Let's define news- and politics filter November 16, 2006 3:39 PM Subscribe
"if you can craft a definition of news and politics related threads that anyone can read and judge their pending post against, and it's so clear and concise that no one would second guess it and wonder why their news or politics related thread was removed, I'd be happy to add it. Because right now, there's no way I could make a black & white, water-tight set of guidelines for discouraging and deleting political and news posts. I don't keep them around for the traffic, I keep them around because there's no easy way to say what should stay and what should go, as six years of metatalk have already covered." -mathowie
Let's do this.
Let's do this.
WWKP?
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 3:44 PM on November 16, 2006
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 3:44 PM on November 16, 2006
"If you're posting a SLBOE out of sheer outrage, please turn to page 52."
posted by boo_radley at 3:44 PM on November 16, 2006
posted by boo_radley at 3:44 PM on November 16, 2006
How about: Any political post must link to at least two opposing viewpoints on the issue/candidate/party in question.
posted by JekPorkins at 3:55 PM on November 16, 2006
posted by JekPorkins at 3:55 PM on November 16, 2006
Hunh, the original comment goes as follows:
, if you can craft a definition of news and politics... [And then everything else keswick quoted]
posted by mathowie
I would think going to people smarter than you for help would be, like, totally against the Internet Inconoclast's Curmudgeonly Conduct Guidebook. Why the heck should we win your innernet arguments for you?
Keep swinging for the bleachers slugger, you'll get to first base one of these days (Try to let the ball hit you, it's probably your best chance.).
What a putz.
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 3:59 PM on November 16, 2006
, if you can craft a definition of news and politics... [And then everything else keswick quoted]
posted by mathowie
I would think going to people smarter than you for help would be, like, totally against the Internet Inconoclast's Curmudgeonly Conduct Guidebook. Why the heck should we win your innernet arguments for you?
Keep swinging for the bleachers slugger, you'll get to first base one of these days (Try to let the ball hit you, it's probably your best chance.).
What a putz.
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 3:59 PM on November 16, 2006
Newsfilter: If, the minute before you decide to post something, you go to news.google.com and see it there, that means it doesn't belong on Metafilter. Unless it's an event that has resulted in over 25 deaths or $2.5 million in property damage, whichever is less. If the latter is the case, report the event with a balanced perspective.(maybe this will help avoid the Two Hub Men Die In Blastnew york also destroyed
effect.)
Politicsfilter: Imagine a world where every country has equal numbers of people on the internet. Now, look at your post and imagine if someone from Bhutan will derive any enjoyment or educational value from what you've posted. Does it include language that assumes we are American and we care about two-party politics? It does not belong on metafilter.
(yes I know I have a high user ID number, thank you)
posted by nasreddin at 4:00 PM on November 16, 2006 [1 favorite]
effect.)
Politicsfilter: Imagine a world where every country has equal numbers of people on the internet. Now, look at your post and imagine if someone from Bhutan will derive any enjoyment or educational value from what you've posted. Does it include language that assumes we are American and we care about two-party politics? It does not belong on metafilter.
(yes I know I have a high user ID number, thank you)
posted by nasreddin at 4:00 PM on November 16, 2006 [1 favorite]
Let's invent flubber, too, while we're at it. That stuff looks like fun!
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 4:00 PM on November 16, 2006
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 4:00 PM on November 16, 2006
It would be a lot easier just to give me admin rights.
posted by monju_bosatsu at 4:07 PM on November 16, 2006
posted by monju_bosatsu at 4:07 PM on November 16, 2006
Or give everyone admin rights. WikiMetaFilter would be awesome.
posted by matthewr at 4:10 PM on November 16, 2006 [2 favorites]
posted by matthewr at 4:10 PM on November 16, 2006 [2 favorites]
Newsfilter: If, the minute before you decide to post something, you go to news.google.com and see it there, that means it doesn't belong on Metafilter.
I think that depends on what sort of personal filters you have set up on Google News. I bet that most folk aren't following the Bolivian lesbian Hitler clone news items. Right off the radar for mosy people is my guess, but for me it's front page news every day.
posted by Brave New Meatbomb at 4:12 PM on November 16, 2006
I think that depends on what sort of personal filters you have set up on Google News. I bet that most folk aren't following the Bolivian lesbian Hitler clone news items. Right off the radar for mosy people is my guess, but for me it's front page news every day.
posted by Brave New Meatbomb at 4:12 PM on November 16, 2006
Frankly, I'm suffering from Bolivian Lesbian Hitler Clone fatigue.
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 4:15 PM on November 16, 2006
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 4:15 PM on November 16, 2006
"Please refrain from FPPs containing opinions, current events, or algorithms easily divisible by Hitler. Thank you."
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 4:20 PM on November 16, 2006 [1 favorite]
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 4:20 PM on November 16, 2006 [1 favorite]
The Filteralist Papers.
posted by sourwookie at 4:23 PM on November 16, 2006
posted by sourwookie at 4:23 PM on November 16, 2006
I'd start out with the thought that there should be some sort of narrative and interest in the link itself, rather than just reporting that something happened.
I suppose my rule would be to allow what goes on the feature pages, but not in the news pages. Though with high-quality news, that gets grey too.
Perhaps the easiest way to do it would be some sort of numerical formula, where you subtract points for things like mentioning Bush, Iraq, Apple or the Christian Right and add points for analysis, multiple sources, unique information or artistic merit.
But I'm just spitballin'. On the whole, I like a fuzzy-edged deletion standard, and would argue that people should redefine their expectations to understand a probablistic model rather than a legalistic one. (Perhaps a random number generator for any post that mentions Bush? Under a certain threshold is deleted?)
posted by klangklangston at 4:26 PM on November 16, 2006
I suppose my rule would be to allow what goes on the feature pages, but not in the news pages. Though with high-quality news, that gets grey too.
Perhaps the easiest way to do it would be some sort of numerical formula, where you subtract points for things like mentioning Bush, Iraq, Apple or the Christian Right and add points for analysis, multiple sources, unique information or artistic merit.
But I'm just spitballin'. On the whole, I like a fuzzy-edged deletion standard, and would argue that people should redefine their expectations to understand a probablistic model rather than a legalistic one. (Perhaps a random number generator for any post that mentions Bush? Under a certain threshold is deleted?)
posted by klangklangston at 4:26 PM on November 16, 2006
Let's do this.
Given your enthusiasm for it, I must have missed the post where you went first.
posted by Armitage Shanks at 4:36 PM on November 16, 2006 [1 favorite]
Given your enthusiasm for it, I must have missed the post where you went first.
posted by Armitage Shanks at 4:36 PM on November 16, 2006 [1 favorite]
No, let's.
posted by timeistight at 5:00 PM on November 16, 2006
posted by timeistight at 5:00 PM on November 16, 2006
In this, as in all things, I am guided by the words of Gandhi:
WHOEVER DISAGREES WITH ME IS A GODS-DAMNED IDIOT K THX BYE
posted by Mister_A at 5:05 PM on November 16, 2006
WHOEVER DISAGREES WITH ME IS A GODS-DAMNED IDIOT K THX BYE
posted by Mister_A at 5:05 PM on November 16, 2006
I would suggest this heuristic:
Write your post, and then ask this: If I were to wait and post it six months from now, without changing a word, would anyone be interested in it?
If the answer is "yes" then it's OK to post it now. If the answer is "no" then it belongs in the bit-bucket.
The defining characteristic of "news and politics" posts is that they are of the moment.
posted by Steven C. Den Beste at 5:12 PM on November 16, 2006 [1 favorite]
Write your post, and then ask this: If I were to wait and post it six months from now, without changing a word, would anyone be interested in it?
If the answer is "yes" then it's OK to post it now. If the answer is "no" then it belongs in the bit-bucket.
The defining characteristic of "news and politics" posts is that they are of the moment.
posted by Steven C. Den Beste at 5:12 PM on November 16, 2006 [1 favorite]
Or, WWSCDBD?
posted by eyeballkid at 5:15 PM on November 16, 2006 [1 favorite]
posted by eyeballkid at 5:15 PM on November 16, 2006 [1 favorite]
If we want to exclude all breaking news, then nasreddin's definition should work:
If, the minute before you decide to post something, you go to news.google.com and see it there, that means it doesn't belong on MetaFilter.
posted by russilwvong at 5:17 PM on November 16, 2006
If, the minute before you decide to post something, you go to news.google.com and see it there, that means it doesn't belong on MetaFilter.
posted by russilwvong at 5:17 PM on November 16, 2006
This would also have the advantage of excluding all obituary posts.
Eyeballkid, I can't think of a worse idea than having everyone try to predict what I would do in that situation. Gad, how boring.
posted by Steven C. Den Beste at 5:20 PM on November 16, 2006
Eyeballkid, I can't think of a worse idea than having everyone try to predict what I would do in that situation. Gad, how boring.
posted by Steven C. Den Beste at 5:20 PM on November 16, 2006
I know it could (would) cause headaches for Matt, but I still favor arbitrary fatwa. Just get happy with the nukes.
posted by cortex at 5:21 PM on November 16, 2006
posted by cortex at 5:21 PM on November 16, 2006
JekPorkins writes "How about: Any political post must link to at least two opposing viewpoints on the issue/candidate/party in question."
Er, because then (for example) any post about gay marriage--a political issue--would also have to devote time to douchebags like Falwell and Phelps? Giving those people more attention is precisely what we don't need.
Or how about global warming? Also a political issue. You'd have to link to quacks and creationists who disagree.
And, for that matter, teaching evolution in schools--you'd then have to link to ridiculous fundamentalist types who are creationists.
This is the same thing that passes for 'journalism' these days. I vote hell no on this suggestion.
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 5:37 PM on November 16, 2006 [1 favorite]
Er, because then (for example) any post about gay marriage--a political issue--would also have to devote time to douchebags like Falwell and Phelps? Giving those people more attention is precisely what we don't need.
Or how about global warming? Also a political issue. You'd have to link to quacks and creationists who disagree.
And, for that matter, teaching evolution in schools--you'd then have to link to ridiculous fundamentalist types who are creationists.
This is the same thing that passes for 'journalism' these days. I vote hell no on this suggestion.
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 5:37 PM on November 16, 2006 [1 favorite]
Er, because then (for example) any post about gay marriage--a political issue--would also have to devote time to douchebags like Falwell and Phelps? Giving those people more attention is precisely what we don't need.
I know! How ghastly! I mean, people might up and decide it's not worth posting gay marriage link No. 2,033,4, and then where would we be?
posted by IshmaelGraves at 5:40 PM on November 16, 2006 [1 favorite]
I know! How ghastly! I mean, people might up and decide it's not worth posting gay marriage link No. 2,033,4, and then where would we be?
posted by IshmaelGraves at 5:40 PM on November 16, 2006 [1 favorite]
We did this a week ago. I always thought that the standard was: don't post something that's already been posted or that no one cares about. Since not excluded by the guidelines, NewsFilter posts are legit unless they fit under the ambit of something already discussed (i.e. they could be posted in that thread.)
