A question of policy January 9, 2016 8:45 AM Subscribe
In the Oregan under attack thread there was a well researched comment by phoque naming most of the brundy bunch which was subsequently axed with an indication to bring the matter here
The removed comment was good investigative reporting.
It helped shine a light on the cockroaches under the rug which seems to be something little or no main stream journalism is yet doing.
So why the axe? The comment was 100% on topic. It might have made some uneasy but that is not in itself a bad thing.
The removed comment was good investigative reporting.
It helped shine a light on the cockroaches under the rug which seems to be something little or no main stream journalism is yet doing.
So why the axe? The comment was 100% on topic. It might have made some uneasy but that is not in itself a bad thing.
So why the axe?
Pretty much what I said yesterday in the comment you linked to. Whatever the merits of the idea, it's also getting into uncomfortable territory, and the specific sort of uncomfortable territory that we've historically tended to delete on MetaFilter because if this is something we have to risk erring on we want to err on the side of caution.
I think phoque's intentions were fine and he obviously put a lot of work into assembling that from a basically journalistic instinct—what are the facts about who is there and who they are—and nixing the comment wasn't a rebuke of those intentions or that work. "Not a good idea here" isn't the same thing as "without any merit"; MetaFilter is just one place on the internet. I sent a copy of phoque's comment text and links to him if he wants to repurpose it somewhere else, it's just not something that we want someone chucking into a MeFi thread.
posted by cortex (staff) at 8:53 AM on January 9, 2016 [25 favorites]
Pretty much what I said yesterday in the comment you linked to. Whatever the merits of the idea, it's also getting into uncomfortable territory, and the specific sort of uncomfortable territory that we've historically tended to delete on MetaFilter because if this is something we have to risk erring on we want to err on the side of caution.
I think phoque's intentions were fine and he obviously put a lot of work into assembling that from a basically journalistic instinct—what are the facts about who is there and who they are—and nixing the comment wasn't a rebuke of those intentions or that work. "Not a good idea here" isn't the same thing as "without any merit"; MetaFilter is just one place on the internet. I sent a copy of phoque's comment text and links to him if he wants to repurpose it somewhere else, it's just not something that we want someone chucking into a MeFi thread.
posted by cortex (staff) at 8:53 AM on January 9, 2016 [25 favorites]
I don't know whether your concern is solely ethical or somewhat legal, but in either case you might want to consider whether you're actually drawing any kind of effective line by declining to host the content in-thread on MetaFilter but then actively encouraging someone to "put it somewhere else and link to it."
posted by cribcage at 9:03 AM on January 9, 2016 [7 favorites]
posted by cribcage at 9:03 AM on January 9, 2016 [7 favorites]
the cockroaches under the rug
They are people, not insects, and that exact turn of speech has a deeply unpleasant history.
The comments in that thread urging violence and the full use of the post-9/11 repressive security apparatus were distasteful and are interestingly at odds with how other protests have been discussed in the past. I don't know if linking the profiles is ethically any better than posting them in a comment, but at least it keeps the discussion consistent with how Metafilter has handled personal information in other cases.
posted by Dip Flash at 9:11 AM on January 9, 2016 [31 favorites]
They are people, not insects, and that exact turn of speech has a deeply unpleasant history.
The comments in that thread urging violence and the full use of the post-9/11 repressive security apparatus were distasteful and are interestingly at odds with how other protests have been discussed in the past. I don't know if linking the profiles is ethically any better than posting them in a comment, but at least it keeps the discussion consistent with how Metafilter has handled personal information in other cases.
posted by Dip Flash at 9:11 AM on January 9, 2016 [31 favorites]
I don't see any active encouragement to put it somewhere else. The context of that phrase "put it somewhere else and link to it" is: "I think if you wanted to put it somewhere else and link to it that'd be an okay compromise." That's not active encouragement, and I think it's a bit disingenuous to frame it as such.
posted by sockermom at 9:18 AM on January 9, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by sockermom at 9:18 AM on January 9, 2016 [3 favorites]
actively encouraging someone to "put it somewhere else and link to it."
Which I didn't do. I sent him the text because he'd clearly put a lot of work into it, and he said in the thread that he didn't have a copy. He can post it elsewhere because that's his prerogative. The specific ethics of doing so are beyond my authority, and my basic point is that by deleting a comment on MetaFilter I'm not acting as total moral arbiter on the value of that comment. My primary concern is this site.
posted by cortex (staff) at 9:19 AM on January 9, 2016 [45 favorites]
Which I didn't do. I sent him the text because he'd clearly put a lot of work into it, and he said in the thread that he didn't have a copy. He can post it elsewhere because that's his prerogative. The specific ethics of doing so are beyond my authority, and my basic point is that by deleting a comment on MetaFilter I'm not acting as total moral arbiter on the value of that comment. My primary concern is this site.
posted by cortex (staff) at 9:19 AM on January 9, 2016 [45 favorites]
That comment made me deeply uncomfortable, even though it's not doxxing per se. Saying that it's good investigative journalism doesn't mean it's right for MetaFilter, because this place is explicitly not NewsFilter or InvestigativeJournalismFilter, and it's not just because no one wants to figure out how to pronounce InJoFi.
posted by Etrigan at 9:40 AM on January 9, 2016 [7 favorites]
posted by Etrigan at 9:40 AM on January 9, 2016 [7 favorites]
I'm not acting as total moral arbiter on the value of that comment.
Nobody's confused about that. The question is about the underlying reason for the policy. And I'm saying that if the underlying reason is somewhat legal, then you might consult counsel about whether the site is actually protected when you delete the comment but then suggest that the author post it elsewhere and link to it here—hey, don't take my word; run it by your folks—and separately, if the underlying reason is solely ethical, then it's a bit contradictory for MetaFilter to decline to host the content but then turn around and say, hey, we'll be glad to host a link if you want to stick it over on Wordpress.
posted by cribcage at 9:44 AM on January 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
Nobody's confused about that. The question is about the underlying reason for the policy. And I'm saying that if the underlying reason is somewhat legal, then you might consult counsel about whether the site is actually protected when you delete the comment but then suggest that the author post it elsewhere and link to it here—hey, don't take my word; run it by your folks—and separately, if the underlying reason is solely ethical, then it's a bit contradictory for MetaFilter to decline to host the content but then turn around and say, hey, we'll be glad to host a link if you want to stick it over on Wordpress.
posted by cribcage at 9:44 AM on January 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
I think people are confused because they are misreading cortex. He did not at all imply it would be OK to host the content elsewhere and link to it. What he said was (go slow!):
I sent a copy of phoque's comment text and links to him if he wants to repurpose it somewhere else, it's just not something that we want someone chucking into a MeFi thread.
posted by aydeejones at 9:56 AM on January 9, 2016 [5 favorites]
I sent a copy of phoque's comment text and links to him if he wants to repurpose it somewhere else, it's just not something that we want someone chucking into a MeFi thread.
posted by aydeejones at 9:56 AM on January 9, 2016 [5 favorites]
suggest that the author post it elsewhere and link to it here
Again, this is not actually being suggested: the "quote" you cite in your first comment is something you made up. You are trolling.
posted by neroli at 9:56 AM on January 9, 2016 [5 favorites]
Again, this is not actually being suggested: the "quote" you cite in your first comment is something you made up. You are trolling.
posted by neroli at 9:56 AM on January 9, 2016 [5 favorites]
Never mind, I see that the compromise was mentioned in the original thread. It's hard out there for a mod doe
posted by aydeejones at 9:57 AM on January 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by aydeejones at 9:57 AM on January 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
It's confusing because cortex omitted the "link to it" part in his very similar response in this thread, but cortex was accurately quoted from his response on the blue, linked by the OP.
posted by anifinder at 10:31 AM on January 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by anifinder at 10:31 AM on January 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
In the Oregan under attack thread
Can we have a pile-on about this misspelling? I mean really.
posted by anotherpanacea at 10:33 AM on January 9, 2016 [56 favorites]
Can we have a pile-on about this misspelling? I mean really.
posted by anotherpanacea at 10:33 AM on January 9, 2016 [56 favorites]
I have zero qualms with name-and-shame where those clowns are concerned, but I totally get why that comment was deleted.
posted by Aya Hirano on the Astral Plane at 10:57 AM on January 9, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by Aya Hirano on the Astral Plane at 10:57 AM on January 9, 2016 [3 favorites]
"...if the underlying reason is solely ethical, then it's a bit contradictory for MetaFilter to decline to host the content but then turn around and say, hey, we'll be glad to host a link if you want to stick it over on Wordpress."
I don't see this as contradictory. It's arguably splitting hairs, but that's the sort of thing you end up being forced to do when you are inevitably forced to pick a place to draw a line. But I don't agree that it's even splitting hairs, because I think "not here" is still an intuitively important distinction to make, even if it's linked from here and written by someone from here.
