You should repost it as a comment in the thread in the blue. win-win.
posted by Saucy Intruder at 4:52 PM on September 19, 2006

We don't discuss hypothetical questions. And you can't frame it in any manner that was not hypothetical because it would never happen, and not because of the question of whether or not it would be illegal.
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 4:53 PM on September 19, 2006 [1 favorite]

That it cannot be phrased in a non-hypothetical manner does not make its hypothetical nature kosher.
posted by cortex at 4:54 PM on September 19, 2006

I've been a MeFite since forever, and I've never yet posted a FPP to the blue, if only because I am terribly afraid I will immediately be told it was a terrible/boring post. So I'm a super-fearful MeFite. Asking a question that was deleted has seriously bruised my ego. (But I can live with that).

Saucy, I originally thought my question should just be a comment on the blue, but then decided it might merit a separate discussion.

Also, I was hoping that attorney-like people would post about the legal consequences (the treason comment was particularly helpful) and the technical possibilities, as well as whether anyone knew if anyone else had ever tried to orchestrate such a thing.
posted by brina at 4:56 PM on September 19, 2006

brina posted "I realize that hypotheticals are generally a no-no, but I thought this particular question could not be framed in any manner that was not hypothetical, if you catch my drift."

I think you're parsing that rule wrong. It isn't that phrasing things as a hypothetical is disallowed, but that hypothetical questions themselves are. If you can't phrase a question in any manner that was not hypothetical, that's about the strongest proof that can exist that your question was hypothetical, and thus disallowed.
posted by Bugbread at 4:56 PM on September 19, 2006

Insert obligatory and assholish pretty little snowflake snark here.
posted by SeizeTheDay at 4:57 PM on September 19, 2006

I would not say you are stupid. I would say that you're confused about the purpose of "Ask MeFi".

It is intended to be a place where people can go for concrete help. If the purpose of a question is to inspire discussion and speculation, it doesn't belong there.

And if the goal is to break the law (e.g. by committing voter fraud even if only as a protest) it also doesn't belong there.

When you consider posting a question to "Ask MeFi", this is the thing to consider: How will you recognize the right answer when it comes along? If you can't say, then it doesn't belong in "Ask MeFi".

How would you have recognized the right answer to the one you posted? What problem did you have that you were trying to solve, which the right answer would have contributed to solving?

SI above is right: you should have posted your hypothetical question as a comment in the blue thread you yourself referenced. That's where it belonged.
posted by Steven C. Den Beste at 5:00 PM on September 19, 2006

Just say you're writing a book about it.
posted by bob sarabia at 5:01 PM on September 19, 2006 [1 favorite]

It's kind of an annoying rule, but there you go. I've always interpreted it to mean stuff like "don't ask about time travel, warp drives, or stuff that doesn't exist." This thing could theoretically happen, although it would be unlikely.

On the other hand it would be really difficult to answer without speculation, since that sort of thing hasn't ever happened.
posted by delmoi at 5:02 PM on September 19, 2006

Bob, I actually contemplated that "writing a book" thing. But it would have been dishonest, although who knows? Maybe one day I will.

I'll just have to think of this as a learning experience. Thanks, everyone.
posted by brina at 5:10 PM on September 19, 2006

1. hypotheticals are generally a no-no
2. question could not be framed in any manner that was not hypothetical

So... why didn't you think your question would be a no-no? It sounds like you have the A = B and B= C but are ignoring the A = C.

it might merit a separate discussion

Ah I see. There's a lot that merits discussion, but Matt has always been a hardass about not allowing MeFi to be a discussion board. So either it fits the model of the site he set up or it doesn't. And hypotheticals don't fit the Green, apparently. Doesn't matter if it would make for an interesting conversation.
posted by scarabic at 5:10 PM on September 19, 2006

This question seemed borderline, as the legal implications would be interesting and concrete, even though the scenario is unlikely. But, you said in your comment above that you thought it was interesting enough in its own right to warrant discussion. AskMe is not for discussion, it is to get questions answered. I think the intent behind your question was questionable (but not malicious).
posted by Falconetti at 5:12 PM on September 19, 2006

1. hypotheticals are generally a no-no
2. question could not be framed in any manner that was not hypothetical

So... why didn't you think your question would be a no-no? It sounds like you have the A = B and B= C but are ignoring the A = C.

