Who's your MeFi crush? July 31, 2002 12:20 AM Subscribe
Okay, there's been some negativity round these parts lately, so let's try this: Is there any MeFiosi upon whom you've developed a sort of (intellectual?) crush? (Potentially lame query, I know, but I figure it'll get some positive feedback going. We've spilled a lot of bytes talking about the people, or personae, we don't like, ad nauseam, so I figure the opposite is worth a shot. So shoot! Free love!)
so spill it already, who've you got a crush on, donkeyschlong?
posted by juv3nal at 12:32 AM on July 31, 2002
posted by juv3nal at 12:32 AM on July 31, 2002
OK, ok ... I'll throw out the first serious answer.
ColdChef never fails to amuse me. Not so sure about the crush part, per se, but I certainly enjoy his contributions to the ol' community.
posted by cyniczny at 1:19 AM on July 31, 2002 [1 favorite]
ColdChef never fails to amuse me. Not so sure about the crush part, per se, but I certainly enjoy his contributions to the ol' community.
posted by cyniczny at 1:19 AM on July 31, 2002 [1 favorite]
Dude. After all the harping on Miguel about this sort of thread, I'd feel like a hypocrite contributing to this frivolousness.
moz, jonmc, owillis, rusty, coldchef, evanizer, stavros and uhm, that's it.
for now.
posted by precocious at 2:09 AM on July 31, 2002 [1 favorite]
moz, jonmc, owillis, rusty, coldchef, evanizer, stavros and uhm, that's it.
for now.
posted by precocious at 2:09 AM on July 31, 2002 [1 favorite]
I am both attracted and repelled by dong_resin's posts. And I would stop coming here if ColdChef went away.
posted by luser at 2:20 AM on July 31, 2002 [1 favorite]
posted by luser at 2:20 AM on July 31, 2002 [1 favorite]
and I'd like to kill the conversation aspects of this section. - mathowie
posted by BlueTrain at 2:32 AM on July 31, 2002
posted by BlueTrain at 2:32 AM on July 31, 2002
> I am both attracted and repelled by dong_resin's posts
Hmm. Tell me about your childhood.
posted by pracowity at 2:33 AM on July 31, 2002
Hmm. Tell me about your childhood.
posted by pracowity at 2:33 AM on July 31, 2002
> and I'd like to kill the conversation aspects of this section. - mathowie
Well, that's what Matt wants (or wanted at the time), but if most of the people who contribute here don't want to "kill the conversation aspects" of MetaTalk, then perhaps he has to displease the people who make his site worth visiting or he has to let the conversation continue.
What do most people who contribute here want? And do they know what's good for them?
posted by pracowity at 2:44 AM on July 31, 2002
Well, that's what Matt wants (or wanted at the time), but if most of the people who contribute here don't want to "kill the conversation aspects" of MetaTalk, then perhaps he has to displease the people who make his site worth visiting or he has to let the conversation continue.
What do most people who contribute here want? And do they know what's good for them?
posted by pracowity at 2:44 AM on July 31, 2002
*emerges from burrow, looking around nervously, meerkat-like*
Is it OK to come out now?
*starts furiously scribbling long list of crushes in the desert sand*
posted by MiguelCardoso at 2:46 AM on July 31, 2002
Is it OK to come out now?
*starts furiously scribbling long list of crushes in the desert sand*
posted by MiguelCardoso at 2:46 AM on July 31, 2002
Well, that's what Matt wants (or wanted at the time), but if most of the people who contribute here don't want to "kill the conversation aspects" of MetaTalk, then perhaps he has to displease the people who make his site worth visiting or he has to let the conversation continue.
I dunno. He just said this one or two threads down. So he's at least recently mentioned the idea. Is an "intellectual crush" a "MetaFilter issue"? I don't think so. Maybe at least *my* confusion & frustration at these shout-out threads is justified (I can't speak for everyone.)
And while I myself have singled out Miguel recently, it's not just him, it's these posts in general. I guess if mathowie clarified what the deal is, I myself would no longer roll my eyes at these posts. And then at least if these types of posts are offically mathowie approved, us eye-rollers will pipe-down. But if they aren't approved, then hopefully you rabble-rousers will pipe-down. So there you go.
posted by macadamiaranch at 4:01 AM on July 31, 2002
I dunno. He just said this one or two threads down. So he's at least recently mentioned the idea. Is an "intellectual crush" a "MetaFilter issue"? I don't think so. Maybe at least *my* confusion & frustration at these shout-out threads is justified (I can't speak for everyone.)
And while I myself have singled out Miguel recently, it's not just him, it's these posts in general. I guess if mathowie clarified what the deal is, I myself would no longer roll my eyes at these posts. And then at least if these types of posts are offically mathowie approved, us eye-rollers will pipe-down. But if they aren't approved, then hopefully you rabble-rousers will pipe-down. So there you go.
posted by macadamiaranch at 4:01 AM on July 31, 2002
get some positive feedback going
Posting good links and cogent comments does the same thing, without that "feels like high school" aftertaste.
posted by machaus at 4:28 AM on July 31, 2002
Posting good links and cogent comments does the same thing, without that "feels like high school" aftertaste.
posted by machaus at 4:28 AM on July 31, 2002
> So there you go.
Bob's your uncle.
But it would be funny (peculiar and ha-ha) if the character of this place, with something like three billion subscribers now, were determined by how much six or seven eye-rollers here and six or seven rabble-rousers there screamed about what they want.
How about a little online polling? What would be wrong with one or two short-answer polls on the Metafilter front page or on the MetaTalk front page? In this case, ask MetaTalk users something like:
Select one:
A) MetaTalk is too chatty.
B) MetaTalk is too unfriendly.
C) MetaTalk is just about right. Leave it alone.
D) I don't know. I don't care. Shut up and leave me alone.
Matt could still of course carry on doing whatever the hell he feels like doing, but the people always screaming about What People Want and What Is Right would at least have some facts to go on.
posted by pracowity at 4:30 AM on July 31, 2002
Bob's your uncle.
But it would be funny (peculiar and ha-ha) if the character of this place, with something like three billion subscribers now, were determined by how much six or seven eye-rollers here and six or seven rabble-rousers there screamed about what they want.
How about a little online polling? What would be wrong with one or two short-answer polls on the Metafilter front page or on the MetaTalk front page? In this case, ask MetaTalk users something like:
Select one:
A) MetaTalk is too chatty.
B) MetaTalk is too unfriendly.
C) MetaTalk is just about right. Leave it alone.
D) I don't know. I don't care. Shut up and leave me alone.
Matt could still of course carry on doing whatever the hell he feels like doing, but the people always screaming about What People Want and What Is Right would at least have some facts to go on.
posted by pracowity at 4:30 AM on July 31, 2002
What do most people who contribute here want? And do they know what's good for them?
I must admit I prefer emotion in posting as opposed to septic diplomatic objectiveness which some people seem able to regurgitate on cue. (and to be brutally honest, you can take PC and stick it where the smurfs don't play).
However, gushing rose scented posts like this make me wanna hurl.
Oh yeah.. I despise anyopne who adds 'What is your favourite X? .. at the end of a post.
So, if you somehow fit the bill above, you can be on my list.
posted by Frasermoo at 4:40 AM on July 31, 2002
I must admit I prefer emotion in posting as opposed to septic diplomatic objectiveness which some people seem able to regurgitate on cue. (and to be brutally honest, you can take PC and stick it where the smurfs don't play).