Matt's comment strikes me as a polite way of saying "sure, we can do that, once you figure out how to bioengineer pigs with wings."
Personally, I don't see what all the fuss is about. Even if I didn't like NewsFilter posts, I wouldn't want to miss all the grey posts complaining about them. They're consistently hilarious.
posted by spiderwire at 5:52 PM on November 16, 2006
Matt's comment strikes me as a polite way of saying "sure, we can do that, once you figure out how to bioengineer pigs with wings."
Personally, I don't see what all the fuss is about. Even if I didn't like NewsFilter posts, I wouldn't want to miss all the grey posts complaining about them. They're consistently hilarious.
posted by spiderwire at 5:52 PM on November 16, 2006
So timeistight and SCDB, would today's Milton Friedman post be gone in your world just because it was prompted by today's passing? Or would they need to wait six months and a day first?
posted by mathowie (staff) at 5:55 PM on November 16, 2006
posted by mathowie (staff) at 5:55 PM on November 16, 2006
I've got a better idea.
It occured to me that the main reason Matt doesn't want to institute a hard-and-fast rule about Politics/Current Event posts is that he'll have to deal with a bunch of Job-like, "WHY HATH THOU FORSAKEN MY POST" complaints.
So how about all MeTa posts that ask, "Why was my post deleted?" results in an instant 1-week ban (you can still email Matt or Jess, of course)? Politics/Current Event posts can then be deleted as appropriate without the fear of MeTa annoyances.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 6:01 PM on November 16, 2006
It occured to me that the main reason Matt doesn't want to institute a hard-and-fast rule about Politics/Current Event posts is that he'll have to deal with a bunch of Job-like, "WHY HATH THOU FORSAKEN MY POST" complaints.
So how about all MeTa posts that ask, "Why was my post deleted?" results in an instant 1-week ban (you can still email Matt or Jess, of course)? Politics/Current Event posts can then be deleted as appropriate without the fear of MeTa annoyances.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 6:01 PM on November 16, 2006
That's not what S to the C to the D to the B is advocating, Matt. If the Milton Friedman thing is post-worthy in 6 months, which it would be, it's OK to post it now.
posted by matthewr at 6:02 PM on November 16, 2006
posted by matthewr at 6:02 PM on November 16, 2006
Yeah Civil_Disobedient, that's the spirit! Gone with the benevolent dictator and say helloooooo to Mr. Ruthless!
posted by mathowie (staff) at 6:03 PM on November 16, 2006
posted by mathowie (staff) at 6:03 PM on November 16, 2006
Mr. Ruthless calls everyone who disagrees with him a douchebag and bans them for a week
posted by mathowie (staff) at 6:04 PM on November 16, 2006
posted by mathowie (staff) at 6:04 PM on November 16, 2006
Simply delete every third news post, regardless of merit. Black, white and watertight.
posted by klarck at 6:07 PM on November 16, 2006
posted by klarck at 6:07 PM on November 16, 2006
I don't think it's a time-based thing, or even that something currently cluttering Google News should automatically be verboten, but there's a class of NewsFilter post that would work in exactly the same way if there were no links in them - eg. 'Democrats done good in election', 'Rumsfeld, gone now', things we all (almost) certainly already know about.
That kind of post is the undeniably shite kind - if everyone reading could reasonably post a comment without needing to read the linked pages, because the topic is such big news, then the post is cack.
'Milton Friedman died, here's some information about his thinking' is a different order of NewsFilter.
Of course, someone will now point out that they had no idea Rumsfeld had resigned until they saw it on MetaFilter, but were already completely au fait with every possible stance on Friedman and his legacy... or you could just point to the September 11th thread, I suppose.
posted by jack_mo at 6:28 PM on November 16, 2006 [1 favorite]
That kind of post is the undeniably shite kind - if everyone reading could reasonably post a comment without needing to read the linked pages, because the topic is such big news, then the post is cack.
'Milton Friedman died, here's some information about his thinking' is a different order of NewsFilter.
Of course, someone will now point out that they had no idea Rumsfeld had resigned until they saw it on MetaFilter, but were already completely au fait with every possible stance on Friedman and his legacy... or you could just point to the September 11th thread, I suppose.
posted by jack_mo at 6:28 PM on November 16, 2006 [1 favorite]
Gone with the benevolent dictator and say helloooooo to Mr. Ruthless!
This post was deleted for the following reason: self-police my ass, bitch!
posted by jack_mo at 6:32 PM on November 16, 2006
This post was deleted for the following reason: self-police my ass, bitch!
posted by jack_mo at 6:32 PM on November 16, 2006
I agree with Den Beste. The could-this-be-posted-in-6-months is a good guideline. (if so, feel free to post it today)
Not just the subject but also the links. A well-thought out post on Friedman is welcome 6 months from now or a couple years from now. A post that simply pointed to a Reuters link that said "Friedman is dead!!!!" would obviously not qualify.
This guideline would include all posts of interesting, timeless things on the web. It would include thoughtful current events post on, say, global warming, population, ecology etc. The extra criterion I would add is that the sources themselves are ones that, even people with opposing views, would agree are legitimate - this is mostly to omit op-eds, hate sites etc.
The only problem/regret is that this rule would exclude meme-of-the-moment posts (think Bubb-Rubb), which can often be culturally insightful and entertaining.
posted by vacapinta at 6:45 PM on November 16, 2006
Not just the subject but also the links. A well-thought out post on Friedman is welcome 6 months from now or a couple years from now. A post that simply pointed to a Reuters link that said "Friedman is dead!!!!" would obviously not qualify.
This guideline would include all posts of interesting, timeless things on the web. It would include thoughtful current events post on, say, global warming, population, ecology etc. The extra criterion I would add is that the sources themselves are ones that, even people with opposing views, would agree are legitimate - this is mostly to omit op-eds, hate sites etc.
The only problem/regret is that this rule would exclude meme-of-the-moment posts (think Bubb-Rubb), which can often be culturally insightful and entertaining.
posted by vacapinta at 6:45 PM on November 16, 2006
Matt, if a post on some subject is worthwhile, it doesn't need to be prompted by or associated with some specific event or anniversary. Since you're asking my opinion, then if I were Matt Haughey I would unconditionally delete all obituary posts, and all "on this day in history" posts.
That Friedman post could have been good without being prompted by news of his death, or directly referring to it. So why bother doing so?
And if an event in history is worth discussing and linking to, why does it need to happen on the anniversary of the event?
The point of my heuristic is that it eliminates all cases of "because it's today" posts, for the simple reason that I think they're all worthless. That's my opinion
...But I'm not Matt Haughey. You are. If you like them, they should stay around because it's your site.
posted by Steven C. Den Beste at 7:17 PM on November 16, 2006
That Friedman post could have been good without being prompted by news of his death, or directly referring to it. So why bother doing so?
And if an event in history is worth discussing and linking to, why does it need to happen on the anniversary of the event?
The point of my heuristic is that it eliminates all cases of "because it's today" posts, for the simple reason that I think they're all worthless. That's my opinion
...But I'm not Matt Haughey. You are. If you like them, they should stay around because it's your site.
posted by Steven C. Den Beste at 7:17 PM on November 16, 2006
This just in: Some metafilter users are happy to submit to the whim of new leader "Mr. Ruthless." Other users, however, are somewhat skeptical.
See. How difficult is that?
If your viewpoint can't tolerate an opposing view, it's either (a) so obvious and foregone a conclusion that it doesn't merit a post or (b) crap.
posted by JekPorkins at 7:17 PM on November 16, 2006
See. How difficult is that?
If your viewpoint can't tolerate an opposing view, it's either (a) so obvious and foregone a conclusion that it doesn't merit a post or (b) crap.
posted by JekPorkins at 7:17 PM on November 16, 2006
"WikiMetaFilter would be awesome"
I seem to recall it being a complete clusterfuck.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 7:26 PM on November 16, 2006
I seem to recall it being a complete clusterfuck.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 7:26 PM on November 16, 2006
the both sides of the coin theory is garbage. anyone who wanted to post something would simply post the weakest counterargument to their personal viewpoint they could find, thereby reinforcing their position and abiding the rules. for example:
Here's an argument in favor of intelligent design. If you'd like to see what the atheists think, here's timecube.com.
Hell, Fox news pulls shit like that all the time, and metafilter would be reduced to their level of fair and balanced pap. Then we'd get metafilter callouts about weak counterargument padding! Whee! Everybody wins!
In fact, this whole thread is silly. Next week: creating a rigorous, hard and fast distinction between "pretty" and "not pretty."
posted by shmegegge at 7:39 PM on November 16, 2006
Here's an argument in favor of intelligent design. If you'd like to see what the atheists think, here's timecube.com.
Hell, Fox news pulls shit like that all the time, and metafilter would be reduced to their level of fair and balanced pap. Then we'd get metafilter callouts about weak counterargument padding! Whee! Everybody wins!
In fact, this whole thread is silly. Next week: creating a rigorous, hard and fast distinction between "pretty" and "not pretty."
posted by shmegegge at 7:39 PM on November 16, 2006
Man, I can't wait until keswick comes back here with his solution.
I just know it's going to be awesome!!!
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 8:03 PM on November 16, 2006
I just know it's going to be awesome!!!
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 8:03 PM on November 16, 2006
My usual metric is single link posts to newswire stories or the usual suspect news/politics sites [Kos, TPM, Huffington, Truthout and other sites that are even more axegrindey] usually need to have some other super-redeeming quality in order not to be deleted. Also, posts that have super LOL and other eyerolling language of the types you'd find in those sites ("What are you going to do NOW Bush, huh!>!?!1") with no other redeeming content can similarly vanish. Veiled sarcasm news posts along the lines of "Another BRILLIANT comment from Ken Mehlman..." are also crap.
It's not the news or politics part that is the problem, I think, it's the lameness of the posts that seem to get the newsfilter attention. They're often not tagged, not thoughtful and posted in some sort of a breathless hurry just so (it seems) the poster can get the big story out to everyone as Soon As Possible. This is rarely neccessary, these posts are often terrible, and the site would be okay without them.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 8:03 PM on November 16, 2006
It's not the news or politics part that is the problem, I think, it's the lameness of the posts that seem to get the newsfilter attention. They're often not tagged, not thoughtful and posted in some sort of a breathless hurry just so (it seems) the poster can get the big story out to everyone as Soon As Possible. This is rarely neccessary, these posts are often terrible, and the site would be okay without them.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 8:03 PM on November 16, 2006
So timeistight and SCDB, would today's Milton Friedman post be gone in your world just because it was prompted by today's passing? Or would they need to wait six months and a day first?
For the record, my argument was that it was easy to tell news from not-news. That looks like a pretty good post (I guess), but it seems very clear to me that it is news.
So if you passed a hard-and-fast no news rule, then, yeah, it would be gone. But let's face it, you aren't going to do that, no matter how elegant, airtight, black and white a definition keswick comes up with. Are you?
posted by timeistight at 8:11 PM on November 16, 2006
For the record, my argument was that it was easy to tell news from not-news. That looks like a pretty good post (I guess), but it seems very clear to me that it is news.