I have mixed feelings about specific decisions the mods have made about the (very broadly defined) doxxing policy here. But I think I strongly agree with the underlying sentiment and principle, which is basically the same stuff that we're arguing about in another thread -- individually, and as a community, we have an ethical obligation to be responsible about privacy and harm in a way that is independent of law. Just because something is nominally public, doesn't mean that we are relieved of the ethical obligation about propagating it here.
And this general, vague doxxing principle has to do with the specific issue of (not) publicizing identities and personal details about people that aren't already disseminated (and even then, maybe not) because a) there's numerous examples of how much inadvertent harm this can cause, especially when there's a misidentification, and b) MetaFilter as a community and an institution doesn't have a journalistic mandate that might arguably override those concerns with notions about the public benefit. In other words, we don't have much excuse for taking these kinds of risks and they are risks that often result in very real harmful consequences.
posted by Ivan Fyodorovich at 11:13 AM on January 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
I don't see this as contradictory. It's arguably splitting hairs, but that's the sort of thing you end up being forced to do when you are inevitably forced to pick a place to draw a line. But I don't agree that it's even splitting hairs, because I think "not here" is still an intuitively important distinction to make, even if it's linked from here and written by someone from here.
I have mixed feelings about specific decisions the mods have made about the (very broadly defined) doxxing policy here. But I think I strongly agree with the underlying sentiment and principle, which is basically the same stuff that we're arguing about in another thread -- individually, and as a community, we have an ethical obligation to be responsible about privacy and harm in a way that is independent of law. Just because something is nominally public, doesn't mean that we are relieved of the ethical obligation about propagating it here.
And this general, vague doxxing principle has to do with the specific issue of (not) publicizing identities and personal details about people that aren't already disseminated (and even then, maybe not) because a) there's numerous examples of how much inadvertent harm this can cause, especially when there's a misidentification, and b) MetaFilter as a community and an institution doesn't have a journalistic mandate that might arguably override those concerns with notions about the public benefit. In other words, we don't have much excuse for taking these kinds of risks and they are risks that often result in very real harmful consequences.
posted by Ivan Fyodorovich at 11:13 AM on January 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
Dip Flash as far as I know in a functioning democracy protestors do not take guns to protests.
This is not a protest. It is a deliberate act of provocation by a white, racist, right wing armed group.
If a bunch of armed blacks decided to occupy a public toilet in a national park they would all have been shot to bits within 24 hours.
What the commenter did was more name and shame than doxing. Are the general public not to be allowed to know who the hangers on are because sure as sunday follows saturday they will pop up again soon in some stunt during your carnival election year?
The question here is whether Metafilter should break the news so to speak. There is precedent in this. I am thinking Kaycee Nicole as well as some more recent newsfilter posts.
posted by adamvasco at 11:27 AM on January 9, 2016 [3 favorites]
This is not a protest. It is a deliberate act of provocation by a white, racist, right wing armed group.
If a bunch of armed blacks decided to occupy a public toilet in a national park they would all have been shot to bits within 24 hours.
What the commenter did was more name and shame than doxing. Are the general public not to be allowed to know who the hangers on are because sure as sunday follows saturday they will pop up again soon in some stunt during your carnival election year?
The question here is whether Metafilter should break the news so to speak. There is precedent in this. I am thinking Kaycee Nicole as well as some more recent newsfilter posts.
posted by adamvasco at 11:27 AM on January 9, 2016 [3 favorites]
I thought the comment was an interesting list, and it obviously took a lot of work to compile. I also think it was a good deletion.
posted by figurant at 11:29 AM on January 9, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by figurant at 11:29 AM on January 9, 2016 [4 favorites]
Dip Flash as far as I know in a functioning democracy protestors do not take guns to protests.
You can argue whether or not people should take guns to protests, but it definitely happens in the US (recently almost exclusively by white, right-wing protesters like at those Tea Party events, but more varied in past decades). Owning, carrying around, and generally acting like a jackass with a gun are not just legal activities but are protected by the second amendment, though there are a few limits to how much of a jackass you are allowed to be in public while armed.
I'd guess their "militia" is about 1/3 scam artists pocketing donations and planning a book tour, 1/3 undercover federal agents offering to acquire some dynamite, and 1/3 true believers who have been suckered in by the previous two groups. There's an interesting legal and policy question about whether or not these doofuses should get charged with much more serious crimes, which the post-Patriot Act legal environment certainly enables, but that discussion is being deliberately shelved by authorities for now while they continue a policy of deescalation.
posted by Dip Flash at 11:53 AM on January 9, 2016 [5 favorites]
You can argue whether or not people should take guns to protests, but it definitely happens in the US (recently almost exclusively by white, right-wing protesters like at those Tea Party events, but more varied in past decades). Owning, carrying around, and generally acting like a jackass with a gun are not just legal activities but are protected by the second amendment, though there are a few limits to how much of a jackass you are allowed to be in public while armed.
I'd guess their "militia" is about 1/3 scam artists pocketing donations and planning a book tour, 1/3 undercover federal agents offering to acquire some dynamite, and 1/3 true believers who have been suckered in by the previous two groups. There's an interesting legal and policy question about whether or not these doofuses should get charged with much more serious crimes, which the post-Patriot Act legal environment certainly enables, but that discussion is being deliberately shelved by authorities for now while they continue a policy of deescalation.
posted by Dip Flash at 11:53 AM on January 9, 2016 [5 favorites]
Dip Flash as far as I know in a functioning democracy protestors do not take guns to protests.
The source of virtually all evil in the world is "Yeah, but those people are different and deserve bad treatment."
Are the general public not to be allowed to know who the hangers on are...
No one is remotely saying that. What some of us are saying is that we're not entirely comfortable with MetaFilter as the place where they're compiled and listed.
The question here is whether Metafilter should break the news so to speak. There is precedent in this. I am thinking Kaycee Nicole as well as some more recent newsfilter posts.
That question has been asked and answered by the people who run the place and supported by many of us in the community who -- as much as we love newsfiltery posts and the discussions and education they engender -- don't want this place actively becoming NewsFilter.
posted by Etrigan at 12:01 PM on January 9, 2016 [9 favorites]
The source of virtually all evil in the world is "Yeah, but those people are different and deserve bad treatment."
Are the general public not to be allowed to know who the hangers on are...
No one is remotely saying that. What some of us are saying is that we're not entirely comfortable with MetaFilter as the place where they're compiled and listed.
The question here is whether Metafilter should break the news so to speak. There is precedent in this. I am thinking Kaycee Nicole as well as some more recent newsfilter posts.
That question has been asked and answered by the people who run the place and supported by many of us in the community who -- as much as we love newsfiltery posts and the discussions and education they engender -- don't want this place actively becoming NewsFilter.
posted by Etrigan at 12:01 PM on January 9, 2016 [9 favorites]
Yeah, to be clear here because I didn't mean to cause confusion by writing a comment in here that wasn't identical to my comment in the thread on the blue yesterday: I was disagreeing with cribcage about the "actively encouraging" part, not the idea that allowing the possibility of a link happened. Unless anything other than specific prohibition is being taken as active encouragement, there's a space between and that's where I was trying to be.
Which, and again this sort of falls into "not really my purview" territory once we're beyond what's being done not-on-MetaFilter, but if you want my personal take on the whole thing then my feelings about the list itself and the context are more complicated than a strict binary "this is good" or "this is bad" thing. I didn't delete it for being bad, I deleted it for being something that I wasn't after some thought comfortable having be, in that form, part of a MetaFilter thread, and that discomfort comes primarily from that sort of dossier-assembly thing being at odds with what I want to encourage people to think of as appropriate for MetaFilter threads.
That's independent of how well-constructed it was; it's independent of any moral calculus about whether the folks involved in that whole clusterfuck in Burns are good or bad people or behaving in a good or bad way. It's even pretty independent of policies that exist on other parts of the internet about sharing information, or doxxing, or so on.
And I think it's probably hard to really cleanly partition off the idea of posting that list in a thread from the larger context in which it arose, so me saying "it's not about that" may be something a lot of people would feel inclined to respond to with "but of course it is". And yet: it's not. We're talking about MetaFilter policy and practice, not the search for righteousness or justice re: real world politics and events, as frustrating as that may sometimes be if your primary interest in the specific situation is more about the latter than the former.
So, posting it elsewhere and linking to it? I have mixed feelings, but they're different feelings than about putting that list in the thread as a here's-some-citizen-journalism stuff. I don't think linking to it would be wholly unproblematic, but I also don't think it'd be fundamentally not okay. To an extent at that point it's something where if e.g. Talking Points Memo had put together the same list as a "who is who here?" explainer, I wouldn't particularly blink, though informing that is my generally if not unqualifiedly positive opinion of TPM as a place where folks are approach this stuff with good journalistic bonafides.