However, gushing rose scented posts like this make me wanna hurl.
Oh yeah.. I despise anyopne who adds 'What is your favourite X? .. at the end of a post.
So, if you somehow fit the bill above, you can be on my list.
posted by Frasermoo at 4:40 AM on July 31, 2002
This thread is not a good idea, IMO. The stars of MetaFilter already know who they are, and if they don't then good for them. There's no need for to make a popular/unpopular type of thread, because that's what it is, even if that isn't the intent. I understand and appreciate donkeyschlong's intent, but there is too much room for polarization and cliquishness. Not that the people already mentioned don't make significant contributions to MeFi.
Besides, it's been done. Sort of.
posted by ashbury at 5:08 AM on July 31, 2002
Besides, it's been done. Sort of.
posted by ashbury at 5:08 AM on July 31, 2002
Well, that's what Matt wants (or wanted at the time), but if most of the people who contribute here don't want to "kill the conversation aspects" of MetaTalk, then perhaps he has to displease the people who make his site worth visiting or he has to let the conversation continue.
So we should overrule Matt by doing whatever the hell we want, and hope he will continue toiling at a site that's contrary to his own goals? No thanks.
posted by rcade at 5:34 AM on July 31, 2002
So we should overrule Matt by doing whatever the hell we want, and hope he will continue toiling at a site that's contrary to his own goals? No thanks.
posted by rcade at 5:34 AM on July 31, 2002
"This way is dangerous."
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 5:34 AM on July 31, 2002
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 5:34 AM on July 31, 2002
...and rcade. Okay, that's it.
posted by precocious at 5:38 AM on July 31, 2002
posted by precocious at 5:38 AM on July 31, 2002
I'll take a public pass on this as well.
Just email the people you like and tell them never ever to leave you stranded in the blue and gray.
I just realized that "the blue and gray" were two sides in a larger conflict (US joke only).
posted by zpousman at 5:41 AM on July 31, 2002
Just email the people you like and tell them never ever to leave you stranded in the blue and gray.
I just realized that "the blue and gray" were two sides in a larger conflict (US joke only).
posted by zpousman at 5:41 AM on July 31, 2002
zpousman: that's what I always think of when I hear the term "the blue and the grey."
posted by insomnyuk at 5:50 AM on July 31, 2002
posted by insomnyuk at 5:50 AM on July 31, 2002
I love that these threads, rather than being ignored by those who disapprove, become wanking about whether or not they should exist. Espescially people posting "I'll visibly pass on this"
posted by tj at 6:01 AM on July 31, 2002
posted by tj at 6:01 AM on July 31, 2002
I love that these threads, rather than being passed over by those who disapprove of those who disapprove or possibly approve, are like magnets to those who disapprove of the wankers who approve or disapprove of the disapproval. Especially people quoting people who quote other people.
I knew I should've stayed out of it.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 6:08 AM on July 31, 2002
I knew I should've stayed out of it.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 6:08 AM on July 31, 2002
The people that disapprove of those that disapprove of those that disapprove of the nature of this thread just make me sick.
posted by insomnyuk at 6:11 AM on July 31, 2002
posted by insomnyuk at 6:11 AM on July 31, 2002
tj, are you saying that if we don't like something we should be good little people and not mention it? Isn't one of the purposes of MetaTalk to discuss the things we don't like?
posted by ashbury at 6:13 AM on July 31, 2002
posted by ashbury at 6:13 AM on July 31, 2002
fess up, donkey.
we all know Miguel told you to post this. No point in denying it any longer.
posted by dogmatic at 6:15 AM on July 31, 2002
we all know Miguel told you to post this. No point in denying it any longer.
posted by dogmatic at 6:15 AM on July 31, 2002
stavros, that hurt my head. I'll need some coffee to process that statement with.
posted by ashbury at 6:18 AM on July 31, 2002
posted by ashbury at 6:18 AM on July 31, 2002
(Don't bother, ash. I was just riffing.)
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 6:20 AM on July 31, 2002
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 6:20 AM on July 31, 2002
*grumble* too early for riffage, didn't get enough sleep, need coffee...
posted by ashbury at 6:22 AM on July 31, 2002
posted by ashbury at 6:22 AM on July 31, 2002
Is there any MeFiosi upon whom you've developed a sort of (intellectual?) crush?
Actually, there isn't. But thanks for asking.
posted by Darth Vader at 6:27 AM on July 31, 2002
Actually, there isn't. But thanks for asking.
posted by Darth Vader at 6:27 AM on July 31, 2002
rcade: "So we should overrule Matt..."
Nope. Don't be inflammatory. It is that, if it happened to turn out that people want to maintain the semi-conversational level of communication in MetaTalk we are enjoying in this thread, Matt would be faced with the choice (as always, it's his ball so he gets to make up the rules) of allowing it or not, but with the added knowledge that he is going against what people generally want. Or that he is not. He doesn't know. Neither do you. Neither do I. No one knows because no one tries to find out. All we get is a handful of vocal subscribers complaining, when the answer is in anonymous polling. Should we sic the jackals on the meerkat? Maybe yes, maybe no. You won't find out by gazing at a few unstructured, uncountable grumblings written here at great length by people who swear they have no time for such threads.
I think there's room for the jackals and the meerkats. Only an anonymous poll would reveal whether others think it, too.
Crush? I used to admire holgate, but he's gone.
posted by pracowity at 6:36 AM on July 31, 2002
Nope. Don't be inflammatory. It is that, if it happened to turn out that people want to maintain the semi-conversational level of communication in MetaTalk we are enjoying in this thread, Matt would be faced with the choice (as always, it's his ball so he gets to make up the rules) of allowing it or not, but with the added knowledge that he is going against what people generally want. Or that he is not. He doesn't know. Neither do you. Neither do I. No one knows because no one tries to find out. All we get is a handful of vocal subscribers complaining, when the answer is in anonymous polling. Should we sic the jackals on the meerkat? Maybe yes, maybe no. You won't find out by gazing at a few unstructured, uncountable grumblings written here at great length by people who swear they have no time for such threads.
I think there's room for the jackals and the meerkats. Only an anonymous poll would reveal whether others think it, too.
Crush? I used to admire holgate, but he's gone.
posted by pracowity at 6:36 AM on July 31, 2002
ashbury, I just don't see any behavior changing for good or ill for as long as these threads have popped up there's been people saying that they don't beloing here. It was the "I'm not going to play your reindeer games" attitude that kinda cracked me up.
Oh, stav and insomnyuk... thanks, I needed to get off that high horse.
posted by tj at 6:57 AM on July 31, 2002
Oh, stav and insomnyuk... thanks, I needed to get off that high horse.
posted by tj at 6:57 AM on July 31, 2002
*emerges from burrow, looking around nervously, meerkat-like*
* Raises gun to shoulder, telling himself it's for the good of MeFi *
.......no, just can't do it. Damn you Miguel. Damn you and your Portugese charm......
posted by Markb at 7:14 AM on July 31, 2002
* Raises gun to shoulder, telling himself it's for the good of MeFi *
.......no, just can't do it. Damn you Miguel. Damn you and your Portugese charm......
posted by Markb at 7:14 AM on July 31, 2002
I want to have fold_and_mutilate's, um, folded and mutilated children. Damn that y chromosome.
posted by pardonyou? at 7:20 AM on July 31, 2002
posted by pardonyou? at 7:20 AM on July 31, 2002
tj, fair enough.
pracowity, thanks for elaborating your stand on the subject. FWIW, a poll isn't a bad way to get an idea of what people want/don't want, like/don't like, IF matt needs to find out the opinions of the masses.
posted by ashbury at 7:26 AM on July 31, 2002
pracowity, thanks for elaborating your stand on the subject. FWIW, a poll isn't a bad way to get an idea of what people want/don't want, like/don't like, IF matt needs to find out the opinions of the masses.
posted by ashbury at 7:26 AM on July 31, 2002
"Well they weren't just blue and they weren't just grey
Matt took no sides when he came that day..."
