A gentle reminder on AskMe policy November 18, 2005 8:39 AM   Subscribe

I think some members lost sight of AskMe policy in this post. While mentioned in the thread, a gentle reminder seems appropriate.
posted by mic stand to Etiquette/Policy at 8:39 AM (51 comments total)

I thought this thread was fascinating. Mefi really seems to embrace the idea of using foul language everywhere, almost as if it's life-affirming. I didn't think about it (I do the same thing at times) until I realized that Mefi is actually significantly more profane than most of the online game servers I play on AND most of the teen-dominated game forums I read. You'd think OMG haxxormasters would be cussing more than the hipsters of the 'filters.

And I find myself using the four-letter words all the time here, even though I don't elsewhere.

Maybe I'm totally off-base about this, though. Anyone else feel like they flip the freakword switch when they come here?
posted by selfnoise at 8:49 AM on November 18, 2005


How can we expent an honest answer here when the poster mentions(jokingly?) that he wants to cause harm to the "offender"?

The question begets the responses that it's getting.
posted by esch at 8:51 AM on November 18, 2005


That was a thread gone bad. To some degree alms invited the responses by appending "(What I'd really like to do is just send a reverse verteron pulse back through the wireless connection to blow up their wireless hub.)" to the end of his post. But when the vast majority of the so-called "answers" don't address the question, that's a problem.

I'm in favor of very restrained comment deletion in MeFi and MeTA, but very proactive deletion in AskMe. The guidelines are clear, and the purpose of the site is known. I think jessamyn did the right thing.
posted by pardonyou? at 8:52 AM on November 18, 2005


Sometimes, albeit rarely, a derail is the best answer to a question.

(BTW -- A few curse words were deleted; but the comment suggesting "kiddie porn" and the in-thread chastisement, those were OK?)
posted by cribcage at 8:52 AM on November 18, 2005


Sometimes the motherfuckers just get you down :(
posted by cmonkey at 8:55 AM on November 18, 2005


There was no reason to mention the actual SSID, and they would've gotten better answers if they had left it out.
posted by smackfu at 8:55 AM on November 18, 2005


Also, I cuss like a sailor in real life, too. Nothing wrong with taking full advantage of our language.
posted by cmonkey at 8:56 AM on November 18, 2005


AskMe does have strict guidelines and I think they should be adhered to, however as pardonyou? said, the final line of alms' question was unnecessary and seemed to invite the subsequent shitstorm of cussing.
posted by dead_ at 8:56 AM on November 18, 2005


/me pours a forty for his motherfuckin' homies
posted by Stynxno at 8:57 AM on November 18, 2005


Sometimes, albeit rarely, a derail is the best answer to a question.

The extreme case would be the recent airnxtz debacle. This is not really comparable to that, but I think it's worth pointing out that alms probably has better things to do with his time.

and on that note I think I should stop making posts in grey for the day
posted by grouse at 9:07 AM on November 18, 2005


AskMe respondents sometimes have this vindictive streak from time to time when someone asks a question that falls way outside of their values system. The "my boss brings her baby to work, help!" thread turned into a similar shouting match. If you don't like the question, don't answer it. If you don't like the way it was asked, either offer some helpful suggestions, email the poster, or don't answer it. There are all sorts of ways to say "I don't think threatening to harm the user's equipment is such a hot idea" without saying motherfucker ten times in a row just to be provocative.

The whole "You asked for trouble in the way you asked your question!" justification is only half the story. Could alms have phrased the question better? Sure. Does that mean people have to dump on him in that thread? No.
posted by jessamyn at 9:08 AM on November 18, 2005


"without saying motherfucker ten times in a row just to be provocative. "

For the record, I didn't write it that many times (or however many) to be provocative.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 9:10 AM on November 18, 2005


For the record, and because it's not a valid comment in AskMe, the suggestion to set SSID to "hey, watch the language!" will have me chuckling most of today. Especially if the "motherfucker" user responded in kind. I like the image of an entire neighborhood getting into an obscene screaming match at each other over their SSIDs, calling each other all sorts of bad names - but not knowing who any of the other people are. Waving at each other in the street, having the neighbors over for dinner, all the while wondering who's responsible for "Your Dog's Cock Looks Tasty" and "You filthy piece of trash, I'm surprised you can even get the connections right for WiFi".

I actually do think it would be a good response, and my scenario wouldn't happen, I just get carried away with these sort of images.
posted by freebird at 9:13 AM on November 18, 2005


You'd think OMG haxxormasters would be cussing more than the hipsters of the 'filters.

Don't a lot of those forums have swear filters and/or pretty aggressive banning policies for using naughty words or their stand-ins (sh*t , f_ck, etc.)?
posted by PinkStainlessTail at 9:14 AM on November 18, 2005


For the record, I didn't write it that many times (or however many) to be provocative.

