Does this need to be moderated? March 13, 2001 8:00 AM   Subscribe

Man, them's fighting words. In Matt's words, we're all in this together and we're self-policing. Does any policing need to go on in these threads or similar instances?

this is not a personal shot at aaron, although he is involved in both altercations.

i think we should take more care to limit our disparaging personal comments. what do you think?
posted by Sean Meade to Etiquette/Policy at 8:00 AM (23 comments total)

The whole thread is out of line. Among other things, it violates the most sacred MeFi principle:

"Make sure you're linking to something on the web. If you're posting a generalized question to the audience, or posting a comment as a main thread, either find an appropriate mailing list, or use MetaTalk."

That this post has generated a lively discussion is irrelevant. MeFi's front page should be -- must be -- free from "What I think" posts. If it's not, it's no longer a community weblog; it becomes a collection of personal weblogs fighting to be on top.

Aaron, Blogger and Blogvoices are wonderful tools. Use them. Love them.
posted by luke at 8:17 AM on March 13, 2001


I'd further point out that, if he weren't knocking back the nachos and Shiner Bock down in Austin, Matt surely would have deleted this post long ago. No fair breaking the rules when the ruler is on vacation.
posted by luke at 8:20 AM on March 13, 2001


The thread is not out of line, IMHO. It contains no fewer than six "links to something on the web." That they're all at the top of the inside page is because I didn't want to dump a multi-paragraph post on the front page.

And I didn't have a clue that Matt was anywhere besides home until you brought it up just now. Some people might not like to believe it, but the reality is that the world does not revolve around SXSW.

I suppose we can debate the meaning of "posting a generalized question to the audience," but I wouldn't have much trouble arguing that a good 1/3 to 1/2 of all front page posts fall into that area to one extent or another.

Regarding personal attacks: While there may be some vague statement floating around somewhere that personal attacks on MeFi are not condoned, they are unquestionably not disallowed. I don't recall ever seeing anyone given any sort of meaningful warning given, or action taken, as a result of any personal attack ever made on MeFi. And the attacks occur regularly.

By the way, the definition of personal attack: " is ." Making a comment about someone not here, or some group, is not a personal attack, no matter how nasty the words may be. If you see one of the latter that you don't like, you may not use it as an excuse to launch one of the former.

You want to not cause a personal attack flak? Don't post a personal attack. But if someone does it here, on a system where the only possible action taken would be for others to put peer pressure on the person to retract it (and that practically never happens), then the attackee has every right to fight back, IMHO.

And that's all I have to say on the matter, unless this turns into a general discussion of the issues. If it turns into a discussion about me and fat asses, then I'm done and believe it's time to move on . Have a nice day.
posted by aaron at 8:48 AM on March 13, 2001



Dang left tags. Top of 5th graf should read 'By the way, the definition of personal attack: "(name of MeFi member) is (insert disparagement here)."'
posted by aaron at 8:49 AM on March 13, 2001


I didn't want to dump a multi-paragraph post on the front page.

But you did anyhow.

I suppose we can debate the meaning of "posting a generalized question to the audience," but I wouldn't have much trouble arguing that a good 1/3 to 1/2 of all front page posts fall into that area to one extent or another.

I wouldn't have trouble either. It's also why I hardly visit MeFi these days.
posted by luke at 9:21 AM on March 13, 2001


technically, aaron, no one has mentioned personal attacks. i wrote 'disparaging personal comments'. the basic gist is the same, but i won't agree that the only thing we're talking about here is 'blank is blank' statements.

Making a comment about someone not here, or some group, is not a personal attack, no matter how nasty the words may be. If you see one of the latter that you don't like, you may not use it as an excuse to launch one of the former.

while i agree that people shouldn't launch personal attacks because someone used 'nasty words', 'nasty words' often precipitate such attacks.

aaron, you're 'fat ass' post is a good example. such a comment is bound to draw flames. is that what you want? is that what we want?

i think we could keep the discourse level higher by self-consciously limiting our 'nasty words'. what do y'all think?