At that it's still a little bit of a weirdly problematic thing for reasons that are much broader and become a discussion (one we've had on MeFi a number of times, even) about the ethics of broadcasting "I'm pretty sure this is the correct person" real-time identification of and speculation about people involved in a news story or event. But it's the level of weirdly problematic that doesn't but up strongly against a general site practice the way hand-assembling a list in a thread does. Hence the idea that it could be a workable compromise. Not "yes, I implore you to do this". Just not as much of a problem, for mostly MeFi-specific reasons.
posted by cortex (staff) at 12:02 PM on January 9, 2016 [14 favorites]
Which, and again this sort of falls into "not really my purview" territory once we're beyond what's being done not-on-MetaFilter, but if you want my personal take on the whole thing then my feelings about the list itself and the context are more complicated than a strict binary "this is good" or "this is bad" thing. I didn't delete it for being bad, I deleted it for being something that I wasn't after some thought comfortable having be, in that form, part of a MetaFilter thread, and that discomfort comes primarily from that sort of dossier-assembly thing being at odds with what I want to encourage people to think of as appropriate for MetaFilter threads.
That's independent of how well-constructed it was; it's independent of any moral calculus about whether the folks involved in that whole clusterfuck in Burns are good or bad people or behaving in a good or bad way. It's even pretty independent of policies that exist on other parts of the internet about sharing information, or doxxing, or so on.
And I think it's probably hard to really cleanly partition off the idea of posting that list in a thread from the larger context in which it arose, so me saying "it's not about that" may be something a lot of people would feel inclined to respond to with "but of course it is". And yet: it's not. We're talking about MetaFilter policy and practice, not the search for righteousness or justice re: real world politics and events, as frustrating as that may sometimes be if your primary interest in the specific situation is more about the latter than the former.
So, posting it elsewhere and linking to it? I have mixed feelings, but they're different feelings than about putting that list in the thread as a here's-some-citizen-journalism stuff. I don't think linking to it would be wholly unproblematic, but I also don't think it'd be fundamentally not okay. To an extent at that point it's something where if e.g. Talking Points Memo had put together the same list as a "who is who here?" explainer, I wouldn't particularly blink, though informing that is my generally if not unqualifiedly positive opinion of TPM as a place where folks are approach this stuff with good journalistic bonafides.
At that it's still a little bit of a weirdly problematic thing for reasons that are much broader and become a discussion (one we've had on MeFi a number of times, even) about the ethics of broadcasting "I'm pretty sure this is the correct person" real-time identification of and speculation about people involved in a news story or event. But it's the level of weirdly problematic that doesn't but up strongly against a general site practice the way hand-assembling a list in a thread does. Hence the idea that it could be a workable compromise. Not "yes, I implore you to do this". Just not as much of a problem, for mostly MeFi-specific reasons.
posted by cortex (staff) at 12:02 PM on January 9, 2016 [14 favorites]
truckasaurus is on the case
posted by robocop is bleeding at 12:15 PM on January 9, 2016 [5 favorites]
posted by robocop is bleeding at 12:15 PM on January 9, 2016 [5 favorites]
Nice synopsis cortex. Thank you.
posted by adamvasco at 12:25 PM on January 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by adamvasco at 12:25 PM on January 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
For clarity on doxxing, because I'm kind of uncomfortable with the 'dox and link to it elsewhere' - it's still not okay to doxx actual Mefites, right? Like if someone doxes a Mefite and then links to it, or just sends it to people, that's still not a thing that's okay here, right?
posted by corb at 12:36 PM on January 9, 2016
posted by corb at 12:36 PM on January 9, 2016
Totally not ok, in fact a bannable offense.
posted by restless_nomad (staff) at 12:40 PM on January 9, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by restless_nomad (staff) at 12:40 PM on January 9, 2016 [4 favorites]
For clarity on doxxing, because I'm kind of uncomfortable with the 'dox and link to it elsewhere' - it's still not okay to doxx actual Mefites, right?
It's not. And in general it's not really okay to dox a non-mefite.
What "to dox" means is a giant mess because there's a whole lot of disagreement over what the scope of that is, who it applies to, and where a lot of various lines on the idea of both public identity and justifiable newsworthiness should be drawn. That's not something I think we are going to be able to sort out definitively on MetaFilter, so "no doxxing" is a less useful policy statement than it would be if everybody agreed what that meant.
Instead, we'll just say what we can actually unambiguously say: don't share or transplant or rebroadcast other users' personal info without their clear consent. Don't do it maliciously, don't do it benevolently. Just don't do it. That's a simple bright line and one we've been super clear about in the past and stand by, and will when needed enforce, as restless_nomad just noted, with a permanent boot from this place.
In spirit that extends beyond mefites, though situationally it can get muddy where news and public figures get involved, hence the clusterfuck of "is it or isn't it doxxing/outing/ethical/etc" arguments that interested readers have seen here and elsewhere over the years, the last few especially. That muddiness often sucks and is part of why we err on the side of caution usually instead of trying to find some super bright line to declare a binary okay-or-not rule for. In general situations, when in doubt, we're likely to break towards "let's not" even if it is muddy.
posted by cortex (staff) at 12:52 PM on January 9, 2016 [7 favorites]
It's not. And in general it's not really okay to dox a non-mefite.
What "to dox" means is a giant mess because there's a whole lot of disagreement over what the scope of that is, who it applies to, and where a lot of various lines on the idea of both public identity and justifiable newsworthiness should be drawn. That's not something I think we are going to be able to sort out definitively on MetaFilter, so "no doxxing" is a less useful policy statement than it would be if everybody agreed what that meant.
Instead, we'll just say what we can actually unambiguously say: don't share or transplant or rebroadcast other users' personal info without their clear consent. Don't do it maliciously, don't do it benevolently. Just don't do it. That's a simple bright line and one we've been super clear about in the past and stand by, and will when needed enforce, as restless_nomad just noted, with a permanent boot from this place.
In spirit that extends beyond mefites, though situationally it can get muddy where news and public figures get involved, hence the clusterfuck of "is it or isn't it doxxing/outing/ethical/etc" arguments that interested readers have seen here and elsewhere over the years, the last few especially. That muddiness often sucks and is part of why we err on the side of caution usually instead of trying to find some super bright line to declare a binary okay-or-not rule for. In general situations, when in doubt, we're likely to break towards "let's not" even if it is muddy.
posted by cortex (staff) at 12:52 PM on January 9, 2016 [7 favorites]
Saying that it's good investigative journalism doesn't mean it's right for MetaFilter
Maybe, but it still arguably wasn't doxxing as its meaning is commonly understood, insofar as that would probably make just about any mention of the background of public figures doxxing. There are grey areas that rational people can discuss amicably about what makes the difference between a public and private figure, but the people in question crossed over the line from private to public some time ago.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 1:02 PM on January 9, 2016 [3 favorites]
Maybe, but it still arguably wasn't doxxing as its meaning is commonly understood, insofar as that would probably make just about any mention of the background of public figures doxxing. There are grey areas that rational people can discuss amicably about what makes the difference between a public and private figure, but the people in question crossed over the line from private to public some time ago.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 1:02 PM on January 9, 2016 [3 favorites]
In the Oregan under attack thread
Can we have a pile-on about this misspelling? I mean really.
Yeah, the word is orgone, thank you very much.
posted by philip-random at 1:06 PM on January 9, 2016 [16 favorites]
Can we have a pile-on about this misspelling? I mean really.
Yeah, the word is orgone, thank you very much.
posted by philip-random at 1:06 PM on January 9, 2016 [16 favorites]
Saying that it's good investigative journalism doesn't mean it's right for MetaFilter
Maybe, but it still arguably wasn't doxxing as its meaning is commonly understood,
You missed the sentence immediately before the one you quoted, that ended "even though it's not doxxing per se."?
posted by Etrigan at 1:13 PM on January 9, 2016
Maybe, but it still arguably wasn't doxxing as its meaning is commonly understood,
You missed the sentence immediately before the one you quoted, that ended "even though it's not doxxing per se."?
posted by Etrigan at 1:13 PM on January 9, 2016
Good deletion.
posted by escabeche at 2:16 PM on January 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by escabeche at 2:16 PM on January 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
I understand the impulse here but it seems like a difficult line to hold. Posting the comment here wasn't okay but if another website posted a story identifying them and someone linked to that story it would be okay? It just seems weirdly arbitrary. Of course any rule is in some respects arbitrary I guess.
posted by Justinian at 2:20 PM on January 9, 2016
posted by Justinian at 2:20 PM on January 9, 2016
And it's also pronounced "orehgun"
posted by angrycat at 2:26 PM on January 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by angrycat at 2:26 PM on January 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
NOT ORREEGONE
posted by angrycat at 2:27 PM on January 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by angrycat at 2:27 PM on January 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
Unless anything other than specific prohibition is being taken as active encouragement...
No, there is plenty of space between—which space includes, for instance, not actively suggesting an alternative means of supplying the content. It's not like the person asked, "Hey, would it be cool if I did this other thing instead." The idea was something you volunteered.
And you know, this isn't a major deal and I didn't say Cortex was a massive dick. I didn't exactly think it would be mind-bending for him to have a second thought that, yeah, maybe taking that extra step wasn't super wise; and pointing it out seemed consistent with his comment that people could discuss the ethics of his suggestion here in MeTa. In terms of the snark and general shittiness that regularly pools around this place, I think my comment was darn polite and didn't call for comments telling me that I'm dumb or trolling, from people who couldn't be bothered to follow the conversation.