For the record, I wasn't talking about you.
posted by jessamyn at 9:17 AM on November 18, 2005


Okay. Because I did write it many times, so, well, I thought you...okay. I'll shut up now.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 9:24 AM on November 18, 2005


I think it's odd that commenters on a text-based website would so easily dismiss it as "just a word".
posted by klarck at 9:51 AM on November 18, 2005


because every little word here is so precious?
posted by andrew cooke at 9:57 AM on November 18, 2005


Every little word here is a beautiful and unique snowflake.
posted by Gator at 10:02 AM on November 18, 2005


I agree with mic stand. I don't see the point in bothering to visit someone's AskMe thread only to prod them with counter-questions like "why do you care?" It just ain't worth it and it just ain't right and fer chrissake, let people have their 1 AskMe question a week.

But, since this MeTa thread is open, I'll take the opportunity to say that these "help me rub my amazingly tight ass all over other people" sorts of questions are fucking retarded.

MOTHERFUCKER!!!!!!
posted by scarabic at 10:11 AM on November 18, 2005


Yeah, I flagged most of the answers in that thread as breaking the guidelines. Those are important guidelines and make Ask MetaFilter what it is. I even took the idea and added it to the ASW forum guidelines for help forums.

I also don't get the responses to the facetious destruction of property sentenced based on fictional science in a cheesy television show. I would totally feel threatened by that and think it was serious, yep.

I agree that it's something kind of strange to get twitchy about. It's just a word, but I also don't see what the problem is with finding the person who owns the wireless and having a conversation with them.
posted by Captaintripps at 10:19 AM on November 18, 2005


Questioning whether it pays to actually do something about this neighbor is an appropriate answer to the question and hardly breaks the guidelines of AskMe. Jeez, how strict constructionist can you get?
posted by caddis at 10:19 AM on November 18, 2005


And apparently flagging doesn't get anything done.
posted by Captaintripps at 10:20 AM on November 18, 2005


Which is a shame because, of course, everything you flag should get deleted?
posted by Zetetics at 10:30 AM on November 18, 2005


And apparently flagging doesn't get anything done.

Dang, the noise in there is still extremely loud. Some tighter pruning would be very nice.
posted by frykitty at 10:39 AM on November 18, 2005


Similar post. A theme today?
posted by selfnoise at 10:42 AM on November 18, 2005


Questioning whether it pays to actually do something about this neighbor is an appropriate answer to the question and hardly breaks the guidelines of AskMe. Jeez, how strict constructionist can you get?

First, I don't think that's a good understanding of "appropriate," or else everything is fair game in AskMe based on any given person's opinion. alms was honest enough to describe why he asked the question. All that got him was a bunch of unsolicited personal criticism. I could give two shits about an access point with the label "Motherfucker," and I have three kids. But that's not what the question was about, and I didn't have an answer, so I can't imagine why I would post in there just to rag on alms.

Second, at least describe the responses accurately. This was not simply "questining whether it pays to actually do something." Here are a examples, in case you forgot:
  • "I'm sure they're aware that it is visible to all, but their fatal mistake was being unaware of alms' prudishness."
  • "Why do you care?"
  • "Seriously, get over it."
  • "The world is a cold and terrible place, and that people can live their whole lives in little G-rated pockets and consider it their right, and be upset when their bubble bursts is one of those terrible things in my opinion. Sorry."
  • "Um, honestly, why is it any of your business?"
  • "You know, people who want to sanitize the world really drive me bananas."
  • "Protect the children! Think of the children! The poor little children!"
posted by pardonyou? at 10:44 AM on November 18, 2005


If it's not for "great post/comment."

Which is a shame because, of course, everything you flag should get deleted?
posted by Captaintripps at 10:53 AM on November 18, 2005


KICK OUT THE JAMS, MOTHERFUCKER!
posted by keswick at 11:12 AM on November 18, 2005

Second, at least describe the responses accurately.
Practice what you preach. Some of the replies were rude and childish; but plenty were perfectly appropriate in advising alms why he should mind his own business, or in pointing out how ridiculous it was to object to profanity yet feel comfortable advocating the unlawful access to, and/or destruction of, someone else's property.

To review: Alms thinks his neighbor was acting unreasonably, and he wants to correct that neighbor's behavior. But when a slew of readers found alms's question to be unreasonable, they should have kept their mouths shut?
posted by cribcage at 11:12 AM on November 18, 2005


In this context? yes


What is wrong with Alms' reservations about a word that is offensive to many being broadcast into his home? It may be a privet network, but part of it exists in the public sphere.

