Spam alert April 27, 2006 9:24 PM   Subscribe

Fuck this.
posted by Snyder to Etiquette/Policy at 9:24 PM (128 comments total)

Has a comment in this thread too.
posted by Snyder at 9:26 PM on April 27, 2006


Awesome. Welcome to our newest user, onlinegamerspro, another fine representative of the fast-growing marketing industry!
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 9:27 PM on April 27, 2006


Wow gold you say.
posted by Samuel Farrow at 9:27 PM on April 27, 2006


And again here, in a thread that's been quiet for 10 days. Both comments so far are spam at the bottom of unrelated threads.

*sticks pitchfork in onlinegamerspro's ass and eye and crotch*
posted by mediareport at 9:27 PM on April 27, 2006


Or, to use an SA-ism: bye, whore!
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 9:28 PM on April 27, 2006


I've got the torches. Who's got the rope? We need a horse, too.
posted by jmhodges at 9:30 PM on April 27, 2006


Oh holy shit
posted by Snyder at 9:30 PM on April 27, 2006


I've got the torches. Who's got the rope? We need a horse, too.

What exactly are you going to do with that horse?
posted by ColdChef at 9:31 PM on April 27, 2006


Just came to MeTa to report this fuckarse. Thanks, Snyder.
posted by sjvilla79 at 9:32 PM on April 27, 2006


ColdChef, hey, I had different ideas, but yours might work better. Hmm..
posted by jmhodges at 9:33 PM on April 27, 2006


Did he really spend 5 bucks or whatever registration fee to get a 10-minute window of advertising? How may I invest with this marketing genius?

Matt, please kick his ass to the curb pronto...
posted by banishedimmortal at 9:33 PM on April 27, 2006


comments deleted, user banned.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 9:33 PM on April 27, 2006


Thanks. It's just a shame Matt can only ban him.
posted by Snyder at 9:34 PM on April 27, 2006


It's done!
posted by sjvilla79 at 9:34 PM on April 27, 2006


Nice work team...
posted by banishedimmortal at 9:34 PM on April 27, 2006


Or Jessamyn, for that matter. Thanks for the quick response.
posted by Snyder at 9:34 PM on April 27, 2006


I thought it was distant thunder, but it was the banhammer.

On to our next justicey caper, gang!
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 9:35 PM on April 27, 2006


Jinkies! It was just old man Smithy in a zombie panda suit! Thanks, jess!
posted by jmhodges at 9:36 PM on April 27, 2006


I love how crassly out-of-place UbuRoivas' comment looks now.
posted by nomis at 9:37 PM on April 27, 2006


Did they try posting it again in the first thread? What a shithead. Way to go, moderators, that was quick work.
posted by mediareport at 9:38 PM on April 27, 2006


Man. That was over too quickly. I just got my pants all the way off!
posted by ColdChef at 9:40 PM on April 27, 2006


I love how crassly out-of-place UbuRoivas' comment looks now.

Which is, of course, the best argument for a simple [comment deleted] marker.
posted by mediareport at 9:40 PM on April 27, 2006


wow he spent $5 to lose $5
posted by StrasbourgSecaucus at 9:42 PM on April 27, 2006


Not only did he post again in that thread, the comment with it was pretty much a 'Fuck you' to UbuRovias, and by extension, I think, the site.
posted by Snyder at 9:42 PM on April 27, 2006


Oh, please, Jess, pretty please let us see what the shithead wrote in his righteous fury. I could use a good laugh.
posted by mediareport at 9:44 PM on April 27, 2006


but now where can I go to buy gold?
posted by Balisong at 9:44 PM on April 27, 2006


Or deleting his (Then apt, but now out-of-place) comment. Otherwise:

[Comment deleted]
posted by onlinegamerspro at 11:10 PM CST on April 27 [!]

wow, that's remarkably insensitive. good luck with your shitty business.
posted by UbuRoivas at 11:15 PM CST on April 27 [!]

hey, what'd that guy say?
posted by ShlockPuppet at 11:26 PM CST on April 27 [!]

Well, you see...
posted by EveryoneAndTheirDog at 11:27 PM CST on April 27 [!]

Wow, that is shitty. Know who I blame?
posted by AxeGrindr at 11:45 PM CST on April 27 [!]


Leaving the comments in, or replacing them with [Deleted] would probably encourage more derailing.
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 9:47 PM on April 27, 2006


Oh, it was pretty much, "Oh, I'm still here," with another "wow gold" link.
posted by Snyder at 9:49 PM on April 27, 2006


OK, since this thread is inexplicably still open, what mediareport said. My new hobbyhorse-of-the-week.

Let me be subtle about this:

WE NEED DELETED COMMENTS MARKERS!

Something like 'comment by userX deleted', discreet and unobtrusive. I'm not jokin' here -- invisible comment deletion is killing Metafilter. [/hyperbole]

I don't want to see the comments themselves, necessarily, just an indication (even if it's a tiny icon of some kind that you have to hover over) that a comment has been memory-holed, and who made it.

And please: no bullshit 'use a greasemonkey script' dodges. This goes to the core of the the way the community works (or doesn't).

The current situation is just not good enough. And if it's not going to be done, I would really like to see a cogent explanation from Matt why not (and ensuing discussion).

All props to del fuego for his javascript work, but we needed keyboard navigation not at bloody all, and we do need this.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 9:50 PM on April 27, 2006


Shouldn:t you delete his user profile too?
posted by banishedimmortal at 9:53 PM on April 27, 2006


How about just let deleted comments stay in lofi the same way that deleted threads are.

Or does that just allow more pagehits by spamming gold shillers?
posted by Balisong at 9:54 PM on April 27, 2006


stavros, I've already said why there isn't tracked deleted comments.

The user is banned, the show's over.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 9:55 PM on April 27, 2006


Well, first, Alvy, there shouldn't be a "posted by" with any [comment deleted] marker. I don't know why on earth some folks seem to think that'd be wise, but it wouldn't, and is silly to suggest. So just a simple [comment deleted], that's all.

Second, while I understand your point (which lots of folks have made), we already see occasional derails in threads that have holes left by missing comments. What bothers me is the site owner's conscious choice to leave gaping holes in our archived discussions - holes which are bound to be confusing to anyone coming across those discussions weeks or months later. I have never seen another discussion site that works like that, and think it's a terrible mistake from the perspective of the site's usability.

