrections that keep the car on the road; and MeTa is the off-ramp that takes us a new direction.
Also, I'm stoned on cold medications.
posted by five fresh fish at 5:43 PM on March 14, 2006
I would really like to see a hard line taken by the moderators with bitching about a post in the comments.
I think you're confusing this with one of those places where posters respect/fear moderators.
posted by darukaru at 5:50 PM on March 14, 2006
I think you're confusing this with one of those places where posters respect/fear moderators.
posted by darukaru at 5:50 PM on March 14, 2006
what manjusri is basically saying is "I'd never read metatalk if this happened, and that's okay because I don't actually care about the quality of posts, so long as no one discusses that quality or lack thereof any place that I'd have to read it."
Not even close to what I am saying. It is simply a question of organization empowering the user and improving the experience. I have Metatalk in a high-ranking spot on my RSS feeds, right alongside Metafilter. Some days I click it, some days I don't. It is my choice, depending on whether I wish to consume, or engage in commentary about Metafilter. I have posted here before, and on this same subject, exactly because I do care about the quality of the posts. It is, after all, my favorite site for discussion.
I think that the "Meta" link posts are perfect. They let people know that there is a Metatalk discussion underway without derailing the thread. Insisting on having the discussion in the blue is no different from posting Ask Metafilter questions in the blue, or any sort of spam activity where you miscategorize your posting in order to force people trying to consume other media to view it. You are tagging a _complaint_ with a _content_ tag, so that people trying to read _content_ have to view it too.
Personally, I do respect the moderators of this site, both because of the end result, and the open dialog on metatalk. By "hard line" I don't mean to imply that I prefer a more mod-fascist style. I would just like to see posts that are blatantly misplaced treated as what they are: spam
posted by Manjusri at 6:41 PM on March 14, 2006
Not even close to what I am saying. It is simply a question of organization empowering the user and improving the experience. I have Metatalk in a high-ranking spot on my RSS feeds, right alongside Metafilter. Some days I click it, some days I don't. It is my choice, depending on whether I wish to consume, or engage in commentary about Metafilter. I have posted here before, and on this same subject, exactly because I do care about the quality of the posts. It is, after all, my favorite site for discussion.
I think that the "Meta" link posts are perfect. They let people know that there is a Metatalk discussion underway without derailing the thread. Insisting on having the discussion in the blue is no different from posting Ask Metafilter questions in the blue, or any sort of spam activity where you miscategorize your posting in order to force people trying to consume other media to view it. You are tagging a _complaint_ with a _content_ tag, so that people trying to read _content_ have to view it too.
Personally, I do respect the moderators of this site, both because of the end result, and the open dialog on metatalk. By "hard line" I don't mean to imply that I prefer a more mod-fascist style. I would just like to see posts that are blatantly misplaced treated as what they are: spam
posted by Manjusri at 6:41 PM on March 14, 2006
There are simply too many possible objections to have a metatalk page for every damn thread.
I agree entirely. The funny thing is, is that mathowie has suggested he's going to implement this very thing, except in some kind of automagical off-to-the-(virtual?)-side metapage for each thread.
Which I think is just about the worst idea I've ever heard as a feature for this site, and we've heard some doozies. I leave it to someone else to track down where it was said, if they're interested.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 6:53 PM on March 14, 2006
I agree entirely. The funny thing is, is that mathowie has suggested he's going to implement this very thing, except in some kind of automagical off-to-the-(virtual?)-side metapage for each thread.
Which I think is just about the worst idea I've ever heard as a feature for this site, and we've heard some doozies. I leave it to someone else to track down where it was said, if they're interested.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 6:53 PM on March 14, 2006
"it's not too much to ask that you just ignore a bad post, but it's too much to ask that I ignore a bad comment."
There are many, many more comments than there are posts. If you felt compelled to flag either each bad post or each bad comment...which way would you end up doing more work?
posted by juv3nal at 6:57 PM on March 14, 2006
There are many, many more comments than there are posts. If you felt compelled to flag either each bad post or each bad comment...which way would you end up doing more work?
posted by juv3nal at 6:57 PM on March 14, 2006
He's thinking about pulling the equivalent of Wikipedia "article" and "discussion" pages? WTF?