Words are not just words. They carry meaning and make public statement. They can offend and hurt. We don't all go around with the mind set that we choose to be offended or hurt. So if something is intentionally offensive or hurtful in a public space why can we not question it? Why people feel it is perfectly acceptable to always yell out whatever is in their head puzzles me.
The whole concept that doing whatever feels best on an personal immediate gratification level can be quite destructive on a social level. It is a step we make in becoming adult. You share, you think of others, you think of long term consequences... You try and be intentional.
Sometimes you offend people intentionally and there can be good reasons to do so. But to offend just to offend? It is childish.
posted by edgeways at 11:32 AM on November 18, 2005


^
|
|

(yes)
posted by selfnoise at 11:35 AM on November 18, 2005


Oh it so totally is a privet network.

Thanks jessamyn for cleaning that thread up.
posted by Captaintripps at 11:35 AM on November 18, 2005


To review: Alms thinks his neighbor was acting unreasonably, and he wants to correct that neighbor's behavior. But when a slew of readers found alms's question to be unreasonable, they should have kept their mouths shut?

That's correct, according to the norm we have developed here. I don't know what norms govern alms' neighborhood and don't care.
posted by scarabic at 2:42 PM on November 18, 2005


People need to realize that there is no greater way to "protest" a question than leaving it completely blank, devoid of responses.
posted by scarabic at 2:44 PM on November 18, 2005


A privet network? Like, they broadcast through the hedges? Far out.
posted by jtron at 3:18 PM on November 18, 2005


But scarabic, one cannot prevent one's peers from answering; one has, therefore, a mandate to run one's mouth off lest a tragically flawed question receives, by your method, not simply nothing but rather nothing but helpful, on-topic responses.

Think about it! Nothing but helpful, on-topic responses to questions! It'd be madness, you fool!
posted by cortex at 3:51 PM on November 18, 2005


OK, perhaps this is just paranoia, but I'm a stinkin' newbie.

Would any of you with seniority mind looking at my posts in that question and seeing if they're out of line? I don't want to be wrecking the place my first week, y'know.
posted by JMOZ at 4:32 PM on November 18, 2005


JMOZ, your posts look fine to me. Generally AskMe is different from the rest of the site in that it has a specific purpose and this is restated by the comment entry box. So, since in that question there was some real back and forth about the question "Why is this word such a bad thing and why do you care, alms?" your responses were on topic. If they had turned into a "Let's talk about this issue at the expense of the actual question." they might be removed if they wound up getting flagged. Those sort of conversations are perfectly okay on the rest of the site. Generally if you're respectful of the question-asker and your posts address the question, you won't have a problem. A lot of the posts in that thread got removed because they attacked the questioner without addressing the substance of the question, or they were goofs on the word motherfucker that did not address the question.
posted by jessamyn at 4:58 PM on November 18, 2005


Just be helpful.

I think people step over the line without realizing it when they take on the attitude that they ARE helping: by lifting their unfortunate peers out of the throes of stupidity.
posted by scarabic at 5:48 PM on November 18, 2005


wow, do people get their hackles up or what, here?

jesus. the guy said he'd like to blow his router up the same way a person says "man, I'd really like to teach that guy a thing or two." that is to say, he COULD do that if he were that kind of person, but he's not so he'd like to ask the guy to change the ssid instead. he wasn't asking for help hurting someone or destroying their property.

Reading Comprehensin FTW!
posted by shmegegge at 7:09 PM on November 18, 2005


seems to me that it cuts both ways.

if you don't want people criticising others in your answers, make sure your question doesn't criticise others first.

if someone posts something with a value judgement then it strikes me as a bit hypocritical if they later complain that answers also have value judgements.

in this case, it was pretty clear that the question disapproved of someone else and wanted to "show them". so who's surprised that the replies disapproved the questioner and wanted "to show them" (and i say that despite the scrabble for some kind of neutrality - "but i just wanted to help this poor guy out" - later in the thread, which looks pretty dubious when you've played the "but who'll think of the children?" card earlier).

what's sauce for the goose...
posted by andrew cooke at 4:18 AM on November 19, 2005


Metafilter: lifting their unfortunate peers out of the throes of stupidity
posted by Kirth Gerson at 5:45 AM on November 19, 2005


I like swearing but the point is, not everyone else does. That should have been respected in the thread. This person was clearly offended by having his or her eyes assailed by a certain arrangement of letters and wished to seek useful information about what might be done to protect his or her delicate sensibilities.

The fuckarsed shitesticks who disrespected this person for being such a prissy little cunt should feel thoroughly ashamed of themselves.
posted by Decani at 7:09 AM on November 19, 2005


if you don't want people criticising others in your answers, make sure your question doesn't criticise others first.

I have to call bullshit. If an AskMe question is critical of someone else, a 3rd party off site in the asker's life. I have no business giving them what they dish out. We have standards for how we're supposed to behave with one another on AskMe, not standards for how we're each supposed to go off and behave in our individual lives.

