Quick, someone give this Safety Patrol Officer a gold star! September 11, 2006 9:40 AM Subscribe
Quick, someone give this Safety Patrol Officer a gold star!
Possibly the most pompous MeFi comment ever, Smart Dalek. "Fora"!!?
posted by matthewr at 9:45 AM on September 11, 2006
posted by matthewr at 9:45 AM on September 11, 2006
It was a pretty shitty post, but it was a really shitty callout.
posted by keswick at 10:02 AM on September 11, 2006
posted by keswick at 10:02 AM on September 11, 2006
Non-notable; suggest merge w/ extant post 54682.
I.E. That post and this callout? Meh.
posted by boo_radley at 10:03 AM on September 11, 2006
I.E. That post and this callout? Meh.
posted by boo_radley at 10:03 AM on September 11, 2006
The post sucked more than the comment, ergo it gets a pass.
posted by GuyZero at 10:09 AM on September 11, 2006
posted by GuyZero at 10:09 AM on September 11, 2006
matthewr must be part of the Fora-Hate Society. And citizen deadfather, don't make me get Dave Prowse on you...
posted by Smart Dalek at 10:11 AM on September 11, 2006
posted by Smart Dalek at 10:11 AM on September 11, 2006
¿Que pasa?
posted by clevershark at 10:19 AM on September 11, 2006
posted by clevershark at 10:19 AM on September 11, 2006
Does this count? I mean, technically the thread wasn't posted by the guy who put together the NY Metro article. He probably got wind of it because he's in it.
He didn't do it. I don't think this breaks the rules.
posted by lumpenprole at 10:20 AM on September 11, 2006
He didn't do it. I don't think this breaks the rules.
posted by lumpenprole at 10:20 AM on September 11, 2006
But the poster's in the thread itself. It's not exactly self-linking, but it has a certain "I was there" quality that throws away any impartiality. It wasn't uncommon for, say, matteo, amberglow or someone else to submit a link to the thread in place of the thread commenter, with maybe a mention that one of the crowd happened to be participating. That my only concern with that. I didn't see the point in dragging it here, though...
posted by Smart Dalek at 10:26 AM on September 11, 2006
posted by Smart Dalek at 10:26 AM on September 11, 2006
I think it does count as a self-link, and I flagged it. And if this callout is objecting to the tone of Smart Dalek's comment, then Deadfather wins some sort of irony award.
posted by cribcage at 10:33 AM on September 11, 2006
posted by cribcage at 10:33 AM on September 11, 2006
Eh, it's grey. And by "grey" I don't mean "It is absolutely forbidden!! Or it's perfectly OK!! But determining which is true is difficult." I mean "It's kinda ok, and it's kinda against the rules, and no amount of discussion is going to push it to one side or the other."
There are a few reasons self-links are frowned on. One of them is diverting traffic to your own site. That doesn't apply in this case. Another is that if you're involved in the linked site, your evaluation of its quality is likely to be skewed. That does apply in this case.
posted by Bugbread at 10:33 AM on September 11, 2006
There are a few reasons self-links are frowned on. One of them is diverting traffic to your own site. That doesn't apply in this case. Another is that if you're involved in the linked site, your evaluation of its quality is likely to be skewed. That does apply in this case.
posted by Bugbread at 10:33 AM on September 11, 2006
Look, if people think it's a shitty link fine. Others have read it and have been moved by the immediacy of what was being said. The majority of the people posting were in New York City, watching events unfold. As the introduction to the transcript says, it's an "unmediated artifact" which "vividly
replicate[s] the raw, chaotic state of mind of New Yorkers trying to wrestle with the events of the day."
If I had thought, even for one second, that this would constitute a self-link, I wouldn't have posted it. I think calling it a self-link when I have absolutely no connection with the site linked and will receive no benefit, tangible or intangible, is hair-splitting of the finest order.
posted by ereshkigal45 at 10:35 AM on September 11, 2006
replicate[s] the raw, chaotic state of mind of New Yorkers trying to wrestle with the events of the day."
