Fair is fair. December 3, 2002 10:15 AM Subscribe
Well Ryland, your deleted post concerned a two year old story about a grandma (that was already posted to metafilter when it was news), and it was an op-ed based on what the granny saw.
The Huffington piece, while arguably another op-ed is discussing actual items from a recently passed law.
I see a pretty clear difference between discussing items within a law and someone ruminating on an anectdotal story. I never said all op-eds should be canned. I also see you acting like a jerk trying to heckle the post. It'll stay and you should calm down.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 10:24 AM on December 3, 2002
The Huffington piece, while arguably another op-ed is discussing actual items from a recently passed law.
I see a pretty clear difference between discussing items within a law and someone ruminating on an anectdotal story. I never said all op-eds should be canned. I also see you acting like a jerk trying to heckle the post. It'll stay and you should calm down.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 10:24 AM on December 3, 2002
God Matt, I love the way you sugar coat things! :) Makes me feel all warm inside. (Well put, BTW.)
posted by aacheson at 10:33 AM on December 3, 2002
posted by aacheson at 10:33 AM on December 3, 2002
RylandDotNet: "Dear Matt, I like this link and I think some intelligent debate can ensue. I'm even contributing to the thread.
Please delete it."
posted by y6y6y6 at 10:36 AM on December 3, 2002
Please delete it."
posted by y6y6y6 at 10:36 AM on December 3, 2002
Fair?
Fair?
Please.
Nobody ever said Metafilter was supposed to be, was going to be, had to be, or ever was, fair. Posts and threads and links all have their advocates. We are all guests here. Try to be gracious.
Fair.
posted by websavvy at 11:18 AM on December 3, 2002
Fair?
Please.
Nobody ever said Metafilter was supposed to be, was going to be, had to be, or ever was, fair. Posts and threads and links all have their advocates. We are all guests here. Try to be gracious.
Fair.
posted by websavvy at 11:18 AM on December 3, 2002
My point (which I made poorly, granted) is that I don't think either thread should be/have been deleted.
If the thread I posted was deleted because it was a repost, that's one thing, but it was stated that the deletion was because it was an op-ed piece, and the comments weren't enlightening, which is another.
It beats me why one op-ed piece is better than another, or a link to a Flash movie or a news article is better than an op-ed. It also beats me why a thread is deleted for the quality of the comments it gets. Some threads work, some don't.
*sigh* I apologize for getting worked up... I forgot that it's all just ones and zeroes.
posted by RylandDotNet at 11:29 AM on December 3, 2002
If the thread I posted was deleted because it was a repost, that's one thing, but it was stated that the deletion was because it was an op-ed piece, and the comments weren't enlightening, which is another.
It beats me why one op-ed piece is better than another, or a link to a Flash movie or a news article is better than an op-ed. It also beats me why a thread is deleted for the quality of the comments it gets. Some threads work, some don't.
*sigh* I apologize for getting worked up... I forgot that it's all just ones and zeroes.
posted by RylandDotNet at 11:29 AM on December 3, 2002
Well, this isn't a news site and if you don't like the fact that your thread got deleted, then start your own site. Threads get deleted, repost or not. It's a fact of real Mefi life. But pouncing on other threads because your's got canned, is just childish.
Op-Eds are even in the FAQ. But I think this also relates to the Politics FAQ too.
posted by mkelley at 12:03 PM on December 3, 2002
Op-Eds are even in the FAQ. But I think this also relates to the Politics FAQ too.
posted by mkelley at 12:03 PM on December 3, 2002
I'm totally with Ryland on the op-ed argument. How is it that a CNN news article gets nixed, or an op-ed from the NY Times, but a Salon op-ed piece gets carte blanche. What happened to all the bitching about newsfilter and politicsfilter, this clearly falls under those categories. Salon is a very widely read news and opinion magazine (the site claims 2.7 million unique viewers and 140 million hits a month) I read it I often find it enlightening, I don't think this article was outside the "interesting" realm, but pulling an op-ed off of a site like that is hardly what I've been lead to believe was the basis for this site. It doesn't seem to even fit with what the FAQ or the "About MeFi" have to say about what is ideal. Maybe I'm wrong, maybe I'm way off base because I'm new and don't have a fucking clue, but I want to know so that I A) don't post shite and B) don't get ass reamed when I say I agree with someone else's opinion about a post. I'm very confused here, especially after the last couple months worth of constant bitching I've read on the MeTa side about these very things.
