One user dismissed a silly joke as being old and he got totally reamed by the originator of the joke. Was the reaction really justified? Shouldn't it have been in Metatalk anyway? [more inside]
posted by daveadams
on Aug 28, 2001 -
Should the wandering and fission of the topics in MeFi conversation be seen as an abuse of the openness of the forum, or should it be welcome as the natural state of a healthy and creative exchange? My first reaction is to resist attemps by others to limit the scope of the conversation, but I can see reasons to keep it focused, too, especially given the short lifetime of any thread. I want to know what the rest of you think.
posted by NortonDC
on Aug 26, 2001 -
Cheerleading posts. (Or their opposites: let's call them jeerleading.) We're seeing more of them. They don't add to threads: and if you're the one being praised, it's a bit embarrassing.
Can we just take it for granted that some people will agree, others disagree, and that if you want to support an argument, you should either provide some useful background or suggest other lines of discussion?
posted by holgate
on Aug 2, 2001 -
So I mentioned this here
, but I'll ask here as well:
How about a way to remind people when they create a MetaTalk thread that they should invite/inform interested parties? I don't know how you'd do it -- maybe a popup the first time someone hits the site after the thread has been created (like the joke popup the other day).
posted by briank
on Jul 25, 2001 -
i just want to make a quick comment about the post on stuttering
. c'mon folks, can we not keep the level a little more intelligent than this?
posted by will
on Jul 3, 2001 -
Raining on other people's parades.
I've seen this before, eulogizing, and I don't know if it's been discussed here, but people have a bad habit of being contrary and blase simply for the sake of it.
So in this thread, which admittedly I am very upset about, seeing as how I used "font size=7" to proclaim my sorrow, why are people coming in to a thread that is about mourning of a sort and talking about how much they don't care? You didn't read pamie.com? Wonderful! Why the hell are you talking about it, then? You didn't like it? Super! Does that mean your opinions are appropriate?
Are people so in love with the "sound of their own voice" that they just have to blab, regardless of the thread? I'd like to know, really.
posted by solistrato
on Jun 29, 2001 -
"Of course not, dayvin, but thanks for ruining the excitement of posting my first link."
Link content aside, does this happen too often? Does MetaFilter need to be a nurturing environment? Could we maybe have "rookie" stripes that let the jaded know to cut the newbies some slack?
posted by machaus
on Jun 28, 2001 -
Of all the cheap rhetorical tactics employed here, I think my favorite is "you people are sick and this conversation is beneath me, so I'm not participating except to note this fact" (#1
posted by rcade
on Jun 18, 2001 -
Has anyone noticed that a lot of the links people are building have http://www.metafilter.com crammed in front? I don't have specfic examples, but I've seen it at least four times.
posted by machaus
on Jun 7, 2001 -
I feel so darn tootin' speshul -- I just recieved my first MeFi hate mail, anonymous
or otherwise! Do I get a prize?
Should I be commending perogi
for at least signing the email? Or are hate mailers still cowards for not spewing publicly on MeFi or MeTa?
posted by lia
on Jun 2, 2001 -
I just wanted to point out that I just finished writing a pretty thoughtful message in response to some of the comments in this thread
, but decided, before I hit submit, that I really didn't feel up to the onslaught of personal attacks that I'd have to endure because of my opinion. So I pressed the backpage button instead.
Not that it matters, really. Maybe I'm just being thin-skinned. Some might say that if I felt strongly enough about my opinion, I'd be able to suffer the slings and arrows of the opposition. I dunno. In fact, I don't know if I even feel up to the kind of response this message is going to get.
But how many other MeFi users are doing the same as me? How many have just given up completely? This is how the blow-hards and the flame-warriors take over.
posted by crunchland
on May 18, 2001 -
Can metafilter members please email individual users with factual corrections that do NOT pertain to the discussion at hand? I'm tired of clutter, and at times, public rudeness.
posted by SpecialK
on May 15, 2001 -
The question (raised here
) is one of tensions, etiquette and policy on Election posts. The Uk is currently going through an election, and much like the US is fairly well represented on Metafilter. But we all know how many posts were about the US election and how frustrating both the US contingent, but more specifically the UK contingent, were with them. Will UK election threads cause international tensions? Is this a bad thing? Is there a 'right to post' issue here, or are we going to be having a fully international vs UScentric discussion at any moment?
posted by barbelith
on May 15, 2001 -
Was I trolling?
I had an admittedly heated reaction to an issue I care about, and blasted "conservatives/republicans/the right" as a group. But was I way outta line?
posted by owillis
on May 13, 2001 -
i have a question for you guys. what is adequate reference info in quoting from another website? is just a link back enough? would it matter if the page is primarily composed of quotes versus sparing use?
posted by moz
on May 11, 2001 -
Whoa! What's up with MetaTalk all of the sudden? Now we're getting multiple posts per day in several categories?! I count 12 (now 13) today alone. Is MetaTalk getting too crowded? The quality of the posts and discussion here is really going downhill
. Remember when every post was on-topic, relevant, and well thought out? It just seems like posts are tossed up without thinking and comments get even less consideration. It's really wearing me out.