If I had thought, even for one second, that this would constitute a self-link, I wouldn't have posted it. I think calling it a self-link when I have absolutely no connection with the site linked and will receive no benefit, tangible or intangible, is hair-splitting of the finest order.
posted by ereshkigal45 at 10:35 AM on September 11, 2006
If I had thought, even for one second, that this would constitute a self-link, I wouldn't have posted it.
This is a community site. If you had thought the post would constitute a self-link, but the topic was valid, just tap a fellow MeFite on the shoulder. If you don't know any directly, email jessamyn and explain the situation.
posted by Smart Dalek at 10:48 AM on September 11, 2006
This is a community site. If you had thought the post would constitute a self-link, but the topic was valid, just tap a fellow MeFite on the shoulder. If you don't know any directly, email jessamyn and explain the situation.
posted by Smart Dalek at 10:48 AM on September 11, 2006
I think calling it a self-link when I have absolutely no connection with the site linked and will receive no benefit, tangible or intangible, is hair-splitting of the finest order.
Benefit is not the only reason self-links are forbidden. Another reason is because you're less capable of judging the value of a link if you're part of it (ie, mentioned, participated, quoted, etc. etc.). This is also why links to family and friends' sites is forbidden and fall under "self links".
deadfather's callout is idiotic, imo.
posted by dobbs at 11:01 AM on September 11, 2006
Benefit is not the only reason self-links are forbidden. Another reason is because you're less capable of judging the value of a link if you're part of it (ie, mentioned, participated, quoted, etc. etc.). This is also why links to family and friends' sites is forbidden and fall under "self links".
deadfather's callout is idiotic, imo.
posted by dobbs at 11:01 AM on September 11, 2006
If you had thought the post would constitute a self-link, but the topic was valid, just tap a fellow MeFite on the shoulder.
The flaw in this logic being that, when you impose upon another member by asking him to post your link, there's a good chance that person's decision will have less to do with the quality of your link than simply agreeing to do a favor for someone who has asked.
It's basically self-link by proxy — which means this advice ("Ask another member to post it") is like telling people to couch their ChatFilter questions with the disclaimer, "I need to know this because I'm writing a book." In both cases, we're advising people to follow the letter and the law and ignore its spirit, when the legitimate answer should really be, "Sorry, but you just can't do that."*
posted by cribcage at 11:02 AM on September 11, 2006
The flaw in this logic being that, when you impose upon another member by asking him to post your link, there's a good chance that person's decision will have less to do with the quality of your link than simply agreeing to do a favor for someone who has asked.
It's basically self-link by proxy — which means this advice ("Ask another member to post it") is like telling people to couch their ChatFilter questions with the disclaimer, "I need to know this because I'm writing a book." In both cases, we're advising people to follow the letter and the law and ignore its spirit, when the legitimate answer should really be, "Sorry, but you just can't do that."*
posted by cribcage at 11:02 AM on September 11, 2006
The flaw in this logic being that, when you impose upon another member by asking him to post your link, there's a good chance that person's decision will have less to do with the quality of your link than simply agreeing to do a favor for someone who has asked.
That's a risk, but it'd depend an awful lot on the poster. My posting history (to the blue, at least) is anemic and spotty, but I can tell you I'd be goddam hesitant to watch someone else's luggage, so to speak, unless it was really solid material.
posted by cortex at 11:15 AM on September 11, 2006
That's a risk, but it'd depend an awful lot on the poster. My posting history (to the blue, at least) is anemic and spotty, but I can tell you I'd be goddam hesitant to watch someone else's luggage, so to speak, unless it was really solid material.
posted by cortex at 11:15 AM on September 11, 2006
Links should only be allowed when they are found by randomly typing in web addresses. Anything else is too biased. Any automated randomness routines should be veted through MeTa before being used on the live system.
******* All users please report to the conference room for debriefing. *******
posted by blue_beetle at 11:20 AM on September 11, 2006
******* All users please report to the conference room for debriefing. *******
posted by blue_beetle at 11:20 AM on September 11, 2006
[notice: this debriefing does not involve the removed of clothing]
posted by blue_beetle at 11:20 AM on September 11, 2006
posted by blue_beetle at 11:20 AM on September 11, 2006
removal... ah, whatever
posted by blue_beetle at 11:21 AM on September 11, 2006
posted by blue_beetle at 11:21 AM on September 11, 2006
[I]f you're involved in the linked site, your evaluation of its quality is likely to be skewed. That does apply in this case.