I interpreted what brina wrote as:

"I understand that hypotheticals are a no-no but this was an actual quest for knowledge and edification (about legal ramifications, about rule-of-law, about what the Constitution says) which is best framed as a hypothetical."

In that sense, the question is answerable just as questions about what would happen if I were to travel at 99.9% of the speed of light are answerable and may provide lots of good info on relativity even though, at this point, they are hypothetical.
posted by vacapinta at 5:28 PM on September 19, 2006

I do want to clarify that I think this question was rightly deleted - because if it was a question about the legal outfall of voter fraud - then it was easy enough to state it that way without all that extra Stephen Colbert and Jesus stuff. In other words, brina missed two key things:

1) Make your actual question clear without any extraneous information (but with sufficient information)
2) Ask Metafilter is about finding answers not fostering discussion.

I think the "hypothetical" issue is more of a side-issue made clear only because the above two guidelines weren't followed.
posted by vacapinta at 5:36 PM on September 19, 2006

The only thing for which you might be accused of being stupid is asking 'am I stupid' in Metatalk. There is danger there.

But people are being nice, so it's all good, I guess.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 5:36 PM on September 19, 2006

Theoretically, hypothetically, what would happen if a large number of people zombies hacked voting machines in districts all over the country on Election Day, all in a joint effort?

There, I fixed it for you.
posted by found missing at 5:51 PM on September 19, 2006

hey, I wanted to delete the zombie post, but everyone objected.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 5:56 PM on September 19, 2006

hamster has no "p" in it.

just sayin'...
posted by quonsar at 6:05 PM on September 19, 2006

Dear AskMe:

Hypothetically, what would my life be like if I didn't have a ten-inch cock?

Yrs, bardic
posted by bardic at 6:10 PM on September 19, 2006

It's like a parallel universe in here - everyone being nice 'n' all - but that's a hypothetical impossible.
posted by NinjaTadpole at 6:13 PM on September 19, 2006

BTW, if any admin are still hanging out here, why was this comment allowed to stay? And yes, I flagged it.
posted by SeizeTheDay at 6:16 PM on September 19, 2006

Not that you asked here, but "don't they check these things at intervals through the day to make sure they're working properly?"

No, no they don't. You can see the total number of ballots counted, but that's the best you'll get.
posted by ?! at 6:17 PM on September 19, 2006

Never, ever, ever delete a zombie post.

I will hunt you down and eat your toes...

(ok...so the zombie life style was only a bit part in the movie, but I still looked scary)
posted by HuronBob at 6:20 PM on September 19, 2006

SeizeTheday: I bet because silly-ass inline images are still considered a socially acceptable form of communication here on Metafilter.

That, and it seemed to make a point.
posted by ?! at 6:21 PM on September 19, 2006

I'm not objecting the use of an image. I'm objecting to the fact that it had two naked women. Obviously NSFW and because it's inline, no one has a choice to ignore it.
posted by SeizeTheDay at 6:26 PM on September 19, 2006

SeizeTheday: I bet because silly-ass inline images are still considered a socially acceptable form of communication here on Metafilter.

To some.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 6:28 PM on September 19, 2006

Dear Bardic: After you wake up from your drug-induced dream, you'll find out. -- Ask MeFi
posted by Steven C. Den Beste at 6:58 PM on September 19, 2006

SeizeTheDay, my guess is that particular inline image stuck around because it was on-topic, provided some social commentary, and the naked women were not going to be mistaken as wackoff material for the pervy guy in the last cubicle on the right. And, you do have the choice to turn off images. In your browser. Myself, I wouldn't mind losing the image tag, but I think it's not going anywhere.
posted by Roger Dodger at 6:58 PM on September 19, 2006

AskMe is not for discussion, it is to get questions answered.

