Heavy-handed moderation of one's own thread October 6, 2005 7:34 PM   Subscribe

Heavy-handed moderation of one's own thread is annoying.
posted by Saucy Intruder to Etiquette/Policy at 7:34 PM (101 comments total)

1, 2, 3, 4. And progressively more obnoxious with each response.

It's a good thread, poop somewhere else.
posted by Saucy Intruder at 7:36 PM on October 6, 2005


It sems very (Karl) "Rovian" to me. But when in Rome ....
posted by R. Mutt at 7:39 PM on October 6, 2005


I thought that the thread raised some questions about who exactly the posts on Ask Metafilter are FOR. But since this thread is done as a callout I doubt it'll go anywhere except through my bowels.
posted by selfnoise at 7:45 PM on October 6, 2005


Not a bit. GernBlandston asked very specifically in the question that "If you didn't vote for Bush, please don't respond." All his subsequent interventions were merely an attempt to keep his thread on the rails against people who lacked the courtesy to obey his original request.
posted by LarryC at 7:46 PM on October 6, 2005


Larry has a point
posted by matteo at 7:46 PM on October 6, 2005


Funny, I thought it was the intruders like hototogisu and words1 with nothing on-topic to contribute who were annoying. See, I thought the Green was for answers, Blue for debate.

Would you like me to go over that again for you?
posted by mojohand at 7:47 PM on October 6, 2005


He made a simple, polite request; and predictably, people were either too obnoxious or too thick-headed to comply. He's not the one I'd tag as "annoying."
posted by cribcage at 7:50 PM on October 6, 2005


I have to agree with LarryC as well. Regardless of whatever the actual purpose of the question was, it was still his question. Keeping it on track seems right to me.

Now, if there was anything sinister about the intent of the question or if it was wholly inappropriate, then I'd vote for deletion. Didn't seem to be in that category though.
posted by Stunt at 7:51 PM on October 6, 2005


Sorry, but when you get to ask thousands of people a question on somebody else's website for free, you should take what you get and don't complain about it.

AskMe is for the benefit of everyone, not just the original poster. That's why replies are posted publicly and not sent via e-mail.
posted by Saucy Intruder at 7:54 PM on October 6, 2005


Well, people can take whatever benefit they want from that. I know that I actually would enjoy hearing the reasons why about half the country disagrees with me. I'm not going to be like some people and just claim that the other side is crazy or ignorant (plenty of that on both sides).

I mean, I don't get any benefit out of an ask.mefi question about, say, taking care of fish. Doesn't mean that question shouldn't be allowed to continue unmolested.
posted by Stunt at 7:56 PM on October 6, 2005


When someone makes a simple, polite request, you oughtn't step out of your way to be a jerk -- no matter whose website you're on.

Now, if it had been Mathowie posting offtopic...
posted by cribcage at 8:01 PM on October 6, 2005


I think he's generally just trying to keep his thread on topic, which is fine. This little bit is obnoxious, though:

Thanks again!

User 10301
Whatever that means.
posted by GernBlandston at 2:52 PM PST on October 6 [!]


Ooooo! A 10k-er! He's been around for awhile, man!
posted by interrobang at 8:03 PM on October 6, 2005


I sorry, Saucy, but what part of AskMeFi's ..."Please limit comments to answers or help in finding an answer..." don't you understand? hototogisu and words1 were NOT contributing answers. They needed to bugger off.

Once again, the the Green is for answers, Blue for debate. Exert yourself to understand this.
posted by mojohand at 8:04 PM on October 6, 2005


But come on, he was obnoxious about his "simple, polite request." The "where do you get your news" part of the question sours the whole deal, and when asked about it, he stonewalled and had a bit of attitude.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 8:10 PM on October 6, 2005


GernBlandston came across as extremely obnoxious, but I agree with larry and mojo, AskMe is for answers. If you don't have an answer, shut the hell up.
posted by soiled cowboy at 8:11 PM on October 6, 2005


Hmmm, I didn't take the news component the way you did, Matt. Well, perhaps I suspected just a bit that he might be fishing for us to reveal our cranial jacks to the Rovian Hivemind, but we were never going to give that up.
posted by mojohand at 8:17 PM on October 6, 2005


I think this is a particularly silly website to ask that question on. There are only four people or so qualified to answer.
posted by smackfu at 8:19 PM on October 6, 2005


Maybe I'm naive, but I took his question at face value. I voted for Bush, and I didn't feel condescended to when he asked about news outlets. I think Bush voters are more inclined to watch Fox News or listen to Sean Hannity; and yet, MeFites generally are probably more likely to listen to NPR or watch Bill Maher. So when you're addressing a cross-section, it seems a worthwhile question. And indeed, I see self-professed Bush voters in that thread claim to watch CNN and read the NYTimes, two news outlets consistently criticized by right-wing pundits as being biased.
posted by cribcage at 8:19 PM on October 6, 2005


The implication with the 10ker remark was that he'd been around long enough to *not* tell people to fuck off when they *politely* asked what was up with the question.