Connection to the material is one means by which to question the quality of a link, but does not — and should not — qualify the post as a self-link. These are two entirely disparate ideas.
Otherwise, by your reasoning, every post must be a self-link, if we accept the results of Milgram's small world test. We'd have to close shop.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 11:26 AM on September 11, 2006
Connection to the material is one means by which to question the quality of a link, but does not — and should not — qualify the post as a self-link. These are two entirely disparate ideas.
Otherwise, by your reasoning, every post must be a self-link, if we accept the results of Milgram's small world test. We'd have to close shop.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 11:26 AM on September 11, 2006
I'm glad it was posted.
posted by dripdripdrop at 11:29 AM on September 11, 2006
posted by dripdripdrop at 11:29 AM on September 11, 2006
Connection to the material is one means by which to question the quality of a link, but does not — and should not — qualify the post as a self-link. These are two entirely disparate ideas. - Blazecock Pileon
No. They're not completely separate ideas, because "can't judge it" is part of the logic behind banning self-links in the first place - because if you or your mom or whatever wrote it, you aren't impartial enough to judge it is worthy or not.
posted by raedyn at 11:33 AM on September 11, 2006
No. They're not completely separate ideas, because "can't judge it" is part of the logic behind banning self-links in the first place - because if you or your mom or whatever wrote it, you aren't impartial enough to judge it is worthy or not.
posted by raedyn at 11:33 AM on September 11, 2006
because if you or your mom or whatever wrote it, you aren't impartial enough to judge it is worthy or not.
I find the idea of impartiality very hard to measure in an repeatable, fair way.
For example, I could easily replace "your mom" with "researcher whose seminars you've attended and work you're familiar with" in a science post — while not a familial connection, it is a connection in the sense of intimacy with the subject at hand.
If I was a reader who didn't like the science being done (think of past contentious HIV/AIDS posts for a more concrete example), by the reasoning being displayed in this thread, I could accuse you of self-linking, even though it isn't a self-link, and never really was.
Impartiality means different things to different people, which is why connection to source material may certainly indicate inability to objectively evaluate post quality — and post quality remains a fine and fair criteria used for post deletion — but it still isn't a self-link, and should not be judged on that basis.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 11:49 AM on September 11, 2006
I find the idea of impartiality very hard to measure in an repeatable, fair way.
For example, I could easily replace "your mom" with "researcher whose seminars you've attended and work you're familiar with" in a science post — while not a familial connection, it is a connection in the sense of intimacy with the subject at hand.
If I was a reader who didn't like the science being done (think of past contentious HIV/AIDS posts for a more concrete example), by the reasoning being displayed in this thread, I could accuse you of self-linking, even though it isn't a self-link, and never really was.
Impartiality means different things to different people, which is why connection to source material may certainly indicate inability to objectively evaluate post quality — and post quality remains a fine and fair criteria used for post deletion — but it still isn't a self-link, and should not be judged on that basis.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 11:49 AM on September 11, 2006
Connection to the material is one means by which to question the quality of a link, but does not — and should not — qualify the post as a self-link. These are two entirely disparate ideas.
You're wrong, as raedyn tried to explain; since you don't want to listen, I'll repeat it. This is not just our interpretation; jessamyn and (I believe) Matt have said the same thing. If you don't like it, tough, but them's the rules.
posted by languagehat at 12:06 PM on September 11, 2006
You're wrong, as raedyn tried to explain; since you don't want to listen, I'll repeat it. This is not just our interpretation; jessamyn and (I believe) Matt have said the same thing. If you don't like it, tough, but them's the rules.
posted by languagehat at 12:06 PM on September 11, 2006
I'm sorry it's gone. Has it been folded into another thread?
posted by bink at 12:18 PM on September 11, 2006
posted by bink at 12:18 PM on September 11, 2006
Ah, well. It's deleted. That was seriously the most attenuated self-link in the history of Metafilter. What's next? Banning all links to any site/blog that allows commenting where the poster might, once upon a time, have commented?