Just because something is nominally public, doesn't mean that we are relieved of the ethical obligation about propagating it here.
For my part, I'm not addressing whether we have that ethical obligation. I am saying, to use looser language, it defies straight-faced reason to argue that we have an ethical obligation that is met by refusing to host the content but not violated by suggesting the content be posted elsewhere so we can host a hyperlink.
posted by cribcage at 2:40 PM on January 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
No, there is plenty of space between—which space includes, for instance, not actively suggesting an alternative means of supplying the content. It's not like the person asked, "Hey, would it be cool if I did this other thing instead." The idea was something you volunteered.
And you know, this isn't a major deal and I didn't say Cortex was a massive dick. I didn't exactly think it would be mind-bending for him to have a second thought that, yeah, maybe taking that extra step wasn't super wise; and pointing it out seemed consistent with his comment that people could discuss the ethics of his suggestion here in MeTa. In terms of the snark and general shittiness that regularly pools around this place, I think my comment was darn polite and didn't call for comments telling me that I'm dumb or trolling, from people who couldn't be bothered to follow the conversation.
Just because something is nominally public, doesn't mean that we are relieved of the ethical obligation about propagating it here.
For my part, I'm not addressing whether we have that ethical obligation. I am saying, to use looser language, it defies straight-faced reason to argue that we have an ethical obligation that is met by refusing to host the content but not violated by suggesting the content be posted elsewhere so we can host a hyperlink.
posted by cribcage at 2:40 PM on January 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
It's not like the person asked, "Hey, would it be cool if I did this other thing instead." The idea was something you volunteered.
Sure, but I was responding in large part to the small pile of metacommentary back-and-forth I'd removed in the thread, which I know is a weird half-visible sort of thing because you either were there or you weren't before it got cleaned up. But that note was intended primarily for phoque and for the folks who'd be discussing phoque's comment there, for whom the context of a small debate about the propriety of having that information in the thread in some form was ready to hand. Had the discussion about it started from scratch in MetaTalk, this'd all be slightly less of a muddle to sort out, I figure, but shit doesn't always work out so smoothly.
it defies straight-faced reason to argue that we have an ethical obligation that is met by refusing to host the content but not violated by suggesting the content be posted elsewhere so we can host a hyperlink.
Well, I mean, we do make distinctions of that form but along other ethical vectors for other things on the site. We tell folks to (somewhat figuratively, these days) get their own blogs, not because the stuff they would post on that blog is bad because the distinction between saying in a comment "here's a link to something I wrote" is different from actually inappropriately using MetaFilter as one's personal blog, even if the content is the same. We have rules about self-linking on the front page that apply regardless of the merit of the content, and further allow folks to post stuff on Projects that they're not allowed to post on the front page, even though someone else posting that same material to the front page on short notice then accomplishes the same basic thing.
These are distinctions that also defy a straight-faced reasoning that something either should or should not be on the site, distinctions that allow for linking-to and posting-directly being different propositions despite the content being unchanged. Again, the specific ethical dimensions involved are different, but they are fundamentally questions of local MetaFilter practice and ethos, and are idiosyncratic in their own right but are nonetheless generally accepted as part of how this place works.
And by the same token that there are Projects posts that make good front page posts and Projects posts that absolutely don't, there's dossier-type comments that are okay-ish as linked-in news-like references in comments and those that aren't. If pressed to sort types-of-dossier into a couple buckets, I'd put "here's a round up of basic info about folks who national news agencies are specifically mentioning already in this public-facing publicity-seeking event" in a less-problematic bucket than e.g. "here's a bunch of sensitive personal information about this private person who I'm super angry at", even if I think neither is ethically uncomplicated. The latter, which falls much more cleanly into the realm of what is classically thought of as doxxing, would never even get a hint of "linking to it would be an okay compromise". And that's something that I think is served better by a gut call than any codified absolutism, which means hashing out the details is gonna be a case-by-case thing.
posted by cortex (staff) at 3:30 PM on January 9, 2016 [3 favorites]
Sure, but I was responding in large part to the small pile of metacommentary back-and-forth I'd removed in the thread, which I know is a weird half-visible sort of thing because you either were there or you weren't before it got cleaned up. But that note was intended primarily for phoque and for the folks who'd be discussing phoque's comment there, for whom the context of a small debate about the propriety of having that information in the thread in some form was ready to hand. Had the discussion about it started from scratch in MetaTalk, this'd all be slightly less of a muddle to sort out, I figure, but shit doesn't always work out so smoothly.
it defies straight-faced reason to argue that we have an ethical obligation that is met by refusing to host the content but not violated by suggesting the content be posted elsewhere so we can host a hyperlink.
Well, I mean, we do make distinctions of that form but along other ethical vectors for other things on the site. We tell folks to (somewhat figuratively, these days) get their own blogs, not because the stuff they would post on that blog is bad because the distinction between saying in a comment "here's a link to something I wrote" is different from actually inappropriately using MetaFilter as one's personal blog, even if the content is the same. We have rules about self-linking on the front page that apply regardless of the merit of the content, and further allow folks to post stuff on Projects that they're not allowed to post on the front page, even though someone else posting that same material to the front page on short notice then accomplishes the same basic thing.
These are distinctions that also defy a straight-faced reasoning that something either should or should not be on the site, distinctions that allow for linking-to and posting-directly being different propositions despite the content being unchanged. Again, the specific ethical dimensions involved are different, but they are fundamentally questions of local MetaFilter practice and ethos, and are idiosyncratic in their own right but are nonetheless generally accepted as part of how this place works.
And by the same token that there are Projects posts that make good front page posts and Projects posts that absolutely don't, there's dossier-type comments that are okay-ish as linked-in news-like references in comments and those that aren't. If pressed to sort types-of-dossier into a couple buckets, I'd put "here's a round up of basic info about folks who national news agencies are specifically mentioning already in this public-facing publicity-seeking event" in a less-problematic bucket than e.g. "here's a bunch of sensitive personal information about this private person who I'm super angry at", even if I think neither is ethically uncomplicated. The latter, which falls much more cleanly into the realm of what is classically thought of as doxxing, would never even get a hint of "linking to it would be an okay compromise". And that's something that I think is served better by a gut call than any codified absolutism, which means hashing out the details is gonna be a case-by-case thing.
posted by cortex (staff) at 3:30 PM on January 9, 2016 [3 favorites]
My somewhat useless 2c is that doxxing means: Here is this public or private figures address, phone number, and other info to be used for harassment. Not: here is publicly identifiable info about the primary actors to be used only for more clarity. The latter would be pretty useless for harrasment. I think those (and the deleted comment) should be allowed on Metafilter, but it's understandable why they aren't.
posted by Potomac Avenue at 3:38 PM on January 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by Potomac Avenue at 3:38 PM on January 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
"Good investigative reporting" is useful news that no one has heard before, with documents and statements and evidence.
"Hey, everyone, let's hate this guy right here" is neither good, nor investigative, nor reporting.
posted by Cool Papa Bell at 4:32 PM on January 9, 2016 [7 favorites]
"Hey, everyone, let's hate this guy right here" is neither good, nor investigative, nor reporting.
posted by Cool Papa Bell at 4:32 PM on January 9, 2016 [7 favorites]
Yeah, the word is orgone, thank you very much.
So if you ken to what Orgone is, I'm hoping to start a Weird Lit/High Strangeness bookclub on FanFare when the option becomes available. I figure we'll start with Mothman Prophecies and go from there.
posted by robocop is bleeding at 6:48 PM on January 9, 2016 [4 favorites]
So if you ken to what Orgone is, I'm hoping to start a Weird Lit/High Strangeness bookclub on FanFare when the option becomes available. I figure we'll start with Mothman Prophecies and go from there.
posted by robocop is bleeding at 6:48 PM on January 9, 2016 [4 favorites]
I'm fine with the deletion and believe it was the right call.
I had been following the news and at a certain point I was recognizing a dozen or so people and was just curious if I could figure out who was there. Journalists seemed to roll up, grab a half dozen names and pictures, then high tail it for deadline filing. While some of the takeover crew were openly fundraising and broadcasting their presence. I tried to be very diligent in sourcing. However, having someone in a list as "unidentified" and linking to a picture can seem leading but did so to avoid names I was still confirming, yet still show the scale and evolution of the group. I went back and forth on what to present and how to present it, weighting the larger picture I was trying to clarify against lining up individuals.
The comment was built over days and I wasn't sure I would post it, but the situation was getting fluid (people arriving, others leaving) so I decided to post what I felt I had nailed down at that point. I also figure time invested tipped me toward posting rather than self deletion, which is never a good reason.
I probably could have reworked it as "journalists introduce or interview" and then just gone with links and quotes.