posted by Pollomacho at 12:16 PM on December 3, 2002
posted by Pollomacho at 12:16 PM on December 3, 2002
Is it so unbelievable that the person who runs this site may break his own guidelines, or moderate with inconsistency or bias?
Imagine building an online community, and putting tons of time, money and effort into it. It gets bigger, and guidelines are needed. You administer the site the way you want, because it's your site. You generally follow the guidelines, because you wrote them. But eventually, the site gets to be so trafficked that a significant amount of energy is expended in explaining yourself to people who want you to follow the guidelines as they understand them, or request clarification, or wish to appeal the process, or say "it ain't fair".
If I were in those shoes, I'd start hating what I had created, because that kind of stuff sucks the fun out of the site. We're not lawyers, and what's going on here really isn't that important. If it seems really important that Matt isn't being fair, or is being inconsistent, or doesn't follow the guidelines that he came up with, you might want to take a short break from the site.
Metafilter worked just fine before I came along. It probably worked fine before you came along, too. Matt doesn't need me (or you) to explain how he's doing it wrong.
posted by websavvy at 1:29 PM on December 3, 2002
Imagine building an online community, and putting tons of time, money and effort into it. It gets bigger, and guidelines are needed. You administer the site the way you want, because it's your site. You generally follow the guidelines, because you wrote them. But eventually, the site gets to be so trafficked that a significant amount of energy is expended in explaining yourself to people who want you to follow the guidelines as they understand them, or request clarification, or wish to appeal the process, or say "it ain't fair".
If I were in those shoes, I'd start hating what I had created, because that kind of stuff sucks the fun out of the site. We're not lawyers, and what's going on here really isn't that important. If it seems really important that Matt isn't being fair, or is being inconsistent, or doesn't follow the guidelines that he came up with, you might want to take a short break from the site.
Metafilter worked just fine before I came along. It probably worked fine before you came along, too. Matt doesn't need me (or you) to explain how he's doing it wrong.
posted by websavvy at 1:29 PM on December 3, 2002
I'll admit I'm super busy with other things today, and didn't read every word of both linked articles. If you see any inconsistency, it's probably because on first glance the op-ed about granny seemed pretty over the top partisan stuff about someone's anectdotal evidence, and on first glance the huffington piece looks a bit more serious, and at least it concerns an actual law. I gave it a 10 second glance, so it may be just more partisan bullshit that I didn't glean on quick review.
I make mistakes, but I think I've been pretty damn consistent over the past three years, with only a handful of poor judgements while watching 22 thousand threads and 300 thousand comments.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 1:57 PM on December 3, 2002
I make mistakes, but I think I've been pretty damn consistent over the past three years, with only a handful of poor judgements while watching 22 thousand threads and 300 thousand comments.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 1:57 PM on December 3, 2002
A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds.
posted by timeistight at 2:06 PM on December 3, 2002
posted by timeistight at 2:06 PM on December 3, 2002
twentytwothousand? whoha boy, what impressive numbers you have there. :)
posted by dabitch at 2:24 PM on December 3, 2002
posted by dabitch at 2:24 PM on December 3, 2002
I'm not complaining that one particular post slips through or that Matt is doing a shoddy job, yes, websavvy, I'm sure it did run just fine "back in the day" and it runs pretty damn well now. That has no bearing on what the hell is supposed to make a good post and what is not. I've read the bitching, the suggestions, the guidelines, the FAQ, the this and the that, I'm still confused, I will be for a long time, I'm sure, I think I'm going to play the Drunken Santa game for a while. Has anyone seen my glasses?
