ReadMe link June 5, 2002 7:40 AM   Subscribe

ReadMe is your standard warning regarding the do's and don'ts of how readers should respond to blog output. Granted, MetaFilter promotes discussion, sometimes quite heated, but perhaps these are good rules of conduct for MeFites?
posted by ashbury to Etiquette/Policy at 7:40 AM (12 comments total)

I was thinking of doing a treatment of the forum guidelines from Shacknews, a highly popular gaming news site that attracts lots of people with petty rivalries and too much free time (sound familiar?).

It's interesting to see the strong influence of profit concerns on acceptable posts.
posted by NortonDC at 8:08 AM on June 5, 2002

Ex-friends, lovers and estranged family members who have been cut out of the writer's life should refrain from reading their journal

Given the "writer's" tyrannical attitude, they're probably the only ones who bother.
posted by MiguelCardoso at 8:17 AM on June 5, 2002

Yes, I'd say most bloggers, especially those with modest traffic--which is most--welcome all the readers they can get...ex-girlfriend, or no.

Although, "don't be a pyscho stalker" is a good one, not that a README page will prevent that.
posted by brittney at 8:23 AM on June 5, 2002

miguel, agreed. Unless you have a comment system and they flame you mercilessly, or they spam you into an early grave. People have been known to get a little erratic and unpredictable when breakups occur. Speaking of which, I haven't seen coldchef in a while, nor has he defended you of late. Are you guys on the outs? (I think I just broke one of the rulez of conduct, didn't I?)
posted by ashbury at 8:59 AM on June 5, 2002

if you have a real life relationship with the writer, remember that communication is very important. View weblogs as online journals, no less sacred than a diary hidden between the mattresses. First of all let them know that you read their site, especially if they did not tell you personally.

f they do not want you reading it, or suddenly stop posting entries, ask them why and if necessary, stop going to the site. It is important that as a friend, relative, co-worker or whatever you may be to the writer, that your presence at their weblog not impede their ability to express themselves.

is this a joke? how hopelessly naive (or stupid) do you have to be to assume that when you post something to the very *public* Internet that people will or should treat it like a personal diary and "not peek." for chrissakes, if you don't want people reading your stuff, don't put it on a billboard in the middle of Times Square. If you don't want readers contacting you, don't put your freakin' email address on your site. if you just want an "outlet" to "express yourself," with no potential intrusions from the outside world and absolute control over who reads your writing and what they do with it, do us all a favor and don't hit the FTP button. It's not like your innermost thoughts can't be kept in a nice Word document, or even a site that isn't "live."
posted by lizs at 9:14 AM on June 5, 2002

What Lizs said.

And if I weren't a psycho stalker, I'd still be living in Ft. Lauderdale. Now, if you'll excuse me, I have to go crouch over someone's sleeping body with a knife in my hand.
posted by Su at 9:21 AM on June 5, 2002

Never contact the writer for more details on events or personal information than what they have already provided on the site

What Lizs and Su said. This writer seems to me like someone who has certain out-of-control elements in her offline life that she is trying to contain by having a very rigid, rule-governed online life. I think it's one thing to say "hey, if you're my Mom, I don't want you to read this" and quite another to expect that she actually do what you say. While I get amused at the thought of trying to keep the Internet under your mattress, an online diary just is not an offline diary, and there's no reason you should expect people to treat it as such. While some of the basic rules are okay "don't be a stalker, dont' be an asshole, don't directly link to my graphics" overall I think this is too many rules, though if my journal were called bad luck pussy, maybe I'd feel differently.
posted by jessamyn at 10:02 AM on June 5, 2002

What Lizs & jessamyn said with a side order of fries. Sheesh. How to read my blog?! Pah.

Read the biog for some motivation pointers
posted by i_cola at 10:45 AM on June 5, 2002

Wow. I love her biography. She's FABULOUS!!!

But I still object to 9/10ths of the readme section.
posted by RJ Reynolds at 11:20 AM on June 5, 2002

Spend a lot of energy telling me how not to participate on your site, and I'll oblige you completely.
You also won't get any of my input, either, which is ostensibly what you're looking for by having a two-way bit on your site.
I got through 2/3 of the first paragraph of this readme page, before I got bored and split for FilePile.

Kittyporn makes it all feel better.
posted by dong_resin at 1:03 PM on June 5, 2002

I think everyone would be better served with "rules for dumbass bloggers" - like, don't put up a blog with your name slathered over it, naming names, and not expect the people written about to find it and read it. Heck, when I got on with my journal in 1996, I avoided any mention of my boyfriend, my sisters, my parents. I think I mentioned our dogs - that was it; they were pretty stupid, I'm sure they couldn't even manage to sign up for AOL. Besides, they didn't have credit cards.

And what dong_resin said about kittyporn.

posted by meep at 7:44 PM on June 5, 2002

Even if you didn't like some of the things mentioned in the article, near the bottom it linked to this very informative copyright information page.
posted by pheideaux at 9:07 AM on June 6, 2002

« Older two requests   |   Forbes Best of the Web Newer »

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