The best part is that he did answer the very poilte questions, re: motive, but only after mocking me and telling me I couldn't read.

Some of you are fucking idiots.
posted by hototogisu at 8:19 PM on October 6, 2005


Also, the green's for questions and answers, but last time I checked, we weren't doing people's homework for them. So, "give me answers, but fuck if I'll tell you why I want them" is irritating--it's the same chatty bullshit that gets deleted all the time, but nope, it's about conservative politics, so it's gotta stay.
posted by hototogisu at 8:22 PM on October 6, 2005


I dunno, I seem to recall a lot of ask threads going to shit simply because people DID say why they wanted to know. The people who ruined those usually said that the superfluous information should have just been left out.

Oh, and I'm not saying that he wasn't obnoxious about it. I think he very much could have used a different approach to keep things on track. I just happen to think that it shouldn't have been needed in the first place.
posted by Stunt at 8:25 PM on October 6, 2005


GernBlandston may have been a little heavy handed but I think there was a decent chance that the thread would have turned in to another "Bush sucks and if you do think so so do you" melee if s/he hadn't. Also, it was an AskMe thread - Answer the question asked or shut up is the general rule.
posted by Carbolic at 8:26 PM on October 6, 2005


hototogisu, if you don't want to do somebody's homework then don't answer the question. Gern was unquestionably a jerk but perhaps he's tired of seeing people pollute AskMe with non-answers.
posted by soiled cowboy at 8:27 PM on October 6, 2005


"don't" think so, of course.
posted by Carbolic at 8:27 PM on October 6, 2005


Can you recall the last thread (that wasn't an anonymous break-up question) where a person refused to give context when politely asked, and suggested that we "get used to disappointment"?

I'd respect his hallowed green-space more if there were anything worth respecting. There isn't. Next question.
posted by hototogisu at 8:27 PM on October 6, 2005


...it's the same chatty bullshit that gets deleted all the time, but nope, it's about conservative politics, so it's gotta stay...

Ah yes, Metafilter, that hotbed of conservatism, where left wing voices are suppressed. Ah, hototogisu, we live in different Universes, you and I.

Some of you are fucking idiots.

But in the end we still find common ground.
posted by mojohand at 8:33 PM on October 6, 2005


It's entirely possible to say to profess disinterest in the opinion of liberals (we do this with questions all the time, no problem at all with the *idea*), refuse to offer objective context, and tell us all to go to hell with the utmost politeness--people do it all the time. But if he's "tired of seeing people pollute AskMe with non-answers", then he shouldn't have added his own to the thread.

Maybe I'm just pissed at some of the more irrational discourse infecting the site of late, specifically the political discussions. That always sets me on edge. But if we remove bugs and meetups from MetaTalk, we have a forum to moderate politeness--half the time the attempt at correction begins here, half the time it begins in the thread. I suppose there's a definitive opinion from Matt on where such gentle reminders should go, but certainly no one else here agrees--certainly each callout always ends on a happy note here.

A person frames their own debate--he can deal with his consequences.

Also, mojohand: maybe you post to the blue often and I haven't been noticing, but we could use more conservatives with some degree of eloquence here.

Though on preview, clearly we are in different places. Nice work not actually dealing with the point, though. Or actually reading what I said. Cheers!
posted by hototogisu at 8:34 PM on October 6, 2005


The question itself stretched my definition of what AskMe is actually for.

The responses in the forms of pointed questions clearly were not what the asker wanted, and the asker is under no obligation to elaborate.

If you think a question is fishy or you find someone's motives suspect, either flag it or don't answer the fucking question and stay out of the thread. The appropriate course of action is not derailment in AskMe threads.

All those involved are guilty of varying degrees of douchebaggery, none topped by the relative noob who's randomly calling people fucking idiots, and then yammering about irrelevant things like discourse, which has not one damn thing to do with AskMe.
posted by drpynchon at 8:40 PM on October 6, 2005


...but we could use more conservatives with some degree of eloquence [in the Blue.]

I'll sign that.

But I'm not your man. Apologies for going off topic, but these days I rarely open Metafilter, let alone post there. And it is the polarized, vicious, simple-minded and just plain ugly nature of the political conversation there that went a long way to ruining it for me.