posted by Pollomacho at 2:32 PM on December 3, 2002
posted by Pollomacho at 2:32 PM on December 3, 2002
I blieve that the text of Granny D's Op-Ed is timely because of Daschle's and Gore's recent statements decrying talk radio as apart of the conservative echo-chamber of white house spin. The text may have been written two years ago, but the points are particularly salient for today's news.
posted by deanc at 2:59 PM on December 3, 2002
posted by deanc at 2:59 PM on December 3, 2002
"I've read the bitching, the suggestions, the guidelines, the FAQ, the this and the that, I'm still confused"
Me too. That's the way it works. Sad but true.
(just guessing here) It's herding cats. It's defining what "is" is. It's getting 3000 snarky bastard strangers to play nice together without imposing rigid rules. Is that what you want? Rigid rules?
"There will be no op-ed links of any kind ever."
Ick. That doesn't sound good.
"We don't do op-ed links well. Please use moderation. Please."
I like that better. Plenty of room for confusion, but maybe that's a good thing sometimes. Yes?
posted by y6y6y6 at 3:00 PM on December 3, 2002
Me too. That's the way it works. Sad but true.
(just guessing here) It's herding cats. It's defining what "is" is. It's getting 3000 snarky bastard strangers to play nice together without imposing rigid rules. Is that what you want? Rigid rules?
"There will be no op-ed links of any kind ever."
Ick. That doesn't sound good.
"We don't do op-ed links well. Please use moderation. Please."
I like that better. Plenty of room for confusion, but maybe that's a good thing sometimes. Yes?
posted by y6y6y6 at 3:00 PM on December 3, 2002
as many as me ?
posted by sgt.serenity at 5:13 PM on December 3, 2002
posted by sgt.serenity at 5:13 PM on December 3, 2002
you can have charm school vouchers.
posted by sgt.serenity at 5:29 PM on December 3, 2002
posted by sgt.serenity at 5:29 PM on December 3, 2002
right, thats it !
posted by sgt.serenity at 5:30 PM on December 3, 2002
posted by sgt.serenity at 5:30 PM on December 3, 2002
What, ponies aren't good enough for you people anymore? Jeez...
posted by me3dia at 7:16 PM on December 3, 2002
posted by me3dia at 7:16 PM on December 3, 2002
Well then, what about a balloon hat in the shape of a pony! A pony wearing a big fucking medal and eating pancakes while being ridden by a pastel-suit-wearing jackal.
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 7:37 PM on December 3, 2002
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 7:37 PM on December 3, 2002
I say flush all rules and let Matt do what he wants. If he doesn't like a link, out it goes. If he does like a link, who cares that it came from Drudge Report?
Meanwhile people can take up a collection and set up Whinefilter. If they must...
posted by konolia at 9:34 PM on December 3, 2002
Meanwhile people can take up a collection and set up Whinefilter. If they must...
posted by konolia at 9:34 PM on December 3, 2002
er, hogoblin
Well, hopefully, that's the last time I cut and paste without reading closely...
emphasis on hopefully
posted by y2karl at 12:23 AM on December 4, 2002
Well, hopefully, that's the last time I cut and paste without reading closely...
emphasis on hopefully
posted by y2karl at 12:23 AM on December 4, 2002
"A foolish hogboglin is consistency"
hahahaha thats a classic.
posted by sgt.serenity at 2:30 AM on December 4, 2002
hahahaha thats a classic.
posted by sgt.serenity at 2:30 AM on December 4, 2002
Any post that tells mathowie "you better" is just asking for trouble.
posted by adampsyche at 6:00 AM on December 4, 2002
posted by adampsyche at 6:00 AM on December 4, 2002
er, hogoblin
Them goblin ho's is bad news. You want it good, get yourself a hobbit.
or a ho' bit. or something.
posted by jonmc at 6:17 AM on December 4, 2002
Them goblin ho's is bad news. You want it good, get yourself a hobbit.
or a ho' bit. or something.
posted by jonmc at 6:17 AM on December 4, 2002
Is that what you want? Rigid rules?
