Hypothetical - reposting something deleted for bad form?

August 15, 2005 6:35 AM

Hypothetical scenario: Someone puts up a front page post, but does it in a manner with heavy editorializing / intentionally trolling / etc. The topic is interesting, but it gets removed because of the garbage that came along with it. Someone reposts on the same topic, even with some of the same links, but without the editorializing. Would it be okay? Is there a policy on this?
posted by NotMyselfRightNow to Etiquette/Policy at 6:35 AM (16 comments total)

Hypothetically, that would be *Filtering.
Which in many situations, including vodka prep and posting on this site, is good.
Isn't it?
posted by NinjaPirate at 6:42 AM on August 15, 2005

Hypothetically, I think people would be happy to get a chance to discuss a topic without having to wade through comments from people pissed off that the poster couldn't keep heavy handed editorializing out of an otherwise interesting post.
posted by jessamyn at 9:09 AM on August 15, 2005

It's happened before. In fact, it's probably happened within the last month. I don't feel like looking, though.
posted by Plutor at 9:13 AM on August 15, 2005

More than okay. Recommended, even.
posted by mediareport at 9:18 AM on August 15, 2005

Go ahead... Put it in the MeFi greenhouse and see if it grows...
posted by wendell at 11:56 AM on August 15, 2005

For example, this (which got closed) and this (which didn't), from just last week.
posted by crunchland at 1:21 PM on August 15, 2005

I thought the post implied was this one, which seems to be built around the poster's own argument (and not one contained within the links).
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 2:15 PM on August 15, 2005

I thought the same as EB, and I think that post is stinking up the place. I'd be happy to see someone post about greenhouses and omit the raving bullshit.
posted by languagehat at 3:01 PM on August 15, 2005

Ethereal Bligh and languagehat - That's the one.
posted by NotMyselfRightNow at 3:34 PM on August 15, 2005

it's totally ok--but wait til the first one is deleted.
posted by amberglow at 4:18 PM on August 15, 2005

*Taps foot.*
*Looks at watch.*
*Shakes watch.*
*Looks at watch again. *
posted by timeistight at 4:32 PM on August 15, 2005

I thought the same as EB, and I think that post is stinking up the place. I'd be happy to see someone post about greenhouses and omit the raving bullshit.

Raving, yes. Belongs on the front page, no. Bullshit? As j.p. Hung said:

Would the Isreali's have any problems with 'manipulating' the Palestinian outcome? You'd have to be a total jack-ass to think not.

(I initially thought the "raving bullshit" was a joke, it was so obviously against the rules and not backed up by supporting evidence.)
posted by uncanny hengeman at 6:21 PM on August 15, 2005

Er, unless you meant that front page editorializing is raving bullshit, not the editorializing in this instance was raving bullshit.

Also, I have to take you to task whether three blind mice was "raving" there.
posted by uncanny hengeman at 7:50 PM on August 15, 2005

*Looks at watch again. *

I can't believe that post is still on the front page. What a horrid example.
posted by mediareport at 10:06 PM on August 15, 2005

I think I found a way.
posted by davy at 12:37 AM on August 16, 2005

Someone once linked to a Cringly article, and included a self link in the sublinks. I reposted the main link because it seemed like people wanted to discuss the issue.
posted by delmoi at 7:35 AM on August 16, 2005