That's why I get real vehement when it rears its head in Ask Mefi. I detected a whiff of that in your comments to the Green thread, and the nature of your expression in this thread did not change my mind.
posted by mojohand at 8:47 PM on October 6, 2005


I like relative noob--as if you have any idea how long I've been here.

It's still a chatty question--better things are deleted all the time...Ask Me, not about discourse, certainly not about politeness, and absolutely not about the context that makes a crappy question a useful one.
posted by hototogisu at 8:48 PM on October 6, 2005


In addition to raising hototogisu's blood pressure this thread raises the question of "ownership" of AskMe questions.

Does the original poster "own" the thread and have the right to protect the topic any way he sees fit, even if that means rudely telling derailers to shut the hell up?

Or does the thread belong to the MeFi community, giving all MeFi members the right to answer any question as they see fit?
posted by soiled cowboy at 8:57 PM on October 6, 2005


Clearly, we're not supposed to answer a question any way we see fit.

What do you think?
posted by hototogisu at 9:02 PM on October 6, 2005


With all due respect, the like between "debate" and "answers" is pretty vague. "How do I buy a house with friends?" "How do I tell my co-worker she smells?" (etc.) do not yield just one conclusive "answer" and, of course, people ask questions on Blue pages when they should be "debating."

I don't think the thread was in any danger of becoming a partisan morass. It remains very interesting, and some of the posts' common themes could be explored further with additional questions either from Gern or other readers.

I don't think any of the Meta threads would be half so interesting if they didn't meander a little.
posted by Admiral Haddock at 9:04 PM on October 6, 2005


Heavy handed moderation is completely acceptable in AskMe whether you find it annoying or not. There have been all sorts of threads on controversial topics (particularly those about smoking, feminine issues, or obesity issues) where the poster says in advance that they're not going to tolerate any sort of off-topic proselytizing. When off-topic attacks are made, they get snide responses. As well they should.

What makes this thread different from those others is that people are suspicious of the posters motivations (mostly because of the "top three news sources" followup question). AskMe is not the place to question motivations. People should be allowed to ask questions without having to explain themselves. There are plenty of completely inoffensive reasons that GernBlandston could have asked the questions he did, and responders in-thread should be charitable instead of prying. His snarkery to those who derail the thread against his express wishes is completely justified.
posted by painquale at 9:18 PM on October 6, 2005


Is it impossible to say that if he'd only been less snarky about his refusal to explain himself (a "no, I don't feel like answering, and don't respond t my question if that bothers you--it's ok" would have just been too much, right), none of this subsequent nonsense would have happened?
posted by hototogisu at 9:22 PM on October 6, 2005


This comment unfortunately departs from the respectful tone of the post and in general I do agree that heavyhanded moderation is annoying, but this callout is stupid. "Annoying" isn't necessarily "wrong," and this example doesn't rise to the level of a callout.

Are you sure you're not just venting the political angst that thread riles up? It's hard to see this turd of a callout as a neutral effort at making AskMe better.
posted by scarabic at 9:23 PM on October 6, 2005


The nature of the question needed it. It could've easily gone off the rails. He had a specific question to get answered.

Which is where Ask is different from blue and grey posts. The thread has a mandate to answer the question. Which might need someone to help keep it on topic.

So AskMeFi threads are, to a degree, "directed" by the asker. mathowie and jessamyn can't be expected to keep them all on topic.
posted by Count Ziggurat at 9:23 PM on October 6, 2005


I think it's way more annoying to tell someone that they didn't ask the question in the right way than it is to try and keep focus on the question that you want answered.

If the question is chatty, that's a whole nother problem. This question is probably just as chatty as lots of other ones that have come and gone.

But that should be the reason it's bad, not that the guy doesn't want to give up his reasons for asking the question. The question is simple enough to answer without any extra context. The fact that more people would answer if there was more context doesn't make him wrong for asking the question the way he did. People can ask their non-offensive questions any way that they want, even ways don't maximize the number of useful, on-topic answers.
posted by 23skidoo at 9:24 PM on October 6, 2005


We're talking about the green. The poster frames the question. You want to deviate, then be prepared to have it called (and treated as) a derail. Attempts to keep the answers on target are fine, though meet with predictable upset protestations from our rights-conscious masses. Nobody said you couldn't shit in this person's thread. But how about not doing it?

Try restricting debate in the blue and get the expected backlash, of course.

Clearly, we're not supposed to answer a question any way we see fit.

What do you think?