So if you passed a hard-and-fast no news rule, then, yeah, it would be gone. But let's face it, you aren't going to do that, no matter how elegant, airtight, black and white a definition keswick comes up with. Are you?
posted by timeistight at 8:11 PM on November 16, 2006
Perhaps the easiest way to do it would be some sort of numerical formula, where you subtract points for things like mentioning Bush, Iraq, Apple or the Christian Right and add points for analysis, multiple sources, unique information or artistic merit.
Maybe a quiz based on this idea? "Before posting your FPP, please take our newsfilter quiz." And if the post didnt pass muster, it would just take you to goatse.
What's that Matt? No, dont get up. I'll ban myself.
posted by supercrayon at 8:20 PM on November 16, 2006
Maybe a quiz based on this idea? "Before posting your FPP, please take our newsfilter quiz." And if the post didnt pass muster, it would just take you to goatse.
What's that Matt? No, dont get up. I'll ban myself.
posted by supercrayon at 8:20 PM on November 16, 2006
Dude, it was klang who said that, and I'm pretty sure his tongue was in cheek.
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 8:26 PM on November 16, 2006
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 8:26 PM on November 16, 2006
Pfft, my tongue's in my cheek too! Actually the less said about where my tongue is, the better. Carry on.
posted by supercrayon at 8:28 PM on November 16, 2006
posted by supercrayon at 8:28 PM on November 16, 2006
posted in some sort of a breathless hurry just so (it seems) the poster can get the big story out to everyone as Soon As Possible
Solution: When you press the submit button the FPP is delayed for a random amount of time between one and ten minutes. If your post turns out to be a double you a banned for a week for posting something so obviously newsfilterish.
posted by meech at 8:40 PM on November 16, 2006 [1 favorite]
Solution: When you press the submit button the FPP is delayed for a random amount of time between one and ten minutes. If your post turns out to be a double you a banned for a week for posting something so obviously newsfilterish.
posted by meech at 8:40 PM on November 16, 2006 [1 favorite]
I would unconditionally delete all obituary posts, and all "on this day in history" posts.
Jesus christ. Some of the coolest posts are anniversary posts that teach us about some day in our history (like dios' best of winner on the texas belltower history post).
So if you passed a hard-and-fast no news rule, then, yeah, it would be gone.
Jesus christ x 2. You're the only one here that says it is delete-worthy. I think it's a great post.
I can see why a lot of you guys* don't run community sites.
* why is it always guys arguing over this control freak crap, rarely do women mention or decry newsfilter and politicsfilter?
posted by mathowie (staff) at 8:42 PM on November 16, 2006
Jesus christ. Some of the coolest posts are anniversary posts that teach us about some day in our history (like dios' best of winner on the texas belltower history post).
So if you passed a hard-and-fast no news rule, then, yeah, it would be gone.
Jesus christ x 2. You're the only one here that says it is delete-worthy. I think it's a great post.
I can see why a lot of you guys* don't run community sites.
* why is it always guys arguing over this control freak crap, rarely do women mention or decry newsfilter and politicsfilter?
posted by mathowie (staff) at 8:42 PM on November 16, 2006
I can see why a lot of you guys* don't run community sites.
Give me admin rights, Matt, and I swear on the blood of my forefathers that I will create an empire whose frightful might and fearsome power will echo down through the ages, a glorious and terrible community website whose very name will strike fear into the hearts of administrators long after we have all returned to the dust from which we sprang.
Grant me this boon, oh mathowie, and the wailing and gnashing of teeth of those we crush under our feet will be drowned out by the hosannas of praise to your name!
(or not.)
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 8:52 PM on November 16, 2006 [2 favorites]
Give me admin rights, Matt, and I swear on the blood of my forefathers that I will create an empire whose frightful might and fearsome power will echo down through the ages, a glorious and terrible community website whose very name will strike fear into the hearts of administrators long after we have all returned to the dust from which we sprang.
Grant me this boon, oh mathowie, and the wailing and gnashing of teeth of those we crush under our feet will be drowned out by the hosannas of praise to your name!
(or not.)
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 8:52 PM on November 16, 2006 [2 favorites]
Matt, the reason I don't run a community site is because I have no tolerance for idiots. I actually had one on my site, but I shut it down after about four months because it was too much of a headache. (And I only had about 200 users to police.)
I am continually astounded that you've found the patience to continue running this site as long as you have. You must have the equanimity of a saint.
posted by Steven C. Den Beste at 8:57 PM on November 16, 2006
I am continually astounded that you've found the patience to continue running this site as long as you have. You must have the equanimity of a saint.
posted by Steven C. Den Beste at 8:57 PM on November 16, 2006
If your viewpoint can't tolerate an opposing view, it's either (a) so obvious and foregone a conclusion that it doesn't merit a post or (b) crap.
Or, JekPorkins, (c) perhaps you and the original poster are falling again for the Logical Fallacy of Equivalence, whereby an opposing view has been given equal factual merit for the sole reason that it opposes another view, regardless of whether or not it actually holds any factual merit at all. Difference does not impart any other quality but difference.
This same fallacy is why, for example, creationists or proponents of intelligent design are given much more media airtime than their view is due, on the merit of any reasoned examination of their various claims.
But by your reasoning above, evolution would not (a) merit discussion, or (b) is a crap idea. Neither of which are conclusions that most reasoned, free-thinking human beings would likely agree with, and again, these would be conclusions only reached from a logically fallacious process that would, for example, equate evolution with creationism.
One position can be wrong. It is not necessary to give equal credence to multiple posititions taken of an argument to reach this conclusion.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 8:57 PM on November 16, 2006 [1 favorite]
Or, JekPorkins, (c) perhaps you and the original poster are falling again for the Logical Fallacy of Equivalence, whereby an opposing view has been given equal factual merit for the sole reason that it opposes another view, regardless of whether or not it actually holds any factual merit at all. Difference does not impart any other quality but difference.
This same fallacy is why, for example, creationists or proponents of intelligent design are given much more media airtime than their view is due, on the merit of any reasoned examination of their various claims.
But by your reasoning above, evolution would not (a) merit discussion, or (b) is a crap idea. Neither of which are conclusions that most reasoned, free-thinking human beings would likely agree with, and again, these would be conclusions only reached from a logically fallacious process that would, for example, equate evolution with creationism.
One position can be wrong. It is not necessary to give equal credence to multiple posititions taken of an argument to reach this conclusion.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 8:57 PM on November 16, 2006 [1 favorite]
If I were to wait and post it six months from now, without changing a word, would anyone be interested in it?
To me, that guidelines seems guaranteed to produce second-guessing, wailing, gnashing of teeth, and MeTas.
posted by owhydididoit at 9:02 PM on November 16, 2006
To me, that guidelines seems guaranteed to produce second-guessing, wailing, gnashing of teeth, and MeTas.
posted by owhydididoit at 9:02 PM on November 16, 2006
But by your reasoning above, evolution would not (a) merit discussion, or (b) is a crap idea.
No. By my reasoning above, evolution is so completely obvious and not genuinely disputed that it doesn't merit a MetaFilter post. And the day that someone posts a single-linker to a page describing evolution, and that's all, you'll see me repeat that. Unless I don't see MeFi that day. Or I'm sick. Or I don't feel like it. Or something.
posted by JekPorkins at 9:11 PM on November 16, 2006
No. By my reasoning above, evolution is so completely obvious and not genuinely disputed that it doesn't merit a MetaFilter post. And the day that someone posts a single-linker to a page describing evolution, and that's all, you'll see me repeat that. Unless I don't see MeFi that day. Or I'm sick. Or I don't feel like it. Or something.
posted by JekPorkins at 9:11 PM on November 16, 2006
By my reasoning above, evolution is so completely obvious and not genuinely disputed that it doesn't merit a MetaFilter post.
You're missing the point:
Every post, political or otherwise, has an editorial view behind it of one kind or another.
It is not necessary to give credence to false ideas to defend that editorial view.
In fact, it often turns a great post into a bad post, by adding useless filler (worse, when it is contentious filler that drags down the original material).
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 9:17 PM on November 16, 2006
You're missing the point:
Every post, political or otherwise, has an editorial view behind it of one kind or another.
It is not necessary to give credence to false ideas to defend that editorial view.
In fact, it often turns a great post into a bad post, by adding useless filler (worse, when it is contentious filler that drags down the original material).
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 9:17 PM on November 16, 2006
why is it always guys arguing over this control freak crap, rarely do women mention or decry newsfilter and politicsfilter?
I dunno... I've never decried a newsfilter or politicsfilter post, and think the issue is rather silly considering how easy it is to simply not read the thread in question. I'd take a dozen news/poli-filter posts over a single "WHYMYPOSTGONE" MeTa post, and I don't even particularly like MeTa that much.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 9:21 PM on November 16, 2006
I dunno... I've never decried a newsfilter or politicsfilter post, and think the issue is rather silly considering how easy it is to simply not read the thread in question. I'd take a dozen news/poli-filter posts over a single "WHYMYPOSTGONE" MeTa post, and I don't even particularly like MeTa that much.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 9:21 PM on November 16, 2006
...or a single, tattling, "THISTHREADBROKETHERULEZ" thread, for that matter.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 9:24 PM on November 16, 2006
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 9:24 PM on November 16, 2006
But let's face it, you aren't going to do that, no matter how elegant, airtight, black and white a definition keswick comes up with.
We can't know for sure until we see keswick's elegant, airtight, black and white definition. I'll bet he's going to present it any minute now.
posted by Armitage Shanks at 9:28 PM on November 16, 2006
We can't know for sure until we see keswick's elegant, airtight, black and white definition. I'll bet he's going to present it any minute now.
posted by Armitage Shanks at 9:28 PM on November 16, 2006
It is not necessary to give credence to false ideas to defend that editorial view.
Linking opposing viewpoints isn't "giving credence to false ideas." It's acknowledging opposing viewpoints. Don't like the crackpot ones? Don't link them. Link non-crackpots. Can't think of any non-crackpot opposing viewpoints? Well maybe, just maybe, what you're thinking of posting isn't fit for the Blue, since it's boring and opposed only by crackpots.
I think the Blue should be interesting and informative (or at least entertaining or funny) -- not advocacy. Hence my suggestion that a political post might still be valid, but only if it is informative; linking opposing viewpoints and educating on the issue. If there's an article in today's NYTimes about idiots somewhere between the coasts shoving some crap idea down the throats of its high school students, and only an idiot would not recognize that it's stupid, then guess what: That's a news story, and we, being informed folks, will have already seen it in the NYTimes.
posted by JekPorkins at 9:29 PM on November 16, 2006
Linking opposing viewpoints isn't "giving credence to false ideas." It's acknowledging opposing viewpoints. Don't like the crackpot ones? Don't link them. Link non-crackpots. Can't think of any non-crackpot opposing viewpoints? Well maybe, just maybe, what you're thinking of posting isn't fit for the Blue, since it's boring and opposed only by crackpots.