Anyway, I think the idea that every complaint end up in MeTa is impractical, unnecessary, and not very smart.
posted by five fresh fish at 7:39 PM on March 14, 2006
Anyway, I think the idea that every complaint end up in MeTa is impractical, unnecessary, and not very smart.
posted by five fresh fish at 7:39 PM on March 14, 2006
manjusri: as I said, I don't think that's what you're TRYING to say, but it is what you're saying, anyway. here's my logic on that:
you say no metacommentary on the quality of the post should be allowed in the blue, since that's what metatalk is for. you qualify the idea with this statement: Choosing to discuss the posts validity in the blue, deprives the reader of the choice whether to read such meta-commentary. What this is saying is "I don't care how bad the post is, leave the commentary out of the thread." You also say that there's a clearly marked area for meta-commentary (metatalk) and so it clearly doesn't belong in the blue.
for one thing, that's not true. meta is for big ol' cockups and trainwrecks to be brought to public attention. it's not there for every little gripe, which is why so many people are getting annoyed by the string of minor callouts recently, for example.
but take those two ideas together. you're basically saying, whether you mean to or not, that there should be a ghetto of some kind for discussion of post quality so that people can completely ignore it without any effort. whether you would read it or not, personally, isn't so much the issue. the fact that you're advocating the ability for anyone and everyone to ignore the public demand for quality is.
this is a terrible idea. post quality is important. people being able to call for higher quality posts is important. people being able to do so without having to be relegated to "freedom of speech zones" is part of what made the best posters on the site into the best posters on the site. If the majority of posters don't or won't read MetaTalk, then they're going to have to get used to complaints about their garbage posts being put right in front of them.
sure, there's room for abuse, but the admins work against that. Hell, I had a comment deleted recently because I accused a post that linked an advertisement for a car of being pepsi blue. Now, should I have taken my concern to metatalk? Could you imagine how stupid it would be if I made a metatalk thread every single time I thought something was a crappy post? It would be a far worse abuse of the site than any comment could be, just because someone has a problem with almost every thread, nowadays. metatalk would be worse than useless.
so what do we get when we combine a bloated useless metatalk with a commentary free metafilter? that's right, the worst front page posts of all time going unchecked and our worst posters never knowing just how fucking awful their posts are. whee! at least if we had the talk pages, you could see when a thread has zero normal comments and a whole talk page full of comments that your post is garbage. at least that figure would be right there in front of you, instead of exiled off to some uninhabitable wasteland of the gray.
posted by shmegegge at 7:54 PM on March 14, 2006
you say no metacommentary on the quality of the post should be allowed in the blue, since that's what metatalk is for. you qualify the idea with this statement: Choosing to discuss the posts validity in the blue, deprives the reader of the choice whether to read such meta-commentary. What this is saying is "I don't care how bad the post is, leave the commentary out of the thread." You also say that there's a clearly marked area for meta-commentary (metatalk) and so it clearly doesn't belong in the blue.
for one thing, that's not true. meta is for big ol' cockups and trainwrecks to be brought to public attention. it's not there for every little gripe, which is why so many people are getting annoyed by the string of minor callouts recently, for example.
but take those two ideas together. you're basically saying, whether you mean to or not, that there should be a ghetto of some kind for discussion of post quality so that people can completely ignore it without any effort. whether you would read it or not, personally, isn't so much the issue. the fact that you're advocating the ability for anyone and everyone to ignore the public demand for quality is.
this is a terrible idea. post quality is important. people being able to call for higher quality posts is important. people being able to do so without having to be relegated to "freedom of speech zones" is part of what made the best posters on the site into the best posters on the site. If the majority of posters don't or won't read MetaTalk, then they're going to have to get used to complaints about their garbage posts being put right in front of them.
sure, there's room for abuse, but the admins work against that. Hell, I had a comment deleted recently because I accused a post that linked an advertisement for a car of being pepsi blue. Now, should I have taken my concern to metatalk? Could you imagine how stupid it would be if I made a metatalk thread every single time I thought something was a crappy post? It would be a far worse abuse of the site than any comment could be, just because someone has a problem with almost every thread, nowadays. metatalk would be worse than useless.
so what do we get when we combine a bloated useless metatalk with a commentary free metafilter? that's right, the worst front page posts of all time going unchecked and our worst posters never knowing just how fucking awful their posts are. whee! at least if we had the talk pages, you could see when a thread has zero normal comments and a whole talk page full of comments that your post is garbage. at least that figure would be right there in front of you, instead of exiled off to some uninhabitable wasteland of the gray.
posted by shmegegge at 7:54 PM on March 14, 2006
juv3nal writes "There are many, many more comments than there are posts. If you felt compelled to flag either each bad post or each bad comment...which way would you end up doing more work?"