Oh, you mean like previous examples, where the poster wanted advice on doing something dangerous/hurtful/controversial, and half the responses were effectively: "You suck"?

Yeah, I thought it was pretty clear.
posted by dreamsign at 9:37 PM on October 6, 2005


Actually, in retrospect, that seems pretty bitchy and sarcastic. No, I *do* agree that the poster can, and usually should frame her or his debate. I think they just shouldn't be a wanker about it.
posted by hototogisu at 9:41 PM on October 6, 2005


I agree with painquale that a thread--particularly a controversial one--may need a guiding (let's not say "heavy") hand so that it does not degenerate. Politics is always controversial, and Gern (who himself has posted several "liberal" threads) was perhaps justly on guard lest that forum for the less-often-heard conservative voices be a useless bickering din.

But, call me naïve, why is snarkery ever justified? We have ample time on the internet to write thoughtfully and read thoughtfully. In the real world, snarkery is just being a jerk, and I usually regret it when I do it. And neither side of the exchange has been terribly "charitable" to use painquale's well-chosen word.

As a last thought, Saucy Intruder's opening topic was that the management of the AskMe thread was annoying--a statement, not a question for debate. Taken to their logical extremes, some of the prior posts would seem to suggest our discussion tonight is derailing the post. I don't think this is the case, but as with Gern's thread, isn't it Saucy's call?
posted by Admiral Haddock at 9:48 PM on October 6, 2005


mojohand: "See, I thought the Green was for answers, Blue for debate."

What does that leave the grey for? General bitching and moaning?

Strangely, I was reading the post before it started to have a few off-topic posts, and considered linking it here as an example of a relatively civil approach and (until then) set of replies to a faceat of a known hot-button issue.
posted by mystyk at 9:59 PM on October 6, 2005


The question is clearly more of a survey than anything else. I'm surprised it stayed.
posted by interrobang at 10:08 PM on October 6, 2005


I *do* agree that the poster can, and usually should frame her or his debate.

These are your words hototogisu. I'm simply repeating them to show the irony in your contributions to that thread. If you agree that the original poster can frame the thread in any manner that they choose, then either answer the question within the framing provided or shut yo' mouth, foo.
posted by SeizeTheDay at 10:22 PM on October 6, 2005


Apologies for going off topic, but these days I rarely open Metafilter, let alone post there. And it is the polarized, vicious, simple-minded and just plain ugly nature of the political conversation there that went a long way to ruining it for me.

Please don't go, mojohand. Do what I learned to do and take in all the wonderful and kooky websites people post here, the arts and culture and history and languages and neato geeky toys that some web savant just invented. And then ignore the political threads. Just don't even click on 'em; it's not worth the heartache and flames. Save the political discussion for other sites. But don't throw the baby out with the (admittedly often disgusting) bathwater.

/me ponders writing "The Republican's Guide To Metafilter". But it would have a very small print run.
posted by Asparagirl at 10:28 PM on October 6, 2005


SeizeTheDay: my point is that he framed it with vagueness (his perogative) and subsequent wankerous wankery, which is what I responded to, and then more wankery, which I responded to again. I left it at that. I didn't post this call-out, and wouldn't have if Saucy Intruder hadn't.

In the future, I won't respond at all--you're right, there.

But no, there's no irony.
posted by hototogisu at 10:31 PM on October 6, 2005


I dunno... Ann Coulter's book How to Talk to a Liberal sold well.
posted by scarabic at 10:32 PM on October 6, 2005


I thought he was being very rude


Just to be clear, I'm not interested in hearing a debate here. Thank you hototogisu for not comprehending simple English.


Is that necessary?

A simple "I'd rather not explain all that, please keep on topic" would have been better. A 10k uid means he didn't even have to pay $5. It's rude to just demand answers.
posted by delmoi at 10:34 PM on October 6, 2005


Oh please. Answers are voluntary.
posted by scarabic at 10:36 PM on October 6, 2005


Why didn't anyone one ask GernBlandston how s/he voted?
Why didn't anyone ask GB how s/he intended to use the information?
posted by Cranberry at 10:57 PM on October 6, 2005


Maybe I'm just pissed at some of the more irrational discourse infecting the site of late, specifically the political discussions. That always sets me on edge.

it is the polarized, vicious, simple-minded and just plain ugly nature of the political conversation there that went a long way to ruining it for me.


I'm with you both there, all the way, but a fair chunk of this thread was a pleasant counterexample, which gives me some hope. Exchanges like the one between dios and jefgodesky should be noted and thumbs-upped, I reckon, while the thud-dullard pooflinging that has become the lingua franca of political discussion here gets publicly thumbs-downed. Called-out, even, much as I hate that freakin' phrase.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 10:59 PM on October 6, 2005


Why didn't anyone one ask GernBlandston how s/he voted?
Why didn't anyone ask GB how s/he intended to use the information?