Dry Metafilter Creek
posted by cortex at 7:44 AM on July 31, 2002
Matt took no sides when he came that day..."
Dry Metafilter Creek
posted by cortex at 7:44 AM on July 31, 2002
eyeballkid
posted by eyeballkid at 7:46 AM on July 31, 2002
posted by eyeballkid at 7:46 AM on July 31, 2002
It is that, if it happened to turn out that people want to maintain the semi-conversational level of communication in MetaTalk we are enjoying in this thread, Matt would be faced with the choice (as always, it's his ball so he gets to make up the rules) of allowing it or not, but with the added knowledge that he is going against what people generally want.
In my opinion, we've already gone over this several times, and every effort by Miguelistas to build momentum for chat has been crushed the moment Matt shows up and makes it clear he doesn't want to run a discussion board.
Sorry to be a grouse (not really sorry at all -- just trying to soften my earlier point with false contrition), but I think that even if 90 percent of the members want more gab, it won't matter much if our indentured sysadmin doesn't.
Those of you who are devoting so much energy to chattiness should consider pooling your funds and paying Matt to create a new community. The Metafilter code is working out great on Sportsfilter, and with 7-10 co-founders footing the bill, it's not prohibitively expensive.
posted by rcade at 7:58 AM on July 31, 2002
In my opinion, we've already gone over this several times, and every effort by Miguelistas to build momentum for chat has been crushed the moment Matt shows up and makes it clear he doesn't want to run a discussion board.
Sorry to be a grouse (not really sorry at all -- just trying to soften my earlier point with false contrition), but I think that even if 90 percent of the members want more gab, it won't matter much if our indentured sysadmin doesn't.
Those of you who are devoting so much energy to chattiness should consider pooling your funds and paying Matt to create a new community. The Metafilter code is working out great on Sportsfilter, and with 7-10 co-founders footing the bill, it's not prohibitively expensive.
posted by rcade at 7:58 AM on July 31, 2002
The thread exsist, therefore I nominate Sudama. His philosophic purity never fails to make me rue the loss of my own intellectual innocence. Many a leftist poseur MetaFarker could learn a thing or three from Sudama.
(Oh, and he's never chatty, so he must be a good MetaTalker, too...)
posted by m.polo at 8:02 AM on July 31, 2002
(Oh, and he's never chatty, so he must be a good MetaTalker, too...)
posted by m.polo at 8:02 AM on July 31, 2002
pracowity, if you need it spelled out, yes, I think this is a poor excuse for a thread.
If people want to chat this much, I'll either build a separate chat area (not likely, why would I spend my time building something I would not use and let it waste resources), tell people to go somewhere else (like irc://irc.metafilter.com), or shut the place down.
Go to kvetch.com and read what derek had to say about that site. If the community wants one thing and the owner doesn't, the place usually goes away. Yes I know a community can become a larger entity than the person running it, but someone's got to pay the bills and maintain the code, and it's well within that person's rights to end it at any time.
I don't say that as some sort of threat or ultimatum, I simply say it to remind you I am human, and I have limits of what I can do and what I can handle. I have an idea of what this place can be and I have dislikes of what I don't like to see. Anyone is welcome to build chatfilter or a thousand rival metafilters, and I'm saying go right ahead. When I get tired of working on this site, eventually I'm going to pull the plug. I don't know if that's six months away or six years away, but it'll happen someday, no sane person could do this forever.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 8:35 AM on July 31, 2002 [1 favorite]
If people want to chat this much, I'll either build a separate chat area (not likely, why would I spend my time building something I would not use and let it waste resources), tell people to go somewhere else (like irc://irc.metafilter.com), or shut the place down.
Go to kvetch.com and read what derek had to say about that site. If the community wants one thing and the owner doesn't, the place usually goes away. Yes I know a community can become a larger entity than the person running it, but someone's got to pay the bills and maintain the code, and it's well within that person's rights to end it at any time.
I don't say that as some sort of threat or ultimatum, I simply say it to remind you I am human, and I have limits of what I can do and what I can handle. I have an idea of what this place can be and I have dislikes of what I don't like to see. Anyone is welcome to build chatfilter or a thousand rival metafilters, and I'm saying go right ahead. When I get tired of working on this site, eventually I'm going to pull the plug. I don't know if that's six months away or six years away, but it'll happen someday, no sane person could do this forever.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 8:35 AM on July 31, 2002 [1 favorite]
no sane person could do this forever
Which is why we are endeavoring to drive you insane with these chatty threads.
posted by Shadowkeeper at 8:53 AM on July 31, 2002
Which is why we are endeavoring to drive you insane with these chatty threads.
posted by Shadowkeeper at 8:53 AM on July 31, 2002
You know how sometimes you meet this awesome, sexy, crazy-cool guy or girl and you think he/she digs you too and you wonder what's going to happen and every time you see each other you get super happy even if it's just a "Hello" or a "Did you see that sunset" or whatever and sometimes it's more than that, and you share slow, sweet moments together and you think, Wow -- and then you go and blurt out, "I like you because blah and blah and blah. Why do you like me? Huh? Huh? Huh?"
Me neither.
posted by mattpfeff at 9:43 AM on July 31, 2002
Me neither.
posted by mattpfeff at 9:43 AM on July 31, 2002
> I think this is a poor excuse for a thread.
So do I. I just don't think it's the end of the world. Bad threads can be cut. When the same person posts a similarly bad thread after being told not to, you cut the person. It should be simple.
> I have limits of what I can do and what I can handle.
Which brings up the obvious question: why don't you have assistance? Out of 14,000 subscribers and probably a few offline friends, surely you've met one or two people who are eager to help you and who would toe the party line. It doesn't have to be MattyFilter, does it?
posted by pracowity at 9:53 AM on July 31, 2002
So do I. I just don't think it's the end of the world. Bad threads can be cut. When the same person posts a similarly bad thread after being told not to, you cut the person. It should be simple.
> I have limits of what I can do and what I can handle.
Which brings up the obvious question: why don't you have assistance? Out of 14,000 subscribers and probably a few offline friends, surely you've met one or two people who are eager to help you and who would toe the party line. It doesn't have to be MattyFilter, does it?
posted by pracowity at 9:53 AM on July 31, 2002
You know how sometimes you meet this awesome, sexy, crazy-cool guy or girl and you think he/she digs you too...
I told you, Matt, it's just not possible.
But we'll always have Paris.
posted by Kafkaesque at 9:55 AM on July 31, 2002
I told you, Matt, it's just not possible.
But we'll always have Paris.
posted by Kafkaesque at 9:55 AM on July 31, 2002
I asked thomcatspike out the other day, and I *think* he said yes.
posted by interrobang at 10:07 AM on July 31, 2002
posted by interrobang at 10:07 AM on July 31, 2002
Which brings up the obvious question: why don't you have assistance?