Also I didn't take cotex's comment as urging me to do anything. I thought I was standing in fair territory, with everything supported by news article, or group / self promotion piece, or sourced sufficiently to withstand scrutiny. I understood the dilemma it posed soon after I posted it. Also because it was a news roundup, it would need to be more like linking to a wikipedia article ... and that is perhaps where I should have worked on it and a form of naming list that would be an okay link here.
I didn't mean any harm, I also understand unintended consequences, so was happy for the push back. Plus the FBI or somebody will probably put together a better list soon.
I hug you all.
posted by phoque at 7:08 PM on January 9, 2016 [34 favorites]
I had been following the news and at a certain point I was recognizing a dozen or so people and was just curious if I could figure out who was there. Journalists seemed to roll up, grab a half dozen names and pictures, then high tail it for deadline filing. While some of the takeover crew were openly fundraising and broadcasting their presence. I tried to be very diligent in sourcing. However, having someone in a list as "unidentified" and linking to a picture can seem leading but did so to avoid names I was still confirming, yet still show the scale and evolution of the group. I went back and forth on what to present and how to present it, weighting the larger picture I was trying to clarify against lining up individuals.
The comment was built over days and I wasn't sure I would post it, but the situation was getting fluid (people arriving, others leaving) so I decided to post what I felt I had nailed down at that point. I also figure time invested tipped me toward posting rather than self deletion, which is never a good reason.
I probably could have reworked it as "journalists introduce or interview" and then just gone with links and quotes.
Also I didn't take cotex's comment as urging me to do anything. I thought I was standing in fair territory, with everything supported by news article, or group / self promotion piece, or sourced sufficiently to withstand scrutiny. I understood the dilemma it posed soon after I posted it. Also because it was a news roundup, it would need to be more like linking to a wikipedia article ... and that is perhaps where I should have worked on it and a form of naming list that would be an okay link here.
I didn't mean any harm, I also understand unintended consequences, so was happy for the push back. Plus the FBI or somebody will probably put together a better list soon.
I hug you all.
posted by phoque at 7:08 PM on January 9, 2016 [34 favorites]
Also I didn't take cotex's comment as urging me to do anything.
The ultimate in kare down there?
posted by Joseph Gurl at 8:27 PM on January 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
The ultimate in kare down there?
posted by Joseph Gurl at 8:27 PM on January 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
Are we sure Oregan doesn't rhyme with Reagan and Dragon?
posted by halifix at 8:51 PM on January 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by halifix at 8:51 PM on January 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
The source of virtually all evil in the world is "Yeah, but those people are different and deserve bad treatment."
Also the source of almost all criminal law.
posted by maxsparber at 9:24 PM on January 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
Also the source of almost all criminal law.
posted by maxsparber at 9:24 PM on January 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
The source of virtually all evil in the world is "Yeah, but those people are different and deserve bad treatment."
Also the source of almost all criminal law.
Which is why criminal law has a rather more extensive system to administer it than a community weblog.
posted by Etrigan at 9:44 PM on January 9, 2016 [5 favorites]
Also the source of almost all criminal law.
Which is why criminal law has a rather more extensive system to administer it than a community weblog.
posted by Etrigan at 9:44 PM on January 9, 2016 [5 favorites]
Are we sure Oregan doesn't rhyme with Reagan and Dragon?
Are there accents where Reagan and Dragon rhyme?
posted by Dip Flash at 10:20 PM on January 9, 2016 [4 favorites]
Are there accents where Reagan and Dragon rhyme?
posted by Dip Flash at 10:20 PM on January 9, 2016 [4 favorites]
I'm now going to forever imagine the pronunciation as "Rhaegon, the Dragon." Thanks, Halifix!
posted by Alterscape at 10:45 PM on January 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by Alterscape at 10:45 PM on January 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
MetaFilter Podcast #82 — transcript (Thanks transcribers!)
cortex: I say bag ['bɛɪg] to rhyme with vague ['vɛɪg] and everything else. You know, it came up... I think someone e-mailed me after the last podcast, or e-mailed after, it was someone who was listening to the We Have Such Films To Show You podcast I've been doing with griphus, because they noticed I kept saying "dragon" ['dɹɛɪgən].posted by Lorin at 10:47 PM on January 9, 2016 [11 favorites]
[...]
mathowie: Who was the President in the '80s?
cortex: Reagan. ['ɹɛɪgən]
mathowie: Oh, okay.
That this post refers to "Oregan" and "brundy" is itself an illustration of the dangers of doxing.
posted by Conrad Cornelius o'Donald o'Dell at 10:55 PM on January 9, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by Conrad Cornelius o'Donald o'Dell at 10:55 PM on January 9, 2016 [3 favorites]
That this post refers to "Oregan" and "brundy"
I thought "brundy bunch" was some sort of pun on Brady Bunch.
Similarly if we assume that this group of Bundys is only a subset of the whole, and that they are likely to combine their first two meals of the day due to limited supplies... well, that's a Brady Bunchy Bundy Branch Ranch Brunch
posted by sylvanshine at 2:27 AM on January 10, 2016 [4 favorites]
I thought "brundy bunch" was some sort of pun on Brady Bunch.
Similarly if we assume that this group of Bundys is only a subset of the whole, and that they are likely to combine their first two meals of the day due to limited supplies... well, that's a Brady Bunchy Bundy Branch Ranch Brunch
posted by sylvanshine at 2:27 AM on January 10, 2016 [4 favorites]
"MetaFilter Podcast #82 — transcript (Thanks transcribers!)"
I didn't listen to that podcast, but of course I've noticed the subsequent ribbing here that cortex has gotten about that feature of his idiolect. Is it a feature of a regional dialect? Or idiosyncratic?
posted by Ivan Fyodorovich at 6:37 AM on January 10, 2016
I didn't listen to that podcast, but of course I've noticed the subsequent ribbing here that cortex has gotten about that feature of his idiolect. Is it a feature of a regional dialect? Or idiosyncratic?
posted by Ivan Fyodorovich at 6:37 AM on January 10, 2016
In the Oregan under attack thread
Can we have a pile-on about this misspelling? I mean really.
I came in here for that reason specifically. omeegad.
At least living in France I never hear it pronounced "Oreegun" any more.
posted by fraula at 7:06 AM on January 10, 2016 [2 favorites]
Can we have a pile-on about this misspelling? I mean really.
I came in here for that reason specifically. omeegad.
At least living in France I never hear it pronounced "Oreegun" any more.
posted by fraula at 7:06 AM on January 10, 2016 [2 favorites]
Huh when I moved from Oregon to NYC a few people asked if my accent was French. Maybe i said "onarchy" instead of "anarchy" idk
posted by angrycat at 10:00 AM on January 10, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by angrycat at 10:00 AM on January 10, 2016 [4 favorites]
Oregan : Oregon :: Moran : Moron
posted by Celsius1414 at 11:55 AM on January 10, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by Celsius1414 at 11:55 AM on January 10, 2016 [3 favorites]
I'm checking sources, but I'm not sure Bugs Moran never visited Origin.
posted by clavdivs at 12:22 PM on January 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by clavdivs at 12:22 PM on January 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
You can take my oregano when you pry it from my sauce stained hands.
posted by Splunge at 12:59 PM on January 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Splunge at 12:59 PM on January 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
Huh when I moved from Oregon to NYC a few people asked if my accent was French. Maybe i said "onarchy" instead of "anarchy" idk
In high school I remember sitting through an assembly which included a bit on how "Sotonic" materials were forbidden.
posted by Pope Guilty at 1:35 PM on January 10, 2016
In high school I remember sitting through an assembly which included a bit on how "Sotonic" materials were forbidden.
posted by Pope Guilty at 1:35 PM on January 10, 2016
Huh when I moved from Oregon to NYC a few people asked if my accent was French. Maybe i said "onarchy" instead of "anarchy" idk
But when you fight do you make your enemies panicky? /Hamilton
posted by His thoughts were red thoughts at 2:00 PM on January 10, 2016 [9 favorites]
But when you fight do you make your enemies panicky? /Hamilton
posted by His thoughts were red thoughts at 2:00 PM on January 10, 2016 [9 favorites]
Are there accents where Reagan and Dragon rhyme?
Cortex has such an accent which we talk about ad nauseum on the podcast as an adorable idiolect but maybe other people talk like he does?
posted by jessamyn (retired) at 4:29 PM on January 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
Cortex has such an accent which we talk about ad nauseum on the podcast as an adorable idiolect but maybe other people talk like he does?
posted by jessamyn (retired) at 4:29 PM on January 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
I've heard the general phenomenon referred to as I think the bag-beg merger, and I think there's some regional attestation of it for part of the Pacific NW and maybe somewhere else in the US as well; I'm not sure whether the full scope of my collapsing of similarly-voweled constructions together is captured by that or is more idiosyncratic still. But I'm terrible at listening for it because of course it sounds normal to me and so wouldn't be conspicuous when I do hear it.
posted by cortex (staff) at 4:52 PM on January 10, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by cortex (staff) at 4:52 PM on January 10, 2016 [3 favorites]
I said upthread Chicago ese and Minnesota ese might rhyme Raigan & Draigon.
posted by sweetkid at 4:53 PM on January 10, 2016
posted by sweetkid at 4:53 PM on January 10, 2016
You can take my oregano when you pry it from my sauce stained hands.