I think this is the main point. Sorry brina, if I had realized you were newer to this posting thing, I would have sent you an email when I removed the question. I was fooled by your low user number. You're not at all stupid, but if you want real answers to a real question -- the legal issues you mentioned, for example -- you'll have to not frame a hypothetical situation around it.

StD, I removed that image, hadn't noticed it before.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 7:31 PM on September 19, 2006

Hypothetically, what would my life be like if I didn't have a ten-inch cock?
Yrs, bardic
That's not hypothetical.
posted by dg at 7:45 PM on September 19, 2006

I've never yet posted a FPP to the blue, if only because I am terribly afraid I will immediately be told it was a terrible/boring post. So I'm a super-fearful MeFite.

Oh come on. Grow some metaphorical ovaries or balls or some combination of the two. Post something you find interesting, follow the guidelines and fuck anyone who hates it. Metaphorically, I mean.
posted by mediareport at 7:48 PM on September 19, 2006

For his sake, let's hope not.
posted by scarabic at 7:49 PM on September 19, 2006

Haters.
posted by bardic at 8:39 PM on September 19, 2006

I think brina's Meta question is rhetorically answered by asking her if "what would the legal consequences be of organized, widespread hacking of voting machines?" would meet her needs. It wouldn't, though it is her question reduced to its essence, because what she was really interested was discussing her idea of a bunch of people hacking voting machines to make a point. Which isn't a question, it's an interest in a discussion. Which isn't the point of AskMe, or of any of the rest of MeFi.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 8:52 PM on September 19, 2006

Also, I was hoping that attorney-like people would post about the legal consequences (the treason comment was particularly helpful) and the technical possibilities, as well as whether anyone knew if anyone else had ever tried to orchestrate such a thing.

OK. Then post the AskMe questions:

1. What would the legal consequences be if one hacked voting machines, or orchestrated such hacking?

2. What are the technical possibilities for hacking voting machines? Can anybody point me to any resources describing hacking attempts, security audits etc?

3. Does anybody know of anybody who has ever tried to orchestrate the hacking of voting machines?
posted by UbuRoivas at 10:03 PM on September 19, 2006

Hypotheticals tend to be interesting questions; I wish they were still allowed. They used to be.
posted by knave at 10:52 PM on September 19, 2006

If hypotheticals were allowed, AskMe would change from a venue where people who need help or information can ask for it into yet another uncontrolled discussion forum.

We already have an uncontrolled discussion forum.

Being interesting is not the goal of AskMe, though it often is. The goal is being useful.
posted by Steven C. Den Beste at 11:33 PM on September 19, 2006

I've been a MeFite since forever
16148?
posted by Joeforking at 12:19 AM on September 20, 2006

So I'm a super-fearful MeFite.

What is this place coming to when people are afraid to post?
posted by chrismear at 12:33 AM on September 20, 2006

The terrorists keep on winning.
posted by bardic at 12:51 AM on September 20, 2006

I am afraid to post this.
posted by zoinks at 1:18 AM on September 20, 2006

That was a terrible/boring post, zoinks.
posted by UbuRoivas at 1:42 AM on September 20, 2006

I would have loved to know the answer, but don't see it as an ask.mefi question.
posted by Sparx at 2:16 AM on September 20, 2006

*weeps*
posted by zoinks at 3:21 AM on September 20, 2006

Metafilter: Afraid to post.
posted by flapjax at midnite at 5:51 AM on September 20, 2006

Theoretically, hypothetically, what would happen if a large number of people hacked voting machines in districts all over the country on Election Day, all in a joint effort?
posted by brina