If you look at the past two years of MetaTalk posts, a good number are here to question the most minor of inconsistencies in my rule here. If I delete x, why didn't I delete y? Once y is gone, was it because I didn't like poster z or was it due to the comments?
There are a whole host of problems when I allow others to make the same level of decisions, and one of the biggies is inconsistency. Even if I pick people that have been here the longest, I can't be 100% sure they will make the right decisions, and when they don't make the right ones, the site will start getting more inconsistent. I can only count one or two friends that I would trust with this level of control over the site, and still we have arguments about what decisions they would have made.
It doesn't have to be MattyFilter, does it?
Look, this isn't Drew Curtis' MetaFilter, I try not to make my presence known and I hope I don't carry more weight than anyone else (again, there are numerous references in the past two years of MetaTalk posts), but clearly and loudly everyone won't let that happen, even though I've done everything to prevent it. If I say I'm tired of the site and want to stop if someday, that isn't me letting my big ego inflate larger than everyone else, that's me stating an honest opinion and doing something I'm allowed to do. I know the community is only valuable because other people showed up, and what everyone has helped create is a bigger thing than I could have created myself. I get it, and I will never forget it. But, you have to admit there is a grey area, where on one side you have some sense of entitlement from the community, ownership of said community they helped create, and on the other side the reality is that one person maintains the code, watches the server, and tries to be all eyes and ears on what is happening on the site, and at some point, it can be too much. Adding more people into the admin mix isn't always a good thing.
Here's a question, if there were four others doing administration, does that mean that suddenly chatty posting should be encouraged? If so, why? If not, why not?
posted by mathowie (staff) at 10:16 AM on July 31, 2002
If you look at the past two years of MetaTalk posts, a good number are here to question the most minor of inconsistencies in my rule here. If I delete x, why didn't I delete y? Once y is gone, was it because I didn't like poster z or was it due to the comments?
There are a whole host of problems when I allow others to make the same level of decisions, and one of the biggies is inconsistency. Even if I pick people that have been here the longest, I can't be 100% sure they will make the right decisions, and when they don't make the right ones, the site will start getting more inconsistent. I can only count one or two friends that I would trust with this level of control over the site, and still we have arguments about what decisions they would have made.
It doesn't have to be MattyFilter, does it?
Look, this isn't Drew Curtis' MetaFilter, I try not to make my presence known and I hope I don't carry more weight than anyone else (again, there are numerous references in the past two years of MetaTalk posts), but clearly and loudly everyone won't let that happen, even though I've done everything to prevent it. If I say I'm tired of the site and want to stop if someday, that isn't me letting my big ego inflate larger than everyone else, that's me stating an honest opinion and doing something I'm allowed to do. I know the community is only valuable because other people showed up, and what everyone has helped create is a bigger thing than I could have created myself. I get it, and I will never forget it. But, you have to admit there is a grey area, where on one side you have some sense of entitlement from the community, ownership of said community they helped create, and on the other side the reality is that one person maintains the code, watches the server, and tries to be all eyes and ears on what is happening on the site, and at some point, it can be too much. Adding more people into the admin mix isn't always a good thing.
Here's a question, if there were four others doing administration, does that mean that suddenly chatty posting should be encouraged? If so, why? If not, why not?
posted by mathowie (staff) at 10:16 AM on July 31, 2002
pracowity:
Which brings up the obvious question: why don't you have assistance? Out of 14,000 subscribers and probably a few offline friends, surely you've met one or two people who are eager to help you and who would toe the party line. It doesn't have to be MattyFilter, does it?
out of the year (and then some) i've been here, i've gotten the impression that there is only matt working on metafilter because that's his preference. i can understand that. with more admins comes politics, which is cheerfully lacking now (what are politics when your only option is to go with what matt likes?). i've worked on software within a group of developers and i've worked on my own, and there's something to appreciate in both approaches.
simply having more people administrate won't do, because then you'll have differences in opinion and perhaps in executed policy (i.e. matt is laid back, while bluetrain is not). that'll probably create more problems than it's worth. maybe mefi will go the way of filepile: matt as the leader, but with others in the background (e.g. doing the programming). it's already a bit like that, with delfuego donating bandwidth for the site.
posted by moz at 10:17 AM on July 31, 2002
Which brings up the obvious question: why don't you have assistance? Out of 14,000 subscribers and probably a few offline friends, surely you've met one or two people who are eager to help you and who would toe the party line. It doesn't have to be MattyFilter, does it?
out of the year (and then some) i've been here, i've gotten the impression that there is only matt working on metafilter because that's his preference. i can understand that. with more admins comes politics, which is cheerfully lacking now (what are politics when your only option is to go with what matt likes?). i've worked on software within a group of developers and i've worked on my own, and there's something to appreciate in both approaches.
simply having more people administrate won't do, because then you'll have differences in opinion and perhaps in executed policy (i.e. matt is laid back, while bluetrain is not). that'll probably create more problems than it's worth. maybe mefi will go the way of filepile: matt as the leader, but with others in the background (e.g. doing the programming). it's already a bit like that, with delfuego donating bandwidth for the site.
posted by moz at 10:17 AM on July 31, 2002
Matt:
Eventually, when you tire of MetaFilter and wish to quit, I hope (if the site is still active and viable) that you would consider either selling it or transferring the operations of it to someone else rather than tanking it into the gutter.
posted by evanizer at 10:29 AM on July 31, 2002
Eventually, when you tire of MetaFilter and wish to quit, I hope (if the site is still active and viable) that you would consider either selling it or transferring the operations of it to someone else rather than tanking it into the gutter.
posted by evanizer at 10:29 AM on July 31, 2002
matt:
Here's a question, if there were four others doing administration, does that mean that suddenly chatty posting should be encouraged? If so, why? If not, why not?
the only thing that might happen is that some admins would not mind it so much while others would. hence you may have inconsistent policy in spite of more people (who, some claim, would put an end to the inconsistency caused from the intense workload laid upon one person) manning the ship.
but the chatters will keep trying to continue at mefi. most won't want their own communities, because that was never the point; the point was the exposure to so many people that mefi gives you. i think it's exhibitionism in most cases. in a way, i suppose, all we write here is exhibitionism; whereas you or i may wish for our words and our thoughts to be seen and appreciated, i think the chatters just want to be seen.
posted by moz at 10:30 AM on July 31, 2002
Here's a question, if there were four others doing administration, does that mean that suddenly chatty posting should be encouraged? If so, why? If not, why not?
the only thing that might happen is that some admins would not mind it so much while others would. hence you may have inconsistent policy in spite of more people (who, some claim, would put an end to the inconsistency caused from the intense workload laid upon one person) manning the ship.
but the chatters will keep trying to continue at mefi. most won't want their own communities, because that was never the point; the point was the exposure to so many people that mefi gives you. i think it's exhibitionism in most cases. in a way, i suppose, all we write here is exhibitionism; whereas you or i may wish for our words and our thoughts to be seen and appreciated, i think the chatters just want to be seen.
posted by moz at 10:30 AM on July 31, 2002
I wrote:
Here's a question, if there were four others doing administration, does that mean that suddenly chatty posting should be encouraged? If so, why? If not, why not?
but I want to get deeper to the heart of the question of why I won't open up the admin duties. It seems that the friction comes from the steady cries of "but I'm too busy" from myself and others here. If someday soon, there are more people working on the site, that problem is solved, as there would be no reason to say "but I'm too busy," correct?