'cause AskMe is supposed to be about trying to give your best answer to questions asked by the poster of the thread, and that's it?
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 11:00 PM on October 6, 2005


/me ponders writing "The Republican's Guide To Metafilter". But it would have a very small print run.

i can never understand this victimology of the right.

we're supposed to feel sorry for you? the mean ol' liberals are too nasty for your liking? i thought you guys were made of sterner stuff.

if you feel your opinion is so unwanted, why do you continue to post and whine about it? stop hitting yourself. stop hitting yourself.
posted by Hat Maui at 11:03 PM on October 6, 2005


I thought it was a great thread, up to the point of the call out. I was impressed at the relative civility. I thought the question itself was fascinating.

I also think it is reasonable and proper to moderate your own AskMe thread. Yea, maybe Gern was a bit snarky, but sometimes, snarky is just there to be funny, not to be mean. Perhaps that's a gay point of view, since bitchyness is often a form of gay/camp humor.
posted by Goofyy at 11:10 PM on October 6, 2005


Shut up Hat Maui. Your attempts to undermine Asparagirl's joke by making her (and conservatives) seem undeserving of "pity" simply because they're supposed to present a tough exterior is a straw man wrapped in an ad hominem.
posted by SeizeTheDay at 11:11 PM on October 6, 2005


Hat Maui - boy. if yours isn't a post that works against itself.
posted by scarabic at 11:13 PM on October 6, 2005


Not that I ever understood this place, but now I totally don't understand this place. GB was rude and condescending. It has nothing to do with his or her politics, but everything to do with his or her behavior in a public forum. If s/he just answered the one benign question put to him or her in return for the information s/he was receiving we'd not even be having this inane conversation right now. If no one here has a problem with people asking politcally motivated things in askme, and demanding that only their rules, not the pre-existing rules of the community, be followed, where does that leave us?
Okay, I'll drop the "s/he" BS and just use the masculine pronoun if the poster's handel appears male. The style above is an extension of a conversation a friend and I had about gendered pronouns vs. using plural pronouns.
posted by elwoodwiles at 12:00 AM on October 7, 2005


While you are all here, who else hates it when they tell you that inflation is "contained", but then the street price of those little red pills you like keeps going up, and up? Please, I want answers only from anarchists who voted for Nader and watch CNBC. Also, type only with your left hand when you reply.
posted by sfenders at 12:45 AM on October 7, 2005


What elwoodwiles said. GernBlandston was being an ass without good reason.
posted by cillit bang at 1:08 AM on October 7, 2005


If no one here has a problem with people asking politcally motivated things in askme, and demanding that only their rules, not the pre-existing rules of the community, be followed, where does that leave us?

That leaves us exactly where we've always been. GB's rule is the pre-existing rule of the community, namely: "Please limit comments
to answers or help in finding an answer." The extra information that people were asking for would not have helped them answer the question.

Is there a pre-existing rule: "When you are asked for more information, you have to give it." or "Don't be flippant when refusing to divulge more information."?
posted by 23skidoo at 1:45 AM on October 7, 2005


Saucy Intruder : "Heavy-handed moderation of one's own thread is annoying."

In the blue or the grey, yes, as you're supposed to provide the link for the benefit of others, and allow that they discuss things as they will. In the green, not so much, because you're supposed to provide a link for the benefit of yourself, and people are supposed to provide answers primarily to benefit you.

Whether or not GernBlandston was being an ass in his approach is another issue, which may or may not be worthy of discussion, but there is no problem with heavy-handed moderation of one's own AskMe question.
posted by Bugbread at 1:58 AM on October 7, 2005


The Askme thread was adequately moderated in my opinion. It is the type of question that may bother some people because they are suspicious of the poster's motives, but it certainly doesn't obligate anybody to participate. Asking about the news sources didn't seem strange to me, it's quite obvious that where you get your news has at least some affect on how you understand political issues. However, I think that the general tone of MetaFilter on political issues has led some people, including Matt, to assume the worst: they have been conditioned to suspect peoples motives when discussing political issues. But I really don't think the poster gave any substantial reason to believe s/he was up to no good.