Any other problems caused by a simple [comment deleted] marker can easily be addressed, and have been already at dozens of other sites.
posted by mediareport at 9:56 PM on April 27, 2006


Don't worry about the spammer's profile -- the link to his site is ignored by all search engines, so really there's nothing to gain by having it there.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 9:57 PM on April 27, 2006


Matt, if by "tracked" deleted comments, you mean markers that identify whose comment was deleted, you should know that many of us are not asking for that kind of identification. All we're asking for is a basic record of the fact of a deletion. I know you've tried to answer this before, but I've never seen you mention what you think is so different about the Metafilter community that it can't handle the kind of simple marker so many other discussion sites use.
posted by mediareport at 9:59 PM on April 27, 2006


stavros, I've already said why there isn't tracked deleted comments.

Care to point me to it? I can't recall you addressing this issue directly. I understand and agree with your thinking about some users wanting to be 'King of the Shitpile' and why it's a bad idea to track and count deletions.

I am not asking for (OK, demanding) tracking of any kind. I'm asking for visual cues inthread that comments have been deleted. Was I that unclear?

On preview, mediareport is on the same page as me, clearly.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 10:00 PM on April 27, 2006


Any other problems caused by a simple [comment deleted] marker can easily be addressed

Any other problems can be easily addressed?

Right now, the situation is once in a while, comments are deleted and people that were in the thread wonder what happened, and sometimes post here about it. Other people reading the thread never see them and rarely even notice. It does suck when links go nowhere in metatalk, but once again 99% of the traffic on *.metafilter.com is not here, and those users aren't burdened with the need to know what every dumb spam link, attack on another user, or pointless derail said.

Adding [comment deleted] means suddenly everyone notices and that starts us down the slippery slope of every comment is sacred and needs to have a permanent home and oh god won't metatalk be great when we can have endless debates about each and every deleted comment that pollutes every thread for all of eternity?

and have been already at dozens of other sites.

I know there are some default bulletin board software packages that track deletions by users themselves, but I know quite a number leave no trace when the admins remove whole threads or cherry pick comments. About the only full transparency sites I can think of are slashdot and kuro5hin. Tons of blog software lets an admin delete anything at all without a trace. I've heard complaints from metachat and monkeyfilter members saying stuff disappears from time to time with no explanation and no rhyme or reason.

I'm deleting stuff that has no merit. Leaving a [comment deleted] marker for each and every one of them is just leaving a stain behind, forever.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 10:04 PM on April 27, 2006


Any other problems can be easily addressed?

Any that folks have anticipated in these discussions, yes.

every one of them is just leaving a stain behind, forever.

Your gaping holes are stains, too, Matt.
posted by mediareport at 10:08 PM on April 27, 2006


There are no longer any references to the gold spam post in that thread. Once in a while, I can't removed every dumb quotation of another user's derail, but I don't think that leaves many threads with gaping holes in them, as you state.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 10:13 PM on April 27, 2006


Holy crap, Matt.

You're saying it's fine to delete things because they are 'without merit', as long as nobody can see they're being deleted, as long as nobody notices? But if people were to actually see and jessamyn you doing it, they might object? And that's a reason to keep doing it sub rosa?

I'm going to have to say that from where I'm standing, that's just wrong. And indefensible. Deleting comments, as I've said before, is in and of itself a wrong policy (in my opinion), and destructive, because it addresses the symptom (the comments) rather than the cause (bad behaviour). Deleting comments in a manner which is in effect silent and secret makes it even worse.

The cause of the problem is users behaving badly. They will continue to do so if you just delete their comments, and even worse they have no negative incentive to beave better because it's silent. Ironically, it's more work for you in the longterm.

And now in order to justify that bad policy, you hop onto a chute of flimsy justifications that lead down to where you seem to be now: a lack of respect for the community. Ironic that the very problem in users results in the administrator showing the same attitude.

Adding [comment deleted] means suddenly everyone notices and that starts us down the slippery slope of every comment is sacred and needs to have a permanent home and oh god won't metatalk be great when we can have endless debates about each and every deleted comment that pollutes every thread for all of eternity?

Sorry, but that's just handwavey nonsense. If what you're deleting is without merit, then it's without merit. You can't have it both ways. If someone wants to bitch about their comment being deleted, they're not going to notice or object any more strongly if it's got a marker of some kind beside it, and they're no more likely to take it to Meta. It's their comment, they remember making it, with or without a marker. If they're going to whine, they're going to whine, with or without a marker.

It's a pretty dim view you seem to have of your userbase, Matt. Deeply disheartening, to me at least. I really did think that you had a good handle on all this online community stuff.

Leaving a [comment deleted] marker for each and every one of them is just leaving a stain behind, forever.

It might make you and jessamyn look bad, from an outsider's perspective, because so many things are being disappeared every day, it seems. Hard to tell, because there's no record of any kind.

But far from being a 'stain', a marker of some kind for deletions would provide connective tissue. And give us all some idea of who the bad actors are (and, one would hope, disincline them from being bad actors), and how heavy a hand you two actually do have. I don't think those would be anything like negative.



Ah hell, I'm already freakin' bored of this. Do what you like. That seems to be your plan, anyway.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 10:28 PM on April 27, 2006


Crap should be deleted, not honored with little turds all over the thread. I'm with Matt on this one.
posted by majick at 10:32 PM on April 27, 2006


That came off pretty harsh, perhaps, and I'm not pulling a quonsar here. I love this place, and I care a lot about it. I'm not bashing Matt for the fun of admin-sassing, I just very much want what's best for the site and its users.

I may be wrong, though. I frequently am.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 10:37 PM on April 27, 2006


Hell--that's it! Matt could mark them with a glowing ember and send them off to a separate MetaHell page (with appropriate fire and brimstone background) where users could go to watch them burn. Entries would slowly decompose into smoke and ash as they moved down the page. There would be a pitchfork rental booth, with proceeds going to a worthwhile charity.
posted by weapons-grade pandemonium at 10:59 PM on April 27, 2006


I agree with Stavros. Moderation is one thing. Invisible moderation is something else. Deleting comments is necessary. Sometimes I don't agree with Matt's or Jessamyn's decisions; well, I can live with that. But I'm not too fond of invisible moderation. A simple [comment deleted] would be a good thing.
posted by Termite at 11:03 PM on April 27, 2006


But I'm not too fond of invisible moderation. A simple [comment deleted] would be a good thing.