Now, given that, what vital things are not being done or not being added to MetaFilter due to "but I'm too busy" being the only impediment? Honestly, I'd like to know, as few things should ever be blocked by such a thing, and if so, should be the first things I fix when I have time.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 10:46 AM on July 31, 2002
Here's a question, if there were four others doing administration, does that mean that suddenly chatty posting should be encouraged? If so, why? If not, why not?
but I want to get deeper to the heart of the question of why I won't open up the admin duties. It seems that the friction comes from the steady cries of "but I'm too busy" from myself and others here. If someday soon, there are more people working on the site, that problem is solved, as there would be no reason to say "but I'm too busy," correct?
Now, given that, what vital things are not being done or not being added to MetaFilter due to "but I'm too busy" being the only impediment? Honestly, I'd like to know, as few things should ever be blocked by such a thing, and if so, should be the first things I fix when I have time.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 10:46 AM on July 31, 2002
If you look at the past two years of MetaTalk posts, a good number are here to If I delete x, why didn't I delete y? Once y is gone, was it because I didn't like poster z or was it due to the comments?
Just as an aside, Matt, I think a great many of those "Why did you do this?" MeTa posts are not intended to "question the most minor of inconsistencies in [your] rule," but are sincere attempts by users to learn how to be a better citizens. Well, maybe not a "great many," but some, anyhow.
posted by Shadowkeeper at 10:47 AM on July 31, 2002
Just as an aside, Matt, I think a great many of those "Why did you do this?" MeTa posts are not intended to "question the most minor of inconsistencies in [your] rule," but are sincere attempts by users to learn how to be a better citizens. Well, maybe not a "great many," but some, anyhow.
posted by Shadowkeeper at 10:47 AM on July 31, 2002
In the end, as Matt has often said, it's all down to discipline and moderation - chattiness as well as bitchiness. A little of each can go a long way. Though it's absurd to pretend that there's one group of chatterers and another of bitchers, I think it's up to each user to cut down on both. I'll certainly do my bit to help. I'm good at not being bitchy but I'm lousy about not being chatty. Others suffer from the opposite problem, which is equally irritating.
If only to cut out the worst bitching of all, which is the bitching about chattiness and, even worse, the chattiness about both. Now that really is boring. ;)
posted by MiguelCardoso at 11:02 AM on July 31, 2002
If only to cut out the worst bitching of all, which is the bitching about chattiness and, even worse, the chattiness about both. Now that really is boring. ;)
posted by MiguelCardoso at 11:02 AM on July 31, 2002
Now, given that, what vital things are not being done or not being added to MetaFilter due to "but I'm too busy" being the only impediment?
In my view, none. MetaFilter is, as all successful creations, like a human being writ large, with every human quirk present at one time or another. This happens because, destructive attempts apart, there's an enormous amount of freedom and responsibility here. We can all be ourselves as long as we're still sensitive to others. And when we're not, others remind us. Or make us be.
As I read it, only a handful of users have an idea of what MetaFilter *should* be or how MetaFilter could be *better* or run in a different way. Although I'm fearful of these people, I have to recognize they're part of the mix and that, more importantly, their efforts sometimes increase responsibility and diminish selfishness.
However, most users, I'd say, are happy with MetaFilter as it is; which is why they keep coming here. Trying to put pressure on Matt to be more or less stringent; more or less responsible; more or less authoritative is like trying to change MetaFilter.
And I'd argue very few want that. It's that simple. Change is a complex thing and probably happens without anyone controlling it. But trust is far rarer and, quite rightly, dearer to all.
posted by MiguelCardoso at 11:25 AM on July 31, 2002
In my view, none. MetaFilter is, as all successful creations, like a human being writ large, with every human quirk present at one time or another. This happens because, destructive attempts apart, there's an enormous amount of freedom and responsibility here. We can all be ourselves as long as we're still sensitive to others. And when we're not, others remind us. Or make us be.
As I read it, only a handful of users have an idea of what MetaFilter *should* be or how MetaFilter could be *better* or run in a different way. Although I'm fearful of these people, I have to recognize they're part of the mix and that, more importantly, their efforts sometimes increase responsibility and diminish selfishness.
However, most users, I'd say, are happy with MetaFilter as it is; which is why they keep coming here. Trying to put pressure on Matt to be more or less stringent; more or less responsible; more or less authoritative is like trying to change MetaFilter.
And I'd argue very few want that. It's that simple. Change is a complex thing and probably happens without anyone controlling it. But trust is far rarer and, quite rightly, dearer to all.
posted by MiguelCardoso at 11:25 AM on July 31, 2002
> Now, given that, what vital things are not being done
> or not being added to MetaFilter due to "but I'm too
> busy" being the only impediment?
If you have a vision for the thing, you have to actively pursue it. More manpower would let you do it.
Thread Quality:
A thread should sit in a queue, not go immediately to the site. You or one of your newly recruited minions would read it and either let it through or put it in a limbo state that would automatically notify the poster that the thread had been rejected but here's why. Then the poster would learn from errors and, if the post was fixable, be able to fix it and resubmit it without starting all over again. An unfixed post would disappear after 24 hours.
This would eliminate all bad threads forever, assuming you never approved bad threads. It would kill the Newsfilter posts and focus people on posts with long-term value such as kitty photos. We would no longer have to listen to people (including you) complain and complain about I/P posts because you would simply abort them.
You could let certain trusted people post without moderation, but generally you should read each post before it goes out. If a post can't wait until you finsih your supper and walk the dog and then get around to moderating it, it's probably just another crap Newsfilter "They're alive! They're alive! Thank God, they're alive!" post.
And you could maintain a museum of rejected posts for the instruction and entertainment of subscribers.
Comment Quality:
Then there's the bad commenting to fix. With more manpower, you and the little helpers would be able to pay more attention to who has been naughty and who has been nice, and you would be able to deliver coal swiftly and in large quantities. You deliver some coal now, I take it, but too much coal delivery is left up to the bickering classes of MetaTalk rather than dealt with directly and clearly according to published rules.
Rules:
Oh, the rules: you can't have 14,000 people sit down to the same table without publishing and enforcing a precise list of rules.
posted by pracowity at 11:43 AM on July 31, 2002
> or not being added to MetaFilter due to "but I'm too
> busy" being the only impediment?
If you have a vision for the thing, you have to actively pursue it. More manpower would let you do it.
Thread Quality:
A thread should sit in a queue, not go immediately to the site. You or one of your newly recruited minions would read it and either let it through or put it in a limbo state that would automatically notify the poster that the thread had been rejected but here's why. Then the poster would learn from errors and, if the post was fixable, be able to fix it and resubmit it without starting all over again. An unfixed post would disappear after 24 hours.
This would eliminate all bad threads forever, assuming you never approved bad threads. It would kill the Newsfilter posts and focus people on posts with long-term value such as kitty photos. We would no longer have to listen to people (including you) complain and complain about I/P posts because you would simply abort them.
You could let certain trusted people post without moderation, but generally you should read each post before it goes out. If a post can't wait until you finsih your supper and walk the dog and then get around to moderating it, it's probably just another crap Newsfilter "They're alive! They're alive! Thank God, they're alive!" post.
And you could maintain a museum of rejected posts for the instruction and entertainment of subscribers.
Comment Quality:
Then there's the bad commenting to fix. With more manpower, you and the little helpers would be able to pay more attention to who has been naughty and who has been nice, and you would be able to deliver coal swiftly and in large quantities. You deliver some coal now, I take it, but too much coal delivery is left up to the bickering classes of MetaTalk rather than dealt with directly and clearly according to published rules.