I think the Blue should be interesting and informative (or at least entertaining or funny) -- not advocacy. Hence my suggestion that a political post might still be valid, but only if it is informative; linking opposing viewpoints and educating on the issue. If there's an article in today's NYTimes about idiots somewhere between the coasts shoving some crap idea down the throats of its high school students, and only an idiot would not recognize that it's stupid, then guess what: That's a news story, and we, being informed folks, will have already seen it in the NYTimes.
posted by JekPorkins at 9:29 PM on November 16, 2006
don't i remember dame decrying newsfilter posts some time ago? maybe i'm wrong.
posted by shmegegge at 9:41 PM on November 16, 2006
posted by shmegegge at 9:41 PM on November 16, 2006
jek, your whole idea is nonsense. you're saying that unless there's a substantial unsolved disagreement inherent in a post, then it's not fit for metafilter. there's somethign worth reading about and discussing on the topic of racism without having to hear from the side of racists. if you think that it's too boring for metafilter because only crackpots side with racism, then your metric for metafilter worthiness is way out of whack. the same is true for new developments on the theory of evolution. if we find the missing link, i'd love to see a good post written about it on the blue, and we wouldn't need to hear from the ID crowd. please rethink your position.
posted by shmegegge at 9:45 PM on November 16, 2006
posted by shmegegge at 9:45 PM on November 16, 2006
Linking opposing viewpoints isn't "giving credence to false ideas." It's acknowledging opposing viewpoints. Don't like the crackpot ones? Don't link them. Link non-crackpots. Can't think of any non-crackpot opposing viewpoints? Well maybe, just maybe, what you're thinking of posting isn't fit for the Blue, since it's boring and opposed only by crackpots.
Plan X-K-Red-27: Don't like the post? It doesn't have an editorial view you like? Don't read it.
That's an approach that doesn't require isolation to political posts, by the way.
I can think of posts on any number of contentious subjects — interesting in their own right — easily ruined by the false notion that filler will somehow improve the original material, be that about music, computers, or even obituaries, for example.
Perfect: Let's take the example of obits.
By your reasoning, if I wanted to write a quality obit post about an interesting individual, I would have to find two sources somewhere on the Internet who have done nothing in their lives but slag the dead person while he was living.
We're just acknowledging opposing viewpoints, after all.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 9:50 PM on November 16, 2006
Plan X-K-Red-27: Don't like the post? It doesn't have an editorial view you like? Don't read it.
That's an approach that doesn't require isolation to political posts, by the way.
I can think of posts on any number of contentious subjects — interesting in their own right — easily ruined by the false notion that filler will somehow improve the original material, be that about music, computers, or even obituaries, for example.
Perfect: Let's take the example of obits.
By your reasoning, if I wanted to write a quality obit post about an interesting individual, I would have to find two sources somewhere on the Internet who have done nothing in their lives but slag the dead person while he was living.
We're just acknowledging opposing viewpoints, after all.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 9:50 PM on November 16, 2006
Is deleting any FPP containing rhetorical questions the only way to save MetaFilter? [more inside]
And Tuwa made an excellent obit post that took a month to complete. I like the 6-month metric. I also think that if Matt takes a stand, the number of deletion complaints will subside as people realize MeFi is not the place to go for their daily dose of vitamin Outrage. Those users will either adapt or leave.
posted by Eideteker at 10:17 PM on November 16, 2006
And Tuwa made an excellent obit post that took a month to complete. I like the 6-month metric. I also think that if Matt takes a stand, the number of deletion complaints will subside as people realize MeFi is not the place to go for their daily dose of vitamin Outrage. Those users will either adapt or leave.
posted by Eideteker at 10:17 PM on November 16, 2006
"We can't know for sure until we see keswick's elegant, airtight, black and white definition. I'll bet he's going to present it any minute now."
Rubbing in a timeout is not classy.
posted by Eideteker at 10:21 PM on November 16, 2006
Rubbing in a timeout is not classy.
posted by Eideteker at 10:21 PM on November 16, 2006
Those users will either adapt or leave.
Yeah, totally. They won't just complain louder, no sirree.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 10:23 PM on November 16, 2006
Yeah, totally. They won't just complain louder, no sirree.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 10:23 PM on November 16, 2006
Rubbing in a timeout is not classy.
Frankly, neither is criticizing people for not fulfilling your personal, impracticable standards.
posted by spiderwire at 10:25 PM on November 16, 2006
Frankly, neither is criticizing people for not fulfilling your personal, impracticable standards.
posted by spiderwire at 10:25 PM on November 16, 2006
When did keswick get a time-out?
And more importantly, who'll I have to laugh at now?
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 10:33 PM on November 16, 2006
And more importantly, who'll I have to laugh at now?
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 10:33 PM on November 16, 2006
" They won't just complain louder, no sirree."
No, they will, for awhile. But if you stand your ground, they will abate. If you flip-flop or look like you might give in, they will persist. If you want, you can forward all comlaints to me and I'll deal with them.
As a new user, I thought MeFi was a political site. Right now, new users have no reason to think otherwise, so the site gains a particular type of user. As those users become a larger percentage of the userbase, it gets harder and harder to say no to them. It'll never be any easier than it is now to say no because of this. And if you don't say no, you're saying yes, because the complaints will just gow louder over time. It's your call, though. We're just asking you to make it.
"When did keswick get a time-out?"
I assumed it was here. I realize now I may be wrong, but it seemed unambiguous:
"Mr. Ruthless calls everyone who disagrees with him a douchebag and bans them for a week"
posted by Eideteker at 10:56 PM on November 16, 2006
No, they will, for awhile. But if you stand your ground, they will abate. If you flip-flop or look like you might give in, they will persist. If you want, you can forward all comlaints to me and I'll deal with them.
As a new user, I thought MeFi was a political site. Right now, new users have no reason to think otherwise, so the site gains a particular type of user. As those users become a larger percentage of the userbase, it gets harder and harder to say no to them. It'll never be any easier than it is now to say no because of this. And if you don't say no, you're saying yes, because the complaints will just gow louder over time. It's your call, though. We're just asking you to make it.
"When did keswick get a time-out?"
I assumed it was here. I realize now I may be wrong, but it seemed unambiguous:
"Mr. Ruthless calls everyone who disagrees with him a douchebag and bans them for a week"
posted by Eideteker at 10:56 PM on November 16, 2006
Ah yes, the snowball argument. Does that kick in after seven years? Eight?
Perhaps you can explain to us why it's okay to scream "Newsfilter: Zero Tolerance" from the rooftops, but it's not okay for us to make fun of you guys when you can't explain just what that means.
I assumed it was here. I realize now I may be wrong, but it seemed unambiguous:
Your comment misses the tongue-in-cheek tone of Matt's reply in two separately quoted comments and in this post. Recalibrate your sarcasm meter.
Or consider posting more to the blue than the grey in order to raise the quality of the posts there, perhaps.
posted by spiderwire at 11:12 PM on November 16, 2006
Perhaps you can explain to us why it's okay to scream "Newsfilter: Zero Tolerance" from the rooftops, but it's not okay for us to make fun of you guys when you can't explain just what that means.
I assumed it was here. I realize now I may be wrong, but it seemed unambiguous:
Your comment misses the tongue-in-cheek tone of Matt's reply in two separately quoted comments and in this post. Recalibrate your sarcasm meter.
Or consider posting more to the blue than the grey in order to raise the quality of the posts there, perhaps.
posted by spiderwire at 11:12 PM on November 16, 2006
you're saying that unless there's a substantial unsolved disagreement inherent in a post, then it's not fit for metafilter.
No. I'm saying that boring posts are boring, and that one-sided editorializing political posts have no place here.
posted by JekPorkins at 11:14 PM on November 16, 2006
No. I'm saying that boring posts are boring, and that one-sided editorializing political posts have no place here.
posted by JekPorkins at 11:14 PM on November 16, 2006
Also, is your argument that you came here on the understanding that it was a political site, but that we should censor political posts so that more users won't come here thinking that it's a political site?
posted by spiderwire at 11:16 PM on November 16, 2006
posted by spiderwire at 11:16 PM on November 16, 2006
Jesus Christ Eideteker, I was joking. I guess it wasn't over the top enough to read as sarcastic.
Also, I eat babies, hate jesus, and love hitler. And I fucked your mother. She was no Barbara Bush, but she was hot.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 11:26 PM on November 16, 2006 [6 favorites]
Also, I eat babies, hate jesus, and love hitler. And I fucked your mother. She was no Barbara Bush, but she was hot.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 11:26 PM on November 16, 2006 [6 favorites]
Ooh, does Barb have any good baby recipes, Matt? Or were you in it for the pillow talk about the wonders of National Socialism?
*ducks banhammer*
i bet JRun errors are Jesus' way of getting back at you.
posted by spiderwire at 12:17 AM on November 17, 2006
*ducks banhammer*
i bet JRun errors are Jesus' way of getting back at you.
posted by spiderwire at 12:17 AM on November 17, 2006
One of the reasons I started lurking at and eventually joined Mefi was the quality of the discussions; although the links are nominally its raison d'etre, I can get links at any of a dozen similar sites. However, I also agree that discussing the latest news isn't really the point of MeFi.
I'd love to see a news.metafilter.com (and possibly a politics.metafilter.com) where people like me who enjoy the (often acrimonious, but usually fairly-well-informed) endless rehashing of the issues of the day can have their fill, while those who detest them can see them forever banished from the blue.
I'm pretty sure this has been floated before and shot down for whatever reason, but I still think it's the best solution.
posted by Doofus Magoo at 3:38 AM on November 17, 2006
I'd love to see a news.metafilter.com (and possibly a politics.metafilter.com) where people like me who enjoy the (often acrimonious, but usually fairly-well-informed) endless rehashing of the issues of the day can have their fill, while those who detest them can see them forever banished from the blue.
I'm pretty sure this has been floated before and shot down for whatever reason, but I still think it's the best solution.
posted by Doofus Magoo at 3:38 AM on November 17, 2006
One of the reasons I started lurking at and eventually joined Mefi was the quality of the discussions;
man, the sarcasm is just too much, tone that down
posted by matteo at 4:42 AM on November 17, 2006
man, the sarcasm is just too much, tone that down
posted by matteo at 4:42 AM on November 17, 2006
*Runs in out of breath*
Sorry I'm late guys. What have we got so far?
posted by Otis at 5:15 AM on November 17, 2006
Sorry I'm late guys. What have we got so far?
posted by Otis at 5:15 AM on November 17, 2006
Five years ago today:
Afghanistan War; Tell me about this Chomsky character again; Pink Floyd tribute sites; A common dollar for Canada and the US; Teaching computers the stuff we all know; CNN going down the tubes; a documentary film entitled Unholy War; Who's Taking Over for Lingua Franca;Yemeni Proverbs for All Occasions; Dubya declares Thanksgiving Day a "National Day of Thanksgiving"; cockeyed.com; gaming heaven; airport security breach at Atlanta Hartsfield International Airport; Bin Laden & Al Qaeda; Judy Tenuta computer virus [Hey, it could happen...] and $100 million in fake [Microsoft] software seized are the post topics.
