Reposting A Deleted Post June 28, 2014 2:13 PM   Subscribe

Hi, when a post is deleted for bad or inappropriate framing, is there a span of time that the mods and/or our community feels another member should wait before building a better post?
posted by artof.mulata to Etiquette/Policy at 2:13 PM (76 comments total) 2 users marked this as a favorite

Depends on the situation. If it's purely a framing problem, I personally don't care if a new one goes up immediately. If it's a framing problem + some other issue (sensitive topic, breaking news, obituary) then probably your best bet is to drop us a line with your new draft and/or specific questions.

The other consideration is some folks might be annoyed by someone else making "their" post. That's not a mod consideration, but you could theoretically contact the poster of the deleted post and make sure you're not stepping on their toes. I don't know how proprietary people feel about stuff like that.
posted by restless_nomad (staff) at 2:15 PM on June 28, 2014 [2 favorites]


Did you want to redo the ASU professor incident post? If so, go ahead. I'm not planning on re-posting it. Personally, I think the framing was appropriate. Actually, the post just quoted the exact dialogue between the police officer and the professor and listed a few similar incidents.
posted by Golden Eternity at 2:18 PM on June 28, 2014 [1 favorite]


the post just quoted the exact dialogue

The title sunk it.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 2:22 PM on June 28, 2014 [8 favorites]


I was thinking of the ASU post, but the question is more general in nature; I'm not going to re-post it.

Thanks restless nomad, that's what I was hoping, but it's good to have clear guidance.
posted by artof.mulata at 2:23 PM on June 28, 2014


fair enough.
posted by Golden Eternity at 2:30 PM on June 28, 2014 [1 favorite]


As a member I don't think waiting matters to the membership. Only the people who saw the deleted post should even realize what happened.
posted by michaelh at 2:58 PM on June 28, 2014


A baseline of 453 minutes plus an additional 90 minutes per standardized fighty unit, scaled by a factor of √(2 × the number of links in the original post).
posted by Wolfdog at 3:05 PM on June 28, 2014 [8 favorites]


I would have complained about that deletion via the contact form if not for the title.
posted by jamjam at 3:20 PM on June 28, 2014


What was the title?
posted by taff at 3:34 PM on June 28, 2014


Any suggestions on a better title? Maybe I could ask to have it re-posted with the title changed.
posted by Golden Eternity at 3:34 PM on June 28, 2014


Fuck the Police, taff
posted by clockzero at 3:35 PM on June 28, 2014


I'm not sure what the point of the post is in the first place to be honest.
posted by Justinian at 3:46 PM on June 28, 2014


Do posts need to have a point?
posted by LionIndex at 3:49 PM on June 28, 2014


I know I commented in that thread, but it was basically "look at this bad thing that happened" and those get deleted a lot just on that basis, even without the inflammatory title.
posted by desjardins at 3:50 PM on June 28, 2014 [1 favorite]


Do posts need to have a point?

Of course, even if that point is "look at this cool thing!". But the point of this post seems to be OUTRAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGE.
posted by Justinian at 3:52 PM on June 28, 2014


The point of the post is injustice in the form of violence perpetrated by police officers without cause usually on minorities. It is rare of course, and not a problem for most of us, but I think those who are affected by it have a reason to be outraged. It is NewsFilter I guess ...
posted by Golden Eternity at 4:03 PM on June 28, 2014 [1 favorite]


That seems to be a confusion of "important" with "good post" though.
posted by Justinian at 4:19 PM on June 28, 2014 [1 favorite]


It's justified outrage, sure, but...I just don't see "read this and you will get angry again about an ongoing phenomenon you're already aware of" as the standard for a post. I can understand outrage posts about new bad situations (new laws, etc.), but "police are racists, treat minorities badly" hasn't been news for decades upon decades. So it's not really educative, nor is it something cool. It's just a "get angry again" post.
posted by Bugbread at 4:20 PM on June 28, 2014 [2 favorites]


Did I just say "educative" instead of "educational"?
posted by Bugbread at 4:32 PM on June 28, 2014 [7 favorites]


Thank you for posting it, Golden Eternity. I don't know what the title was, and I know these meta posts are not to be places to discuss the deleted post.

I will say that while a few of yall seem to have a seriously high bar for posts like these, while we literally have videos of fluffy pets that stay up. I posted a video of a guy talking to a bird that landed on his porch.

I didn't see the post so I can't say whether the framing or construction of it was good. But the subject matter means a lot to some of us who look like the woman who got body slammed.