You want to not cause a personal attack flak? Don't post a personal attack. But if someone does it here, on a system where the only possible action taken would be for others to put peer pressure on the person to retract it (and that practically never happens), then the attackee has every right to fight back, IMHO.

i think more of us, especially those of us who are regulars, should utilize such pressure. also, i think when we are attacked, we should utilize a little restraint. usually it's more desirable to respond dispassionately, pointing out the other person's error. surely many more people will be won to your side.
posted by Sean Meade at 9:26 AM on March 13, 2001


But if someone does it here, on a system where the only possible action taken would be for others to put peer pressure on the person to retract it (and that practically never happens), then the attackee has every right to fight back, IMHO.

Personally, I think you would have done yourself (and MetaFilter) a lot of good by not responding to the personal attack publicly.
posted by rcade at 10:18 AM on March 13, 2001


I personally found the slap fight between Optamystic and aaron to be pointless and out of place. I think the only reason they kept it public is that they were fishing for support. I don't think that type of thing has a place here.

"You're a stupidhead!"
"No, YOU'RE a stupidhead!"

Thanks guys. Real cool.

Maybe you could both just shake hands and apologize?
posted by y6y6y6 at 11:39 AM on March 13, 2001


The whole thread should be deleted. Matt deleted one quite like it — a link referencing a previous thread — a few weeks ago.

This is a weblog with discussion capability, not, strictly, a bulletin board system. If posting opinion pieces to spark discussions is your thing, I suggest Kuro5hin.
posted by capt.crackpipe at 12:14 PM on March 13, 2001


I liked the post, and I thought that the majority of the thread's discussion was quite good. In fact, I remember reading it and saying "Well, this is somewhat out of bounds, but it's aaron, he'll have an explanation I'll buy" and he did, and I did.

Though capt.crackpipe makes a good point. MeFi is a community weblog, so that kind of discussion-starting post is probably outside the theoretical "mission statement."

I don't think aaron should be slapped down for pushing the boundaries. We have to figure out what works here and what doesn't.

There's some pretty interesting stuff to read in that thread, too. It gets obscured by the heat, which is unfortunate.

The argument, well, arguments suck, and I'm reasonably certain neither aaron nor Optamystic feel especially proud of the fact that they've gotten sucked into it.

I personally don't care if you both shake hands and apologise - though it'd be nice - but from this point on, why don't you either drop the argument (if either of you can) or finish it offsite?

All that being said also, aaron, every couple of weeks I instinctively click on your alias to find your personal site, and am repeatedly disappointed to find you don't have one you publicise here.

Yes, I'm especially slow.
posted by cCranium at 12:53 PM on March 13, 2001


Oh, man. Quite a little storm, eh? Well, let me take a shot at clarification. My reaction in the latter thread was in direct proportion to my surprise at its existence at all. It seemed to me that aaron took a silly little slapfight that he and I were having in the comment area of a half-forgotten thread, and turned into a main page link. In the process, he editorialized about my statement, and pretty much removed all context from the point that I was trying to make to him. He also put words directly into my mouth.

I think the only reason they kept it public is that they were fishing for support

Well, I responded to what I saw to be an inappropriate attack, in the forum in which the attack took place. I then suggested that further comments take place in a more appropriate forum. Looking back, I may have phrased my reaction too strongly, but I really don't think so. I think that I accurately conveyed my sentiments. Sometimes, strong language is called for. I thought that this was one of those times.

All of that said, I'd hate to think that I had a hand in bumming anyone's "MeFi Buzz". If I did that, then I apologize without reservation. For my part, it was all done in the spirit of heated debate, and as far as I'm concerned, aaron and I are cool. So I beg the indulgence of anyone who was annoyed by my words. I'll reach for the "Post" button a little more slowly next time.
posted by Optamystic at 2:07 PM on March 13, 2001


All that being said also, aaron, every couple of weeks I instinctively click on your alias to find your personal site, and am repeatedly disappointed to find you don't have one you publicise here.

It's not that I'm not publicizing my site; I really don't have one. I wish I did. I do keep a little Note Pad file open whenever I'm online, constantly jotting down links, ideas, etc, that pop into my head, so that I'll have them on hand to post onto my web site that I'm definitely going to put together this time, Real Soon Now. But I never do. Why? Because I can't design. This isn't 1993 any more; no longer can you just put up an all-text page that has bulleted lists as its main design element. People take one look at it, decide the design is totally lame (and thus the words must suck too) and go somewhere else. And unfortunately, bulleted lists are about the extent of my design abilities.