You can take my orgone energy when you pry it from my...stained hands.
posted by juv3nal at 5:17 PM on January 10, 2016 [5 favorites]
You can take my orgone energy when you pry it from my...stained hands.
posted by juv3nal at 5:17 PM on January 10, 2016 [5 favorites]
Just as a note, back when Reagan was an actor he pronounced his name 'Ree-gun', then later on during his politicking days changed it to the current and better known 'Ray-gun'. [pew pew lazurz optional]
posted by Evilspork at 5:42 PM on January 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Evilspork at 5:42 PM on January 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
I don't believe that's true. Reagan always pronounced his own name the way we are used to but other people sometimes pronounced it Ree-gun when he was an actor.
posted by Justinian at 6:14 PM on January 10, 2016
posted by Justinian at 6:14 PM on January 10, 2016
Did the comment get posted someplace else (pastebin)? I'm just curious about it because I tend to find the "no doxxing" policy here incoherently conceived and enforced (Free Ericb), and a lot of the comments here supporting the deletion are kinda dumb and overblown, but since I didn't see the actual comment before it got deleted, I can't really have an informed opinion on this decision.
posted by klangklangston at 6:17 PM on January 10, 2016 [5 favorites]
posted by klangklangston at 6:17 PM on January 10, 2016 [5 favorites]
"I've heard the general phenomenon referred to as I think the bag-beg merger, and I think there's some regional attestation of it for part of the Pacific NW and maybe somewhere else in the US as well..."
"Bag-beg merger" is very helpful, thanks.
posted by Ivan Fyodorovich at 6:37 PM on January 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
"Bag-beg merger" is very helpful, thanks.
posted by Ivan Fyodorovich at 6:37 PM on January 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
actually, my rabidly Reagan supporting Northern California voters pronounced it "Ree-gun" and they are life-long Californians. I thought they just said it that way because they also said things like "crick" for creek and other abominations
posted by angrycat at 7:07 PM on January 10, 2016
posted by angrycat at 7:07 PM on January 10, 2016
Reegun is the Irish pronunciation, at least for Irish American Regans.
posted by sweetkid at 7:14 PM on January 10, 2016
posted by sweetkid at 7:14 PM on January 10, 2016
idiolect..
Vocabulary word. You can still learn stuff down at the bottom of long-since finished threads if you pay attention. Useful website, A+ will read again
posted by Devils Rancher at 7:49 PM on January 10, 2016
Vocabulary word. You can still learn stuff down at the bottom of long-since finished threads if you pay attention. Useful website, A+ will read again
posted by Devils Rancher at 7:49 PM on January 10, 2016
Can we have a pile-on about this misspelling? I mean really.
Yeah, the word is orgone, thank you very much.
I too would like to imagine that these hardy protestors are requesting snacks and cream in order to restore themselves from their sex party.
posted by Going To Maine at 10:17 PM on January 10, 2016 [3 favorites]
Yeah, the word is orgone, thank you very much.
I too would like to imagine that these hardy protestors are requesting snacks and cream in order to restore themselves from their sex party.
posted by Going To Maine at 10:17 PM on January 10, 2016 [3 favorites]
"uh"
Arguing that a comment that listed the participants in a newsworthy protest leads to MeFi becoming more Newsfilter is dubious at best, and I feel pretty comfortable saying that's an overblown concern so long as the descriptions of the comment are generally accurate; I don't feel like I can have an informed opinion about whether or not it was a good deletion without seeing the comment.
Happy to clear that up for you.
posted by klangklangston at 10:21 PM on January 10, 2016 [7 favorites]
Arguing that a comment that listed the participants in a newsworthy protest leads to MeFi becoming more Newsfilter is dubious at best, and I feel pretty comfortable saying that's an overblown concern so long as the descriptions of the comment are generally accurate; I don't feel like I can have an informed opinion about whether or not it was a good deletion without seeing the comment.
Happy to clear that up for you.
posted by klangklangston at 10:21 PM on January 10, 2016 [7 favorites]
At guing that a comment that listed the participants in a newsworthy protest leads to MeFi becoming more Newsfilter is dubious at best
Then would you also say that describing such s comment as "good investigative reporting" is dumb and/or overblown?
posted by Etrigan at 3:19 AM on January 11, 2016
Then would you also say that describing such s comment as "good investigative reporting" is dumb and/or overblown?
posted by Etrigan at 3:19 AM on January 11, 2016
Does Oregon have a sister city with the Organians?
posted by juiceCake at 7:27 AM on January 11, 2016
posted by juiceCake at 7:27 AM on January 11, 2016
From reviews of the game, dying of dysentery on the Orgone Trail is _particularly_ harrowing. For everyone nearby.
posted by running order squabble fest at 7:41 AM on January 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by running order squabble fest at 7:41 AM on January 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
At least living in France I never hear it pronounced "Oreegun" any more.
Wait, how do you pronounce it? This is how I and everyone I grew up with says it (born and raised in southern Oregon, lived in Eugene and Tigard as well).
posted by JenMarie at 10:00 AM on January 11, 2016
Wait, how do you pronounce it? This is how I and everyone I grew up with says it (born and raised in southern Oregon, lived in Eugene and Tigard as well).
posted by JenMarie at 10:00 AM on January 11, 2016
In Oregon it's /ˈɔrəɡən/.
Please make a note of it.
posted by perhapsolutely at 11:04 AM on January 11, 2016
Please make a note of it.
posted by perhapsolutely at 11:04 AM on January 11, 2016
Can we have a pile-on about this misspelling? I mean really.
...
Yeah, the word is orgone, thank you very much.
Phoque your orgone pile-on.
posted by The Bellman at 11:24 AM on January 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
...
Yeah, the word is orgone, thank you very much.
Phoque your orgone pile-on.
posted by The Bellman at 11:24 AM on January 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
Did the comment get posted someplace else (pastebin)? I'm just curious about it because I tend to find the "no doxxing" policy here incoherently conceived and enforced (Free Ericb), and a lot of the comments here supporting the deletion are kinda dumb and overblown, but since I didn't see the actual comment before it got deleted, I can't really have an informed opinion on this decision.
posted by klangklangston at 6:17 PM on January 10 [5 favorites +] [!]
I'm not sure if anyone's sent you the original, but from what I can recall it wasn't all that far from the Oregonian's "Here's our cast of occupiers and visitors" article that I linked in thread.
posted by a box and a stick and a string and a bear at 11:47 AM on January 11, 2016
posted by klangklangston at 6:17 PM on January 10 [5 favorites +] [!]
I'm not sure if anyone's sent you the original, but from what I can recall it wasn't all that far from the Oregonian's "Here's our cast of occupiers and visitors" article that I linked in thread.
posted by a box and a stick and a string and a bear at 11:47 AM on January 11, 2016
In Oregon it's /ˈɔrəɡən/.
Ha, this reminds me, when I was in junior high I went to a Bon Jovi concert in Portland, and Jon Bon Jovi pronounced it just like this when shouting out his rock n roll greeting to the crowd. Everyone had a good laugh about it.
posted by JenMarie at 12:31 PM on January 11, 2016
Ha, this reminds me, when I was in junior high I went to a Bon Jovi concert in Portland, and Jon Bon Jovi pronounced it just like this when shouting out his rock n roll greeting to the crowd. Everyone had a good laugh about it.
posted by JenMarie at 12:31 PM on January 11, 2016
"why"
Why do you think?
"Then would you also say that describing such s comment as "good investigative reporting" is dumb and/or overblown?"
Without seeing the comment, "investigative" seems overblown. Assuming it's essentially equivalent to the news story that box/stick/string/bear posted, it seems like worthwhile information that provides broader context to the news event that's happening, and since one of the bigger problems with Newsfilter here isn't just posting news, but posting news before a base level of journalism to provide more context is available, having members contribute that context is lessening the problem of Newsfilter, not exacerbating it. And if the problem is Newsfilter, then the post should be deleted, not the comment.
posted by klangklangston at 1:16 PM on January 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
Why do you think?
"Then would you also say that describing such s comment as "good investigative reporting" is dumb and/or overblown?"