This is my life. I deal with this on a daily basis. I make decisions about what activities I'm going to partake in, in the middle of the day, sometimes based on what agents of the state, or those who feel they own an area, are thinking about.

There was area near me that is open to the public that was all of a sudden closed. Some others in the area who didn't look like me, decided they would figure out a way around it. I left, because if any agent of the state showed up and *I* was there, guess who they're going for immediately? Guess whose skin is going to make them an instant threat? Guess who could get shot to death by some citizen, and that citizen would have a fair chance of getting off by pointing out my skin color and that I'm a guy? This was less than a week ago.

I mean I have come to expect Metafilter to act certain ways around the posting of these cases, because even my original post about the Trayvon Martin situation got deleted.

But don't for a second think that these issues of the treatment of nonwhites by police officers and other agents acting on behalf of the state are just issues that nobody here cares about, or that don't affect people who have been at Mefi for years.

These issues affect me and my family members, and I appreciate when they're posted. And every time wage gap posts pop up, or posts that detail women's experiences against the almost endless parade of male jerks that continue to oppress women in numerous ways, I like those too.

Because yes, it's time to get mad again. And maybe you should be mad again until these situations stop happening. Maybe one time it'll make us mad enough that we decide to do something notable. So I hope these posts get made, and continue to get made. There are some great discussions to be had, strategies to be shared, stories to be told, and understanding to be experienced. By everyone.
posted by cashman at 4:34 PM on June 28, 2014 [32 favorites]


cashman: "Because yes, it's time to get mad again. And maybe you should be mad again until these situations stop happening."

If that's your standard, then it's not time to get mad again, it's always time to be mad. And these situations have been happening since the dawn of time. You should always be mad. From your birth to your death you should never feel joy.

Which, you know, cool, if that's what you want to do, sure. I just hope MetaFilter doesn't become "That website where you go to maintain your anger at peak level".
posted by Bugbread at 4:44 PM on June 28, 2014 [9 favorites]


I think that's what Tumblr's for.
posted by Bugbread at 4:44 PM on June 28, 2014 [2 favorites]


That's my secret. I'm always angry.
posted by Justinian at 4:49 PM on June 28, 2014 [15 favorites]


As I mentioned, I posted a video of a dude talking to a bird on his porch in Florida. So I think you can rest assured and feel secure that Metafilter never has been, and never will be that place that is only posts about contentious issues. If it was a good post, perhaps someone who saw it will decide to redo it without the title.
posted by cashman at 4:49 PM on June 28, 2014 [4 favorites]


Bugbread: "It's justified outrage, sure, but...I just don't see "read this and you will get angry again about an ongoing phenomenon you're already aware of" as the standard for a post. I can understand outrage posts about new bad situations (new laws, etc.), but "police are racists, treat minorities badly" hasn't been news for decades upon decades. So it's not really educative, nor is it something cool. It's just a "get angry again" post."

I'd be mad all the time, too if I had to walk on eggshells around the police and racists with guns with a very real risk of getting shot. If you don't like these kinds of posts, don't read them. Seeing as I'm a middle-class white man who needs not overly fear the police, I think seeing things from the perspective of others who are not so fortunate is good for me. Educational, even.
posted by double block and bleed at 5:00 PM on June 28, 2014 [13 favorites]


If that's your standard, then it's not time to get mad again, it's always time to be mad. And these situations have been happening since the dawn of time. You should always be mad. From your birth to your death you should never feel joy.

There's no middle ground between "Well, I guess I'm just going to be utterly paralyzed by the presence of injustice" and "I don't care at all" when our fellow citizens are brutalized by people whose paychecks come from taxpayer dollars?
posted by clockzero at 5:01 PM on June 28, 2014 [2 favorites]


clockzero: "There's no middle ground between "Well, I guess I'm just going to be utterly paralyzed by the presence of injustice" and "I don't care at all" when our fellow citizens are brutalized by people whose paychecks come from taxpayer dollars?"

You missed this sentence?: "I can understand outrage posts about new bad situations (new laws, etc.)"
posted by Bugbread at 5:16 PM on June 28, 2014 [1 favorite]


Given that we have word from on high that what killed the post was the inflammatory title, why not just repost it with a more neutral title? That would seem to render the discussion of whether posts of this sort are or aren't Metafilter worthy moot.
posted by yoink at 5:17 PM on June 28, 2014 [1 favorite]


I dunno. Maybe MeFi has just been too successful for me. It's really rare for me to see a perspective shared that I haven't already seen many times before. Not that it's a bad thing, or that I'm jaded. But it's no longer educational, in that respect.