As far as this callout, it's utterly unfounded and hototogisu's attitude in both threads is far more aggressive and irritating (to me) than the poster's original snarks.
posted by sic at 2:25 AM on October 7, 2005


You just couldn't restrain yourself, could you, Hat Maui?
posted by Joeforking at 2:58 AM on October 7, 2005


I think a callout about hototogisu's behavior in the thread would have been more appropriate.
posted by fleacircus at 3:11 AM on October 7, 2005


GB's Sign says - "Please keep off grass"
people step on the grass and say what gives you the right?
GB charges those on his grass while swinging a bat

Was it wrong to put up the sign?
Was it wrong to ignore it?
Was it wrong to to enforce the sign with heavy handed tactics?
posted by forforf at 5:12 AM on October 7, 2005


And the sign said "anybody caught trespassing would be shot on sight"
So I jumped on the fence and I yelled at the house
"Hey, what gives you the right?
To put up a fence to keep me out or to keep mother nature in
If God was here, he'd tell it to your face
man, you're some kind of sinner"
posted by Bugbread at 6:05 AM on October 7, 2005


Jesus, I was thinking about calling out Hoto et al. for their bullshit there, not GB. I didn't comment in the thread because I didn't fucking vote for Bush and am able to read. Those who did comment in the thread either did so because they did vote for Bush or were not able to read.
Sure, GB was dismissive and snarky. But you were shitting in his question and (since I flagged a bunch of them) the comments that were not germane were not going away.
God, can't you guys just lay off anything that mentions Bush? Is it some sort of compulsory posting disease?
And then this MeTa? Shut the fuck up, you whiners, and stay the hell out of his thread. He smacked you like he would toddlers, and that was how you were acting.
posted by klangklangston at 6:31 AM on October 7, 2005


That thread seemed to be going along just fine until hototogisu started getting all arsey. Just like in this thread.

Re-reading it, it seems to me that GernBlandston was trying to keep the answers civil & away from a debate/argument from the off. He was also trying to keep the thread on topic in a friendly way (obviously we should burn him for daring to use a ;) in the company of a bunch of bad ass, gun slinging, so-hip-it-hurts, errrr... computer nerds) but some people just wanted a scrap.

This thread is a continuation of that.

The way that some people will try their hardest to stir up trouble no matter what is the problem here. Such is life on the internets...now you kids run along & play outside. The fresh air will do you good.

/Bored & now occasional poster going back under his rock
posted by i_cola at 6:39 AM on October 7, 2005


And what klangklangston said. With sprinkles & a flake. And stawberry sauce. No, make that rasberry...
posted by i_cola at 6:40 AM on October 7, 2005


stawberry?
posted by i_cola at 6:41 AM on October 7, 2005


*ducks monkeyshit, laments*

klangklangston: Shut the fuck up, you whiners

*radiates lazy semihatewaves towards over-amped newbie shitheel instapundits*
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 6:46 AM on October 7, 2005


OH NOES I'VE DISTURBED THE ELDARS!
Stav, sometimes people need to be told to shut the fuck up. I believe this is one of those instances.
posted by klangklangston at 7:07 AM on October 7, 2005


I like relative noob--as if you have any idea how long I've been here.

Since April 2005.
posted by kirkaracha at 7:13 AM on October 7, 2005


congratulations kirkaracha, you are able to determine when I bothered to buy an account.

klangklangston: now that would have been a crappy call-out.
posted by hototogisu at 7:38 AM on October 7, 2005


I agree.
posted by rocketman at 7:39 AM on October 7, 2005


Or maybe not.
posted by rocketman at 7:40 AM on October 7, 2005


Sez you, doofus.
posted by klangklangston at 7:40 AM on October 7, 2005


And rocketman.

oh shit, maybe he's changing his mind.
posted by hototogisu at 7:42 AM on October 7, 2005


Yeah, you just watch yerself. We're wanted men.
posted by rocketman at 7:46 AM on October 7, 2005


Heavy-handed moderation of one's own thread is annoying.

So don't answer. Some questions are fucking retarded. So what? I don't read every single one because they don't all interest me. This one bugs you, don't read it.

Or maybe you don't like being given the smackdown when you go off topic? Then don't ignore (1) the original very explicit direction on the question (2) the subsequent clarification of what shouldn't need to be clarified (3) the amusing response to inappropriate prying and (4) the final much more polite than you deserved continued clarification.

But oh look, you still couldn't just move on. And now you fabricate some nonsense about doing someone's homework to justify your meddling? Give me a break. This guy was far from being a jerk - he responded to multiple people's continued rudeness with restraint and humor, albiet at the expense of impolite people's prying.