I'm not trying to hide my tracks here, I'm trying to keep my job sane. The benevolent dictator thing has worked for seven years -- I've been doing exactly what I describe and while there is a little friction from time to time, I know that moving to a system that leaves deleted markers will quickly be followed by demands to see the deleted comments in full, with attribution. And when that happens, I'll basically spend 24 hours a day explaining away each and every deletion, and I won't have time to do anything else. MetaTalk management already occupies most of my day and we tend to only argue about major threads with comments being a lesser problem. I just don't want to paint myself into the corner of a new metatalk thread for every comment that gets deleted.

I do things here on balance, and keeping deleted threads around is fine with me and I post reasons for it but I'm not going to do the same for comments. It would make moderating the site a very tedious affair, something that would literally take hours out of my day writing reasons and defending them, while also having to email people to tell them about the removal.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 11:58 PM on April 27, 2006


The cause of the problem is users behaving badly. They will continue to do so if you just delete their comments, and even worse they have no negative incentive to beave better because it's silent.

You are arguing that something like SA forums is a better approach, which to me seems to be do anything remotely away from the party line and you get banned, with a way to pay for your way back in. I never understood why that was a better approach, it seems more like an insular boys club.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 12:02 AM on April 28, 2006


Deleting comments, as I've said before, is in and of itself a wrong policy (in my opinion), and destructive, because it addresses the symptom (the comments) rather than the cause (bad behaviour).

Deleting comments may not be the best way to penetrate the soul of the offender and make them right in the eyes of God, but it is the next best thing to their never having squeezed a turd onto the site in the first place.

I can kinda see the arguments on both sides Alvy_Ampersand makes a good point, above, but what I really don't understand is the RAGING PASSION behind this request for markers where shit has been wiped from the collective ass of MeFi. I think on some level these markers are desired so we can basically watchdog how much deletion is going on, but frankly I trust Matt and Jessamyn based on their track record and am content to continue.

If anything, a lofi version of the page is called for. But removing all trace from the actual thread is, in my opinion, best.
posted by scarabic at 12:04 AM on April 28, 2006


mathowie : "I know that moving to a system that leaves deleted markers will quickly be followed by demands to see the deleted comments in full, with attribution."

You don't have plans anymore for a talk page? If they're on, then the problem's solved. Deleted comments go in full to the talk page. The thread, proper, remains sanitised.
posted by Gyan at 12:34 AM on April 28, 2006


So what does it take for a user to be banned or perma-banned?

That's mildly facetious, but right now you're giving carte blanche to users to howl and scream every time they don't like a given post within the blue thread itself. If you wipe their comments with no reprecussions, they'll continue to do it. How is this making less work for you and Jessamyn?

I feel like the kid in an after-school special begging for more rules and more authority, to be honest. But currently, deletions leave holes in threads and, more importantly, don't encourage certain users to change their behavior. It's a problem Matt, and not one that's going to go away with hopes and fond feelings. It's your site, and it's a great one due to the executive decisions you've made--why be all wishy-washy when it comes to repeat thread-crapping offenders?
posted by bardic at 12:49 AM on April 28, 2006


I think your arguments are circular, Matt, and that the way things are done at the moment makes more work for you than the alternative, in the long run.

You think precisely the opposite.

So that's where we leave it, I guess. So it goes.

(Again, I only want administration of the site to be easier for you, for it to be sustainable, and for the disruptive influence of bad actors to be minimized in as transparent and equitable way as possible, so that I can continue to have a place to hang out with all these good folks. Perhaps some day we can sit down over a couple of beers and I can convince you with much handwaving that I'm right by god, but by that time we'll probably be making fun of the $50 post 100K newbs, and you'll be a withered husk of a man. Heh.)
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 1:18 AM on April 28, 2006


The only comment deletions I give a fuck about are the ones that affect my understanding of a thread/conversation. Prune at will, but please let us know when a deletion is going to affect my understanding of a thread. I don't even have to know who it is; knowing I'm not having a flashback would be enough for me. A simple [shithead deleted] would be enough for me as long as I could still follow the discussion.
posted by trondant at 1:29 AM on April 28, 2006


I wonder what Blizzard's policy is on reporting WoW gold farmers. They seem to be pretty heavy on the ban hammer, but I dunno if they bother setting up stings to catch these asshats in action...
posted by antifuse at 1:32 AM on April 28, 2006


Oh christ, I've had too much coffee. Someone stop me before I post again!

*waits*

Too late:

You are arguing that something like SA forums is a better approach, which to me seems to be do anything remotely away from the party line and you get banned, with a way to pay for your way back in. I never understood why that was a better approach, it seems more like an insular boys club.

You're getting my arguments mixed up -- the 'ban 'em quick, ban 'em often' wonderchicken hobbyhorse was last week. I used SA as an example when I was arguing my position on that.

But this week's steed (comment deletion) is a dead horse of a different color entirely. I don't think comments are ever deleted at SA, so there's no real linkage there.

Both of my arguments do derive from a common observation, though: that not implementing consistent and public negative consequences for consistent bad behaviour renders that behaviour acceptable by default, and ends in an increase in that behaviour. Silent comment deletion does not qualify as a negative consequence; in fact, it smells like tacit approval. It doesn't address the problem, again, it only addresses the symptom, and that means an ever-increasing workload for you in the future, running around putting out bushfires only to have them spring up elsewhere, with no end in sight as the userbase grows.

Establish negative consequences, address the root cause, make it transparent and public so that it merges into foundation assumptions of good conduct, and your workload goes down, even as the userbase grows.

I just don't buy your slippery slope argument that Metatalk will explode with whining, over any term longer than the first week or so after deleted comment markers (not! viewable! deleted! comments! ever! damnit!) were implemented. No short-term pain, no long-term gain.

And it doesn't take many bad actors to poison the well, even one as big as MeFi. This is part of why, for example, people get so disproportionately bent out of shape over only two users -- PP and dios (and, of course, it is eminently arguable whether both/neither/oneortheother are bad actors).

But this thread isn't about them, thank god, and let's not start now.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 1:38 AM on April 28, 2006


well, I don't really care one way or another but it drives me crazy to see a discussion about things I can't see if you're going to call out something that will probably be deleted, then you should probably quote the original content.

I gathered that this guy was shilling for e-gold or something like that?
posted by delmoi at 1:53 AM on April 28, 2006


starvos: I don't think Dios gives a shit what people think of him.
posted by delmoi at 1:55 AM on April 28, 2006


It was just several posts that were identical brazen multilink blogspam, delmoi. Not even a token attempt to hide it.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 1:56 AM on April 28, 2006


And please please please let's not start talking about dios again. I knew I shouldn't used that example.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 1:57 AM on April 28, 2006


This thread is probably over, but I feel like I gotta beat this horse one more time.