No one does feel compelled to do that, though. here's a better question: if you felt compelled to just ignore bad posts and comments, which would involve more work on your part?
that's right, it involves no work to ignore something. if it's enough for the haters of newsfilter and other crap posts to just ignore them, then you guys can ignore metacommentary in thread. at least you only have to encounter us complaining if you actually enter the thread. we have to encounter the crap we hate every single time we visit the site.
posted by shmegegge at 7:57 PM on March 14, 2006
No one does feel compelled to do that, though. here's a better question: if you felt compelled to just ignore bad posts and comments, which would involve more work on your part?
that's right, it involves no work to ignore something. if it's enough for the haters of newsfilter and other crap posts to just ignore them, then you guys can ignore metacommentary in thread. at least you only have to encounter us complaining if you actually enter the thread. we have to encounter the crap we hate every single time we visit the site.
posted by shmegegge at 7:57 PM on March 14, 2006
" mathowie has suggested he's going to implement this very thing, except in some kind of automagical off-to-the-(virtual?)-side metapage for each thread."
Sounds like the ideal solution.
posted by Manjusri at 9:55 PM on March 14, 2006
Sounds like the ideal solution.
posted by Manjusri at 9:55 PM on March 14, 2006
[Except that it's not. But you've been a font of bad ideas in this thread, so it doesn't surprise me to see your support lent to another.]
posted by klangklangston at 8:44 AM on March 15, 2006
posted by klangklangston at 8:44 AM on March 15, 2006
It would be one thing if all comments were topical and substantive. But the vast majority of discussions are off-topic noise anyhow. Why the beef about critical comments?
This site is MetaFilter. An enormous part of that concept is the quality of filtration. I could see validity in the argument being proposed by Manjusri if the site was called MetaDiscussion.... discussion about everything. Wherein the goal of such a site would be talk about topics. Here the goal appears to be tied in some way to some subjective filtration. Thus, I think some comment on the quality of filtration would be valid.
But often times, a post is made and the comments go off on other derails and are full of noise. People only get upset about the critical comment whens they like the subject matter and want to discuss it themselves.
Right now, I could link to some mildly pornographic/fetish site and a lot of the comments will be about me or the quality and propriety of the link. I can guarantee that Manjusri won't have the same complaint there.
posted by dios at 10:22 AM on March 15, 2006
This site is MetaFilter. An enormous part of that concept is the quality of filtration. I could see validity in the argument being proposed by Manjusri if the site was called MetaDiscussion.... discussion about everything. Wherein the goal of such a site would be talk about topics. Here the goal appears to be tied in some way to some subjective filtration. Thus, I think some comment on the quality of filtration would be valid.
But often times, a post is made and the comments go off on other derails and are full of noise. People only get upset about the critical comment whens they like the subject matter and want to discuss it themselves.
Right now, I could link to some mildly pornographic/fetish site and a lot of the comments will be about me or the quality and propriety of the link. I can guarantee that Manjusri won't have the same complaint there.
posted by dios at 10:22 AM on March 15, 2006
Right now, I could link to some mildly pornographic/fetish site[...] - Dios
I am willing to participate in your thought experiment, sir.
posted by boo_radley at 10:25 AM on March 15, 2006
I am willing to participate in your thought experiment, sir.
posted by boo_radley at 10:25 AM on March 15, 2006
Case in point: this post is getting criticized--and rightfully so because it is a piece of crap that should be deleted--for being way too much editorializing. The criticism is right there in the thread, and I suspect that no one is having a conniption fit over it like they are over mischief's comments.
posted by dios at 10:39 AM on March 15, 2006
posted by dios at 10:39 AM on March 15, 2006
This site is MetaFilter. An enormous part of that concept is the quality of filtration. I could see validity in the argument being proposed by Manjusri if the site was called MetaDiscussion.... discussion about everything.
Except this is a lie. On two counts:
First, do you know there's something called Metatalk? Ever heard of it? It's a place where people like you can bring your complaints about posts and posters so that others can actually discuss the topic of the post. As you've made it your personal mission to critique most every post that conflicts with your personal politics, you should really look into it.
Second, dios, let's be honest, for just once. You and people like mischief simply couldn't give a flying fuck about the quality of the site. It's blindingly clear from your behavior that you have no respect for either the quality of the front page or the members of the community. Your constant derails of various threads has achieved absolutely nothing to increase the quality of the site. In fact, I suspect your trolling has likely led to an to increase in the number of such posts. The only certain result of your in-thread criticism has been the creation of an enormous, omnipresent animosity against you that serves only to poison the entire site. A rational person would conclude that it's the animosity, not the decrease in "bad posts," that you're really after. I might be willing to give you the benefit of the doubt except, really, this is coming from somebody who's made countless third-grade threats to respond to bad posts with... more bad posts of his own. Is this really the behavior of somebody concerned about the quality of the front page?