But, yeah, on topic of post: I think we've got our answers. "If it's framing, reframing and posting immediately is fine. If it's framing and content, then work with the mods first. In this case, it was just the title, so reframing and reposting immediately is a-ok."
posted by Bugbread at 5:21 PM on June 28, 2014 [1 favorite]


You missed this sentence?: "I can understand outrage posts about new bad situations (new laws, etc.)"

I understand. You're saying that moral outrage should be reserved for new travesties. But just before that, you also said that things like this have been going on forever. So how do we know when there's a truly novel kind of injustice happening?

I'm not trying to fight with you, Bugbread. I do think, though, that maybe you should consider being more respectful when people like cashman want to talk about injustice invading and constraining their lives. He's not just talking about the post or defending some prerogative to be gratuitously outraged, I think he's saying that the post's subject reflects bitter realities he knows personally. Don't tell people that they should be quiet unless the oppression they experience meets some arbitrary standard of novelty.
posted by clockzero at 5:51 PM on June 28, 2014 [15 favorites]


I can't speak for the mods, but I imagine that posts about silly animal videos are easier for the community, and the mods, than topics that are heated, and possibly contentious. Unfortunately, I'd say there is plenty of coverage of terrible things, even very important terrible things, so there's a threshold for posting such events on MetaFilter. On the flip side, I think it would take a serious rush of cute/silly videos to get mods to start deleting videos of animals doing funny things.

There are some things that should be fought against, until there is a change. But there are a lot of these things, so posts about those topics should pass a certain bar. There is no hard and fast rule for what that bar is, but it's always a good practice to keep any editorial-type comments or framing out of posts. And "novelty" isn't required to post about a bad situation, but the post should be more than breaking news about a terrible incident.
posted by filthy light thief at 6:48 PM on June 28, 2014


I can't speak for the mods, but I imagine that posts about silly animal videos are easier for the community, and the mods, than topics that are heated, and possibly contentious.

Yes. Could we please drop the constant comparisons between cute animal videos and posts that have nothing to do with cute animals? I don't know why every time someone posts a MeTa to complain about a deleted post, they have to add the fact that the cute animals stayed up!!!

Most of us who aren't mods are not in any position to know how many posts on a given topic are posted. For instance, someone in this thread said they posted something about Trayvon Martin and it got deleted. Oh. That doesn't surprise me. Considering what a huge media circus the George Zimmerman case was, I'd expect there to be many deleted posts about it. Saying that race and crime are more important than cute animals is not interesting. Everyone knows that.

The question of "what's the most important issue?" isn't the only thing that matters. Of course race and crime are important topics. That doesn't mean that any one post involving race and/or crime, no matter how well or poorly done, has to stay up on this website. Having high standards about posts on sensitive issues will tend to lead to better discussions on those issues.
posted by John Cohen at 7:38 PM on June 28, 2014 [4 favorites]


Wait, I had to look up on deleted thread to find out what was being talked about here.

Is someone gonna repost it with a different title? Can I just change the title and post it if thats what the problem was?
posted by hal_c_on at 7:44 PM on June 28, 2014


The only time anyone gets fighty about cute animal videos is when there's a meTa about a deletion of something they think shouldn't have been deleted.

Cute animal videos cause almost no friction, because they don't attract threadfuls of people being shitty to each other. The same cannot be said for "look at this awful thing" fpps, even when they're very carefully framed. "Kitten is afraid of green thing!" needs no more framing than that.
posted by rtha at 7:50 PM on June 28, 2014 [9 favorites]


the post just quoted the exact dialogue

The title sunk it.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 9:22 on June 29 [5 favorites +] [!]


But I guess this post stood because ...why exactly?

I mean I have come to expect Metafilter to act certain ways around the posting of these cases, because even my original post about the Trayvon Martin situation got deleted.

I still remember that Trayvon post, and still think that deletion was bad.

Cute animal videos cause almost no friction, because they don't attract threadfuls of people being shitty to each other. The same cannot be said for "look at this awful thing" fpps, even when they're very carefully framed. "Kitten is afraid of green thing!" needs no more framing than that.

So this is the standard now? I guess we shouldn't have any posts about trans* issues, Israel, feminism, poverty, politics...ad nauseum.
posted by hal_c_on at 8:06 PM on June 28, 2014 [1 favorite]


I think of "look at this awful thing" FPPs as being not-great-for-the-site because they don't have any substance to discuss, aside from people saying, "oh, that's awful!"