Matt,

As I understand it, you're saying that leaving deletion markers is an open invitation for non-constructive discussion. It will give the opportunity for time wasting arguments. But, that's really a two way thing. Ultimately in this situation, your time can only actually be wasted by you.

How about deleting comments, and then simply not responding to idle discussion afterwards? But give us something to let us know what has occurred. Just don't respond to arguments. Make it a fast and hard rule: [deleted because of (spam, offensive, being an ass), end of discussion]. Silent deletion implies this message anyway. Now, of course, that's a terribly fine line to walk, but I trust you to walk it. You are a good guy. I'm sure Jessamyn is a nice lady, too. And I'm pretty sure this sentiment is shared by the majority of posting users. On a less flattering note, the reality is that if you ever did become evil, and started deleting comments that really did have merit, then we would leave, and this site would die. Simple.

Consider the transaction that takes place here. You provide a venue to entertain us. We are your both your audience and performers. Links are fun, but the reason I gave you five bucks was for the comments. Not leaving markers destroys the flow of conversation. By using silent deletion, you are taking away context from the audience, and ruining future performances. Instead of allowing the opportunity for the thread to re-establish flow, silent deletion changes how things get read, and puts a limitation on new contributions.

What I am saying, is that silent deletion in not cool. It violates an important principal of conversation. We need to know that something was there, because otherwise, it just doesn't make sense, and then we don't want to post. Sometimes you can remove something, and no one will be any wiser. But other times you just can't.

I know this is the same argument you've been hearing over and over, but please consider it one more time. We'll adjust to minor control, or leave. But silent moderation is a half baked solution that just doesn't work.
posted by Drunken_munky at 2:14 AM on April 28, 2006


Would a full-thread disclaimer work? Small print at the top of the page, maybe? "One or more comments in this thread have been deleted due to [blank]," or something like that, just to give people a heads up that they may run into non-sensical exchanges.

Wouldn't solve the flow problem Drunken_munkey mentions, but it might avoid some confusion. Or are deletions common enough that such a disclaimer would be functionally meaningless?
posted by brundlefly at 2:29 AM on April 28, 2006


I agree 100% with matt, stav.

I am completely convinced that the status quo achieves the least in-thread crap and the least trouble for the admins. I don't think there's any doubt that making deletions very visible to everyone would result in a huge increase in controversy. That's the way people are and certainly is true of metafilteristas. We all read MeTa everyday here, we all know this is true, don't we?

On preview:

"Just don't respond to arguments."

That won't work. There will be complaints in thread and posts here. If matt and jess ignore them completely, they'll lost a great deal of credibility with the users. One of the reasons that a benevolent dictatorship actually works pretty well is that conflicts in the polis don't necessarily need to be public. In a democracy they necessarily must be public because democracy is a balance of competing interests and there is no balance possible in secrecy. The price for this is that conflicts are public, they have their own mass and draw others into their orbit. But insofar as a ruler is truly benevolent, then he/she is able to resolve conflcts between competing interests to the benefit of the greater good while minimizing or avoiding secondary conflicts that arise when onlookers independently evaluate how their own interests are affected by that resolution.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 2:35 AM on April 28, 2006


Heh. It's funny you going all Platonic in a couple of recent threads, EB. I've been revisiting the Dialogues lately, and it's been much on my mind.

I'm disappointed, though. This is one of those times that I thought my arguments were pretty bulletproof. I'm not sure the equivalencies you're drawing are entirely appropriate.

Then again, I'm usually missing something when I think that.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 2:43 AM on April 28, 2006


Er, edit mess. You know what I mean.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 2:43 AM on April 28, 2006


I'd just like to see Matt do what jessamyn does with the "deleted some comments that were X" post. If he could get into that habit a bit more it would be helpful - but I don't think it's really a big deal.
posted by Ryvar at 2:54 AM on April 28, 2006


Heh. I appreciate your goal, stav, but I really think that matt is right in his predictions. That doesn't mean there isn't some other way of achieving what you want and avoiding the mess.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 2:54 AM on April 28, 2006


Ethereal Bligh: your words, they be fancy! I was all "polis? What you say?". But I definitely see your point, and humbly concede sir.

But, I stand by my "wrecking the flow of conversation" argument. I wish something could be done.
posted by Drunken_munky at 3:04 AM on April 28, 2006


I see maybe 200 names in metatalk. I'm willing to bet that it's only a portion of those that want a deletion marker. I think for the great majority of Metafilter users, deleted comments go unnoticed. To some of us, it's just a website. I don't have a problem if I don't understand every nuance of a conversation because some useless comments are missing. I tend to skip over posts with no substance regardless, or those bitching about another user, so every thread I read is basically filled with holes anyway. Why do you have to be so critical of Matt when he has explained the reasoning behind his decision many times? He does not have the time to be on here 24/7. It's very difficult to find another mod who both he and the community would trust. Metafilter has, and always will have, small blemishes and faults just like all of us. It's the site that you know and love. So love it for what it is, and shut up about deleted comments already. It's not life and death here. Cheers to our benevolent dictator.
posted by Roger Dodger at 5:05 AM on April 28, 2006


I, for one, am not excited by the prospect of PGDNing over however-damn-many 'commented deleted' markers result from someone thinking 'well, these are going to be deleted anyway, I might as well leave my mark.'
posted by Space Coyote at 5:30 AM on April 28, 2006


So love it for what it is, and shut up about deleted comments already.

No, no, wait, I've got a better idea. Wait, wait, you're gonna love this! Heh. This is great. Wait for it.....

How about you shut the fuck up, newb?


Hoo! That was great, right? I sure told him, didn't I? Guys? Yeah? Guys? [/familyguy]


Thanks for the input, Mr Dodger.


I, for one, am not excited by the prospect of PGDNing over however-damn-many 'commented deleted' markers result from someone thinking 'well, these are going to be deleted anyway, I might as well leave my mark.'