I thought it was powerful and others, both here and elsewhere, thought so too. So while some didn't like it, there were enough who did that surely my opinion that it was worthwhile, even if biased (which I will not concede), was validated.
And now, I feel like I've been soiled and thrown on the heap of self-linking scum. Because, as everyone can clearly see, I am the same as all the escort services and the bloggers and adsense whores trying to score a little traffic.
Hey, Atrazine - why don't *you* dazzle us with something brilliant?
posted by ereshkigal45 at 12:24 PM on September 11, 2006
I thought it was powerful and others, both here and elsewhere, thought so too. So while some didn't like it, there were enough who did that surely my opinion that it was worthwhile, even if biased (which I will not concede), was validated.
And now, I feel like I've been soiled and thrown on the heap of self-linking scum. Because, as everyone can clearly see, I am the same as all the escort services and the bloggers and adsense whores trying to score a little traffic.
Hey, Atrazine - why don't *you* dazzle us with something brilliant?
posted by ereshkigal45 at 12:24 PM on September 11, 2006
Hey, Atrazine - why don't *you* dazzle us with something brilliant?
The claws come out!
Don't take it too poorly. No reasonable person here thinks you're scum. Self-linkery is tricky gray swamp that represents, more or less, one of the borders between Metafilter and Not-Metafilter. People get het up about it. Where in that swamp does the border truly lie? No man can say, for the waters are muddy and shifting.
The only way to avoid the gators is to stay out of the swamp. A conservative path is safe; if you dip your toe in, know where you venture.
posted by cortex at 12:35 PM on September 11, 2006
The claws come out!
Don't take it too poorly. No reasonable person here thinks you're scum. Self-linkery is tricky gray swamp that represents, more or less, one of the borders between Metafilter and Not-Metafilter. People get het up about it. Where in that swamp does the border truly lie? No man can say, for the waters are muddy and shifting.
The only way to avoid the gators is to stay out of the swamp. A conservative path is safe; if you dip your toe in, know where you venture.
posted by cortex at 12:35 PM on September 11, 2006
And now, I feel like I've been soiled and thrown on the heap of self-linking scum.
Good Christ -- melodramatic much? Your account wasn't deleted, was it?
posted by dobbs at 12:36 PM on September 11, 2006
Good Christ -- melodramatic much? Your account wasn't deleted, was it?
posted by dobbs at 12:36 PM on September 11, 2006
I'm a Drama Queen. I'd be a Drag Queen if I could, but I'm already a woman.
I absolutely reserve the right to be melodramatic.
Wounded to the core, I am. The very CORE!
posted by ereshkigal45 at 1:01 PM on September 11, 2006
I absolutely reserve the right to be melodramatic.
Wounded to the core, I am. The very CORE!
posted by ereshkigal45 at 1:01 PM on September 11, 2006
ereshkigal45 writes "Ah, well. It's deleted. That was seriously the most attenuated self-link in the history of Metafilter. What's next? Banning all links to any site/blog that allows commenting where the poster might, once upon a time, have commented?"
Note that matt didn't delete it because it was a self link, he deleted it because it was a bad post.
posted by Mitheral at 1:12 PM on September 11, 2006
Note that matt didn't delete it because it was a self link, he deleted it because it was a bad post.
posted by Mitheral at 1:12 PM on September 11, 2006
If I see the word 'flagged' in-thread one more time I am gonna ... get a little irritated and then quickly forget about it.
posted by jon_kill at 1:31 PM on September 11, 2006
posted by jon_kill at 1:31 PM on September 11, 2006
Just to be clear: I don't think you're self-linking scum; your intentions were clearly of the best. I was simply trying to clarify the rule about self-linking, which is aimed not (only) at scum but at anyone who might be too involved with a subject to judge its relevance to others. Think of it as a rule against showing people your kids' pictures at work. Nothing against your kids, it's just... well, you know. Everybody's kids are special.
posted by languagehat at 1:36 PM on September 11, 2006
posted by languagehat at 1:36 PM on September 11, 2006
Note that matt didn't delete it because it was a self link, he deleted it because it was a bad post.