The ASU professor story posted by Golden Dawn isn't a "look at this awful thing" FPP, I think, because there are lots to discuss about the incident in the article and why it happened -- for example, some closely related topics of discussion springing from the FPP could be: racism (obviously), the militarization of parts of the US, Obama's handling of the Henry Louis Gates, Jr. debacle and how this will (or won't) be handled in comparison, etc etc etc. This FPP is touching on a lot of huge social issues and could lead to really fascinating discussion in a lot of directions. I hope this gets essentially reposted.

But it also sounds like the post got deleted because it had a cuss word in the title, not because it was a "look at this awful thing" FPP anyway, right? Or did it? (I'd appreciate if a mod has a second to weigh in and clarify, because I think that if the problem is solely the title and otherwise the FPP could/would have stood, that's a very different issue than if the substance of the FPP was a cause for its deletion. I think it's fair if posts are deleted/re-titled if people are flagging the title as offensive, but I don't think there's anything wrong or not MeFi-worthy with the substance of the FPP and would like to know if the mods and other commenters think that there is).

I dunno. Maybe MeFi has just been too successful for me. It's really rare for me to see a perspective shared that I haven't already seen many times before.

If you're feeling like you're seeing the same old things then maybe you should try looking more closely. Because either you're not seeing as much as you think or you're only taking really superficial glances.
posted by rue72 at 8:17 PM on June 28, 2014 [1 favorite]


Golden Eternity not Golden Dawn. Christ!

FYI, I missed an email from the mods as soon as the post was deleted offering to reactivate it if I changed the title. Unfortunately, I was multitasking between a lot of things today and wasn't sure I wanted to repost it anyway as as this metalk indicates the general consensus is probably that it does not pass MetaFilter's bar of acceptability as a "good post." Anyway, I should have just responded sooner and changed the title. Sorry. I think it was handled well. It's probably not very useful to compare against other deletions. We all agree the mods do an awesome job.
posted by Golden Eternity at 8:21 PM on June 28, 2014 [8 favorites]


So this is the standard now? I guess we shouldn't have any posts about trans* issues, Israel, feminism, poverty, politics...ad nauseum.

This is not a sudden change, the moderation of outragefilter-type FPPs. Not a single person is saying we shouldn't have those posts. Jumping straight to that presumption is incorrect.

It's part of the same thing as when at the start of threads a negative comment of little content is more likely to be removed than a positive comment of little content - they might be equally empty, but one is much more likely to cause the thread to go badly than the other.
posted by gadge emeritus at 8:23 PM on June 28, 2014 [6 favorites]


Golden Eternity not Golden Dawn. Christ!

Oh no, I'm sorry! I thought to myself as I wrote it, "that CAN'T be right, isn't that the name of..." but was lazy and didn't double check. UGH note to self: THIS is what happens when you don't double check!
posted by rue72 at 8:42 PM on June 28, 2014 [3 favorites]


But I guess this post stood because ...why exactly?

Because it was a double-entendre? That post was about cops sleeping around to infiltrate environmental groups.
posted by Johnny Wallflower at 8:42 PM on June 28, 2014 [14 favorites]


So this is the standard now? I guess we shouldn't have any posts about trans* issues, Israel, feminism, poverty, politics...ad nauseum.

You aren't new here and can't be unaware that there has been a higher bar for "look at this shitty thing/outragefilter" posts for years now: If they're going to stick around they have t be carefully framed and consist of more than outragefilter link. This has been repeatedly stated in meTas by mods.
posted by rtha at 8:51 PM on June 28, 2014 [14 favorites]


You aren't new here and can't be unaware that there has been a higher bar for "look at this shitty thing/outragefilter" posts for years now

Well you're not a mod, and the modagement has stated that the only reason it failed was because of the title. So I don't know what you are talking about.
posted by hal_c_on at 8:55 PM on June 28, 2014 [1 favorite]


You just acted like there's a brand! new! policy that would disallow I/P threads and trans* threads and so on, which ...what? You were responding directly to my comment about high-friction posts needing more careful framing than low-friction ones. Are you saying that that is not long-standing policy around here?
posted by rtha at 9:09 PM on June 28, 2014


Are you saying that that is not long-standing policy around here?

I'm generally not a mod. So I have a general policy of not pretending like my opinion determines the general policies.

generally.
posted by hal_c_on at 9:26 PM on June 28, 2014


For instance, someone in this thread said they posted something about Trayvon Martin and it got deleted.

What is this weird dodgy nonsense? If you're talking about me, just use my username.

That doesn't surprise me. Considering what a huge media circus the George Zimmerman case was, I'd expect there to be many deleted posts about it. Saying that race and crime are more important than cute animals is not interesting. Everyone knows that.