posted by daveadams
on Apr 21, 2001 -
Apologies to all annoyed and even offended by certain posts of mine which, apparently, have been too ripe for certain people to take into the realm of bad taste. The filter on that kind of thing has been turned up.
posted by ParisParamus
on Apr 17, 2001 -
if you ask me, there's *nothing* more 'old' than posts which go beyond "I disagree with posters x, y, and z for the following reasons" into the realm of "you metafilter people are always so x". a couple of recent examples here
, though I don't mean to imply that these two posters are at the vanguard of this disheartening trend: it's *a lot of us*.
anyway. I submit that comments like these serve no purpose, advance no argument, are gross generalizations, bear a bothersome resemblance to en-masse flames, and really ought to stop. further, I submit that any discussions (as opposed to one-off snark moments) of the bad habits displayed by the community as a whole belong on MetaTalk, not MetaFilter. this concludes my 'blog nicely' moment for the day.
posted by Sapphireblue
on Mar 27, 2001 -
I, Free Speech aka Rightwinger aka Private Parts, was just having some fun and trying to add some levity to the site, sorry if I offended you Matt.
posted by FreeSpeech
on Mar 20, 2001 -
Couldn't find the earlier mention of this, so I'll pick up on it here.
A new user user (RightWinger) just posted a fairly feeble defense of Dubya and was almost immediately called a troll for his pains. I think this is basically because he didn't have an email address. Rogers has mentioned lately, rightly I think, how many potential conflicts can be defused that way, and now I think people are starting to see the lack of email as prima facie
evidence of bad faith, and responding accordingly. His post wasn't really that inflammatory, but I think the level of trust is really low for people who can't be contacted offline. Total anonymity and community membership just may not mesh very well.
Matt has floated the idea of making everyone email-authenticable (word?). I think it's a good idea: people will trust more when they see a "real" identity, more offline diplomacy can happen, and I think people will be more responsible if they have a little bit of accountability built in. If it's *that* important to them to be anonymous, why are they posting to MetaFilter?
posted by rodii
on Mar 19, 2001 -
"Can't you folks simply address an issue and tell us what you think without attacking the poster rather than what has been posted?" A few threads
have featured variations on this sentiment, so I figured the subject was worth a longer look here.
posted by rcade
on Feb 14, 2001 -
I was just curious as to why the link about a diarist's suicide has dissapeared from the site. Did it upset too many people, or just not count as news? I went to see if any new comments had been posted and it was gone. Just wondering.
posted by crushed
on Jan 19, 2001 -
Etiquette/Opinions/View of the poster.
Since this post discusses all of the above, I don't know any other way to begin, or to jump in, but here goes - I, as a somewhat
conservative person, one of maybe 2 here on mefi, have tried to be reasonably patient. The reasoning behind it was something like 'well, this is just a joke, if I ignore, I won't bite the trap as to trolls do this on ngs and I have long since learned to killfire', and at times felt that; and since I'm mostly disagreed with, I feel that the very thought
of me 'calling foul' would be met with great hostility. Maybe I was right.
of this post is an opinion
of the poster, and he does in fact semi-self link
. There's nothing wrong with offering your opinion, in fact it's great. I guess, let me put it this way - what if, say I, were to post a link saying 'Democrats really do think with their dick' and would link it to the Jesse Jackson story + a post on FreeRepublic with me saying this (I don't even want to go near the FreeRepublic, mind you). Not to whine, but, I really want you to see my side of this. There are many other examples, and I'll continue inside. (as to not take up the entire page)
posted by tiaka
on Jan 17, 2001 -
I'm curious about the etiquette issues involved in today's thread
about teen sex. Aside from the issue of the tastelessness of this joke
, what is the relative appropriateness of the suggestion
that someone should commit violence upon the joker? Is a call for a beatdown an appropriate response to bad taste?
posted by redfoxtail
on Jan 16, 2001 -
I want to apologize for any part I had in prompting the explicitly racist comments some have posted in this thread
and others, if there were any. I'm beginning to wonder whether I should continue advancing my perspective in light of reactions like this. I don't want to encourage those kinds of posts.
posted by sudama
on Jan 5, 2001 -
There seems to be a lot of bickering going on lately, and it's getting worse all the time. Too many people are starting to complain about other peoples posting habits, style whatever you want to call it. I'm Australian and don't care about Americas elections, yet i haven't complained about all the posts, about the election. I choose to ignore them as should other people with any posts they don't like or don't want to talk about.
posted by Zool
on Nov 7, 2000 -
More regarding this thread
(on feminism). Wherein I address Catch, since it's completely tangenital to the topic at hand.
posted by cCranium
on Sep 28, 2000 -
I am compelled to wonder:
If we tallied 1) posts where people are bitching about taking something to metatalk vs 2) posts where people are bitching about people bitching about taking something to metatalk (an extra half-point for pre-empting
the first-level bitching), who would come out on top?
stop the madness.
posted by Sapphireblue
on Jul 24, 2000 -
Okay, I've been accused of trolling
. Have I trolled? And what did I say that was a troll? I'll try to avoid it in the future if I've horribly offended the community. Mark likes Metafilter, and doesn't want to be noise in the signal.
posted by mrmorgan
on Apr 25, 2000 -