Yes, rigid, stringent rules. I want jackboots and a little squad of snarkers going around derailing all the threads and telling people their business. I want people screaming for the heads of those that act strange or deviate in any way from the rigid, stringent rules. I want blood damnit!
No, silly, I just want guidelines that guide me. I don't like it when I get my ass kicked, its just my personal opinion, some folks might be into that sort of thing, not that there's anything wrong with that, but I want to not get my ass kicked, can you please help me not get my ass kicked? A little flaming is fine, I can handle that, a little back and forth is fine, but I see it all the time where some guy gets the living crap kicked out of him (or her, to be fair) for having an opinion, makes me nervous to have one! Surely that's not good is it?
(Yes, yes, I know, I'm a snarker too, but certainly I'm not kicking any asses out there!)
posted by Pollomacho at 7:45 AM on December 4, 2002
Yes, rigid, stringent rules. I want jackboots and a little squad of snarkers going around derailing all the threads and telling people their business. I want people screaming for the heads of those that act strange or deviate in any way from the rigid, stringent rules. I want blood damnit!
No, silly, I just want guidelines that guide me. I don't like it when I get my ass kicked, its just my personal opinion, some folks might be into that sort of thing, not that there's anything wrong with that, but I want to not get my ass kicked, can you please help me not get my ass kicked? A little flaming is fine, I can handle that, a little back and forth is fine, but I see it all the time where some guy gets the living crap kicked out of him (or her, to be fair) for having an opinion, makes me nervous to have one! Surely that's not good is it?
(Yes, yes, I know, I'm a snarker too, but certainly I'm not kicking any asses out there!)
posted by Pollomacho at 7:45 AM on December 4, 2002
The balloon hats are not funny. They're whimsical. Read the post, people!
posted by iconomy at 8:09 AM on December 4, 2002
posted by iconomy at 8:09 AM on December 4, 2002
Won't somebody PLEASE think of the children?
posted by Pollomacho at 8:09 AM on December 4, 2002
posted by Pollomacho at 8:09 AM on December 4, 2002
Pollomacho: You can't make hats out of children silly.
posted by blue_beetle at 9:09 AM on December 4, 2002
posted by blue_beetle at 9:09 AM on December 4, 2002
When I think of the children it is generally a wish that they would quit screeching in public.
But then they grow up and post in metatalk.
posted by konolia at 10:13 AM on December 4, 2002
But then they grow up and post in metatalk.
posted by konolia at 10:13 AM on December 4, 2002
Since it's clear by this point that even the most wise and benevolent deletion policies will leave everyone pissy, why not just set up a routine in the MeFi code to kill posts at random? Put the fear o' God in 'em.
In fact, why not take it further? Not only could this save Matt the trouble of policing this place, it could be programmed to automate the "why did my post get deleted thread" in MetaTalk as well. By randomly choosing users (perhaps weighted for frequency-of-posting) and choosing from a list of stock phrases ('Get your own blog, fuckwit!' 'I like pancakes.' etc.), we could save ourselves the trouble of posting to these threads as well.
posted by IshmaelGraves at 10:26 AM on December 4, 2002
In fact, why not take it further? Not only could this save Matt the trouble of policing this place, it could be programmed to automate the "why did my post get deleted thread" in MetaTalk as well. By randomly choosing users (perhaps weighted for frequency-of-posting) and choosing from a list of stock phrases ('Get your own blog, fuckwit!' 'I like pancakes.' etc.), we could save ourselves the trouble of posting to these threads as well.