You can think people asking questions on AskMe owe you some sort of explanation about why they're asking or what they want the info for, but you'd be wrong.
posted by phearlez at 7:48 AM on October 7, 2005


There was this, which got this crap for a reply, which prompted me to say this, which prompted yet another curt dismissal of etiquette on Gern's part. Then I said this. If I were being a dick in my own thread, the *exact* responses I posted would be appreciated by me. I did nothing in that thread I would object to if done to me.

I can't remember the last response to a question in askme that prompted such snide dismissal--you're mistaking my comments as meddling when they are simply responses in kind.

It's clear we disagree on Gern's behavior, as does everyone else in this thread. I'll just leave it at that, and take my leave from here.
posted by hototogisu at 7:59 AM on October 7, 2005


1. people were posting answers that didn't fit his criteria, true, but gern was still being a dildo.

2. askme isn't for chat. what he asked for was chat. hoto is totally right about that.

3. it was a loaded question. "why did you vote for bush, and do you regret it now," is essentially the same thing as saying "ha! asshole! way to vote for the wrong guy!"

4. the info source bit was also loaded.

so, it comes down this: crap post with a terrible attitude in thread. What's to like?
posted by shmegegge at 8:22 AM on October 7, 2005


It was a great, informative, and polite thread until your derail, hototogisu. If you think it's chatty, flag it. If you think it's loaded, flag it. Some of us were also interested in the question, but no. It had to be all about you.

I hate hate hate Bush and I think his die-hard supporters are willfully ignorant or just plain selfish or mentally ill or something, but you don't see me posting in that thread, turning it into a crapfest for no reason whatsoever.

You also don't see me posting in threads about MySQL asking "and why exactly are we answering this question? Are we doing your homework?!" My AskMe posts haven't all been perfect but I don't go out of my way to make dumb, anti-productive comments. I would think that's the absolute least we could hope for.

Poor form.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 8:33 AM on October 7, 2005


What the Chyme said.
posted by cortex at 8:51 AM on October 7, 2005


Or, we can stop insulting each other so much. That works too.
posted by Saucy Intruder at 8:53 AM on October 7, 2005


people were posting answers that didn't fit his criteria, true, but gern was still being a dildo.

Wah wah cry complain! I asked this guy at the bar who I'd never met if he was gay and he said "why, are you looking for a date?" How dare he turn around and make fun of me instead of answering my inappropriate and nosy question?! If I want to know something people owe me an answer!

You don't want to be told to mind your own damned business, don't ask inappropriate questions. Y'all are the same people who ask "so when are you going to get married?" or "why haven't you had any kids yet?" and think you deserve an answer, aren't you?

And all this whining about homework or loaded questions didn't seem to be an issue for anyone till they didn't get the intel about his motives they seemed to think they were entitled to.
posted by phearlez at 8:59 AM on October 7, 2005


Alright, I guess it is okay if the community thinks it's okay. In my opinion, however, this sets a bad precedent.
posted by elwoodwiles at 9:18 AM on October 7, 2005


Ahg, one last comment, then I leave this thread for bluer pastures: I don't see how the question was inappropriate. GB wanted to know where people got their news, and someone asked him where he got his. Why would his question be appropriate, but not hototo's? If Hototo had voted for Bush, would it then be appropriate to ask GB about his motives and news gathering habits?
posted by elwoodwiles at 9:25 AM on October 7, 2005


I thought the question and answers were interesting right up to the juvenile 'get used to being disappointed' bullshit. I don't even know what you all are arguing about.
posted by Mr T at 9:26 AM on October 7, 2005


elwoodwiles : "Alright, I guess it is okay if the community thinks it's okay. In my opinion, however, this sets a bad precedent."

Well, define "it" and "this". If by "this" you mean "trying to moderate your own AskMe question", it looks like the community pretty much thinks it's okay, and I don't agree that it sets a bad precedent. If by "this" you mean "acting like an ass", then the community pretty much thinks it's not OK, and I agree that if everyone said it was OK, it would be a bad precedent. If by "this" you mean "acting like an ass in response to people trying to derail your thread" then it's going to be a bit harder to determine what the community thinks, because some people are weighing in on interpretation 1, and some on interpretation 2, but not too many on interpretation 3.

Plus, you've (I've) got the potential issue of "begging the question", because interpretations 2 and 3 assume that Gern was being an ass, and some might disagree.
posted by Bugbread at 9:27 AM on October 7, 2005


elwoodwiles : "Ahg, one last comment, then I leave this thread for bluer pastures: I don't see how the question was inappropriate."