I just want to say this before I shut my piehole. I don't get how a post linking to the realtime reactions of New Yorkers observing the event as it happened isn't good enough to stand, but this is.
Seriously. What. The. Fuck. People?
posted by ereshkigal45 at 1:36 PM on September 11, 2006
I just want to say this before I shut my piehole. I don't get how a post linking to the realtime reactions of New Yorkers observing the event as it happened isn't good enough to stand, but this is.
Seriously. What. The. Fuck. People?
posted by ereshkigal45 at 1:36 PM on September 11, 2006
I'm sure that one will be deleted soon enough, ereshikigal45.
posted by bob sarabia at 1:39 PM on September 11, 2006
posted by bob sarabia at 1:39 PM on September 11, 2006
Note that matt didn't delete it because it was a self link, he deleted it because it was a bad post.
An important distinction that bears repetition.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 1:43 PM on September 11, 2006
An important distinction that bears repetition.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 1:43 PM on September 11, 2006
You know, I keep reading that, Blazecock, but I've yet to see any reason articulated.
posted by ereshkigal45 at 1:54 PM on September 11, 2006
posted by ereshkigal45 at 1:54 PM on September 11, 2006
I didn't think it was a bad post.
posted by languagehat at 2:00 PM on September 11, 2006
posted by languagehat at 2:00 PM on September 11, 2006
I respect your posts (and your opinion) enormously, so thank you, languagehat.
posted by ereshkigal45 at 2:34 PM on September 11, 2006
posted by ereshkigal45 at 2:34 PM on September 11, 2006
Hey, how can I resist anyone named after a Sumerian goddess?
posted by languagehat at 4:01 PM on September 11, 2006
posted by languagehat at 4:01 PM on September 11, 2006
We should probably get a room now.
posted by ereshkigal45 at 4:40 PM on September 11, 2006
posted by ereshkigal45 at 4:40 PM on September 11, 2006
Yes, Matt and jessamyn have made the rules and you have to follow them, but it doesn't mean they're always right.
Of the 9/11 links made today in the many groups I've visited yours was one of the best.
"Another reason is because you're less capable of judging the value of a link if you're part of it (ie, mentioned, participated, quoted, etc. etc.)."
Less capable doesn't mean incapable. Sometimes those close to a site, but not its originator, can judge the worth of the site.
Let's make this rule a nice shade of gray.
Who the hell am I kidding? That'll never fly here. Rules keep us free!! Hang em'!
posted by ?! at 4:46 PM on September 11, 2006
Of the 9/11 links made today in the many groups I've visited yours was one of the best.
"Another reason is because you're less capable of judging the value of a link if you're part of it (ie, mentioned, participated, quoted, etc. etc.)."
Less capable doesn't mean incapable. Sometimes those close to a site, but not its originator, can judge the worth of the site.
Let's make this rule a nice shade of gray.
Who the hell am I kidding? That'll never fly here. Rules keep us free!! Hang em'!
posted by ?! at 4:46 PM on September 11, 2006
But the poster's in the thread itself. It's not exactly self-linking, but it has a certain "I was there" quality that throws away any impartiality.
But happily Smart Dalek saves the day! God, I'd hate to even imagine what would happen if we were exposed to a biased opinion of a New Yorker on the 5th year anniversary of 911 attacks.
posted by c13 at 5:12 PM on September 11, 2006
But happily Smart Dalek saves the day! God, I'd hate to even imagine what would happen if we were exposed to a biased opinion of a New Yorker on the 5th year anniversary of 911 attacks.
posted by c13 at 5:12 PM on September 11, 2006
I hate to keep flogging this poor dead horse, and I'm guessing I won't like the answer, but if I don't ask it's going to keep bugging the shit out of me.
Mattamyn: can you explain the reasoning for pulling my post while leaving the incredibly craptacular Jenga post up?
posted by ereshkigal45 at 8:08 PM on September 11, 2006
Mattamyn: can you explain the reasoning for pulling my post while leaving the incredibly craptacular Jenga post up?
posted by ereshkigal45 at 8:08 PM on September 11, 2006
There is no cabal.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 8:13 PM on September 11, 2006
posted by mr_crash_davis at 8:13 PM on September 11, 2006
can you explain the reasoning for pulling my post while leaving the incredibly craptacular Jenga post up?