Six years ago today:
And the posts are Shopping In Your Underwear, mathowie dead midget rapper post; dhartung on aiting webloggers; CNN on AL Gore; Steven Den Beste on the Intel P4; Imploding cat; mathowie on what the AAA is really up tp; Gore good, pull down menus bad; The A-List Fan Club; owillis on South Africa; Buy Nothing Day; Guess the Evil Dictator or Television Sit-Com Character; owillis on "Fla. Judge Gives Big Blow to Gore Camp"; The Aberdeen Bestiary Project; The Canadian Alliance Party and their creationist leader, Stockwell Day; innovative musical iunstruments, Katherine Harris and Florida vote recount; let's get the annual snowcraft link out of the way; [Shockwave required]; johnsmith.name and many more silly new suffixes and--drum roll, please--
Things were so different in the old days.
Hey, man, remember when this place was all about the links and we didn't have all these crappy news and political posts ?
Not me.
posted by y2karl at 6:10 AM on November 17, 2006
Afghanistan War; Tell me about this Chomsky character again; Pink Floyd tribute sites; A common dollar for Canada and the US; Teaching computers the stuff we all know; CNN going down the tubes; a documentary film entitled Unholy War; Who's Taking Over for Lingua Franca;Yemeni Proverbs for All Occasions; Dubya declares Thanksgiving Day a "National Day of Thanksgiving"; cockeyed.com; gaming heaven; airport security breach at Atlanta Hartsfield International Airport; Bin Laden & Al Qaeda; Judy Tenuta computer virus [Hey, it could happen...] and $100 million in fake [Microsoft] software seized are the post topics.
Six years ago today:
And the posts are Shopping In Your Underwear, mathowie dead midget rapper post; dhartung on aiting webloggers; CNN on AL Gore; Steven Den Beste on the Intel P4; Imploding cat; mathowie on what the AAA is really up tp; Gore good, pull down menus bad; The A-List Fan Club; owillis on South Africa; Buy Nothing Day; Guess the Evil Dictator or Television Sit-Com Character; owillis on "Fla. Judge Gives Big Blow to Gore Camp"; The Aberdeen Bestiary Project; The Canadian Alliance Party and their creationist leader, Stockwell Day; innovative musical iunstruments, Katherine Harris and Florida vote recount; let's get the annual snowcraft link out of the way; [Shockwave required]; johnsmith.name and many more silly new suffixes and--drum roll, please--
Irony is out; sincerity is in. Is it true? Is irony dead? Is sarcasm passé? Have we finally snarked out once and for all? If so, what place will our beloved ironists (and sarcastinators) have in this new Age of Earnestness?I kid you not.
Things were so different in the old days.
Hey, man, remember when this place was all about the links and we didn't have all these crappy news and political posts ?
Not me.
posted by y2karl at 6:10 AM on November 17, 2006
Er, that was dhartung on dating webloggers on the second list.
posted by y2karl at 6:13 AM on November 17, 2006
posted by y2karl at 6:13 AM on November 17, 2006
Is Irony dead ? and mathowie posting about a dead midget rapper in the same day. Man. It just doesn't get better than that.
posted by y2karl at 6:17 AM on November 17, 2006
posted by y2karl at 6:17 AM on November 17, 2006
And more importantly, who'll I have to laugh at now?
I tihnk the safe money's on Eideteker at this point.
posted by Armitage Shanks at 6:26 AM on November 17, 2006
I tihnk the safe money's on Eideteker at this point.
posted by Armitage Shanks at 6:26 AM on November 17, 2006
Write your post, and then ask this: If I were to wait and post it six months from now, without changing a word, would anyone be interested in it?
posted by Steven C. Den Beste
Why stop there when we could just have a six-month waiting period on posts? You submit a post today, it gets queued for six months, and then next April the admins decide whether or not it is still post-worthy. If so, (Yep, Milton Friedman's still dead) it gets posted. If not, (sure hundreds of thousand were killed in that bio-terrorism attack six months ago, but that's pretty old news since that nuclear holocaust) then it never gets posted.
It might be a bleak six month as far as metafilter, but we can always bitch about it in the grey day after long, tedious day.
posted by leftcoastbob at 6:32 AM on November 17, 2006
posted by Steven C. Den Beste
Why stop there when we could just have a six-month waiting period on posts? You submit a post today, it gets queued for six months, and then next April the admins decide whether or not it is still post-worthy. If so, (Yep, Milton Friedman's still dead) it gets posted. If not, (sure hundreds of thousand were killed in that bio-terrorism attack six months ago, but that's pretty old news since that nuclear holocaust) then it never gets posted.
It might be a bleak six month as far as metafilter, but we can always bitch about it in the grey day after long, tedious day.
posted by leftcoastbob at 6:32 AM on November 17, 2006
don't i remember dame decrying newsfilter posts some time ago?
Just for the record, no. I don't really care about newsfilter one way or the other. But I do decry & complain a lot, so there is that.
posted by dame at 6:40 AM on November 17, 2006
Just for the record, no. I don't really care about newsfilter one way or the other. But I do decry & complain a lot, so there is that.
posted by dame at 6:40 AM on November 17, 2006
I ...love hitler. Barbara Bush...was hot.
OMG WTF MISTER_RUTHLESS IS GAY
posted by Mister_A at 6:56 AM on November 17, 2006
jessamyn wrote...
posted in some sort of a breathless hurry just so (it seems) the poster can get the big story out to everyone as Soon As Possible
So what would happen if all metafilter posts were queued for 24 hours? What's the argument against that?
posted by tkolar at 7:45 AM on November 17, 2006
posted in some sort of a breathless hurry just so (it seems) the poster can get the big story out to everyone as Soon As Possible
So what would happen if all metafilter posts were queued for 24 hours? What's the argument against that?
posted by tkolar at 7:45 AM on November 17, 2006
So what would happen if all metafilter posts were queued for 24 hours? What's the argument against that?
It would be weird and restrictive and wouldn't stop people from breathlessly rushing to submit their shitty posts to the queue first.
posted by cortex at 7:52 AM on November 17, 2006
It would be weird and restrictive and wouldn't stop people from breathlessly rushing to submit their shitty posts to the queue first.
posted by cortex at 7:52 AM on November 17, 2006
This comment has been witing breathlessly for 24 hours. Whew!
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 7:56 AM on November 17, 2006
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 7:56 AM on November 17, 2006
Also waiting, wilting, and writhing.
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 7:57 AM on November 17, 2006
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 7:57 AM on November 17, 2006
Also, I eat babies, hate jesus, and love hitler.
who gives a shit about that? ... toilet paper ... under or over?
posted by pyramid termite at 8:17 AM on November 17, 2006
who gives a shit about that? ... toilet paper ... under or over?
posted by pyramid termite at 8:17 AM on November 17, 2006
I'm about to reveal the fatal flaw with Metatalk, so pay attention.
There's no way you're going to get any affirmative results when you try to control or criticize the content or the style that people make their front page posts. 43,000+ people have complete control over where the links go when they make their front page post, and trying to regulate it will have no effect on that. But because you have the ability to create a thread on Metatalk, you're under the delusion that it'll actually matter or amount to anything.
Unless you're Matt or Jess, and gain the ability to delete front page posts, the sooner you accept your impotence and defeat in this regard, the better.
posted by crunchland at 9:12 AM on November 17, 2006
There's no way you're going to get any affirmative results when you try to control or criticize the content or the style that people make their front page posts. 43,000+ people have complete control over where the links go when they make their front page post, and trying to regulate it will have no effect on that. But because you have the ability to create a thread on Metatalk, you're under the delusion that it'll actually matter or amount to anything.
Unless you're Matt or Jess, and gain the ability to delete front page posts, the sooner you accept your impotence and defeat in this regard, the better.
posted by crunchland at 9:12 AM on November 17, 2006
The last two comments made me think of the comic book lettering convention of bolding certain words in order to make balloons read or fit space better.
I wonder what Metafilter would be like with that convention.
posted by klangklangston at 9:35 AM on November 17, 2006
I wonder what Metafilter would be like with that convention.
posted by klangklangston at 9:35 AM on November 17, 2006
crunchland : "There's no way you're going to get any affirmative results when you try to control or criticize the content or the style that people make their front page posts."
I dunno. Y2karl no longer uses tiny font sizes, which is 1) an issue of style, 2) not because he got tired of them, and 3) not because Matt or Jess told him to stop. So I'd agree that it's very unlikely, but it's certainly not unheard of.
posted by Bugbread at 9:47 AM on November 17, 2006
I dunno. Y2karl no longer uses tiny font sizes, which is 1) an issue of style, 2) not because he got tired of them, and 3) not because Matt or Jess told him to stop. So I'd agree that it's very unlikely, but it's certainly not unheard of.
posted by Bugbread at 9:47 AM on November 17, 2006
klangklangston : "The last two comments made me think of the comic book lettering convention of bolding certain words in order to make balloons read or fit space better."
When I was a kid I tried, a few times, to actually read comic books with the intonation implied by that bolding, and A) it drove me fucking crazy, and B) made all the characters seem really really wooden. Which just made me wonder "Why the heck are they doing it? With a real actor, woodenness comes from them not being able to act well. But here, they're intentionally applying woodenness to something that would seem natural without it."
posted by Bugbread at 9:50 AM on November 17, 2006
When I was a kid I tried, a few times, to actually read comic books with the intonation implied by that bolding, and A) it drove me fucking crazy, and B) made all the characters seem really really wooden. Which just made me wonder "Why the heck are they doing it? With a real actor, woodenness comes from them not being able to act well. But here, they're intentionally applying woodenness to something that would seem natural without it."
posted by Bugbread at 9:50 AM on November 17, 2006
So, y2karl, how were you able to determine that there were news and political posts five and six years ago without a Clear and Concise Definition8482;?
posted by timeistight at 10:06 AM on November 17, 2006
posted by timeistight at 10:06 AM on November 17, 2006
Make that Clear and Concise Definition™.
Whatever happened to our Five Minute Edit Window™?
posted by timeistight at 10:09 AM on November 17, 2006
Whatever happened to our Five Minute Edit Window™?
posted by timeistight at 10:09 AM on November 17, 2006
mathowie posting about a dead midget rapper in the same day
Dude! That's the only time I ever drank and posted on mefi. I had several beers in me when I danced on the grave of that kid rock sidekick.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 10:28 AM on November 17, 2006
Dude! That's the only time I ever drank and posted on mefi. I had several beers in me when I danced on the grave of that kid rock sidekick.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 10:28 AM on November 17, 2006
he just posted about the dead midget, it's not like he killed that little fucker
posted by matteo at 10:47 AM on November 17, 2006
posted by matteo at 10:47 AM on November 17, 2006
I called the guy a midget and joined in a round of mocking him, which isn't murder but is pretty stupid and lame.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 11:23 AM on November 17, 2006
posted by mathowie (staff) at 11:23 AM on November 17, 2006
Doofus Magoo: I'd love to see a news.metafilter.com (and possibly a politics.metafilter.com) where people like me who enjoy the (often acrimonious, but usually fairly-well-informed) endless rehashing of the issues of the day can have their fill, while those who detest them can see them forever banished from the blue.