The point was the Bugbread was saying that the subject matter just wasn't new and notable enough for posting and discussion. And I'm like uh, I posted a video of a guy talking to a bird. That was the point.

Thank you, hal_c_on, for backing me regarding that original Trayvon post. And to make it clear, to my knowledge, my deleted post was the original post about the Trayvon Martin case.

But anyway, this is all just an aside because the title of the ASU Professor post was the thing deemed problematic.
posted by cashman at 9:41 PM on June 28, 2014 [1 favorite]


Huh. I was unaware until now that recognizing the existence of policies and guidelines and rules here requires mod status. Thanks for the tip.
posted by rtha at 9:42 PM on June 28, 2014 [1 favorite]


It seems to me that the only reason "look at this awful thing" posts often go badly is the rampancy of awful-thing denialists, and I don't really understand why whole types of discussions ought to be jettisoned on their account.
posted by threeants at 10:49 PM on June 28, 2014 [2 favorites]


Also I feel like there's sometimes this weird and unfair thing on MeFi where Look At This Bad Thing related to gender or sexual orientation is seen as prompting community bonding and a legitimate exchange of lived experience (which is a good thing as far as I'm concerned), while the same genre of Look At This Bad Thing, when related to race or class, is seen as "outragefilter".
posted by threeants at 10:54 PM on June 28, 2014 [8 favorites]


It seems to me that the only reason "look at this awful thing" posts often go badly is the rampancy of awful-thing denialists, and I don't really understand why whole types of discussions ought to be jettisoned on their account.

I think the sort of thinking that this post represents is the main reason, actually.
posted by Sebmojo at 11:24 PM on June 28, 2014 [1 favorite]


Look At This Bad Thing related to gender or sexual orientation is seen as prompting community bonding and a legitimate exchange of lived experience ... while the same genre of Look At This Bad Thing, when related to race or class, is seen as "outragefilter"

Do you mean generally, or from a moderation standpoint? Because in terms of moderation, I don't see it this way. And just speaking in terms of posts most likely to "cause scarring" in the community, posts about racism seem more united, and less likely to result in comments expressing doubt and disbelief, derailing with What About Other Problem, contempt, dismissal, and sarcasm, and spawning massive Metatalk threads, people quitting the site, etc., while difficult sexism and gender identity posts can sometimes seem almost remarkable if they don't go that way. Threads about racism can be awful too, obviously, with people sniping at each other because they don't agree precisely on all the exact contours of the problems or solutions, but the site is pretty united in being anti-racism.

From our point of view, outragefilter, regardless of subject matter, is something that is posted in a way that incites rage over something, and is usually not supported by other links that might provide more productive, thoughtful or interesting discussion (rather than just howls of outrage and turning on each other in helpless fury), often including such things as background, history, context, analysis, particular insights from insiders/experts, studies, proposals, legal context etc.

To get away from a perhaps unhelpful framing of RACE vs GENDER, let's say someone makes a post about torture or cruelty to animals, in a bare "look at this horrific thing that happened" way – this would also be deleted as outragefilter/"horrible thing happened," but it doesn't mean that Mefi, mods, or members don't care about animals.

In my mind, "outragefilter" could basically be described as coming across something online and thinking, "oh my god, how horrific; I need to post this at Metafilter!"
posted by taz (staff) at 2:02 AM on June 29, 2014 [3 favorites]


As for reposting generally, sounds like the mods and staff have covered that, and it's only a question they could really answer anyway.

But as for Golden Eternity's post, I completely agreed with restless_nomad's deletion, and I agreed with his rationale: "This post was deleted for the following reason: This is carefully framed to provide maximum outrage, which does not lead to good discussions."

The title was childish.

The quoted source also includes plenty of outragefilter, including the line calling this incident "not uncommon" while weakly correlating this case with an incident in a different part of the country a year before. And the linked headline is still more of the same. Nobody was "body slammed." (An aside... while I consider myself to be a very liberal person, I don't care for how ThinkProgress tries so hard to provoke outrage.)

Is there something worth discussing here? You bet. We could have a constructive and interesting discussion about what the citizen should've done here, what the officer should've done here, what the law ought to require and proscribe in situations like this... but not when the post's author chooses a ridiculous title and quotes from an outrage-seeking source.

Since that was the post we got, the comments we got were a lot of crap.

The first two comments were pointless off topic jabs at Phoenix and Arizona. The fourth was a stupid comment insinuating that all campus cops are incompetent rent-a-cops. The sixth was a ridiculous piece of hyperbole about organizing freedom rides to Arizona.