Jesus, would you drop it already? "Wounded to the very CORE," indeed. There are going to be inconsistencies in the moderation here, duh. And no one's obligated to justify deletions on a busy, craptacular day when the server went down and folks (including you) were ignoring long-standing guidelines. And you might could try admitting there's a point to the "if you're close to a link you're probably not in the best position to judge whether it's postworthy" rule, or at least acknowledge that you understand it and will abide by it in the future, before making aggrieved demands for explanations from the moderators.
posted by mediareport at 8:50 PM on September 11, 2006
Jesus, would you drop it already? "Wounded to the very CORE," indeed. There are going to be inconsistencies in the moderation here, duh. And no one's obligated to justify deletions on a busy, craptacular day when the server went down and folks (including you) were ignoring long-standing guidelines. And you might could try admitting there's a point to the "if you're close to a link you're probably not in the best position to judge whether it's postworthy" rule, or at least acknowledge that you understand it and will abide by it in the future, before making aggrieved demands for explanations from the moderators.
posted by mediareport at 8:50 PM on September 11, 2006
Eh, I think it's a fair question, mediareport. At least ereshkigal45s post was at least mildly interesting. That jenga post is the worst 911 related post today. And a terrible post in every other way. And it wasn't even funny. It just sucks, hard. I guess maybe it wasn't flagged enough, I don't know.
posted by bob sarabia at 8:55 PM on September 11, 2006
posted by bob sarabia at 8:55 PM on September 11, 2006
eh, take out that second "at least".
posted by bob sarabia at 8:57 PM on September 11, 2006
posted by bob sarabia at 8:57 PM on September 11, 2006
I guess maybe it wasn't flagged enough
Yep, I'd bet that's why it stayed. That's how it usually works, isn't it?
Guess I'm just tired of folks who get outraged when a deletion involves one of their own precious oozings (and sorry, but hers was definitely a lame post - "truly the essence of online community"? whatever). Plus, ereshkigal45's clearly trying to have it both ways here - joking about not taking this too seriously but then clamping down her jaws and not letting go because it's "bugging the shit" out of her. As if there's any closure to this short of reposting her thread for her that's gonna make her feel better.
*shakes head*
Freaking drama queens.
posted by mediareport at 9:11 PM on September 11, 2006
Yep, I'd bet that's why it stayed. That's how it usually works, isn't it?
Guess I'm just tired of folks who get outraged when a deletion involves one of their own precious oozings (and sorry, but hers was definitely a lame post - "truly the essence of online community"? whatever). Plus, ereshkigal45's clearly trying to have it both ways here - joking about not taking this too seriously but then clamping down her jaws and not letting go because it's "bugging the shit" out of her. As if there's any closure to this short of reposting her thread for her that's gonna make her feel better.
*shakes head*
Freaking drama queens.
posted by mediareport at 9:11 PM on September 11, 2006
I guess maybe it wasn't flagged enough
Yep, I'd bet that's why it stayed. That's how it usually works, isn't it?
Er... I don't know about that. I mean monju's picture of that naked scotsman proudly holding his wang in the air is still there as well. I don't know if the normal inconsistent moderation problem is actually at fault here.
posted by Stauf at 9:25 PM on September 11, 2006
Yep, I'd bet that's why it stayed. That's how it usually works, isn't it?
Er... I don't know about that. I mean monju's picture of that naked scotsman proudly holding his wang in the air is still there as well. I don't know if the normal inconsistent moderation problem is actually at fault here.
posted by Stauf at 9:25 PM on September 11, 2006
Mediareport, please don't presume to know what would "satisfy" me. I neither care nor expect the it to be reposted. And I don't think the tone of my question constituted an "aggrieved demand." I think it's simply a fair question. Nor do I think my posts are precious oozings - I don't post a lot for precisely that reason. I didn't think my post was the most fabulous post ever made, but I do think that your "definitely lame" statement is belied by the people who have commented that they appreciated it. I just thought it was an appropriately lowkey way to look back in a way that didn't involve overblown media coverage.