Which really pisses me off, BTW. I love love love graphic design, and sometimes spend hours just taking a particular design apart in my own mind. I'm one of those nuts that actually considers paying $28 for a single issue of a design magazine whenever I go to a newsstand. I'd probably make a career in graphic design if I had a single iota of talent in that area, which I don't.

And I don't think I've ever visited a single MeFite's site that I didn't find very impressively designed in one way or another. I could never come close to even the lamest of any of those designs. I just can't compete in that area. I like to think my words would be better than most of theirs, but I'm convinced that words are only 50% of the game these days, maximum, and they're the second 50% that people look at. It's like a woman at a party. The big fat guy in the corner may well be the most interesting guy there, might even turn out to be the best mate she could ever hope to meet in her life. But she's never going to go over there and find out if that's the case, not as long as there are 50 other guys in the room, all of whom are way hotter-looking. Even if every last one of them turned out to be a misogynistic physical abuser.

This is probably one of the reasons I'd so much like to run a MeFi-related mailing list. In email, nothing matters but the words.

So, that's why there's no aaron blog. If I can ever figure out a way to bang out a web page design that I didn't find personally embarrassing, it'll happen. But I have no idea if I'll ever be able to pull that off.

But you did [dump a multi-graph post on the front page] anyhow.

If you're referring to that nasty, horrible, evil line break I put into the front page link at the very last moment because I thought it made it flow better, fine, guilty as charged. Compared to the length of the actual post inside, I thought I was doing the right thing. And I'll note that there are currently no fewer than EIGHTEEN posts on the front page that consist of more than one paragraph, none of which has caused the slightest peep of complaint.

It's also why I hardly visit MeFi these days.

I'll say the same thing I always say: Go take a good hard look at the archives. There's not much difference between the posts from the days of 200 members and those of today's 4500+ members. The "good ol' days" largely didn't exist.

technically, aaron, no one has mentioned personal attacks. i wrote 'disparaging personal comments'.

I really don't see the difference in these terms. You either are lobbing a disparaging personal remark at a specific MeFi user or not.

while i agree that people shouldn't launch personal attacks because someone used 'nasty words', 'nasty words' often precipitate such attacks.

Yes, they do. And unfortunately, most peoples' definition of "nasty words" is far too broad. I have seen numerous people on here define "nasty words" as "anything I don't agree with said in a way I consider to be too strong." The way people have treated Bondcliff comes to mind. At least twice, there has been a multiple-user personal-attack pileon of Bondcliff for no reason other than that he had strong opinions on certain political issues that he made in a somewhat boorish manner. In other words, people thought he was fair game because he didn't give them what they arbitrarily considered to be the proper level of "respect." This is why we should not ever allow mere "nasty words" to be considered a legitimate excuse to launch personal attacks.

aaron, you're 'fat ass' post is a good example. such a comment is bound to draw flames. is that what you want? is that what we want?

In all honesty, it was just a throwaway joke, made with no intent to cause any sort of anguish to anyone here whatsoever. In fact, I was completely taken aback when I first saw the responses it was getting. I tossed it in for no other reason than the one I already gave in the thread: We're dealing with people who make their living by shoving their physical appearance in other peoples' faces, who get cash not only for being ::cough:: supposedly-superior genetic specimens than the rest of us, but for openly flaunting it. As far as I'm concerned, that's as wrong as picking one race as being better than another, or more appealing to look at. And one should take every opportunity to call them on it. (Going a little deeper: It is quite acceptable to comment on the work someone does. If I read an article and think the writing stunk, there's nothing wrong with me saying I don't think that person is a very good writer. (Saying "that writer's a moron" would not be okay.) If I think you did a bad job sweeping the floors, I can make that comment. So why shouldn't I be able to say to someone whose "job" is selling her body's so-called physical superiorty, "Guess what, hon? You aren't all that great!" Maybe if everyone did that, the media would stop serving up that slop to us 24/7.)

i think we could keep the discourse level higher by self-consciously limiting our 'nasty words'. what do y'all think?