So on and so forth. Hardly a thoughtful discussion, and I think that starts with the post. It was entirely framed as "look this bad thing that happened. You're mad, right? Check out this source saying it's a bad thing. Now everyone post about how they're mad about this bad thing."

I'm glad the mod staff tries to carefully monitor these kinds of posts when they can.
posted by Old Man McKay at 3:38 AM on June 29, 2014 [6 favorites]


Just personally, I'd rather posts like the ASU one could wait until there was more substance, not just the initial awfulness. A week or month from now, we'd have the original video, plus a good analysis piece and some thoughtful essays, by then we'd know what the official campus administration response is going to be, etc. In other words, a lot more substance and context and more to talk about than disagreeing about how awful exactly this awful thing really is.

The awfulness will still be there a few weeks from now, and when I like metafilter the most is when the immediate issue of the day (whether awfulness or cute animal video) gets the extra depth and richness you mostly don't see on the clickbait sites.

Yesterday's FPP by Juliet Banana was fantastic (as were the essays linked within the main FPP one) in a way that posting details of the original attack and trial never would have been. The subject matter can be maximally difficult and still work well here, but the framing and quality of the links needs to be in step with that.
posted by Dip Flash at 4:28 AM on June 29, 2014 [3 favorites]


Just personally, I'd rather posts like the ASU one could wait until there was more substance, not just the initial awfulness. A week or month from now, we'd have the original video, plus a good analysis piece and some thoughtful essays, by then we'd know what the official campus administration response is going to be, etc. In other words, a lot more substance and context and more to talk about than disagreeing about how awful exactly this awful thing really is.

I don't disagree with the principle, but by the same logic we wouldn't do semi-live FPPs from WWDC, or Google I/O - I mean, there's a lot more to say about the products unveiled there a few months later, when we've seen how they do in the market, seen an iFixit teardown etc.

(You may think that nobody is going to get as angry about a new phone as about racism in America's policing. I wish you were right.)

Stopping it from being a thread in which people just say "OMG this is awful", or indeed "OMG this is not awful, stop overreacting" is a challenge (although, as Cashman notes, there is potentially value in just saying "this is a thing we are interested in talking about", which a non-deleted FPP does). I was thinking when I saw the dashcam video about how much this sort of thing costs universities - the Iranian-American UCLA student who was tasered in 2006 got a $220,000 settlement, and UC Davis ended up paying the pepper-sprayed students an average of $30,000 each (and about $40,000 dollars to the guy who sprayed them). I didn't see the FPP, so I don't know what it contained, but it seems like there are things to discuss here beyond "this bad thing happened"...

(Although I realise it's easy to say that if you don't have to mod the thread, and see also the ongoing sexism MeTa, which may be relevant.)

But! If it is just the title that needs changing, I'd be happy to see it reposted, by the OP or someone else, or a new thread on the same topic...
posted by running order squabble fest at 5:43 AM on June 29, 2014 [2 favorites]


nause…(um…)
posted by Namlit at 6:53 AM on June 29, 2014


> Saying that race and crime are more important than cute animals is not interesting. Everyone knows that.

Also, it's not obvious on the face of it that importance is of any importance.
posted by jfuller at 9:05 AM on June 29, 2014


Also, it's not obvious on the face of it that importance is of any importance.
Posts are supposed to be interesting, not the "you must see this because outrage".
posted by arcticseal at 9:30 AM on June 29, 2014


but by the same logic we wouldn't do semi-live FPPs from WWDC

That's a great example, actually, where waiting even one day would have improved that FPP.
posted by Dip Flash at 9:51 AM on June 29, 2014 [4 favorites]


taz, I'm talking about the userbase, not really the moderation. I don't tend to see an unfairness in the way the mods treat threads in that regard.
posted by threeants at 9:56 AM on June 29, 2014


I personally think that was a great post with an iffy title and would love to see it get the attention it deserves by being reposted (framing and all) with a different title.
posted by yellowcandy at 10:32 AM on June 29, 2014 [3 favorites]


I'd rather posts like the ASU one could wait until there was more substance

This is my feeling. And I'm one of those angry-all-the-time people about these sorts of things but MetaFilter posts go better when there's something to discuss more than "Cops, still racist assholes" and when there's an entry into the subject more than "Fuck these guys." Quoting people being shitty to other people, even if true, is often a way to pre-outrage people who then come to threads all hopped up and are then shitty to each other. A different post is something that anyone could make. Trust people to still be outraged.

So this is the standard now? I guess we shouldn't have any posts about trans* issues, Israel, feminism, poverty, politics...ad nauseum.