And yeah, the way in which people observed the event and reassured each other in that discussion *was* the essence of online community for a community that has existed for going on sixteen years. That this particularly cohesive community happened to also be at the center of a remarkable event and observing it in real time from the location of the event made it post-worthy IMO. Some agreed, some didn't. That's cool.
Finally, your statement that I was "ignoring longstanding guidelines," implies that I made a conscious and deliberate choice to violate the self-linking rule when, in fact, as we've already discussed ad nauseam, I did not believe the rule to be applicable. I would actually be less bothered by a statement from Matt or Jess that it was the self-linking issue that caused them to pull the post than a statement that the content didn't meet the exalted standards of Metafilter as exemplified by the Jenga post.
posted by ereshkigal45 at 9:31 PM on September 11, 2006
And yeah, the way in which people observed the event and reassured each other in that discussion *was* the essence of online community for a community that has existed for going on sixteen years. That this particularly cohesive community happened to also be at the center of a remarkable event and observing it in real time from the location of the event made it post-worthy IMO. Some agreed, some didn't. That's cool.
Finally, your statement that I was "ignoring longstanding guidelines," implies that I made a conscious and deliberate choice to violate the self-linking rule when, in fact, as we've already discussed ad nauseam, I did not believe the rule to be applicable. I would actually be less bothered by a statement from Matt or Jess that it was the self-linking issue that caused them to pull the post than a statement that the content didn't meet the exalted standards of Metafilter as exemplified by the Jenga post.
posted by ereshkigal45 at 9:31 PM on September 11, 2006
You continue to miss the point: MeFi moderation can be inconsistent. Also, you're continuing to avoid even acknowledging that there's any value at all to the "if you're involved, you may not be able to be objective" guideline, whether or not you feel you were able to be objective about the link in question.
So, *do* you think here's any value at all to the "if you're involved, you may not be able to be objective" guideline?
posted by mediareport at 9:48 PM on September 11, 2006
So, *do* you think here's any value at all to the "if you're involved, you may not be able to be objective" guideline?
posted by mediareport at 9:48 PM on September 11, 2006
Oh, one other point you're continuing to miss: Neither of the admins has said your post was bad/lame/whatever. That's just some of us offering our opinion. What *was* offered as the reason for the deletion was that it would have fit nicely in one of the already-existing 9/11 threads.
On a day when the front page was already overloaded with 9/11 threads, that should have been enough. Again, it's tough for me not to see this as a "you were too close" thing. That's why you didn't see posting it as a comment in one of the existing threads as an option, I'm guessing.
The jenga post is a whole other matter, and yet you insist on clinging to it as a comparison. There's no comparison. You got flagged a lot; it was lame but probably didn't get flagged much at all. Live with it.
posted by mediareport at 9:53 PM on September 11, 2006
On a day when the front page was already overloaded with 9/11 threads, that should have been enough. Again, it's tough for me not to see this as a "you were too close" thing. That's why you didn't see posting it as a comment in one of the existing threads as an option, I'm guessing.
The jenga post is a whole other matter, and yet you insist on clinging to it as a comparison. There's no comparison. You got flagged a lot; it was lame but probably didn't get flagged much at all. Live with it.
posted by mediareport at 9:53 PM on September 11, 2006
mediareport writes "There are going to be inconsistencies in the moderation here, duh."
Example: Took Matt two days to close this double.
mediareport writes "Oh, one other point you're continuing to miss: Neither of the admins has said your post was bad/lame/whatever."
Matt implies it was a double: This post was deleted for the following reason: please post this into one of the already open threads and then we can skip the self linking issue
posted by Mitheral at 12:35 PM on September 12, 2006
Example: Took Matt two days to close this double.
mediareport writes "Oh, one other point you're continuing to miss: Neither of the admins has said your post was bad/lame/whatever."
Matt implies it was a double: This post was deleted for the following reason: please post this into one of the already open threads and then we can skip the self linking issue
posted by Mitheral at 12:35 PM on September 12, 2006
« Older Accidental self link in a 9/11 thread? | jonmc and pips getting married in Las Vegas. Newer »
You are not logged in, either login or create an account to post comments
posted by deadfather at 9:44 AM on September 11, 2006