I don't think anyone will ever agree on where the boundary is between okay speech and "nasty words." And given that, the only real solution is to make it completely unacceptable to personally disparage another person here just for saying something you didn't like.

i think when we are attacked, we should utilize a little restraint. usually it's more desirable to respond dispassionately, pointing out the other person's error. surely many more people will be won to your side.

I tried to utilize a little restraint. Rogers has brought the same idea up with me before (and indeed, he notes it again above). So when it started, I went off and did something else for a few minutes, to let my annoyance settle. When I went back, all I found were yet more attacks piling up from more people. I decided that the thread had been completely derailed, and it was going to continue on as nothing but a "let's piss on someone" pileup unless I did something to derail the derailment. So I did. (Like I said, there is usually no peer pressure applied on MeFi to stop these personal attack pileons when they occur. Everyone either just lets it ride or else joins in the "fun." As a result, IMHO, you end up not winning people over to your side by being quiet; you just make yourself look like an easy target and end up getting even more crap. If there were such pressure, it would have been much easier to let it go.)

I don't think aaron should be slapped down for pushing the boundaries.

Thank you. But I swear I wasn't trying to push any boundaries. It never occurred to me, not even for a second, that the post was somehow bending the rules. I thought it was a something worth talking about, so I posted it. That's it. In fact, I try never to intentionally do something here that I think would cause any sort of problem, because anyone that does stuff like that invariably ends up getting the armchair psychologist treatment in MetaTalk for the next three days, and I hate being subjected to that.

Optamystic: As far as I'm concerned, we're cool too. I promise I didn't put the fat ass stuff into my new post to piss you off. (I admit I was somewhat personally amused to find it fit so well into what I was trying to say...) I was going down the front page looking for all the posts that I thought had to do with the point I was trying to make, and linked them in, writing the commentary off the top of my head. I DO think I had a point in the way I framed it, but it wasn't done with the intent of continuing the pissing match. I'm sorry if it came off that way.
posted by aaron at 5:19 PM on March 13, 2001



I tried to utilize a little restraint. Rogers has brought the same idea up with me before (and indeed, he notes it again above). ... As a result, IMHO, you end up not winning people over to your side by being quiet; you just make yourself look like an easy target and end up getting even more crap.

I think you were justified in responding the way you did, but you would be pleasantly surprised at how much easier it is to respond by e-mail and never post publicly on it.

I used to get very alpha male about this kind of stuff in public forums, letting things get very personal very fast. I lost my enthusiasm for it when I got into a flamewar in a Usenet programming group frequented by some people I wanted to work for. As one of them made clear to me, people never care who started a pissing match -- it just makes all of the combatants look bad.

Also, discussing something in e-mail usually takes the animosity right out of the situation.

posted by rcade at 6:28 PM on March 13, 2001


There's not much difference between the posts from the days of 200 members and those of today's 4500+ members. The "good ol' days" largely didn't exist.

Horsefeathers.

I blindly chose Feb. 1 to compare. They turned out to be pretty typical of how I see the current state of MeFi and how I remember MeFi ... back when it was (sigh) "good."

Feb. 1, 2000: Five posts, 16 comments. Two vaguely related to politics, two pertaining to new tech products, and one pointing out an interesting site.

One could take the time to read each new post. There was a high standard of postworthiness (though the political fail this standard, IMHO).

No flames. No tedious, predictable arguments. No hurt feelings. No double posts. No trolls. No name calling. No need for Metatalk. No "What I think" posts. No personal essays disguised as posts. No double posts. No swearing. No asses, fat or slender. No clever "guess what this post is about" posts. No multiple posts from the same user. No via-rrhea.

Ahhhhh ... the good ol' days.

Feb. 1, 2001: 18 posts, 413 comments. Three about blogs, two about Dubya, seven about current events or "wacky" news, four about technology, and two pointing out interesting sites. Amazingly, only one outbreak of via-rrhea.

I'm not about to deconstruct the discussions, but for me, they're insufferable. Fortunately, there's an elegant solution for me: I choose not to suffer them.

If I can ever figure out a way to bang out a web page design that I didn't find personally embarrassing, it'll happen.