One reason not to do this would be that it's subjective as to where a post should go. But if we've got a rule--if it's on news.google.com, it should be on news.metafilter.com, not www.metafilter.com--maybe that'll work.
posted by russilwvong at 11:45 AM on November 17, 2006
One reason not to do this would be that it's subjective as to where a post should go. But if we've got a rule--if it's on news.google.com, it should be on news.metafilter.com, not www.metafilter.com--maybe that'll work.
posted by russilwvong at 11:45 AM on November 17, 2006
Dude! That's the only time I ever drank and posted on mefi.
Nuh uh!
posted by Skot at 12:17 PM on November 17, 2006
Nuh uh!
posted by Skot at 12:17 PM on November 17, 2006
Oh, you probably meant FPPs. Whatever. I still treasure the out-of-nowhereness of "wow. uma's boobs."
posted by Skot at 12:26 PM on November 17, 2006
posted by Skot at 12:26 PM on November 17, 2006
I hope you got that out of your system, Matt. I understand the img thread and then this one were a strain on even your legendary patience, but hey, I made a point to say I might be wrong. So I was, BFD. I never called you a baby-eater, I just thought you were fed up with keswick. Though the fact that you'd equate the two shows you hold him in higher regard than I thought you did. I'd find it easier to respect you for that if you hadn't lashed out at me. (yeah, I know, you really need my respect. that's not the point). I'm glad, at least, that you were able to show my mother a good time. It's about time someone did.
"Or consider posting more to the blue than the grey in order to raise the quality of the posts there, perhaps."
MetaFilter: 16 posts by Eideteker posts and 1064 comments
MetaTalk: 24 posts by Eideteker posts and 738 comments
That looks like about three hundred more comments posted to the blue than the grey to me. As for FPPs, I happen to like maintaining a 2:3 ratio. Gives people something to bitch about when they're otherwise out of ammo.
"Perhaps you can explain to us why it's okay to scream "
Dude, the screaming is all in your head. I went overboard in that thread trying to reasonable. I can't control how you read what I write. If you want to imagine all of my comments in song, I can't stop you.
"Also, is your argument that you came here on the understanding that it was a political site, but that we should censor political posts so that more users won't come here thinking that it's a political site?"
Yes.
If you want to maintain a grudge with me, fine. It'll be one-sided. The grudges, the arguing, the personal attacks; these are all the things I hate about newsfilter, not so much the actual news itself. I notice, though, that those who support newsfilter (as opposed to those who dislike it or those who don't care) are more eager to engage in personal attacks and seek out grudges. I'm done with high school. I don't need that.
I never presumed to tell Matt how to run things. I perceived a need (people complaining about newsfilter) and attempted a solution. Sorry it wasn't up to standards, but I tried.
I'm serious, though, about deleting any post framed in rhetorical questions. That shit has got to stop.
posted by Eideteker at 1:46 PM on November 17, 2006
"Or consider posting more to the blue than the grey in order to raise the quality of the posts there, perhaps."
MetaFilter: 16 posts by Eideteker posts and 1064 comments
MetaTalk: 24 posts by Eideteker posts and 738 comments
That looks like about three hundred more comments posted to the blue than the grey to me. As for FPPs, I happen to like maintaining a 2:3 ratio. Gives people something to bitch about when they're otherwise out of ammo.
"Perhaps you can explain to us why it's okay to scream "
Dude, the screaming is all in your head. I went overboard in that thread trying to reasonable. I can't control how you read what I write. If you want to imagine all of my comments in song, I can't stop you.
"Also, is your argument that you came here on the understanding that it was a political site, but that we should censor political posts so that more users won't come here thinking that it's a political site?"
Yes.
If you want to maintain a grudge with me, fine. It'll be one-sided. The grudges, the arguing, the personal attacks; these are all the things I hate about newsfilter, not so much the actual news itself. I notice, though, that those who support newsfilter (as opposed to those who dislike it or those who don't care) are more eager to engage in personal attacks and seek out grudges. I'm done with high school. I don't need that.
I never presumed to tell Matt how to run things. I perceived a need (people complaining about newsfilter) and attempted a solution. Sorry it wasn't up to standards, but I tried.
I'm serious, though, about deleting any post framed in rhetorical questions. That shit has got to stop.
posted by Eideteker at 1:46 PM on November 17, 2006
I think I just might take a vacation from the Internet, because I'm pretty sure its a major force behind my misanthropy. It's a lot easier to curl up with book or watch a movie and enjoy people in theory; it's practice where they disappoint.
Matt's okay with the site becoming another left-wing echo chamber, so who am I to judge? It's already snowballed past the point of trying to stop it, so I guess I'll just pop in for the odd snark now and then.
PS: All you h8rs can suck it.
posted by keswick at 1:50 PM on November 17, 2006
Matt's okay with the site becoming another left-wing echo chamber, so who am I to judge? It's already snowballed past the point of trying to stop it, so I guess I'll just pop in for the odd snark now and then.
PS: All you h8rs can suck it.
posted by keswick at 1:50 PM on November 17, 2006
So you're not going to attempt a definition?
posted by russilwvong at 2:24 PM on November 17, 2006
posted by russilwvong at 2:24 PM on November 17, 2006
No kidding, WoWgmr72. I'm not even gonna email languagehat for this.
posted by cgc373 at 2:52 PM on November 17, 2006
posted by cgc373 at 2:52 PM on November 17, 2006
What about the hand? 8D
posted by taosbat at 3:11 PM on November 17, 2006 [1 favorite]
posted by taosbat at 3:11 PM on November 17, 2006 [1 favorite]
if we really want to ban 'news/politics' links, it's a relatively simple definition.
If it's topical, and the purpose of the post is basically "Hey, let's discuss this issue/news story", then it's not FPP-worthy.
Any link to CNN, NYTimes, etc, would basically all fall into this category.
The exception would be something like a NYTimes magazine feature about something, where the quality of the writing in the piece itself is worth noting, or if it covers an obscure, interesting, non-topical subject.
I think a further exception could be carved out for 'issue round-up' posts -- where you note a news story and fill in the gaps with some good web resources about the subject. However, NYtimes + 8 wikipedia link posts would also have to go.
posted by empath at 3:11 PM on November 17, 2006
If it's topical, and the purpose of the post is basically "Hey, let's discuss this issue/news story", then it's not FPP-worthy.
Any link to CNN, NYTimes, etc, would basically all fall into this category.
The exception would be something like a NYTimes magazine feature about something, where the quality of the writing in the piece itself is worth noting, or if it covers an obscure, interesting, non-topical subject.
I think a further exception could be carved out for 'issue round-up' posts -- where you note a news story and fill in the gaps with some good web resources about the subject. However, NYtimes + 8 wikipedia link posts would also have to go.
posted by empath at 3:11 PM on November 17, 2006
Eideteker: You might want to keep in mind the next time this subject comes up that this thread has accomplished precisely nothing except a bunch of people sniping at each other, just like every anti-NewsFilter thread before it. Given that your mantra is "think before posting," this strikes me as problematic.
That looks like about three hundred more comments posted to the blue than the grey to me.
Which is highly relevant when we're talking about cluttering the front page.
As for FPPs, I happen to like maintaining a 2:3 ratio. Gives people something to bitch about when they're otherwise out of ammo.
I wasn't saying you should post more, I was saying you should complain less, but take it how you like.
Using phrases like "out of ammo" does a disservice to your claim that you're not taking this personally.
Dude, the screaming is all in your head. I went overboard in that thread trying to reasonable.
How is "going overboard" not the textual equivalent of screaming? You titled the thread "Zero Tolerance." If you're arguing for Zero Tolerance of anything but you can't explain the standard for what you don't want to tolerate, then you're going to get mocked. When that happened, you complained it wasn't "classy," and now you're getting defensive about the fact that y'all can't defend an argument that was hot air in the first place. Why is this surprising?
(In fact, you're so committed to being reasonable that you apparently had no idea what Matt was talking about until I pointed it out to you. Again, I find the claim that this isn't personal dubious.)
Do you not understand how it's self-contradictory to argue against the very thing that brought you to the site in the first place? If there weren't NewsFilter posts, you wouldn't even be here to argue against them. Your participation demonstrates that there is value to the thing you're objecting to.
If you want to maintain a grudge with me, fine. It'll be one-sided.
On the contrary, I think you're a smart cookie and I like your comments, and keswick's as well. I am suspicious that you'll remember me as being an asshole in the next thread, given the tone that's persisted in this thread and the last one. I think that, contrary to your assertion, you and the other anti-NewsFilter people do take this personally (hence keswick's dios-like invocation of the "left-wing echo chamber"), but I don't really have control over that. If throwing up your hands and saying "well, it's Matt's site" is what it takes to back out gracefully, go for it, but leave me out of it.
keswick throwing in the towel in the comment after yours without even making an attempt to answer the question you and he raised makes my argument better than any comment I could make, I think.
posted by spiderwire at 3:13 PM on November 17, 2006
That looks like about three hundred more comments posted to the blue than the grey to me.
Which is highly relevant when we're talking about cluttering the front page.
As for FPPs, I happen to like maintaining a 2:3 ratio. Gives people something to bitch about when they're otherwise out of ammo.
I wasn't saying you should post more, I was saying you should complain less, but take it how you like.
Using phrases like "out of ammo" does a disservice to your claim that you're not taking this personally.
Dude, the screaming is all in your head. I went overboard in that thread trying to reasonable.
How is "going overboard" not the textual equivalent of screaming? You titled the thread "Zero Tolerance." If you're arguing for Zero Tolerance of anything but you can't explain the standard for what you don't want to tolerate, then you're going to get mocked. When that happened, you complained it wasn't "classy," and now you're getting defensive about the fact that y'all can't defend an argument that was hot air in the first place. Why is this surprising?
(In fact, you're so committed to being reasonable that you apparently had no idea what Matt was talking about until I pointed it out to you. Again, I find the claim that this isn't personal dubious.)
Do you not understand how it's self-contradictory to argue against the very thing that brought you to the site in the first place? If there weren't NewsFilter posts, you wouldn't even be here to argue against them. Your participation demonstrates that there is value to the thing you're objecting to.
If you want to maintain a grudge with me, fine. It'll be one-sided.