Yeah, I wrote up a big friggin response to that, and suddenly I realized that I read it wrong: Phearlez isn't saying that asking who people voted for was inappropriate, he's saying that asking people why they posted their question, what they want to know for, what they'll do with the information, etc. is inappropriate. Or, at least, I'm pretty sure that's what he's addressing when he talks about inappropriate questions.
posted by Bugbread at 9:30 AM on October 7, 2005


So essentially this all boils down to:

File under 'Fucking hornet's nest'.


Meanwhile, back in the real world, it's 5.30pm, it's Friday and I'm going down the pub. Laters, suckers...
posted by i_cola at 9:34 AM on October 7, 2005


I find the MetaFilter network to be highly entertaining and enlightening. I must immediately subscribe to it's newsletter.

-- Ethel Yonkers, NY
posted by KevinSkomsvold at 9:36 AM on October 7, 2005


So, in closing this is inappropraite:

GernBlandston, may I ask why you want to know what news sources Bush voters use?

The reason is that I think there's a fairly common belief among liberals that conservatives are somehow more ignorant of current events, the whole "reality based community" schtick. I don't want to speculate about your motivations, but I would like to know what you're getting at.

Your first question seems to be somewhat leading in that sense...


And this is:

"may I ask why you want to know what news sources Bush voters use"

No. ;)

"fairly common belief among liberals that conservatives are somehow more ignorant of current events"

I'm not interested in what Liberals think.

"I would like to know what you're getting at"

'Get used to disappointment'
- Dread Pirate Roberts


Thanks
posted by elwoodwiles at 9:42 AM on October 7, 2005


I hereby nominate bugbread to be Mefi's Archpotentate.
posted by Kwantsar at 10:11 AM on October 7, 2005


Some of you are fucking idiots.
posted by hototogisu at 8:19 PM PST on October 6


Oooh, snap! Can I be on your friends list?

/realizes why MeCha is a nicer place to be.
posted by tr33hggr at 10:57 AM on October 7, 2005


Kwantsar : "I hereby nominate bugbread to be Mefi's Archpotentate."

You win the Google contest for today! Archpotentate results in one hit, and only one hit, on Google.
posted by Bugbread at 11:07 AM on October 7, 2005


Bugbread, yes, my position exactly. I have no idea if the AskMe question was a liberal or conservative bit of baiting but since the poster didn't turn around and launch into "snap! this is why we/they rule/are morons!" I don't see what his motivations matter. He used his weekly to ask that question and did it, from all I could see, free of visible agenda. Unlike the people who wanted to grill him about what he was hoping to accomplish.

Was he a smart-ass by the time a 3rd redirection was necessary? Sure, but it wasn't abusive and I'm inclined to give some slash to someone being repeatedly harangued.

Why would his question be appropriate, but not hototo's?

Because his question was his alotted AskMe question for the week. Hototo's (well really Herm started it) was prying about his agenda in a space meant for an answer. Personally I don't have an issue with informative discussion in an AskMe reply but demanding the questioner justify themselves I do not approve of. Nobody would think it's okay to ask this person "what the hell do you care?" but because this is political and some people have sacred cows they think they're entitled to explanation.
posted by phearlez at 11:28 AM on October 7, 2005


Hototogisu, at various times in my life, whole groups of people have told me I was being an asshole, even though I didn't think I was. Turns out they were right.
posted by LarryC at 12:49 PM on October 7, 2005


why did you vote for bush, and do you regret it now," is essentially the same thing as saying "ha! asshole! way to vote for the wrong guy!"

Actually, shmegegge, no it isn't. "Why did you vote for Bush?" is a question that many of us who didn't vote for Bush want to ask but have a difficult time doing so without putting the other person on the defensive. Obviously many sane, intelligent people did vote for him so they must have sane, intelligent reasons.

"Do you regret it now?" is of great interest to those of us who read that Bush's support is eroding. What if anything is making Bush less appealing? What was the deciding factor? I guess for many Democrats the fact that Clinton got a blow job and lied about it was the turning point for them. It appears that for the responders to the AskMe it was the fact that Bush was not a conservative at all.

It is very, very difficult to discuss politics without getting inflamed but AskMe does have very rigid rules and would seem a good place to get answers to political questions. But, unfortunately Political Heat trumps Rigid Rules.
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 4:10 PM on October 8, 2005


I am planning to ask follow-up questions to what I consider to be a successful series of questions the other day. I found many of the answers to be quite interesting.

To all those who were offended by my post(s), I ask that you do not read them. Please. It would seem likely that your sensibilities might be offended again, and I don't want that on my conscience.
posted by GernBlandston at 10:35 AM on October 11, 2005


« Older Why is this site obsessed with Al Gore?   |   Too many embedded MP3's spoil the post Newer »

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