Without seeing the comment, "investigative" seems overblown. Assuming it's essentially equivalent to the news story that box/stick/string/bear posted, it seems like worthwhile information that provides broader context to the news event that's happening, and since one of the bigger problems with Newsfilter here isn't just posting news, but posting news before a base level of journalism to provide more context is available, having members contribute that context is lessening the problem of Newsfilter, not exacerbating it. And if the problem is Newsfilter, then the post should be deleted, not the comment.
posted by klangklangston at 1:16 PM on January 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
Oregon is pronounced bran muffins, wild berries and tea, and swimming naked in the Siuslaw Wilderness. No fucking assault weapons if you puleeze!
posted by Oyéah at 8:04 PM on January 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Oyéah at 8:04 PM on January 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
I can see how a massive Oregon, naked birding event, with yurts, tipis, horses, subarus and a whole lot of orgone, estrogen, testosterone, birdsong and Woodstock overtones might clear this whole camo-girlie fetish fashion shit show, right outta there.
posted by Oyéah at 8:09 PM on January 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Oyéah at 8:09 PM on January 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
This isn't confined to just this thread, but if you have a comment to make, maybe use more than just one word to do it.
posted by gadge emeritus at 8:30 PM on January 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by gadge emeritus at 8:30 PM on January 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
Why?
posted by Confess, Fletch at 8:32 PM on January 11, 2016 [14 favorites]
posted by Confess, Fletch at 8:32 PM on January 11, 2016 [14 favorites]
One answer is that because your tone doesn't convey in text, one word can be taken in many ways, and so in this instance (just as an example) I don't know if you're just being snarky and dismissive or actually want to know my reasons for saying it. And if you're just being snarky and dismissive then all you're doing is making the conversation worse.
posted by gadge emeritus at 8:41 PM on January 11, 2016 [5 favorites]
posted by gadge emeritus at 8:41 PM on January 11, 2016 [5 favorites]
And it's also pronounced "orehgun"
"Or' hə-gun?" That doesn't seem right.
posted by rhizome at 8:53 PM on January 11, 2016
"Or' hə-gun?" That doesn't seem right.
posted by rhizome at 8:53 PM on January 11, 2016
I had a whole bunch of other words initially, when starting my comment. Honestly, reducing it down to just one word ended up having the comment significantly less snarky and dismissive.
That being said, it seems ironic that people here are apparently fighting for the right to post dossiers, and one thread over people are fighting to have their names removed from a PDF that mirrors content that is already here on metafilter. Don't get me wrong, I think the comment was posted with the best of intentions, but I also think that posting lists of names (that commentators earlier in the thread thought should be killed) isn't very appropriate for metafilter.
The fact that klangklangston literally doesn't know exactly what we are talking about while simultaneously suggesting that the entire thread should be deleted 'if the problem is Newsfilter' seems a bit much.
All that being said, I think the comment "Um..." was appropriate and perhaps less snarky and dismissive than this comment.
posted by el io at 9:28 PM on January 11, 2016 [4 favorites]
That being said, it seems ironic that people here are apparently fighting for the right to post dossiers, and one thread over people are fighting to have their names removed from a PDF that mirrors content that is already here on metafilter. Don't get me wrong, I think the comment was posted with the best of intentions, but I also think that posting lists of names (that commentators earlier in the thread thought should be killed) isn't very appropriate for metafilter.
The fact that klangklangston literally doesn't know exactly what we are talking about while simultaneously suggesting that the entire thread should be deleted 'if the problem is Newsfilter' seems a bit much.
All that being said, I think the comment "Um..." was appropriate and perhaps less snarky and dismissive than this comment.
posted by el io at 9:28 PM on January 11, 2016 [4 favorites]
Personally, I disagree. Your fuller comment not only addresses the question of the thread, but also shows you weren't just drive-by dismissing for the joy of being a bit of a dick on the internet. The entire effect still contains your reaction, but it comes off as not knee-jerk but instead an actual contribution.
I find it much more preferable than just one word. One word answers too often come across as the contributions of sullen teenagers, who only want to communicate disdain and superiority.
posted by gadge emeritus at 9:45 PM on January 11, 2016 [3 favorites]
I find it much more preferable than just one word. One word answers too often come across as the contributions of sullen teenagers, who only want to communicate disdain and superiority.
posted by gadge emeritus at 9:45 PM on January 11, 2016 [3 favorites]
A note: I didn't mean to give the impression that the discussion about the Emotional Labor PDF was inappropriate. I'm happy that the PDF creator is working very hard to accommodate every request, and I don't mean to be dismissive of the concerns that people had about that document being passed around. People aren't 'fighting' to have their information removed, they're asking nicely and the requests are being granted. That being said, I still think its ironic that the EL 'remove my information please' thread is right next to this one.
posted by el io at 10:29 PM on January 11, 2016
posted by el io at 10:29 PM on January 11, 2016
I find it much more preferable than just one word. One word answers too often come across as the contributions of sullen teenagers, who only want to communicate disdain and superiority.
Florb!
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 7:29 AM on January 12, 2016 [1 favorite]
Florb!
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 7:29 AM on January 12, 2016 [1 favorite]
In the Oregan under attack thread
Can we have a pile-on about this misspelling? I mean really.
Yeah, the word is orgone, thank you very much.
posted by philip-random
Jeez looeeze. It's "Oh, ree'-gun," an interrogative in the local southern Oregon dialect, meaning, "Has (he) left yet?" or "Will (we) be going?"
I hate being mocked by outsiders.
posted by mule98J at 8:23 AM on January 12, 2016 [1 favorite]
Can we have a pile-on about this misspelling? I mean really.
Yeah, the word is orgone, thank you very much.
posted by philip-random
Jeez looeeze. It's "Oh, ree'-gun," an interrogative in the local southern Oregon dialect, meaning, "Has (he) left yet?" or "Will (we) be going?"
I hate being mocked by outsiders.
posted by mule98J at 8:23 AM on January 12, 2016 [1 favorite]
I wish I could pull off sullen and distainful, but I lack the social skills.
"I went to the Malheur National Bird Refuge and all I got were these twee, camo gaiters, not even real 'gaitors, it's too cold for real 'gaitors here. But I tell you what, this here AK will blast the shit right out of them twitterbirds takin' refuge in these parts." "We are serving notice to all these goddamned twitterbirds in these here parts, they is bein' reeplaced with cattle, and a Gold mine, and a Uranium mine, and all them goddamned trees anywhere that harbor them goddamned twitterbirds, we is serving notice on them too. How do you like them apples?"
I am short on admiration for bullies of any stripe, that includes stars and stripes. The United States had best remain full owner of most of its lands, otherwise any other earthling with money will own them. The mines going in will be foreign owned at least the Uranium mine.
It doesn't really matter who these hired guns are, even if they think they hired themselves. It is amusing to watch Ammon Bundy set himself up for federal charges, one after the other.
It is interesting to note the Utah state legislators have spent 14 million dollars on a think in Logan Utah, to think of how to fight federal land ownership in the state. I hope Utah doesn't forget to check back on how that expensive thinking is going.
posted by Oyéah at 9:52 AM on January 12, 2016
"I went to the Malheur National Bird Refuge and all I got were these twee, camo gaiters, not even real 'gaitors, it's too cold for real 'gaitors here. But I tell you what, this here AK will blast the shit right out of them twitterbirds takin' refuge in these parts." "We are serving notice to all these goddamned twitterbirds in these here parts, they is bein' reeplaced with cattle, and a Gold mine, and a Uranium mine, and all them goddamned trees anywhere that harbor them goddamned twitterbirds, we is serving notice on them too. How do you like them apples?"
I am short on admiration for bullies of any stripe, that includes stars and stripes. The United States had best remain full owner of most of its lands, otherwise any other earthling with money will own them. The mines going in will be foreign owned at least the Uranium mine.
It doesn't really matter who these hired guns are, even if they think they hired themselves. It is amusing to watch Ammon Bundy set himself up for federal charges, one after the other.
It is interesting to note the Utah state legislators have spent 14 million dollars on a think in Logan Utah, to think of how to fight federal land ownership in the state. I hope Utah doesn't forget to check back on how that expensive thinking is going.
posted by Oyéah at 9:52 AM on January 12, 2016
"Not a good idea here" isn't the same thing as "without any merit"; MetaFilter is just one place on the internet.
I think it's entirely reasonable to decide that the topic (or any given topic, really) either isn't appropriate for this forum or even just isn't worth effort or attention. OTOH, it's pretty pointless to open a discussion of an event characterized by insurgents who rely on social media to promulgate their messages and then try to tightly circumscribe discussion of who the insurgents are and to delete links to the actual messages they are sending. I gave the thread a pass originally because there are many more useful forums than metafilter for following this event and because I wasn't very interested in what I was sure would be either arguments over special pleadings from the metafilter anarchist brigade or an inevitable squabble over whether "Yallqueda" was too insensitive.
And when my link to an insurgent video—a funny one, I thought—was deleted, I realized I should've just trusted my instincts. Oh well.
posted by octobersurprise at 1:44 PM on January 12, 2016 [2 favorites]
I think it's entirely reasonable to decide that the topic (or any given topic, really) either isn't appropriate for this forum or even just isn't worth effort or attention. OTOH, it's pretty pointless to open a discussion of an event characterized by insurgents who rely on social media to promulgate their messages and then try to tightly circumscribe discussion of who the insurgents are and to delete links to the actual messages they are sending. I gave the thread a pass originally because there are many more useful forums than metafilter for following this event and because I wasn't very interested in what I was sure would be either arguments over special pleadings from the metafilter anarchist brigade or an inevitable squabble over whether "Yallqueda" was too insensitive.