Which is why I suggested as a possibility way upthread the idea of a little discreet iconic thingy, unobtrusive and mouse-overable for the name of the thought-criminal in question. Try to keep up, won't you? But hey, at least we have that totallyCool keyboard nav thing now; that'd make it easier.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 5:42 AM on April 28, 2006


A couple of comments from someone who moderates another major forum:

Behaviour in forums is learned, as much as anything else, from what else you see. That's why there was always the 'lurk for 2 weeks' "rule" on UseNet. It gave people a chance to understand the community standards before they started posting. Leaving crap comments and spam undeleted, even if you somehow punish or ban the users, lets other people see them and think that's an appropriate behaviour for the forum, thus generating more of the same crap.

When you've got crap, you either leave it up and let derail the conversation, or you remove it. If you remove it and mark the deletion, you've still got a huge problem with derailing the conversation. 'What was deleted? Why was that deleted? Who said it?' How many of those questions are going to get moved to MeTa, and how many are going to be asked in the thread? That leaves you with more crap to delete, which is more crap for people to question, etc.

Deletion explanations also create a sense of entitlement. You see it now with the chatfilter deletions. "His open-ended chatfilter post was left up, but mine was deleted. Why?" Now expand that to "His whiny rant full of fuck yous was left up but my whiny response was deleted. Fuck you." Then imagine how not useful it is for Matt to spend his time dealing with that.

Finally, I don't have any idea what percentage of what Matt deletes is spam vs. vaguely on topic flame outs vs. other categories of deletion, but I suspect a lot of it is spam. Does the thread really need to know that there's now one less way for them to make money fast?
posted by jacquilynne at 5:55 AM on April 28, 2006


You know what's hilarious? This.
posted by aaronetc at 6:10 AM on April 28, 2006


That is hilarious -- thanks for finding it!

I'd just like to see Matt do what jessamyn does with the "deleted some comments that were X" post.

Yeah, I think that works well (at least I don't recall its leading to any arguments or derailments), and I'd like to see Matt do it from time to time. If it doesn't work out, he can just stop doing it.
posted by languagehat at 6:30 AM on April 28, 2006


Crap should be deleted, not honored with little turds all over the thread. I'm with Matt on this one.

Aye.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 7:21 AM on April 28, 2006


I know that moving to a system that leaves deleted markers will quickly be followed by demands to see the deleted comments in full, with attribution

Matt, I respect you, but you've been using the above argument for a long time and it's nonsense. You don't "know" that at all; it simply doesn't happen at other sites that make deleted comments transparent. And you can easily head it off at the pass in the early stages of adjustment by 1) noting in the posting guidelines that whining about deleted comments is a derail of a thread and is heavily discouraged and 2) stating on the MeTa posting page that "Why was my comment deleted?" is not an appropriate use of MeTa and will also be deleted. On one hand you call yourself a dictator, yet on the other you paint yourself as powerless to stop discussion of deleted comments from taking over the site in ways that don't occur elsewhere. How does that make sense?

Anyway, the least you could do is try a month-long experiment here to test the issue properly. Transparency in comment deletions will help your "benevolent dictatorship" function more smoothly.
posted by mediareport at 7:33 AM on April 28, 2006


Oh, and you can and should ignore any "demands" to see the deleted comments in full, with attribution. You are the dictator, after all; it's not hard.
posted by mediareport at 7:34 AM on April 28, 2006


What I am saying, is that silent deletion in not cool. It violates an important principal of conversation. We need to know that something was there, because otherwise, it just doesn't make sense, and then we don't want to post. Sometimes you can remove something, and no one will be any wiser. But other times you just can't.

Does this important principle of conversation require that people acknowledge and discuss every belch or off-color comment dropped in by a constituent of a water-cooler chat?

I don't see it. Silent deletion is a simple and minimally disruptive compromise between the desire to have wonderful perfect conversation and the stark fact that people misbehave.

I believe markers will do more harm than good. I believe we are on the whole smart enough to reason out any conversational weirdness—and that conversations here are sometimes disjoint without a single deletion. I think making an automated gravestone for every comment deletion is adding litter and nothing else, at best; and prompting conversation about what was deleted in the more likely and self-defeating case.
posted by cortex at 7:53 AM on April 28, 2006


I vote for the '.' to be a deleted comment marker. That is all.

Anyone else notice that this guy just spent $5 to have a thread devoted to him for all eternity? Bravo I say, Bravo!
posted by blue_beetle at 8:06 AM on April 28, 2006


I think some people are just being busybodies.
posted by empath at 8:08 AM on April 28, 2006


More old arguments
Like running into a wall
A drain on one's soul
posted by edgeways at 8:40 AM on April 28, 2006


You don't "know" that at all; it simply doesn't happen at other sites that make deleted comments transparent. And you can easily head it off at the pass in the early stages of adjustment

I "know" it's a bad idea because it introduces a major disruption to the site that was never there before. So the 100 or so super users that read metatalk religiously will gain a small amount of continuity while the other 30k now have to see "deleted" show up. It creates more problems than it solves. And then people suggest that we should just ban the discussion of deleted comments afterwards, like that will be easy or possible. Why don't I just ban discussion of it now and solve the problem in a few minutes?

Because it creates more problems than it solves.

And other sites get around it because those features are usually there from the first day, as part of the software.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 8:40 AM on April 28, 2006


So, could you do to comments what you do to deleted threads? Delete them, but allow users who -really- -really- -REALLY- want to see what's-the-what to see them with a specific Firefox plugin?

I mean, then the 30k or so people who aren't here wouldn't have to, and anyone who really, really wants to... can.

Seems a good way to compromise to me.
posted by FritoKAL at 8:50 AM on April 28, 2006


So here's some hard data. Want to know how many comments were deleted this week?

Sunday:2
Monday:2
Tuesday:6
Wednesday:4

The problem of long lost deleted comments is over-emphasized by having metatalk threads pointing out that "hey, this should be deleted" and then when it is, the link causes users reading here to wonder what they missed. For the past few days, I delete an average of 3 comments or so a day.

This clearly isn't a big deal beyond the continuity of links from metatalk and I'll repeat that I think surfacing this to 100% of the users creates more problems than the 1% that worry about it now.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 8:51 AM on April 28, 2006


There already are greasemonkey scripts to do this. Search userscripts.org for metafilter
posted by mathowie (staff) at 8:51 AM on April 28, 2006


I believe markers would do more good than harm.

cortex: I believe we are on the whole smart enough to reason out any conversational weirdness

Only if people are aware that comments are actively being deleted. Not everyone that reads MeFi reads MeTa, and they don't know what the mods are up to. When I first started reading MeFi, there were many times when I thought, "Huh? Did I miss something? Those comments make no sense." I realize, in retrospect, they were referencing deleted comments. If there'd just been a [comment deleted] marker, I would have known, and could have moved on without wasting my time trying to decipher what the hell the conversation was about. Here's a recent example that is unecessarily confusing from the very first comment. Other examples can be more obtuse. No markers breaks the flow of the conversation.