posted by IshmaelGraves at 10:26 AM on December 4, 2002
While we're at it, we could easily cook up a script that detects any of the words "Israel," "Iraq," "Bush," "civil liberties," "Godwin," "terrorist," "Chomsky" or "overweight;" and automatically populates the remainder of the thread with randomly-selected comments culled from earlier threads on the same subject (weighted to ensure inclusion of at least one *yawn*, two references to pancakes and/or vibration and/or overlords, and one hefty chunk of legalese inaccurately cited via google by a non-lawyer.) Then it could automatically delete the thread and begin the MeTa automation described by IshmaelGraves.
posted by ook at 10:55 AM on December 4, 2002
posted by ook at 10:55 AM on December 4, 2002
And an automated double-post callout, which fills randomly-selected threads with three parts "Double!" to one part "It's not a double, *I* hadn't seen it before." Then it deletes the thread and begins the MeTa automation described by IshmaelGraves.
posted by ook at 10:56 AM on December 4, 2002
posted by ook at 10:56 AM on December 4, 2002
In fact, we could automate all of MetaTalk; simply fill each and every thread with one or more of the following:
* It's Matt's site; he makes the rules
* We're self-policing; we make the rules
* It's just a website; there are no rules
* It's just a website; get a life, you dork
* Try deleting your cookies; that should fix it
* Pancakes
posted by ook at 11:02 AM on December 4, 2002
* It's Matt's site; he makes the rules
* We're self-policing; we make the rules
* It's just a website; there are no rules
* It's just a website; get a life, you dork
* Try deleting your cookies; that should fix it
* Pancakes
posted by ook at 11:02 AM on December 4, 2002
I'm going on vacation next week. I think I need one.
::apologizes; ceases venting::
posted by ook at 11:04 AM on December 4, 2002
::apologizes; ceases venting::
posted by ook at 11:04 AM on December 4, 2002
You can't make hats out of children silly.
one can, however, make perfectly fine hats of silly children.
posted by quonsar at 12:46 PM on December 4, 2002
one can, however, make perfectly fine hats of silly children.
posted by quonsar at 12:46 PM on December 4, 2002
Took my truck to the shop the other day and I noticed this sign: Labor: $20/hour...You watching: $30/hour...you helping: $50/hour. That idea would work here. Deleted post: wait 24 hours...Ask why: wait one week...Snivvel about it: your user id # will be sold on Ebay.
posted by Mack Twain at 2:06 PM on December 4, 2002
posted by Mack Twain at 2:06 PM on December 4, 2002
or a ho' bit. or something.
I read they were up to two bits now in some parts of the country.
posted by rushmc at 3:38 PM on December 4, 2002
I read they were up to two bits now in some parts of the country.
posted by rushmc at 3:38 PM on December 4, 2002
I make mistakes, but I think I've been pretty damn consistent over the past three years, with only a handful of poor judgements while watching 22 thousand threads and 300 thousand comments.
Actually, the thought that you ever should have to explain yourself at all is ridiculous. How can you make a mistake - you're running this for us - and can damn well run it with complete, totally arbitrary inconsistancy, and you still wouldn't be making a mistake.
As it is, you are remarkably consistant ... and anyone that bothers to read MeFi for even a month prior to posting, and then thinks for even a couple of seconds before putting up an FPP, never need have one deleted. I'm amazed that almost every time come to MeTa, someone is claiming not to be clear about an FPP that got deleted. Jesus ... is it really that hard to figure out?
posted by MidasMulligan at 7:33 PM on December 4, 2002
Actually, the thought that you ever should have to explain yourself at all is ridiculous. How can you make a mistake - you're running this for us - and can damn well run it with complete, totally arbitrary inconsistancy, and you still wouldn't be making a mistake.
As it is, you are remarkably consistant ... and anyone that bothers to read MeFi for even a month prior to posting, and then thinks for even a couple of seconds before putting up an FPP, never need have one deleted. I'm amazed that almost every time come to MeTa, someone is claiming not to be clear about an FPP that got deleted. Jesus ... is it really that hard to figure out?
posted by MidasMulligan at 7:33 PM on December 4, 2002
You are not logged in, either login or create an account to post comments
posted by PinkStainlessTail at 10:17 AM on December 3, 2002