On the contrary, I think you're a smart cookie and I like your comments, and keswick's as well. I am suspicious that you'll remember me as being an asshole in the next thread, given the tone that's persisted in this thread and the last one. I think that, contrary to your assertion, you and the other anti-NewsFilter people do take this personally (hence keswick's dios-like invocation of the "left-wing echo chamber"), but I don't really have control over that. If throwing up your hands and saying "well, it's Matt's site" is what it takes to back out gracefully, go for it, but leave me out of it.
keswick throwing in the towel in the comment after yours without even making an attempt to answer the question you and he raised makes my argument better than any comment I could make, I think.
posted by spiderwire at 3:13 PM on November 17, 2006
Why not just do an experiment:
Announce in the sidebar a week in advance: December is officially newsfilter free, with a link to the guidelines.
Then just be ruthless and err on the side of deletion if you aren't sure.
Then after a month, we can decide if that's what we really want to do.
posted by empath at 3:13 PM on November 17, 2006
Announce in the sidebar a week in advance: December is officially newsfilter free, with a link to the guidelines.
Then just be ruthless and err on the side of deletion if you aren't sure.
Then after a month, we can decide if that's what we really want to do.
posted by empath at 3:13 PM on November 17, 2006
spiderwire : "Do you not understand how it's self-contradictory to argue against the very thing that brought you to the site in the first place?"
I don't. I moved to Tokyo because I liked the overbuilt, crowded, compact feeling. Now I don't, and I argue that they should avoid tearing down trees or crunching things down. I don't think I'm contradicting myself, because I'm no longer saying that overbuilt/crowded is good. Self-contradiction only happens when you're saying both things at the same time. If you're not, it's called "changing your mind".
spiderwire : "I think that, contrary to your assertion, you and the other anti-NewsFilter people do take this personally"
Nah. Some of us other anti-NewsFilter people just avoid threads like this now because we know nothing will come of them. Probably a more accurate phrasing would just be "the anti-NewsFilter people who take this personally, take it personally". Sure, it's a truism, but it's just because the ones that don't take it personally don't get involved as much, so you don't notice them as much.
posted by Bugbread at 3:46 PM on November 17, 2006
I don't. I moved to Tokyo because I liked the overbuilt, crowded, compact feeling. Now I don't, and I argue that they should avoid tearing down trees or crunching things down. I don't think I'm contradicting myself, because I'm no longer saying that overbuilt/crowded is good. Self-contradiction only happens when you're saying both things at the same time. If you're not, it's called "changing your mind".
spiderwire : "I think that, contrary to your assertion, you and the other anti-NewsFilter people do take this personally"
Nah. Some of us other anti-NewsFilter people just avoid threads like this now because we know nothing will come of them. Probably a more accurate phrasing would just be "the anti-NewsFilter people who take this personally, take it personally". Sure, it's a truism, but it's just because the ones that don't take it personally don't get involved as much, so you don't notice them as much.
posted by Bugbread at 3:46 PM on November 17, 2006
"Though the fact that you'd equate the two shows you hold him in higher regard than I thought you did. I'd find it easier to respect you for that if you hadn't lashed out at me."
God, you're being emo.
posted by klangklangston at 4:11 PM on November 17, 2006
God, you're being emo.
posted by klangklangston at 4:11 PM on November 17, 2006
Announce in the sidebar a week in advance: December is officially newsfilter free, with a link to the guidelines.
that will be of course the month that aliens are found on the moon, george bush is caught drinking a fifth of wild turkey in a gay bathhouse, richard dawkins joins the baptist church, terrorists blow up the statue of liberty, jimmy hoffa's body is found, and in a sudden turn of events, america wins the iraq war ...
never fails
posted by pyramid termite at 4:53 PM on November 17, 2006
that will be of course the month that aliens are found on the moon, george bush is caught drinking a fifth of wild turkey in a gay bathhouse, richard dawkins joins the baptist church, terrorists blow up the statue of liberty, jimmy hoffa's body is found, and in a sudden turn of events, america wins the iraq war ...
never fails
posted by pyramid termite at 4:53 PM on November 17, 2006
Self-contradiction only happens when you're saying both things at the same time. If you're not, it's called "changing your mind".
I call that "you goddamned kids, get off my lawn!" :)
You are correct that it's not explicitly self-contradictory. However, it strikes me as a "do as I say, not as I do" sentiment that I find irritating. It's an extraneous argument and I withdraw it.
I don't have a problem to you, nor with keswick and Eideteker for that matter, and I am sympathetic to your criticisms of NewsFilter. But I think this thread, and the dispute, is just facially ridiculous.
I stand by my argument that if the whole thing comes down to Think Before Posting, weekly repeats of these MeTa threads when it's obvious that they've never been productive just makes no sense at all.
posted by spiderwire at 5:00 PM on November 17, 2006
I call that "you goddamned kids, get off my lawn!" :)
You are correct that it's not explicitly self-contradictory. However, it strikes me as a "do as I say, not as I do" sentiment that I find irritating. It's an extraneous argument and I withdraw it.
I don't have a problem to you, nor with keswick and Eideteker for that matter, and I am sympathetic to your criticisms of NewsFilter. But I think this thread, and the dispute, is just facially ridiculous.
I stand by my argument that if the whole thing comes down to Think Before Posting, weekly repeats of these MeTa threads when it's obvious that they've never been productive just makes no sense at all.
posted by spiderwire at 5:00 PM on November 17, 2006
Wow, if all that would happen if Matts ban newsfilter for a month, I think it is his duty to do so.
posted by owhydididoit at 5:01 PM on November 17, 2006
posted by owhydididoit at 5:01 PM on November 17, 2006
that will be of course the month...
that a republican congressman gets caught sending pages creepy IMs from the floor of the house a week before the head of a evangelical megachurch gets caught buying meth from gay hookers
posted by spiderwire at 5:02 PM on November 17, 2006
that a republican congressman gets caught sending pages creepy IMs from the floor of the house a week before the head of a evangelical megachurch gets caught buying meth from gay hookers
posted by spiderwire at 5:02 PM on November 17, 2006
provided no one is hurt, of course
posted by owhydididoit at 5:02 PM on November 17, 2006
posted by owhydididoit at 5:02 PM on November 17, 2006
maybe the reverse rule should be that it's not newsfilter if it would have been laughably implausible had you predicted it six months in advance.
posted by spiderwire at 5:05 PM on November 17, 2006
posted by spiderwire at 5:05 PM on November 17, 2006
I am sympathetic to your criticisms of NewsFilter. But I think this thread, and the dispute, is just facially ridiculous.
I'm not sure. Every now and again it's good to sort of take the temperature of the community and see what people think. This is keeping in mind that MetaTalk is a tiny subset of the community at large, and that people get pricklier about NewsFilter stuff especially around US election time. I think empath's description is the closest thing I've seen to a worthwhile definition.
The other good thing about having these little discussions and slapfights is that if we do start trying to crack down on Newsfilter posts, there will be fair warning, or at least some MeTa precedence to point to when the "you killed my snowflake!" threads start.
Now that the elections are wrapping up, I personally would like to see an end to the one-crappy-link-to-AP-stories posts that come with no tags, very little post content and/or eyerolling histrionics. There are lots of ways to make a good post out of almost anything, but the grind of the axe often shows through if that's your true motive.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 5:14 PM on November 17, 2006
I'm not sure. Every now and again it's good to sort of take the temperature of the community and see what people think. This is keeping in mind that MetaTalk is a tiny subset of the community at large, and that people get pricklier about NewsFilter stuff especially around US election time. I think empath's description is the closest thing I've seen to a worthwhile definition.
The other good thing about having these little discussions and slapfights is that if we do start trying to crack down on Newsfilter posts, there will be fair warning, or at least some MeTa precedence to point to when the "you killed my snowflake!" threads start.
Now that the elections are wrapping up, I personally would like to see an end to the one-crappy-link-to-AP-stories posts that come with no tags, very little post content and/or eyerolling histrionics. There are lots of ways to make a good post out of almost anything, but the grind of the axe often shows through if that's your true motive.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 5:14 PM on November 17, 2006
* why is it always guys arguing over this control freak crap, rarely do women mention or decry newsfilter and politicsfilter?
It's like a bunch of lifers fighting over the remote for the one TV in prison.
There's no way you're going to get any affirmative results when you try to control or criticize the content or the style that people make their front page posts.
You can try to control what other people post or you can try to control your feelings about what other people post. Only one of those choices is within your control. As the kids so often say today, Deal with it. A lot of the endless gasbaggery and the endless personal feuds could be avoided if people, rather than tilt at windmills of their own device as they try to control the content of other people's posts, simply dealt with it.
Dude! That's the only time I ever drank and posted on mefi. I had several beers in me when I danced on the grave of that kid rock sidekick.
What was funny about the Irony is not dead post, given the overwhelming preponderance of news and political posts in both on this day five and six years ago, was its relation to this post. People whine and cry about news and political posts as if they have not been a feature of this place since day one. Your dead midget was just a lagniappe, the cherry on the whipped cream of the banana split. I didn't click on any links when I wrote that comment and no snark was intended. It was all Irony is not dead and hey, look, Matt made a goofy post.
posted by y2karl at 5:31 PM on November 17, 2006
It's like a bunch of lifers fighting over the remote for the one TV in prison.
There's no way you're going to get any affirmative results when you try to control or criticize the content or the style that people make their front page posts.
You can try to control what other people post or you can try to control your feelings about what other people post. Only one of those choices is within your control. As the kids so often say today, Deal with it. A lot of the endless gasbaggery and the endless personal feuds could be avoided if people, rather than tilt at windmills of their own device as they try to control the content of other people's posts, simply dealt with it.
Dude! That's the only time I ever drank and posted on mefi. I had several beers in me when I danced on the grave of that kid rock sidekick.
What was funny about the Irony is not dead post, given the overwhelming preponderance of news and political posts in both on this day five and six years ago, was its relation to this post. People whine and cry about news and political posts as if they have not been a feature of this place since day one. Your dead midget was just a lagniappe, the cherry on the whipped cream of the banana split. I didn't click on any links when I wrote that comment and no snark was intended. It was all Irony is not dead and hey, look, Matt made a goofy post.
posted by y2karl at 5:31 PM on November 17, 2006
Every now and again it's good to sort of take the temperature of the community and see what people think.
Yes, every now and then, we should pour gasoline on the coals and then take the temperature of the community and see what people think. And there is nothing better than a good old Let's try to control what someone else is doing thread now and then to bring out the best in people. Because, boy, if there is one thing we certainly need around here, it's the enabling and prolonging of personal feuds.
posted by y2karl at 5:55 PM on November 17, 2006
Yes, every now and then, we should pour gasoline on the coals and then take the temperature of the community and see what people think. And there is nothing better than a good old Let's try to control what someone else is doing thread now and then to bring out the best in people. Because, boy, if there is one thing we certainly need around here, it's the enabling and prolonging of personal feuds.
posted by y2karl at 5:55 PM on November 17, 2006
Because, boy, if there is one thing we certainly need around here, it's the enabling and prolonging of personal feuds.