If only everyone had such restraint. But does Blogger no longer offer templates? Besides, if your content is worth a lick, you will develop an audience, no matter how minimal the design. Indeed, are we not all sick of blogs that look slick but have nothing to say? I certainly am.
posted by luke at 9:36 PM on March 13, 2001


Besides, if your content is worth a lick, you will develop an audience, no matter how minimal the design.

And that's why H. L. Menken's The Smart Set is still published, widely read and loved today! It depends on what one means by "an audience," I suppose, but I have a feeling there are plenty of well-written sites that haven't developed much of one. The Web is a big place, and who knows how many good sites languish in obscurity? It's rather hard to know about the sites you don't know about, ipso facto. However, as you already have an audience, Aaron, thanks to the magic of Metafilter, I bet your website would get plenty of love and attention, too.

Meanwhile, as I've already said elsewhere, I like the idea of a Metafilter mailing list, so don't let me discourage you.

posted by redfoxtail at 6:16 AM on March 14, 2001


and, aaron, just incase it needs saying, i think we're cool, too.
posted by Sean Meade at 8:14 AM on March 14, 2001


a selection of plain websites I visit for content over style:

Hack the Planet
flutterby
Girlhacker's Random log
my page (when using NN4.x :-)

Also, aaron, you could start your own mailing list on your site without having to worry about various MeFi social issues (accusatory elitism comments and associated cruft)
posted by cCranium at 9:27 AM on March 14, 2001


For simple design & interesting content, check out cruel.com . I cited it yesterday before realizing it was rcade's page. My copy of Wired showed up today and there he is on page 70, with a blurb about the site. 13,000 hits a day. Not bad.
posted by gimli at 1:45 PM on March 14, 2001


I just got back, and I tend to agree with a lot of the things I'm hearing from luke and rogers.

I'm *this* close to changing the front-page posting, so that I have to approve everything that goes through.

This would be done in an effort to:
- eradicate double posts or topics discussed recently
- prevent trolls and baiting.
- prevent posts of "what if" scenarios, open-ended debates that back reference previous posts or just shoot the breeze about a topic.
- encourage posts that spark discussion or link to interesting things.

I'll post something lengthy about it tonight, when I've recovered from the last week of travel, but just so everyone knows, I'm not very happy with the state of affairs at metafilter (and judging from my inbox and other metatalk threads bursting with complaints and pleas for my intervention, it's not just me).
posted by mathowie (staff) at 2:16 PM on March 14, 2001


As someone who ran mailing lists for about six years, the quietest of which was about as active as the average day here, I gotta tell ya, Matt: If you turn this into a moderated site for reasons even partially based on a desire to cut down on the number of complaints you have to deal with, you're probably going to regret it, as it's going to increase the number of complaints here and in your inbox rather than decrease them. If you think you've got problems now, you just wait until you have your users questioning your rationale on every single front-page post you allow through. Worse, wait until your users start wondering if your choices are based on your own personal like or dislike of a given person. Or if your decisions on which posts constitute trolling or baiting look even a little bit like they're influenced by your own prejudices and political beliefs more than on whether the posts were truly intended as trolls or baits.

And I guarantee the latter two questions would come up about twice a week.

Put another way: If you switch MeFi from a self-policing format to a Matt-policing format, then every problem, no matter how minor, will be seen as either Matt's own fault in the first place, or Matt's problem alone to deal with. There will be much less MetaTalk discussion and hashing out of problems between users (publicly or privately) because everyone will just go straight to you no matter what. And you don't want that, believe me.

You also might want to step back and ask yourself if things are as all-around bad as you think they are. After all, you've been gone for a week, and MeFi made it through. Every problem that popped up during that time (publicly, anyway) was either worked out amongst the users themselves, or else simply faded away as most community problems always do anyway.

If you run a popular discussion site, you are going to get a lot of people talking meta (no pun intended) and bothering you with "pleas for intervention" over every little thing they don't like. It's part of the deal. It will only grow as your site's popularity grows, and it will not stop, no matter what you do, unless you take away the means of complaining (say, killing MetaTalk and removing your email address from the site). And that, of course, would only cause your site to get screwed up in a whole new set of ways.

(Not to say your desires are illegitimate, especially on things like double-posting. But you ought to ask yourself if the cure wouldn't be worse than the disease.)