You're being weirdly aggressive about this. For someone who has been around the site and MeTa in particular, you know this sort of "Oh so I guess $IMPLAUSIBLE_THING is true now, huh?" makes for terrible discussions and makes you look like a jerk. You're better than that.

Also restless_nomad is female
posted by jessamyn (retired) at 2:53 PM on June 29, 2014 [11 favorites]


Thanks for the correction Jessamyn.

Sorry about that, r_n!
posted by Old Man McKay at 4:37 PM on June 29, 2014 [1 favorite]


Cute animal videos cause almost no friction, because they don't attract threadfuls of people being shitty to each other.

Though if it's not a dog, cat or endangered species you can usually rely on at least 3 people posting about how much they like to eat said animal. Though that's an internet rule on any general interest board.
posted by lesbiassparrow at 4:56 PM on June 29, 2014 [3 favorites]


You put "endangered species" and "eat" in the same species and now I want to see The Freshman again.
posted by Area Man at 6:04 PM on June 29, 2014


If it weren't so full of catophiles here I'd be making a LOT more comments about cats being the other white meat.
posted by taff at 8:05 PM on June 29, 2014


catophiles

Are you referring to the Elder or Younger? ;)
posted by futz at 8:24 PM on June 29, 2014 [4 favorites]


I will say that while a few of yall seem to have a seriously high bar for posts like these, while we literally have videos of fluffy pets that stay up.

Pretty sure that videos of fluffy pets don't generally end up creating a lot of extra work and headaches for the mods.

I'm fine with topics that are likely to start drama having to pass a higher bar to make them worth that cost.
posted by Jacqueline at 8:52 PM on June 29, 2014 [1 favorite]


I am not. I don't want some video about how a woman got harassed at a popular tech event and the response to have to face some wildly different standard than my video about a guy talking to a bird on his porch.

The thing with the ASU post was the title. And I think that title would have been an issue even on my bird post. I love the video of a guy talking to a bird. That's why I posted it. But I don't think it's a good idea to set some wildly different standard for non-fluff posts.

I really don't care that a bunch of guys might pull "not all men" bullshit or go into arguments about nature vs nurture and whether or not men can control themselves when it comes to women. Those guys can go to hell or get off the site or get their fighty nonsense deleted when its appropriate. Or maybe they'll end up finally getting it and learning. But the last thing I want to do is take an issue like women's rights and feminist topics that "are likely to start drama" as you say and go "oh hey, here's even another hurdle for you to jump over just to talk about these problems."
posted by cashman at 9:09 PM on June 29, 2014 [7 favorites]


Those guys can go to hell or get off the site or get their fighty nonsense deleted when its appropriate.

I read this story on CNN about how this family got fucked because they have a nanny that refuses to work. And because they were ignorant of labor laws AND tenancy laws they got fucked because she refuses to leave. And NOW they are starting the eviction process (better late than never). So everyone and their mama is talking about how California laws are fucked (despite how it makes for a pro-tenant state where you can't just throw people out on their ass at anytime).

It's kinda a case of ignorant ass people wanting to throw the baby out with the bathwater. You don't need to dismantle the laws to resolve this situation, some prep work would have insured that this situation didn't come about. That's all.

Now we all know the mods aren't ignorant(they're quite smart). But some of the people who would be starting that shit that would make for a contentious Trayvon Martin (rip) or Oscar Grant (rip) thread probably are.

When we see stories like the two referenced above, there should be one monolithic response ("this is fucked...) along with individual flair (...if I were that person, I'd take everyone to court"), EXACTLY like when we see stories about kittens wearing fedoras there is a monolithic response ("aww....) along with flair (...that's the only thing with a fedora I'd let into my bed").

I understand why the modagement is reticent to have the same standard because it makes for a LOT of extra work. That makes sense. What I'm wondering is WHY there is extra work because of ignorant responses? Why are they able to stand. What value is there in saying "well there is another side to this story....maybe the kid deserved it", "well he should have respected the cops if he didn't want 8 of them to kneel on him and shoot him in the back".

Just like with the fedora kittens, there is only one response to the actual situations. When a woman gets harassed by a group of men, there is one response; when children get killed in war, there is one correct response; when there is police brutality, there is one correct response.

There is no value to a statement "well the 16 year old boy had it coming". In all seriousness, there is absolutely no other correct response besides "this is fucked".

Mods, you are fucking smart and everyone here knows it. Don't say "it makes for a fighty thread". Delete those fighty answers, make your job easier.

There are some things in the world that have one correct answer: let's allow that shit to stand. Police brutality is one of those things; delete the wrong responses. Please.
posted by hal_c_on at 12:05 AM on June 30, 2014


Mods, you are fucking smart and everyone here knows it. Don't say "it makes for a fighty thread". Delete those fighty answers, make your job easier.