Ryvar: I'd just like to see Matt do what jessamyn does with the "deleted some comments that were X" post.

Matt, according to your previous statements, she shouldn't even be doing that, as it only causes people to notice, right?
posted by Gamblor at 8:56 AM on April 28, 2006


Here's a recent example that is unecessarily confusing from the very first comment. Other examples can be more obtuse. No markers breaks the flow of the conversation.

and here is your marker. It didn't solve much did it?
posted by mathowie (staff) at 9:01 AM on April 28, 2006


So the 100 or so super users that read metatalk religiously

*dons cape*
*places hands on hips*
*puffs chest*
*keenly gazes off into the middle distance*
*violently thrusts pelvis*
posted by Ryvar at 9:05 AM on April 28, 2006


If it had been in the place of the original comment, instead of after the fact, it absolutely would have helped. And even afterwards, it was better than nothing.

I want to add that I'm NOT asking for:

- the name of the user that posted the deleted comment
- a count of deleted comments by user
- the ability to view deleted comments

All I want is to know when a comment has been removed, so I don't have to try and puzzle out if someone is responding to a comment that's no longer there.
posted by Gamblor at 9:05 AM on April 28, 2006


It didn't solve much did it?

No, but it made me feel better just to, you know, know.
posted by Ryvar at 9:06 AM on April 28, 2006


Remember Black Tuesday!
The Six Turds shall not be forgotten!
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 9:12 AM on April 28, 2006


In my extensive online experience, pretty much any forum that has any value is moderated, and not just moderated, but heavily moderated.

Pretty much any forum that is utterly without merit is lightly moderated if at all.

I'm firmly in the camp of MetaFilter continuing to have value, so delete on. Delete more, as far as I'm concerned; it'll probably improve things around here. By the way, no active forum I've ever used regularly has ever placed a marker for deleted messages, and no forum but this one has ever even come up with such a silly idea. The whole point of deleting a comment, after all, is to delete it, not to leave a memorial of its passing.
posted by kindall at 9:17 AM on April 28, 2006


> I believe we are on the whole smart enough to reason out any conversational weirdness

Only if people are aware that comments are actively being deleted. Not everyone that reads MeFi reads MeTa, and they don't know what the mods are up to.


Again, we're smart people. Folks may not know, explicitly, that Matt or Jess is in the practice of deleting comments, or even who Matt and Jess are—but they must know what deletion is, and that moderation and deletion happens in forums. Faced with an apparent gap in conversation, I have faith—backed up by the lack of world-ending meltdowns in practical instances of this sort of thing on mefi—that folks will come to the obvious conclusion.

Conversation requiring a bit of effort and contemplation is not a bad thing. I'd say it's part of the charm of Metafilter, in fact.
posted by cortex at 9:38 AM on April 28, 2006


Conversation requiring a bit of effort and contemplation is not a bad thing. I'd say it's part of the charm of Metafilter, in fact.

I couldn't agree more. However, to make it more challenging, we could also display comments in random order, rather than in chronological sequence. It would make it a fun little puzzle for some, and a huge annoyance for others. I'd argue that people's effort and contemplation should be focused on contributing to the topic at hand, not spent figuring out what the heck the topic actually is.

Making conversations unecessarily obtuse (which is what often happens when comments have been "disappeared") doesn't imrove that conversation. And some people consider it enough of a disturbance that they keep bringing it up here. The failure of the site to implode doesn't mean that the status quo is just great. There's room for improvement, and this is one of the things that people repeatedly suggest for a reason.
posted by Gamblor at 10:06 AM on April 28, 2006


I'll agree to disagree with Matt. In terms of raw data, I'm more curiuos as to which users have a high frequency of comment deletion. So I guess I'm paranoid, but I've been here long enough to know that it's a problem for about 3-4 members. And thankfully, that's still a small number but I see no reason why it shouldn't be zero.

That said, if we're not going to hold people who are cleaned up after, no one on mefi has a right to judge someone based on the history of his or her comments, because, effectively, there is no history. Rather, it's a sanitized one that doesn't reflect the instincts and attitudes of the given poster. I think that really, really sucks. Again, and for the last time, both mefites and the admins have "jobs" (community feedback and hand-of-God moderation) to do, and they tend to do them pretty well. But anything that allows a given user to hurl turds and have a majority of them picked up is not at all conducive to what people seem to want here, IMO. But I guess I'll leave it at that.
posted by bardic at 10:24 AM on April 28, 2006


There's room for improvement, and this is one of the things that people repeatedly suggest for a reason.

Yes, but it's something that other people repeatedly argue against for a reason. That the feature is often requested does not make it necessarily good, nor that it will necessarily be an improvement. People have frequently requested threading, too.

Adding [comment deleted] markers uniformly does not make the conversation markedly less obtuse. It only eliminates a small portion of guess work. It also introduces a change to mefi, and introduces a rate of questions about what was deleted and why that would by my reckoning be greater than what is seen with the current system.

If a few more folks do a double take and a few fewer folks actually litter the thread with discussions about the nature of the [comment deleted] marker &c, I prefer that to the opposite. And so I prefer the current system.

However, to make it more challenging, we could also display comments in random order, rather than in chronological sequence.

Or, to make it less challenging, we could eliminate the comment box altogether and replace it with a drop-down of pre-generated responses.

Or we could leave it alone, because it works. The status quo is, in my opinion, shockingly good; in the end, I think fucking with it would be the greater mistake.
posted by cortex at 10:26 AM on April 28, 2006


And what Gamblor said--"effort and contemplation" are hard-won virtues in a typical conversational setting. Punching deletion holes in a thread doesn't add to our collective arete, it makes for a clusterfuck.
posted by bardic at 10:27 AM on April 28, 2006


So the 100 or so super users that read metatalk religiously

*clears thetans*
posted by sgt.serenity at 10:34 AM on April 28, 2006


I wish something could be done.