Rules:
Oh, the rules: you can't have 14,000 people sit down to the same table without publishing and enforcing a precise list of rules.
posted by pracowity at 11:43 AM on July 31, 2002
A thread should sit in a queue, not go immediately to the site. You or one of your newly recruited minions would read it and either let it through or put it in a limbo state that would automatically notify the poster that the thread had been rejected but here's why. Then the poster would learn from errors and, if the post was fixable, be able to fix it and resubmit it without starting all over again. An unfixed post would disappear after 24 hours.
This would eliminate all bad threads forever, assuming you never approved bad threads. It would kill the Newsfilter posts and focus people on posts with long-term value such as kitty photos. We would no longer have to listen to people (including you) complain and complain about I/P posts because you would simply abort them.
i'd be afraid that this solution would create some bad blood regarding mefi. people may be upset that their threads are rejected; they may email you and complain. you could be setting yourself up for a lot of work, if you're a moderator. on the other hand, this system is currently in place at blogroots right now, and so it seems to enjoy some success.
Then there's the bad commenting to fix. With more manpower, you and the little helpers would be able to pay more attention to who has been naughty and who has been nice, and you would be able to deliver coal swiftly and in large quantities.
i believe that comment quality is most often in direct correlation to thread quality. if you fix the latter, you've solved the former in large part; enough so that the need for multiple people to act as thread nannies is insignificant.
were thread queueing done, i would hope that very few standards be enforced upon it. since people seem to dislike current events threads so much, maybe you could allow posters to optionally submit a justification for it. i.e., if you submit this ultra cool art project, one would hope it needs no justification for its posting (though maybe that's my bias talking). however, if you post some newsy thread, you should write why you think the thread should be posted. this method could allow some worthy news items to be posted while avoiding posting just anything that's been on obscurestore today.
posted by moz at 12:04 PM on July 31, 2002
This would eliminate all bad threads forever, assuming you never approved bad threads. It would kill the Newsfilter posts and focus people on posts with long-term value such as kitty photos. We would no longer have to listen to people (including you) complain and complain about I/P posts because you would simply abort them.
i'd be afraid that this solution would create some bad blood regarding mefi. people may be upset that their threads are rejected; they may email you and complain. you could be setting yourself up for a lot of work, if you're a moderator. on the other hand, this system is currently in place at blogroots right now, and so it seems to enjoy some success.
Then there's the bad commenting to fix. With more manpower, you and the little helpers would be able to pay more attention to who has been naughty and who has been nice, and you would be able to deliver coal swiftly and in large quantities.
i believe that comment quality is most often in direct correlation to thread quality. if you fix the latter, you've solved the former in large part; enough so that the need for multiple people to act as thread nannies is insignificant.
were thread queueing done, i would hope that very few standards be enforced upon it. since people seem to dislike current events threads so much, maybe you could allow posters to optionally submit a justification for it. i.e., if you submit this ultra cool art project, one would hope it needs no justification for its posting (though maybe that's my bias talking). however, if you post some newsy thread, you should write why you think the thread should be posted. this method could allow some worthy news items to be posted while avoiding posting just anything that's been on obscurestore today.
posted by moz at 12:04 PM on July 31, 2002
> people may be upset that their threads are rejected;
> they may email you and complain.
If the rules were clear and were uniformly enforced, there would be no complaint possible when a post broke a rule. Better one angry rejected I/P poster than a thread full of angry whiners about the three hundreth I/P post of the day.
posted by pracowity at 12:11 PM on July 31, 2002
> they may email you and complain.
If the rules were clear and were uniformly enforced, there would be no complaint possible when a post broke a rule. Better one angry rejected I/P poster than a thread full of angry whiners about the three hundreth I/P post of the day.
posted by pracowity at 12:11 PM on July 31, 2002
If the rules were clear and were uniformly enforced, there would be no complaint possible when a post broke a rule.
Pracowity - are you the most naive person on the planet, or what? People complain about all sorts of things in life that they have no possible reason for doing so. Intelligent, witty, opinionated people (like the active population here) complain more than most.
Think of how it works here now. There are long threads that endlessly debate "why did x, y or z get deleted?" People would form usenet groups to compare notes about what got rejected and what didnt so they could complain more effectively. The moderators would be overwhelmed with complaints.
posted by Irontom at 12:52 PM on July 31, 2002
Pracowity - are you the most naive person on the planet, or what? People complain about all sorts of things in life that they have no possible reason for doing so. Intelligent, witty, opinionated people (like the active population here) complain more than most.
Think of how it works here now. There are long threads that endlessly debate "why did x, y or z get deleted?" People would form usenet groups to compare notes about what got rejected and what didnt so they could complain more effectively. The moderators would be overwhelmed with complaints.
posted by Irontom at 12:52 PM on July 31, 2002
pracowity you are so wrong. This site is great because Matt hasn’t created ‘rules’; he recognizes that there are grey areas in the world and in Metafilter, and he encourages everyone to be responsible and respectful. Matt trusts us, and in turn we trust him, and each other. We might even carry some of that trust over into the world at large.
Matt runs Metafilter as a collective. We are all supposed to police ourselves, and he doesn't establish rules. This is the way a society is supposed to behave - without threats or punishment or hard-fast rules, with caring and sharing and trying to do what is right. We should all accept responsibility for ourselves - we can police ourselves.
This is a good and functioning society; everyone is held accountable for their actions to everyone else - not some faceless cop or set of laws.
I love that we have this anarchy working for us - Metafilter is a great example of 14,000+ people sitting down at a table without rules and getting along.
Matt, I really respect you for retaining this place because you have done it without rules and you have done it by holding people accountable, not to numbers or karma or whatever, but to other members of the community. It's a really good example of what can be done in the world.
We have too many rules already in our lives - just be a good person and we can all get along.
I have a new zest for life now, thanks.
posted by goneill at 1:05 PM on July 31, 2002
Matt runs Metafilter as a collective. We are all supposed to police ourselves, and he doesn't establish rules. This is the way a society is supposed to behave - without threats or punishment or hard-fast rules, with caring and sharing and trying to do what is right. We should all accept responsibility for ourselves - we can police ourselves.
This is a good and functioning society; everyone is held accountable for their actions to everyone else - not some faceless cop or set of laws.
I love that we have this anarchy working for us - Metafilter is a great example of 14,000+ people sitting down at a table without rules and getting along.
Matt, I really respect you for retaining this place because you have done it without rules and you have done it by holding people accountable, not to numbers or karma or whatever, but to other members of the community. It's a really good example of what can be done in the world.
We have too many rules already in our lives - just be a good person and we can all get along.
I have a new zest for life now, thanks.
posted by goneill at 1:05 PM on July 31, 2002
This site is great because Matt hasn't created rules; he recognizes that there are grey areas in the world and in Metafilter, and he encourages everyone to be responsible and respectful. Matt trusts us, and in turn we trust him, and each other. We might even carry some of that trust over into the world at large.
Matt runs Metafilter as a collective. We are all supposed to police ourselves, and he doesn't establish rules. This is the way a society is supposed to behave - without threats or punishment or hard-fast rules, with caring and sharing and trying to do what is right. We should all accept responsibility for ourselves - we can police ourselves.