I don't care how many times people cast this judgmental behavior as "practicing what you preach," or "only fair." The rule is simple: be helpful. Judgmental is not helpful.
posted by scarabic at 10:41 AM on November 19, 2005


True, judgmental is not helpful, but at the same time a poster's problem may not be the same as the question they're asking for help with. What I mean is, suppose somebody asks a question such as: "I am having a seriously hard time slipping this GHB I made into womens' drinks at bars and parties, does anybody have any tips on how I can do this more easily?" Obviously people would not answer his question, but would rather try to figure out why he felt the need to assault people in such a manner, and encourage him to seek help for it.

Before you all start screaming straw man at me I realize these are two entirely, incredibly different situations, but the basic point is the same: what will help that person is not necessarily answering their question, but rather finding out what causes them to perceive their problem in the way they do. I've seen AskMe posts in the past that fall into this category, but I can't recall any examples off the top of my head. In alms' case telling him how to locate his neighbor might actually contributed to hurting him, as someone confronted about that situation might actually be inclined to beat his ass for it, or exact some other sort of retribution. alms would be much better off growing a thicker skin.

Of course a thread like this going to be walking a very thin line in terms of AskMe policy, but this is MetaFilter for crying out loud...we're not always supposed to follow the rules.
posted by baphomet at 3:46 PM on November 19, 2005


"if someone posts something with a value judgement then it strikes me as a bit hypocritical if they later complain that answers also have value judgements."

"The difference is that their value judgments are right and the other people's are wrong." If you don't like that answer then see if it or hypocrisy applies when a questioner's question is in accordance with mefi and a commenter makes a value judgment in opposition.

A great many questions are going to have implicit value judgments. In asking the question, the questioner is not imposing their value judgment on anyone here because the question is asked with the presumption that there is someone here who will answer it—and that doesn't include someone who will reprimand them for asking the question. When someone comes along and does just that, they are being intolerant and are explicitly forcing their values upon the questioner in a way that the questioner is not doing to the answerer.

The hypocrisy that I detest most is the one where people speak out against others when they believe others hold unacceptable values, but demand tolerance of others when they are on the defensive.

Either it's acceptable to protest a questioner's question in AskMe or it's not. If it's not, and I think it's not, then many of the answers in that thread shouldn't have been there. If it is, as you say it is (at least when someone, somewhere determines that a value judgment is made in the question), then when, say, someone is heckled by a conservative for asking about the best to protest against Bush it should be acceptable. Choose.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 1:57 AM on November 20, 2005


(And exactly the opposite of what baphomet said.)
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 1:57 AM on November 20, 2005


EB - i didn't understand the first paragraph of your post, but i think you're saying that "what is a value judgement?" is (always) undecidable. that's untrue - there's a range from obvious to indeterminate, as with anything. and this was pretty clearly someone spluttering with indignation.

scarabic - i don't separate how i am on mefi from the rest of my life; i'm this unpleasant always. more generally, i don't understand the dvision between "online" and "offline". if someone is being boorishly intolerant then they're a target for ridicule - that's true if they're saying it to my face or posting here. yes, i'm aware of the guidelines on askme, but, as i said, i think they cut both ways: you should post purely factual questions if you want purely factual answers.

or maybe you're just saying "two wrongs don't make a right". that i find harder to argue with. i do value the difference between askme and mefi and i guess i could (should, and, with some luck, perhaps will) try harder to keep it that way. but it would help me greatly if people wouldn't post such loaded questions in the first place...
posted by andrew cooke at 5:38 AM on November 20, 2005


What PardonYou said. If somebody has a thoughtful, informative explanation of why the poster shouldn't be asking the question, that's entirely appropriate. Unfortunately, with one or two noble exceptions, that's not what was going on in the thread, which had possibly the worst signal-to-noise ratio of any AskMe thread I've seen.

We're not talking about an AskMe poster who sought help on hurting innocent people or defrauding eBay users. We're talking about somebody who prefers that his children not see swear words. Whether or not that's the choice you'd make for your own children, it's hardly an idea that merits much outrage.

As for the claim that alms opened himself up to this by making a goofy Star Trek reference to express his frustration--well, that would make a lot of sense if the noise in the thread consisted of responses like, "Dude, why would you destroy his router? Don't be an asshole." But nobody in the thread said anything remotely like that. (Or, at least, nobody had said anything like that up to about the thread's midawy point, which is when I got bored of the irony of a dozen people self-righteously and intolerantly accusing somebody else of being self-righteous and intolerant...)
posted by yankeefog at 11:58 AM on November 20, 2005


Erm, "...about the thread's midway point..."
posted by yankeefog at 11:59 AM on November 20, 2005


« Older Does the EFF count as a user's project?   |   MetaTalk RSS feed links point to MeFi not MeTa Newer »

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