This is easy to say, but really not as simple as you make it out to be. There have been many cases where, for example:
1) deleting an offending comment has been problematic because people have already responded to it (sometimes repeating the content of the comment by quoting it) before a mod saw it.
2) deleting the comment has led to the poster of the comment making an angry "silenced all my lief/censorship" metatalk thread
3) deleting the comment and those responding to it has led to one of the responders posting an angry "silenced all my lief/censorship" metatalk thread.

Further, the contentiousness of police brutality posts is often not as simple as "in this one case what the cops did was or was not reprehensible" terms. People can agree often that what happened in one situation was totally heinous and unacceptable, but then strongly disagree in "this is horrible, but my uncle's a cop and he's an okay guy/no he isn't; by participating in the system at all he is complicit in it" terms.
posted by juv3nal at 3:01 AM on June 30, 2014 [3 favorites]


hal_c_on: "when there is police brutality, there is one correct response."

Just to pick that one example, I've seen responses range from "police are bad because they reflect the underlying badness of society" to "police are bad because government is bad", which then devolves into a big argument between socialists versus libertarians. Even when MeFites agree, they disagree.
posted by Bugbread at 5:38 AM on June 30, 2014 [1 favorite]


Mods, you are fucking smart and everyone here knows it. Don't say "it makes for a fighty thread". Delete those fighty answers, make your job easier.

That's a profound reduction of the actual post-and-discussion dynamics around here and how moderation intersects with them. You do not do our job, and you frequently seem to misrepresent how our job works when you comment in Metatalk; it'd be nice to get less of this "why don't you just do the simple thing that I think you should do" sort of stuff from you, along with less of the "oh so because of x, we're now declaring that ALWAYS Z is the rule?" needling mentioned above.

modagement

You can just call us "moderators" or, if you for some reason really need to call us the management, "the management". I don't feel like repeatedly rolling out a conspicuous nonce portmanteaux is really helping discussions any. Please maybe just throttle it back in general in metatalk for a while.
posted by cortex (staff) at 11:43 AM on June 30, 2014 [2 favorites]


hal_c_on, you must live in a really simple black and white world. Because there is almost never just one easy answer and one correct response to things in this life.
posted by Justinian at 11:57 AM on June 30, 2014 [1 favorite]


It's justified outrage, sure, but...I just don't see "read this and you will get angry again about an ongoing phenomenon you're already aware of" as the standard for a post.

A bit late to the parade, but i think the site would entirely be a better place if less posts were built on a foundation poured of mostly, if not entirely this.

I think a lot of people slap together, or even very carefully and meticulously build posts where they think they're doing the Lords Work of being progressive by educating people or whatever, when it's actually just "get outraged at this!".

I could pull together at least ten examples in the past 60 days which really felt like a stick poking me in the eye of just that with little other reason to post, but it would likely start a huge fight over what posts were really worthy despite having undertones of that. And that's not my point anyways.

I just think the site would be a perceptibly, subjectively better place to me at least if people spent some extra time at preview before they click submit going "Is that the main tentpole of my post?". Because it sure as hell feels like people not only answer yes, but go "And people NEED TO SEE THIS!". This isn't twittumblbook, if you want to signal boost something that is near and dear to you there might be better venues for that.

I don't disagree with the principle, but by the same logic we wouldn't do semi-live FPPs from WWDC, or Google I/O - I mean, there's a lot more to say about the products unveiled there a few months later, when we've seen how they do in the market, seen an iFixit teardown etc.

I thought those posts set a bad precedent honestly. Both because they'd get brought up constantly in discussions like this, and because i thought we didn't do liveblog type stuff here. I'd rather wait on that stuff too.

I wish the standard was set at "wait until there's significant content and not just a fervor thread".

I think exceptions can be made for huge things like baloon boy, UCSB, the Trayvon Martin threads, etc where it's an enormous thing that permeates all public consciousness... but the bar should mostly be set at "no ZOMG BREAKING LIVEBLOG NEWS threads".
posted by emptythought at 2:46 PM on June 30, 2014 [2 favorites]


I don't feel like repeatedly rolling out a conspicuous nonce portmanteaux is really helping discussions any.
Thanks for modsplaining that.
posted by Wolfdog at 4:03 PM on June 30, 2014


"Noncemanteaux"--feel free to use it. No, no--you're welcome.
posted by yoink at 6:26 PM on June 30, 2014




« Older Starting a steam engine link?   |   Happy birthday Mefi Music! Newer »

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