Wow, this worthless treacle has made me want to be a better person. Thank you *so* much. Also, it must be a nice feeling to understand Matt's motivations so well. I'll just address all my questions for him to you now.
posted by MarkAnd at 1:15 PM on July 31, 2002
Matt runs Metafilter as a collective. We are all supposed to police ourselves, and he doesn't establish rules. This is the way a society is supposed to behave - without threats or punishment or hard-fast rules, with caring and sharing and trying to do what is right. We should all accept responsibility for ourselves - we can police ourselves.
Wow, this worthless treacle has made me want to be a better person. Thank you *so* much. Also, it must be a nice feeling to understand Matt's motivations so well. I'll just address all my questions for him to you now.
posted by MarkAnd at 1:15 PM on July 31, 2002
I heart stavrosthewonderchicken because of his magical feathers!
It's weird and inhuman that there's no meta category where people can be chatty about mefi and mefites, but even this thread makes me crave boundaries and regulations, sheesh.
posted by zarah at 1:21 PM on July 31, 2002
It's weird and inhuman that there's no meta category where people can be chatty about mefi and mefites, but even this thread makes me crave boundaries and regulations, sheesh.
posted by zarah at 1:21 PM on July 31, 2002
...but even this thread makes me crave boundaries and regulations...
I crave potatoe pancakes.
But on a serious note, perhaps the perceived increase in chattiness is connected to the demise of the cult threads. With no other outlet for their pent-up volubility, the "miguelistas" have spilled forth into the main discussion.
posted by monju_bosatsu at 1:28 PM on July 31, 2002
I crave potatoe pancakes.
But on a serious note, perhaps the perceived increase in chattiness is connected to the demise of the cult threads. With no other outlet for their pent-up volubility, the "miguelistas" have spilled forth into the main discussion.
posted by monju_bosatsu at 1:28 PM on July 31, 2002
woh - did I really come across as trying to speak for matt? Was my post snarky? I really didn't mean to do that.
I just think that it is a shame that we are here crying out for rules when we have this great little thing and rules suck anyway - we should all behave.
Metafilter is proof that 14 thousand people can sit at the same table without rules. That's pretty bad ass.
posted by goneill at 1:35 PM on July 31, 2002
I just think that it is a shame that we are here crying out for rules when we have this great little thing and rules suck anyway - we should all behave.
Metafilter is proof that 14 thousand people can sit at the same table without rules. That's pretty bad ass.
posted by goneill at 1:35 PM on July 31, 2002
But on a serious note, perhaps the perceived increase in chattiness is connected to the demise of the cult threads. With no other outlet for their pent-up volubility, the "miguelistas" have spilled forth into the main discussion.
I thought that was what http://9622.net/ was for...
posted by PugAchev at 1:49 PM on July 31, 2002
I thought that was what http://9622.net/ was for...
posted by PugAchev at 1:49 PM on July 31, 2002
pracowity: The beauty that arises out of loosely organized chaos is better than the beauty that arises out of strict order.
posted by mediareport at 2:17 PM on July 31, 2002
posted by mediareport at 2:17 PM on July 31, 2002
pracowity, I think I've been clear why things are the way they are on metafilter before.
In regard to thread quality, I like the fact that people can post instantly, and without moderation or editing up front. That's a core feature here that isn't replicated elsewhere. Now low-quality stuff comes through, and people hear about it in metatalk or on the threads themselves, but to take that away promotes me and the minions to editors. For the past three years it has been a flat system, everyone and anyone can post on the front page and they do. It's what sets this place apart from slashdot and all the other other moderated systems, and it's what makes things possible like the first 9/11 post and the seattle earthquake post.
As for comment quality, policing the threads and sending "coal" to people is far too much effort, at too great a risk, with little positive in return. I see it being lots and lots of work sending an email warning everytime something poor is posted, and it has the potential to create a great deal of bad blood between users and administrators. People wouldn't feel comfortable posting their opinions if they were constantly being watched and given warnings. It would go down the path of really creating a sort of "thought police."
As for the question of definitive rules, I've gone over this a million times, and this is one thing that should show up in a MetaFilter FAQ. I try explaining it on the new user page. To introduce hard and fast rules would be completely antiethical to metafilter. There are no black and white rules really, only a very small set of guidelines, and the rest is trust that people will act within those guidelines. All rules are going to be imperfect here, because exceptions need to be allowed for. On top of an imperfect rule base, once rules start stacking up, more need to be constantly added, because anything that is not in the rules would seem to be allowed. People aren't binary switches that can be set to off and on or good and bad, so I'm never going to have an absolute set of rules to abide by.
If these points are inconsistent with what you really want out of this place, I'd suggest that you craft a new community under your rules because there doesn't seem to be much middle ground on what you believe I should do and what I believe is best for the site.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 3:01 PM on July 31, 2002
In regard to thread quality, I like the fact that people can post instantly, and without moderation or editing up front. That's a core feature here that isn't replicated elsewhere. Now low-quality stuff comes through, and people hear about it in metatalk or on the threads themselves, but to take that away promotes me and the minions to editors. For the past three years it has been a flat system, everyone and anyone can post on the front page and they do. It's what sets this place apart from slashdot and all the other other moderated systems, and it's what makes things possible like the first 9/11 post and the seattle earthquake post.
As for comment quality, policing the threads and sending "coal" to people is far too much effort, at too great a risk, with little positive in return. I see it being lots and lots of work sending an email warning everytime something poor is posted, and it has the potential to create a great deal of bad blood between users and administrators. People wouldn't feel comfortable posting their opinions if they were constantly being watched and given warnings. It would go down the path of really creating a sort of "thought police."
As for the question of definitive rules, I've gone over this a million times, and this is one thing that should show up in a MetaFilter FAQ. I try explaining it on the new user page. To introduce hard and fast rules would be completely antiethical to metafilter. There are no black and white rules really, only a very small set of guidelines, and the rest is trust that people will act within those guidelines. All rules are going to be imperfect here, because exceptions need to be allowed for. On top of an imperfect rule base, once rules start stacking up, more need to be constantly added, because anything that is not in the rules would seem to be allowed. People aren't binary switches that can be set to off and on or good and bad, so I'm never going to have an absolute set of rules to abide by.
If these points are inconsistent with what you really want out of this place, I'd suggest that you craft a new community under your rules because there doesn't seem to be much middle ground on what you believe I should do and what I believe is best for the site.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 3:01 PM on July 31, 2002
I have crushes on matthowie, sudama, allaboutgeorge, owillis, xowie and megnut. Is megnut on metafilter?
posted by djacobs at 3:49 PM on July 31, 2002
posted by djacobs at 3:49 PM on July 31, 2002
matt: do it, please. I admire candor generally, but I'm cringing over here.
re: Metafilter, administrators, and What Could Be Done Better-- if more people would adhere to that little voice in their heads--I know you have it, people--that says,
"This isn't a good enough topic for a front page post," or, "Don't submit this comment," we'd be so much better off. Metafilter doesn't need precise rules. MeFites just need to exercise some sort of restraint (I'm not disincluding myself, here).
Just listen to the little voice. The little voice won't steer you wrong.
posted by precocious at 4:00 PM on July 31, 2002
re: Metafilter, administrators, and What Could Be Done Better-- if more people would adhere to that little voice in their heads--I know you have it, people--that says,
"This isn't a good enough topic for a front page post," or, "Don't submit this comment," we'd be so much better off. Metafilter doesn't need precise rules. MeFites just need to exercise some sort of restraint (I'm not disincluding myself, here).