If only there were a way to set up web sites on other servers and administrate them yourself.
posted by darukaru at 10:43 AM on April 28, 2006


cortex: ...we could eliminate the comment box altogether and replace it with a drop-down of pre-generated responses.













posted by Gamblor at 10:46 AM on April 28, 2006


all of these problems could easily be solved by displaying comments in a random order. No one would have to worry about "breaking the flow" because there wouldn't be one. It would be even better if the comments display in a different order for each user each time they viewed the page. Each comment would need to be able to stand on its own.
posted by blue_beetle at 11:33 AM on April 28, 2006


Even better, let's put all the words in random order.

Try and disrupt that!
posted by sonofsamiam at 11:36 AM on April 28, 2006


be asshole don't an
posted by Gamblor at 11:46 AM on April 28, 2006


I think from now on I'll just occasionally throw in a non-sequiter that makes a comment appear to have been deleted. Just for fun.

Something like this:

By the way, i_am_a_spambot, that comment was fucking rude and uncalled for. Flagged, and I hope your ass is banned.
posted by caution live frogs at 12:25 PM on April 28, 2006


late to the party caution live frogs.
posted by bardic at 12:37 PM on April 28, 2006


And another pony request Matt--if user comments will continue to be anonymously deleted with no consequences, I think it's only fair that a user has the right to request that any of her previous comments be deleted upon request. Why should some members be "saved" from themselves by invisible moderation, but the rest of us have to live with the consequences of having said/typed something stupid, offenslive, and/or inflammatory?

Yes, I'm being serious.
posted by bardic at 12:40 PM on April 28, 2006


A better functioning site is more important than assuring that your sense of justice is not slighted.

Yes, if you say something that is stupid, offensive, or inflammatory, but not to the point of meriting deletion, you have to live with the consequences of it. That's what goes on here every single day.
posted by cortex at 12:46 PM on April 28, 2006


Can't one just flag one's own comment, bardic?
posted by brundlefly at 12:46 PM on April 28, 2006


Sure, but why not cut to the chase? Why do trolls get the benefit of a sanitized posting history but people who've made honest mistakes don't? I can think of a recent incident where a poster might have wanted immediate deletion for professional reasons. I'd hope Matt or Jess would comply out of basic sympathy, but it should be made an official policy IMO. There are going to be deletions on mefi--fine. Why should they only benefit career trolls and derailers?
posted by bardic at 1:25 PM on April 28, 2006


cortex writes: Yes, if you say something that is stupid, offensive, or inflammatory, but not to the point of meriting deletion, you have to live with the consequences of it. That's what goes on here every single day.

But if you say something stupid, offensive, or inflammatory that does merit deletion, you don't have to live with the consequences of it?

I'm sorry, but that's stupid.
posted by bardic at 1:28 PM on April 28, 2006


We were ever going to get 'talk' threads to parallel the main conversation?
posted by delmoi at 1:41 PM on April 28, 2006


Being a long-term lurker on the blue, and only recently discovered grey and green, I would like to chime in and say that deleted comments do interrupt the flow of a thread. I do not feel, however, that it has ever been a severe impediment to my understanding of the thread's flow.
Opinion: Comments worthy of deletion should be deleted. Gone.
Opinion: Commentors should have a reasonable window of opportunity to delete their own comment. A very small window.
posted by bastionofsanity at 1:46 PM on April 28, 2006


Why do trolls get the benefit of a sanitized posting history but people who've made honest mistakes don't?

They don't. Folks in general who get their comments deleted get this "benefit". Your dichotomy is false. If a comment is deleted, it is deleted. If it isn't, it isn't. Either case can happen to any user—there is no rule at work here that says clean up after the trolls but force the rest to live with it.

I can think of a recent incident where a poster might have wanted immediate deletion for professional reasons. I'd hope Matt or Jess would comply out of basic sympathy, but it should be made an official policy IMO.

Why an official policy? People generally shouldn't say stupid things—on this I presume we agree. If someone says something incredibly stupid, dangerous, damaging, etc, and recognizes it as such and goes to Matt or Jess promptly, it probably will be deleted. Whether or not they are a "troll" is very, very far beside the point.

But if you say something stupid, offensive, or inflammatory that does merit deletion, you don't have to live with the consequences of it?

If I say something stupid, offensive, or inflammatory that does merit deletion, I am embarrassed. Having my shame hidden from view may strike you as some overwhelming boon, but I don't see it that way.

Deletion's function is first and foremost to preserve the quality of on-site discourse. It is not primarily an effort to "benefit" deletees by covering their tracks. If that is an ancillary consequence, so be it.

More public galleries of misbehavior will not help the site. The health of the site trumps the desire to see justice publicly meted out, and to say contrary to that strikes me as petty and vindictive.
posted by cortex at 1:49 PM on April 28, 2006


Historically, Matt & Jess have been willing to remove selected posts or comments at the request of the user if there is a compelling reason to do so. One of the intro/faq type pages speficially notes that requests to remove users' entire posting history will not be honoured.
posted by raedyn at 1:53 PM on April 28, 2006


If I say something stupid, offensive, or inflammatory that does merit deletion, I am embarrassed.

This goes for me as well. But it doesn't go for trolls and derailers--that's precisely the problem.

And no, it's not a false dichotomy--I gave a recent, actual example of someone who (IMO), didn't do something stupid--(s)he made a comment that lended to a thread, and after the fact realized it might have been a mistake. It should be an official policy (comments deleted on request by their poster) because that would be fair--if deletions are going to occur, don't implement them in a way that rewards bad behavior. I think that's simple and obvious, so we can agree to disagree.

As for deletion's function, as pointed out above, the benefits of discourse are not always apparent, e.g., the "leaving holes in threads" issue. It's hardly an unqualified boon--as Matt (and I think you to some extent) points out, it's a lesser-of-two evils. You can't have it both ways.

As for "public galleries," hell, I'm all for more frequent bans and perma-bans. And while "justice" might be an overstatement, I do think that's the gist of what's going on here. I'd like to see more people banned temporarily, and if they still can't self-correct, bon voyage. Although we'll probably never reach the apotheosis of mefi, along the way we shouldn't provide easy outs for trolls while potentially punishing well-intentioned users who may have slipped up.

Shorter--Why should productive, well-mannered users only get to have one editor, while trolls and derailers get three? That's insane.
posted by bardic at 2:03 PM on April 28, 2006


One of the intro/faq type pages speficially notes that requests to remove users' entire posting history will not be honoured.

I would hope that nobody's "entire posting history" is worthy of deletion, but the "please delete this single comment I made" needs to be formalized as policy, if we're going to continue with hand-of-God type moderation with no consequences for repeat offenders. That would be fair.
posted by bardic at 2:07 PM on April 28, 2006


I'd like to see more people banned temporarily, and if they still can't self-correct, bon voyage.