George W. Bush would win a second term.
posted by Schlimmbesserung

Classic.
posted by Fuzzy Monster at 7:39 AM on September 20, 2006

Why wasn't this question considered hypothetical? It's a fun question, but it doesn't seem like the asker was looking for actual answers.
posted by owhydididoit at 8:19 AM on September 20, 2006

brina: You are not stupid. You are awesome.
posted by brain_drain at 9:21 AM on September 20, 2006

Why wasn't this question considered hypothetical? It's a fun question, but it doesn't seem like the asker was looking for actual answers.
posted by owhydididoit at 11:19 AM EST on September 20 [+] [!]
Because it's theoretical, not hypothetical?
posted by DenOfSizer at 9:48 AM on September 20, 2006

Purely out of curiosity, did you get the idea for the question from my comment here?

I'm actually kinda disappointed your question got deleted, I understand why it was and all, but it could have produced an interesting discussion. (not what Ask is for, I know, but still.)
posted by quin at 11:13 AM on September 20, 2006

hamster has no "p" in it.

just sayin'...

Quonsar, plainly you have never seen R Kelly's Hamster.
posted by BigLankyBastard at 12:07 PM on September 20, 2006

Quin, yes. That was the exact inspiration.

Thanks to all who have been helpful.
posted by brina at 2:23 PM on September 20, 2006

Insert obligatory and assholish pretty little snowflake snark here.

If you are of the opinion, and I contest it's not as broadly held opinion as some might believe, that the argument against these types of posts is that they aren't somehow worthy of posterity—or something—well, I would have to counter that I've seen a lot worse slide by in the past, and didn't think that thread in particular was going badly enough to justify it's extinction.

Personally, I'm of the opinion that posterity can be damned: it's your question, you don't get too many (how many a year even get used per user on average? 5?) and you should be allowed to ask (just about) whatever you like.

The best argument you can make is that the questions "force off" the important questions, but this is a separate problem that isn't going to be solved by ruthless editting (in truth, it's really not that ruthless). AskMe needs to be re-thought, design-and-function wise. This has been known for some time, and this is the most obvious and common example of why.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 5:52 PM on September 20, 2006

Actually, brina, you are a special snowflake. Don't let any hullabaloo scare you off, but I would definitely refrain from using "Theoretically, hypothetically" in your next AskMe post if you want it to last more than an hour :)
posted by ml98tu at 8:51 PM on September 20, 2006

Hamster is the new peer-to-peer porksharing application. P2PP.

Personally, I can't wait.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 9:55 PM on September 20, 2006

"Hypothetical "necessitates an hypothesis, and if it's overt, it will invariably cast the post as chat. But if the question were worded:

What mechanisms or safeguards are in place to prevent a large group of people from hijacking voting machines on election day in a joint efort?

then I believe that it would pass the AskMe metric and generate similar discussion.
posted by Neiltupper at 11:49 PM on September 20, 2006

"then I believe that it would pass the AskMe metric and generate similar discussion."

Yeah, but did you read my earlier comment? Brina hasn't responded to it, but I think that it's pretty obvious, if you think about it, that answering that question really wasn't the point of her question. The point of her question essentially isn't something appropriate to AskMe. That's the problem.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 12:43 AM on September 21, 2006

I think brina's Meta question is rhetorically answered by asking her if "what would the legal consequences be of organized, widespread hacking of voting machines?" would meet her needs.

That would answer a big part of the question, yes.

OK. Then post the AskMe questions:

1. What would the legal consequences be if one hacked voting machines, or orchestrated such hacking?

2. What are the technical possibilities for hacking voting machines? Can anybody point me to any resources describing hacking attempts, security audits etc?

3. Does anybody know of anybody who has ever tried to orchestrate the hacking of voting machines?

Again, that would have been a much better way of phrasing it all. Thanks for the help.

Oh, and Joeforking: I'm sorry I registered two weeks later than you. Guess hyperbole is out, too, huh? < /feeding trolls>
posted by brina at 1:53 PM on September 23, 2006

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