Meanwhile, as I've already said elsewhere, I like the idea of a Metafilter mailing list, so don't let me discourage you.

Thanks. :) I haven't gotten into much more detail about it on the other thread as the idea of me making a "Metafilter" mailing list without Matt's express blessing, and a lot of other planning, would be just plain disgustingly rude in so many ways: Even the appearance of impropriety in aiming it only at MeFi users and thus aiming it only at Matt's own users. That it held even a 1% chance of sucking any content off of MeFi itself. That it would seem A-listish. Etc. I only want to do it because I like the intelligence of you guys and would like to be able to have more of a community with all of you in ways that MeFi's own rules and traditions largely discourage. But it would be so hard to keep it from cannibalizing MeFi, or at least looking like it did. But then, given Matt's complaints above, maybe he'd like to see some MeFi content carted off somewhere else. I don't know. In any case, it's certainly not something I want to make an issue of when he's already pissed off about enough things as it is.
posted by aaron at 4:07 PM on March 14, 2001



aaron, your first few points are quite valid, and although the personal torture I'd receive from all would vastly increase, people would tend to enjoy the site more, because the quality would no doubt increase, as the quantity of things to take in went down. And they wouldn't see any of the crap I'd be dealing with privately.

If I were dedicated to making the site as best it could be at all costs (and if I had unlimited time to devote to the site), I'd take on all the added criticism and moderate myself, but I think you're spot on with the predictions and I doubt I want to take the brunt of everyone's anger.

Or if your decisions on which posts constitute trolling or baiting look even a little bit like they're influenced by your own prejudices and political beliefs more than on whether the posts were truly intended as trolls or baits.

Interestingly, I probably do exactly as you expect, filtering out more right wing stuff. The site seemed to have a "leftist" slant for over a year, and I didn't mind it one bit. Since I see so few sites with that angle, I enjoyed it then and would enjoy taking it in that direction once again. If it were a year ago, it probably wouldn't be a problem, but I doubt I could even consider it these days, given the vocal detractors present and in large numbers.

One other thing: the word "troll" is being thrown around way too much these days. It's like McCarthysim around here.

You also might want to step back and ask yourself if things are as all-around bad as you think they are

Right. I'm not saying the place is shit, I'm just saying it's getting a bit messy when I'm not around, and perhaps the discussion aspects of the site have taken on a bit too much importance. It seems to me that people are frequently here just to discuss things, most times not even reading the original article, but simply reacting to something said in a thread. I remember the good old days when interesting new things popped up here. It's not that I think MetaFilter is "bad" just a bit "different" than what I envisioned. It's constantly bending in new directions, and being gone for several days has allowed me to see it in a whole new light.

Not to say your desires are illegitimate, especially on things like double-posting. But you ought to ask yourself if the cure wouldn't be worse than the disease

Again, you are correct, and before I do something major like approve front-page postings, I'll have to think about it a *lot* more.

I haven't gotten into much more detail about it on the other thread as the idea of me making a "Metafilter" mailing list without Matt's express blessing

Well, I have mixed feelings about a mailing list, especially one done by someone else. It seems like it would tend to be more chatty, with more personality expressed by members, and topics would be much less defined strictly by links or news stories. It might take content away from the site, but it might be content that should never be on the site anyway.

On the other hand, it's definitely a way of cannibalizing the site, you'd essentially be "stealing" members away from the site (instead of spending time on the site, they'd be posting to a list), and if it in any way was called metafilter or even had many prominent members, it would difficult for me to allow someone else to take the site's name and goals into new directions.

It's a sticky issue, that's all, I can't say definitely that I'm against it or that I'd support it, though I'd probably gravitate towards the former.


And I'm not pissed off about anything, I'm just tired. Two long years doing this (I updated the URL registration tonight), and I'm getting a bit run down, just as the popularity is exploding.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 7:58 PM on March 14, 2001


Is this all about me?
posted by thirteen at 10:24 PM on March 14, 2001


Isn't everything?
posted by cCranium at 5:47 AM on March 16, 2001


« Older hi. i dont get how this how blog thing works .   |   For me, the MetaFilter magic is gone. Newer »

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