I totally agree, you douchebag.
c'mon! c'mon! what.... no? not incendiary enough? what's a lagniappe?
posted by spiderwire at 7:04 PM on November 17, 2006
I totally agree, you douchebag.
c'mon! c'mon! what.... no? not incendiary enough? what's a lagniappe?
posted by spiderwire at 7:04 PM on November 17, 2006
"Every now and again it's good to sort of take the temperature of the community and see what people think. "
Why does it always have to be rectally?
posted by klangklangston at 8:05 PM on November 17, 2006
Why does it always have to be rectally?
posted by klangklangston at 8:05 PM on November 17, 2006
"Your dead midget was just a lagniappe..."
Just had to be repeated.
posted by smackfu at 8:27 PM on November 17, 2006
Just had to be repeated.
posted by smackfu at 8:27 PM on November 17, 2006
Aw, diddums the widdle misanthwope get an ego owie?
I just might take a vacation from the Internet, because I'm pretty sure its a major force behind my misanthropy
So it's Tim Berners-Lee's fault you're a dipshit?
You'll be missed, keswick.
Well, I assume so.
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 8:39 PM on November 17, 2006
I just might take a vacation from the Internet, because I'm pretty sure its a major force behind my misanthropy
So it's Tim Berners-Lee's fault you're a dipshit?
You'll be missed, keswick.
Well, I assume so.
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 8:39 PM on November 17, 2006
Every now and again it's good to sort of take the temperature of the community and see what people think.
"Every now and again" is not the same as seemingly every two weeks for six years, however.
posted by The God Complex at 10:40 PM on November 17, 2006
"Every now and again" is not the same as seemingly every two weeks for six years, however.
posted by The God Complex at 10:40 PM on November 17, 2006
"Every now and again" is a weird phrase if you parse it. "Every now" is pretty much all the time, right? Add "and again" and you have "all the time, over and over and over and over," etc. So, more or less "the same as seemingly every two weeks for six years," no?
posted by cgc373 at 12:35 AM on November 18, 2006
posted by cgc373 at 12:35 AM on November 18, 2006
I bet that both pro- and anti-newsfilter people would be okay with the concept of holding newsfilter posts to a higher standard of quality than other posts.
There are a lot of reasons why this is reasonable, and one of the main ones is at the very top of the list in the guidelines: "most people haven't seen it before". Personally, I don't think a newsfilter post should be "easy" - certainly not as easy as just posting a link to an article about news item that's squatting right there on the front page of Google News. Posts that give more perspective, that explicate the hows or whys, that give some background that the typical 600 word news story isn't providing would be nice.
The crux of the problem, I think, has been touched on here, but not really examined, and that's the immediacy issue. Able posters have no incentive to spend enough time to come up with a really good post on a current events subject when they know that it's going to be deleted as a double post on the heels of a post that someone just threw up there to be the first to post about the current OMG.
If this problem could be solved, I bet the majority of people would be happier all around, and there would be a lot less complaining about newsfilter. Lazy posters wouldn't bother if the standards were significantly higher (no simplistic padding, just to "fool the censors") , and thoughtful posters who are actually able to connect some of the dots for us and give us a deeper understanding of something that's happening right now would have the chance to put something like that together.
I don't think everyone is capable of creating a good newsfilter post, and those who aren't shouldn't be posting them.
posted by taz at 12:51 AM on November 18, 2006 [2 favorites]
There are a lot of reasons why this is reasonable, and one of the main ones is at the very top of the list in the guidelines: "most people haven't seen it before". Personally, I don't think a newsfilter post should be "easy" - certainly not as easy as just posting a link to an article about news item that's squatting right there on the front page of Google News. Posts that give more perspective, that explicate the hows or whys, that give some background that the typical 600 word news story isn't providing would be nice.
The crux of the problem, I think, has been touched on here, but not really examined, and that's the immediacy issue. Able posters have no incentive to spend enough time to come up with a really good post on a current events subject when they know that it's going to be deleted as a double post on the heels of a post that someone just threw up there to be the first to post about the current OMG.
If this problem could be solved, I bet the majority of people would be happier all around, and there would be a lot less complaining about newsfilter. Lazy posters wouldn't bother if the standards were significantly higher (no simplistic padding, just to "fool the censors") , and thoughtful posters who are actually able to connect some of the dots for us and give us a deeper understanding of something that's happening right now would have the chance to put something like that together.
I don't think everyone is capable of creating a good newsfilter post, and those who aren't shouldn't be posting them.
posted by taz at 12:51 AM on November 18, 2006 [2 favorites]
Nostalgia filter: Two years ago the floodgates opened and the noobs rushed in on 11-18-04.
posted by Cranberry at 12:54 AM on November 18, 2006
posted by Cranberry at 12:54 AM on November 18, 2006
* why is it always guys arguing over this control freak crap, rarely do women mention or decry newsfilter and politicsfilter.
posted by mathowie who somehow lost his ruth.
What is the proportion of male to females posters?
posted by Cranberry at 12:56 AM on November 18, 2006
posted by mathowie who somehow lost his ruth.
What is the proportion of male to females posters?
posted by Cranberry at 12:56 AM on November 18, 2006
Generalísimo Francisco Franco is still dead!
posted by SteveInMaine at 1:36 AM on November 18, 2006
posted by SteveInMaine at 1:36 AM on November 18, 2006
Come on. I think all this anti-news bigotry just shows that many MeFites are just looking for someone to hate.
You know, there are many, many topics that are arguably "news" but that I first found out about on the blue.
And I think that's fine.
Yes, we don't want to turn into Fark.
But how about just asking the question, "Is this post something that I think a reasonable number of MeFites would be interested in?"
If yes, then post.
Period.
posted by MythMaker at 11:05 AM on November 18, 2006
You know, there are many, many topics that are arguably "news" but that I first found out about on the blue.
And I think that's fine.
Yes, we don't want to turn into Fark.
But how about just asking the question, "Is this post something that I think a reasonable number of MeFites would be interested in?"
If yes, then post.
Period.
posted by MythMaker at 11:05 AM on November 18, 2006
Yes, we don't want to turn into Fark.
I dunno, that Cat Schwartz boobies link was pretty awesome. Since you never see those on Fark anymore, maybe we should take up that cause.
posted by spiderwire at 1:08 PM on November 18, 2006
I dunno, that Cat Schwartz boobies link was pretty awesome. Since you never see those on Fark anymore, maybe we should take up that cause.
posted by spiderwire at 1:08 PM on November 18, 2006
And I fucked your mother. She was no Barbara Bush, but she was hot.
matt, if you want to be over the top and successful at sarcasm, you have to say things that are hard to beleive.
posted by quonsar at 3:42 PM on November 18, 2006
matt, if you want to be over the top and successful at sarcasm, you have to say things that are hard to beleive.
posted by quonsar at 3:42 PM on November 18, 2006
Nostalgia filter: Two years ago the floodgates opened and the noobs rushed in on 11-18-04.
And out back, capering between newly-sprouting bales of fresh green money, Jezebel and Howlie Matt began to dance, barefoot (and naked) in the tall wet grass, bashing their bellies together, singing songs of sixtypence, in the licorice light of the darkening night, clucking excitedly like rococo xylophonic chickens, howling dementedly like loco philharmonic slimmest-of-pickens, as we glided by, on the cattle train, huddled in open cars, Felliniesque, in black lipstick, newly red-welted with Haughey@Home™ branded across our wide foreheads, spattershocked by cold five-dollar raindrops, red-rimmed eyes aimed low and sad, lit with myriad glittering starpricks, reflecting the infinity of tiny glittering lights which lit and littered the archived fieldsets over which we rolled, on which they danced, rudely and crudely, on the sanctified archived fieldsets of eversleek starglow loogies, coughed up synapses, vomited up firesoulflies, donated wildly and willingly to the gentle Cause, the grand Synthesis, that no explosion of tabs, services or members could ever replace, and as the train approached the crossroads, where the Sign announces this place, the Sign, which used to say, humbly and abashedly, 'Hosteller', the Sign suddenly twisted and rewired itself to roar 'Stellar Host' in a blinding crash of luciferase flash, and the train's frightened whistle tooted a broken little toot which sounded like the dying cry of a baby quonsar, as imitated by a drunken Cardoso soaked to his wrinkled skin in a supernaturally wet off-the-rack polyester jumpsuit, filtered through the smoke-rotted v-chords of a whining dog pigeon, drowned out by the plastic spatter of ever-loudening artificial rain.
(Oh and - Hey taz! - raspily (but sexily) rasped through my booya superfly technicolor grin.)
I'll have the waffles, ma'am - but make them look like pancakes. Old-timey pancakes. And if they taste as good as you look, I'll sing you a riff, in payment, ear-hair short, 'cause that's all you could take, born of wind and frolic, and unkillable.
Deal?
posted by Opus Dark at 3:36 AM on November 19, 2006 [1 favorite]
And out back, capering between newly-sprouting bales of fresh green money, Jezebel and Howlie Matt began to dance, barefoot (and naked) in the tall wet grass, bashing their bellies together, singing songs of sixtypence, in the licorice light of the darkening night, clucking excitedly like rococo xylophonic chickens, howling dementedly like loco philharmonic slimmest-of-pickens, as we glided by, on the cattle train, huddled in open cars, Felliniesque, in black lipstick, newly red-welted with Haughey@Home™ branded across our wide foreheads, spattershocked by cold five-dollar raindrops, red-rimmed eyes aimed low and sad, lit with myriad glittering starpricks, reflecting the infinity of tiny glittering lights which lit and littered the archived fieldsets over which we rolled, on which they danced, rudely and crudely, on the sanctified archived fieldsets of eversleek starglow loogies, coughed up synapses, vomited up firesoulflies, donated wildly and willingly to the gentle Cause, the grand Synthesis, that no explosion of tabs, services or members could ever replace, and as the train approached the crossroads, where the Sign announces this place, the Sign, which used to say, humbly and abashedly, 'Hosteller', the Sign suddenly twisted and rewired itself to roar 'Stellar Host' in a blinding crash of luciferase flash, and the train's frightened whistle tooted a broken little toot which sounded like the dying cry of a baby quonsar, as imitated by a drunken Cardoso soaked to his wrinkled skin in a supernaturally wet off-the-rack polyester jumpsuit, filtered through the smoke-rotted v-chords of a whining dog pigeon, drowned out by the plastic spatter of ever-loudening artificial rain.
(Oh and - Hey taz! - raspily (but sexily) rasped through my booya superfly technicolor grin.)
I'll have the waffles, ma'am - but make them look like pancakes. Old-timey pancakes. And if they taste as good as you look, I'll sing you a riff, in payment, ear-hair short, 'cause that's all you could take, born of wind and frolic, and unkillable.
Deal?
posted by Opus Dark at 3:36 AM on November 19, 2006 [1 favorite]
Go home, Dad; you're drunk.
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 1:00 PM on November 22, 2006
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 1:00 PM on November 22, 2006
You are not logged in, either login or create an account to post comments
ok!
posted by thirteenkiller at 3:42 PM on November 16, 2006 [1 favorite]