It's unfortunate that admins seem to have simply given up for the most part when it comes to the blue. I suppose the only solution is never-ending metatalk callouts such as this one each time somebody shows up to derail a thread. But, we can still at least be clear about the problem. The various persons who show up to shit in and derail threads aren't doing it because they want to see a better front page. They're doing it because they're assholes and they know their behavior will carry no negative consequences. I'm sure by the time I've made this post mischief will be at it again. In the unlikely case that there really are people who believe their behavior helps the site in any way, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to review the past few months and reach the obvious conclusion that, when it comes to "self-policing," the cure is a thousand times worse than the disease.
Of course, I don't expect you or mischief to admit this and change your behavior in any way. I'm sure I'll see you in a few weeks when you decide to descend on another thread and mock the post or accuse the poster and we have our bi-weekly dios callout thread. But, I suppose, there are crazier traditions out there.
posted by nixerman at 4:14 PM on March 15, 2006
Except this is a lie. On two counts:
First, do you know there's something called Metatalk? Ever heard of it? It's a place where people like you can bring your complaints about posts and posters so that others can actually discuss the topic of the post. As you've made it your personal mission to critique most every post that conflicts with your personal politics, you should really look into it.
Second, dios, let's be honest, for just once. You and people like mischief simply couldn't give a flying fuck about the quality of the site. It's blindingly clear from your behavior that you have no respect for either the quality of the front page or the members of the community. Your constant derails of various threads has achieved absolutely nothing to increase the quality of the site. In fact, I suspect your trolling has likely led to an to increase in the number of such posts. The only certain result of your in-thread criticism has been the creation of an enormous, omnipresent animosity against you that serves only to poison the entire site. A rational person would conclude that it's the animosity, not the decrease in "bad posts," that you're really after. I might be willing to give you the benefit of the doubt except, really, this is coming from somebody who's made countless third-grade threats to respond to bad posts with... more bad posts of his own. Is this really the behavior of somebody concerned about the quality of the front page?
It's unfortunate that admins seem to have simply given up for the most part when it comes to the blue. I suppose the only solution is never-ending metatalk callouts such as this one each time somebody shows up to derail a thread. But, we can still at least be clear about the problem. The various persons who show up to shit in and derail threads aren't doing it because they want to see a better front page. They're doing it because they're assholes and they know their behavior will carry no negative consequences. I'm sure by the time I've made this post mischief will be at it again. In the unlikely case that there really are people who believe their behavior helps the site in any way, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to review the past few months and reach the obvious conclusion that, when it comes to "self-policing," the cure is a thousand times worse than the disease.
Of course, I don't expect you or mischief to admit this and change your behavior in any way. I'm sure I'll see you in a few weeks when you decide to descend on another thread and mock the post or accuse the poster and we have our bi-weekly dios callout thread. But, I suppose, there are crazier traditions out there.
posted by nixerman at 4:14 PM on March 15, 2006
"Manjusri won't have the same complaint there"
True, if only because "there" isn't where I do my complaining. Assuming I found it objectionable though, it would be nice to have a separate and appropriate place in which to discuss it, without derailing the thread. Assuming also that my objections are not sufficient to warrant the removal of the post, it would be nice if those who actually find merit in the thread aren't force to wade through the annoying and repetitive objections to actually discuss the topic.
I should also point out that this is not about any one user's comments, or any particular post. I only noticed mischief's by linking through this thread, and commented on the issue in general.
posted by Manjusri at 4:30 PM on March 15, 2006
True, if only because "there" isn't where I do my complaining. Assuming I found it objectionable though, it would be nice to have a separate and appropriate place in which to discuss it, without derailing the thread. Assuming also that my objections are not sufficient to warrant the removal of the post, it would be nice if those who actually find merit in the thread aren't force to wade through the annoying and repetitive objections to actually discuss the topic.
I should also point out that this is not about any one user's comments, or any particular post. I only noticed mischief's by linking through this thread, and commented on the issue in general.
posted by Manjusri at 4:30 PM on March 15, 2006
« Older Can we single out unanswered questions on AskMe? | Doing away with double deletions? Newer »
You are not logged in, either login or create an account to post comments
posted by nixerman at 9:16 AM on March 14, 2006