Just listen to the little voice. The little voice won't steer you wrong.
posted by precocious at 4:00 PM on July 31, 2002
Disclaimer: precocious' advice is in no way intended to be taken literally. If you do actually hear voices in your head, please seek professional help.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 4:11 PM on July 31, 2002
posted by mr_crash_davis at 4:11 PM on July 31, 2002
Is it just me, or was Pracowity being sarcastic and nobody caught it? I mean...
If a post can't wait until you finsih your supper and walk the dog and then get around to moderating it, it's probably just another crap Newsfilter "They're alive! They're alive! Thank God, they're alive!" post.
Come on.
posted by nath at 5:28 PM on July 31, 2002
If a post can't wait until you finsih your supper and walk the dog and then get around to moderating it, it's probably just another crap Newsfilter "They're alive! They're alive! Thank God, they're alive!" post.
Come on.
posted by nath at 5:28 PM on July 31, 2002
Miguel: please!! I can't stand the irony :)
"In the end, as Matt has often said, it's all down to discipline and moderation - chattiness as well as bitchiness.....I think it's up to each user to cut down on both....However, most users, I'd say, are happy with MetaFilter as it is. [ my emphasis] - Says who? Why so many threads like this then - if there's no probs. Pangloss, where are you now?!!?
It's difficult to square the above with..."I like the fact that people can post instantly, and without moderation or editing up front. That's a core feature..." [- mathowie.] partly because (I say this in friendship) you like the sound of your own voice.
Each man kills the thing he loves....
Please please please: this place is sick -do we want to push it into ICU?
posted by dash_slot- at 6:43 PM on July 31, 2002
"In the end, as Matt has often said, it's all down to discipline and moderation - chattiness as well as bitchiness.....I think it's up to each user to cut down on both....However, most users, I'd say, are happy with MetaFilter as it is. [ my emphasis] - Says who? Why so many threads like this then - if there's no probs. Pangloss, where are you now?!!?
It's difficult to square the above with..."I like the fact that people can post instantly, and without moderation or editing up front. That's a core feature..." [- mathowie.] partly because (I say this in friendship) you like the sound of your own voice.
Each man kills the thing he loves....
Please please please: this place is sick -do we want to push it into ICU?
posted by dash_slot- at 6:43 PM on July 31, 2002
I'll vote with goneil as well.
Matt is not the biblical god, the god with all the rules and the omicience and the omipotence.
Matt is an enlightenment god, the conception of which is often described at "clockmaker". He's put the universe into motion, but he does not control us. We control us.
posted by zpousman at 6:44 PM on July 31, 2002
Matt is not the biblical god, the god with all the rules and the omicience and the omipotence.
Matt is an enlightenment god, the conception of which is often described at "clockmaker". He's put the universe into motion, but he does not control us. We control us.
posted by zpousman at 6:44 PM on July 31, 2002
OK, that came out a little FUBAR-ed.
Basically, Matt is hoist with his own petard: he allows instant posting - in an open-gate community of 14,000, that allows for a lot of leeway.
Please listen to what people are asking: lay off the self referential, non-essential chat.
posted by dash_slot- at 6:47 PM on July 31, 2002
Basically, Matt is hoist with his own petard: he allows instant posting - in an open-gate community of 14,000, that allows for a lot of leeway.
Please listen to what people are asking: lay off the self referential, non-essential chat.
posted by dash_slot- at 6:47 PM on July 31, 2002
weirdest thread ever.
posted by PrinceValium at 7:09 PM on July 31, 2002
posted by PrinceValium at 7:09 PM on July 31, 2002
I miss the tumbleweed. We don't have any around here.
posted by Darth Vader at 7:28 PM on July 31, 2002
posted by Darth Vader at 7:28 PM on July 31, 2002
Quick, get it back to 130 comments before someone asks too many questions.
posted by PrinceValium at 8:06 PM on July 31, 2002
posted by PrinceValium at 8:06 PM on July 31, 2002
Did... did we hit a wrinkle in time? I'm cold and scared!
posted by y2karl at 8:21 PM on July 31, 2002
posted by y2karl at 8:21 PM on July 31, 2002
Did... did we hit a wrinkle in time? I'm cold and scared!
Umm... wow. Didn't realize my 9 month old comment had risen to the same level as Simpsons quotes re: quotability.
posted by toddshot at 8:38 PM on July 31, 2002
Umm... wow. Didn't realize my 9 month old comment had risen to the same level as Simpsons quotes re: quotability.
posted by toddshot at 8:38 PM on July 31, 2002
Someday, people will build cities around that comment.
Or, at least, a website.
posted by y2karl at 8:41 PM on July 31, 2002
Or, at least, a website.
posted by y2karl at 8:41 PM on July 31, 2002
Is it just me, or did we lose a lot of comments in this thread somehow? I'm almost positive we did...any idea what's up with that?
posted by dejah420 at 9:04 PM on July 31, 2002
posted by dejah420 at 9:04 PM on July 31, 2002
Dejah, Matt offered to delete comments made by one member in particular (and I'm guessing by others that referred to those comments) since they dealt with a very personal issue that, while brave of the poster to come out and admit, could have caused problems later if people decided to do some Google snooping.
And Karl, I sure hope that when those cities get built, I can walk into any diner in them and get free pie.
...you have pie?
posted by toddshot at 9:10 PM on July 31, 2002
And Karl, I sure hope that when those cities get built, I can walk into any diner in them and get free pie.
...you have pie?
posted by toddshot at 9:10 PM on July 31, 2002
I like the fact that people can post instantly, and without moderation or editing up front. That's a core feature here that isn't replicated elsewhere.
Not strictly true. There are other, smaller, older, more specialised places that have similar policies (many of which evolved from mailing lists), although this is almost certainly the largest, and most notorious.
posted by inpHilltr8r at 10:32 PM on July 31, 2002
Not strictly true. There are other, smaller, older, more specialised places that have similar policies (many of which evolved from mailing lists), although this is almost certainly the largest, and most notorious.
posted by inpHilltr8r at 10:32 PM on July 31, 2002
The phrase is actually "cold and frightened" (re: Simpsons).
/hair-splitting
posted by dhoyt at 10:53 PM on July 31, 2002
/hair-splitting
posted by dhoyt at 10:53 PM on July 31, 2002
With no other outlet for their pent-up volubility, the "miguelistas" have spilled forth into the main discussion.
I agree that this is a likelyhood, but question whether or not Matt should be responsible for an outlet. Wouldn't it be more appropriate for the people who want to chat outside the scope of threads to find a place to do so offsite?
posted by cCranium at 7:16 AM on August 1, 2002
I agree that this is a likelyhood, but question whether or not Matt should be responsible for an outlet. Wouldn't it be more appropriate for the people who want to chat outside the scope of threads to find a place to do so offsite?
posted by cCranium at 7:16 AM on August 1, 2002
my dong_resin belongs to Heart.
Well, that's the end of the thread, everybody! Thanks for stopping by!
posted by Shadowkeeper at 12:05 PM on August 1, 2002
Well, that's the end of the thread, everybody! Thanks for stopping by!
posted by Shadowkeeper at 12:05 PM on August 1, 2002
And don't forget to wipe the dong_resin off your donkeyschlong!
posted by y2karl at 8:54 PM on August 1, 2002
posted by y2karl at 8:54 PM on August 1, 2002
You are not logged in, either login or create an account to post comments
posted by dg at 12:31 AM on July 31, 2002