I agree with you there. We may well disagree about who falls in those buckets, but that's how it goes. Escalating time-outs seem much better to me than any policy of rubber-necking and pillories.

I disagree with the idea of an Official Policy re: asking to have a comment deleted because I don't see it as something that should be common. Anyone who feels they have made a mistake meriting deletion can try to contact the admins as is, and/or flag their comment. Making "hey, if you, uh, said something dumb, please email me" an official policy seems to me like a request for folks to ask about the things that don't really merit it—if it doesn't make you panic and get creative enough to think of contacting someone, it should probably just stay.
posted by cortex at 2:11 PM on April 28, 2006


fwiw which is a pittance down this far in the unMatted territory, I mostly agree with cortex in that deletions are for the site and not the user. And bardic, we know when Matt's patience are worn thin he's apt to ban a flagrant troller or misbehaver, such patience wearing having been manifested no doubt at times from previous deletion of wayward comment(s) from said offenders.

You just have to trust the benevolent duodictatorship.
posted by peacay at 2:24 PM on April 28, 2006


If Matt and Jess are over-tasked in deleting comments to clean up spills but aren't willing to take authoritative action to address the cause (e.g., more transparent shaming a la deletion tally, auto-ban if five or more comments have to be deleted), I don't see why specific requests for single comment deletion would be much more work. A form requiring the commenter to link to the comment itself could actually automate much of the process.

Why do I think well-intentioned members should have this right made official via the guidelines? As of now, the double-standard (frequently bad poster gets his or her ass wiped, good poster who makes a single mistake has no redress) is really unhealthy and unfair.
posted by bardic at 2:39 PM on April 28, 2006


1. It's the site getting its ass wiped, not the bad poster; if he looks less bad, it must, if he is a bad poster, be only a matter of degree, and hence he still looks bad on the whole, and all of that is secondary to the quality of the site itself.

2. As of now, good posters do have redress. The lack of an Official Policy does not make it a lack of policy; the fuck up, they email Matt, they flag their comment. The only way the troll-vs-good'n comparison works here is if we presume that a troll gets more compliance with his ad-hod requests for self-deletion (if these even exist) than does the good'n. That proposition strikes me as absurd.
posted by cortex at 2:43 PM on April 28, 2006


Why? Just make it official that a good-faith member has the same if not more rights than a completely outrageous one.

Anyways, I have to run. But I'm sure we'll be having this conversation again since the current situation is untenable both in terms of policy (mefi discourse is pure as the driven snow and there are no consequences to the benevolent mods picking up mud-clods here and there) and practice (since there are only two (very good but overworked) mods who could never possibly cover the whole site, and certain users, IMO, who know exactly what they're doing when they post flame-bait--they'll either ruin a thread, or have their comments deleted and therefore look much more "community-minded" than they really are. It's an exploit, plain and simple, and one that should be taken care of sooner rather than later.)

Meh. My coherence is fading, if it ever existed in the first place. Have nice weekends.
posted by bardic at 2:57 PM on April 28, 2006


Likewise, sir.
posted by cortex at 3:00 PM on April 28, 2006


Ok, lets assume a comment was deleted between comments A and B below:

Case 1: No apparent derailing...
  --"A: So, Bush is evil."
  --"Marker: Comment was deleted."
  --"B: I know, isn't he?"
good...
  --"A: So, Bush is evil."
  --"B: I know, isn't he?"
  --"Mod: Comment was deleted."
better...
  --"A: So, Bush is evil."
  --"B: I know, isn't he?"
best.

Case 2: Minor derailing...
  --"A: So, Bush is evil."
  --"Marker: Comment was deleted."
  --"B: What was that?"
good...
  --"A: So, Bush is evil."
  --"B: What was that?"
better...
  --"A: So, Bush is evil."
  --"B: What was that?"
  --"Mod: Comment was deleted."
best.

Case 3: Major derailing...
  --"A: So, Bush is evil."
  --"B: Shut the f**k up!"
good...
  --"A: So, Bush is evil."
  --"B: Shut the f**k up!"
  --"Mod: Comment was deleted."
better...
  --"A: So, Bush is evil."
  --"Marker: Comment was deleted."
  --"B: Shut the f**k up!"
best.

So what's the lesson here? Moderation in the moderators. Admins should in theory choose the best of those options as the cases present themselves. In each scenario, doing so provides maximum effort toward preserving constructive flow of the thread.

So far Matt has shown a high disdain toward ever - and I do mean ever - using the best approach for case two and three. Jess makes use of the best method in case two when she feels it is appropriate, but has not been given the option of three's best solution and can therefore not do it whether she wants to or not.

Right now I suppose I'm glad that Matt's disdain isn't so high as to prevent Jess from case two's solution. Certainly he could go back and delete her moderation comments. Luckily he doesn't. Either way, he's missing the bigger picture and the world of options it allows for some fear that as far as it has been described seems purely irrational.
posted by mystyk at 3:00 PM on April 28, 2006




I still think that it would be a good idea to send users an e-mail, and give them a short timeout, any time one of their comments has to be deleted.


This lack of punitive action means that assholes like me can continuously clog up the admin queue, generating extra work. If I got in trouble every now and then, perhaps I'd think twice.


As Edward R. Murrow once said, Good night, and good luck.


posted by I Love Tacos at 5:52 PM on April 28, 2006


Well, that was fun, and went pretty much as I expected.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 5:54 PM on April 28, 2006


*dons cape*

Fuck Don, that's my cape!!!
posted by yhbc at 6:14 PM on April 28, 2006


*smacks I Love Tacos upside the head*

Stop doing that. Thank you. :P
posted by mediareport at 7:31 PM on April 28, 2006


Actually, comment deletion + 24 hour time out is a kinda cool idea.
Dorks would get a reality check and the already small number of deleted comments would dwindle. And since there aren't many deleteds, it wouldn't be too much of a hassle to implement a time-out along with it.

Everyone's a winnah!!!
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 9:39 PM on April 28, 2006


[comment deleted]
posted by exlotuseater at 11:09 PM on April 28, 2006


last post?
posted by Operation Afterglow at 10:15 PM on May 1, 2006


shit on that, generalissmo.
posted by cortex at 11:55 PM on May 1, 2006


« Older April 2006 Los Angeles Meetup   |   Does anyone remember a thread on askme some time... Newer »

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