And when my link to an insurgent video—a funny one, I thought—was deleted, I realized I should've just trusted my instincts. Oh well.
posted by octobersurprise at 1:44 PM on January 12, 2016 [2 favorites]
Sorry if that was confusing. You had a comment deleted for posting their mailing address and suggesting people should send them ex-lax brownies.
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 2:09 PM on January 12, 2016 [8 favorites]
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 2:09 PM on January 12, 2016 [8 favorites]
"I had a whole bunch of other words initially, when starting my comment. Honestly, reducing it down to just one word ended up having the comment significantly less snarky and dismissive. "
The mods have reminded me upon occasion that merely being less snarky and dismissive does not necessarily make a comment worthwhile.
"That being said, it seems ironic that people here are apparently fighting for the right to post dossiers, and one thread over people are fighting to have their names removed from a PDF that mirrors content that is already here on metafilter. Don't get me wrong, I think the comment was posted with the best of intentions, but I also think that posting lists of names (that commentators earlier in the thread thought should be killed) isn't very appropriate for metafilter."
Why would that be ironic? Are they the same people? Might you be able, upon a moment of reflection, to understand the difference between people who are participating in a pseudonymous conversation with no apparent desire to gather public attention to it with those who are overtly occupying a public space in order to draw attention to a cause?
"The fact that klangklangston literally doesn't know exactly what we are talking about while simultaneously suggesting that the entire thread should be deleted 'if the problem is Newsfilter' seems a bit much."
In light of this, the one-word comments make more sense. Better to impugn vaguely than to commit yourself to an explicit mistaken position. You're conflating two different points.
"All that being said, I think the comment "Um..." was appropriate and perhaps less snarky and dismissive than this comment."
I don't think it was inappropriate; I do think it was useless noise.
"Or, if I might, if you don't like the way that I write, perhaps you should consider what I was responding to and the level of quality it was bringing to the conversation before implying a bunch of nasty things about me for being brief in response."
Honestly, I just assumed that you were going to play the toddler game of endless, uninflected "why?", so I did what I do with toddlers: reply once earnestly, then challenge them to think of their own answer.
posted by klangklangston at 3:04 PM on January 12, 2016 [2 favorites]
The mods have reminded me upon occasion that merely being less snarky and dismissive does not necessarily make a comment worthwhile.
"That being said, it seems ironic that people here are apparently fighting for the right to post dossiers, and one thread over people are fighting to have their names removed from a PDF that mirrors content that is already here on metafilter. Don't get me wrong, I think the comment was posted with the best of intentions, but I also think that posting lists of names (that commentators earlier in the thread thought should be killed) isn't very appropriate for metafilter."
Why would that be ironic? Are they the same people? Might you be able, upon a moment of reflection, to understand the difference between people who are participating in a pseudonymous conversation with no apparent desire to gather public attention to it with those who are overtly occupying a public space in order to draw attention to a cause?
"The fact that klangklangston literally doesn't know exactly what we are talking about while simultaneously suggesting that the entire thread should be deleted 'if the problem is Newsfilter' seems a bit much."
In light of this, the one-word comments make more sense. Better to impugn vaguely than to commit yourself to an explicit mistaken position. You're conflating two different points.
"All that being said, I think the comment "Um..." was appropriate and perhaps less snarky and dismissive than this comment."
I don't think it was inappropriate; I do think it was useless noise.
"Or, if I might, if you don't like the way that I write, perhaps you should consider what I was responding to and the level of quality it was bringing to the conversation before implying a bunch of nasty things about me for being brief in response."
Honestly, I just assumed that you were going to play the toddler game of endless, uninflected "why?", so I did what I do with toddlers: reply once earnestly, then challenge them to think of their own answer.
posted by klangklangston at 3:04 PM on January 12, 2016 [2 favorites]
Sorry if that was confusing.
I never seem to get the concierge treatment around here. You know, the notifications, the comment copies, the cabal membership; do I need to spring for another 5 bucks?
You had a comment deleted for posting their mailing address
Which is sort of my point. It isn't a secret; the insurgents want people to know that address.
and suggesting people should send them ex-lax brownies.
I also suggested that people could send glitter bombs and bags of dicks.
Oh I know I don't deserve to be on metafilter.
posted by octobersurprise at 3:07 PM on January 12, 2016 [1 favorite]
I never seem to get the concierge treatment around here. You know, the notifications, the comment copies, the cabal membership; do I need to spring for another 5 bucks?
You had a comment deleted for posting their mailing address
Which is sort of my point. It isn't a secret; the insurgents want people to know that address.
and suggesting people should send them ex-lax brownies.
I also suggested that people could send glitter bombs and bags of dicks.
Oh I know I don't deserve to be on metafilter.
posted by octobersurprise at 3:07 PM on January 12, 2016 [1 favorite]
It's one comment, deleted for a simple and should-be-obvious reason, you've been here for a long time.
klang, the "toddler" thing is kinda dickish, maybe don't be needlessly dickish?
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 3:10 PM on January 12, 2016 [2 favorites]
klang, the "toddler" thing is kinda dickish, maybe don't be needlessly dickish?
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 3:10 PM on January 12, 2016 [2 favorites]
But not long enough to get "the treatment," apparently.
Anyway, I know you aren't angry with me, LM, just disappointed, and I want you to know I'm going to do better in the future. No more sending ex-lax brownies or bags of dicks to avowed enemies of the US government. Nope! I'm gonna be a new man!
klang, the "toddler" thing is kinda dickish
Consider, klang, using "tot" or "bundle of joy" in the future.
posted by octobersurprise at 3:52 PM on January 12, 2016
Anyway, I know you aren't angry with me, LM, just disappointed, and I want you to know I'm going to do better in the future. No more sending ex-lax brownies or bags of dicks to avowed enemies of the US government. Nope! I'm gonna be a new man!
klang, the "toddler" thing is kinda dickish
Consider, klang, using "tot" or "bundle of joy" in the future.
posted by octobersurprise at 3:52 PM on January 12, 2016
Maybe evaluate whether you are adding anything constructive to the thread.
posted by JenMarie at 3:57 PM on January 12, 2016 [12 favorites]
posted by JenMarie at 3:57 PM on January 12, 2016 [12 favorites]
klang, the "toddler" thing is kinda dickish, maybe don't be needlessly dickish?
Can he be necessarily dickish?
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 3:57 PM on January 12, 2016
Can he be necessarily dickish?
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 3:57 PM on January 12, 2016
With respect, you can be a sullen disdainful and/or superior asshole in a lot of words and you can make a solid point in a few words.
Oh, certainly! But if the point isn't to come across as disdainful or superior, I've found that rounding out a comment a little means it's more likely - far from certain, of course, just more likely - to not be misconstrued in that fashion.
This wasn't particularly aimed at any user, just that there were three one-word reply comments in close proximity, and to me they are so very rarely comments that help the conversation. As succinct responses to an FPP, perhaps, but when it's users trying to discuss something, it doesn't help. Even if you think a comment is stupid and want to say so, using a sentence to say it makes no sense is better, because it comes across much less knee-jerk and thoughtless and actually part of a conversation.
All just in my experience, of course, but monosyllabism is often an effective subtle provocation. And if that's not the intent, then it's a good thing to avoid. But I've rabbited on about this point and will drop it now.
posted by gadge emeritus at 4:11 PM on January 12, 2016 [1 favorite]
Oh, certainly! But if the point isn't to come across as disdainful or superior, I've found that rounding out a comment a little means it's more likely - far from certain, of course, just more likely - to not be misconstrued in that fashion.
This wasn't particularly aimed at any user, just that there were three one-word reply comments in close proximity, and to me they are so very rarely comments that help the conversation. As succinct responses to an FPP, perhaps, but when it's users trying to discuss something, it doesn't help. Even if you think a comment is stupid and want to say so, using a sentence to say it makes no sense is better, because it comes across much less knee-jerk and thoughtless and actually part of a conversation.
All just in my experience, of course, but monosyllabism is often an effective subtle provocation. And if that's not the intent, then it's a good thing to avoid. But I've rabbited on about this point and will drop it now.
posted by gadge emeritus at 4:11 PM on January 12, 2016 [1 favorite]
Always.
posted by Joseph Gurl at 4:16 PM on January 12, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Joseph Gurl at 4:16 PM on January 12, 2016 [1 favorite]
Depends, are lives at stake?
Yes. A famous violinist and a trolley full of children. And you can only save one.
(We would also have accepted "Q: Where do old people use the bathroom? A: Depends.")
posted by octobersurprise at 5:43 PM on January 12, 2016 [5 favorites]
Yes. A famous violinist and a trolley full of children. And you can only save one.
(We would also have accepted "Q: Where do old people use the bathroom? A: Depends.")
posted by octobersurprise at 5:43 PM on January 12, 2016 [5 favorites]
Kill the violinist so the children can go back to making my new iPhone 7s without being distracted by Polish fifths and flatted sevenths.
posted by Joseph Gurl at 6:28 PM on January 12, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by Joseph Gurl at 6:28 PM on January 12, 2016 [2 favorites]
Flatted.
For a moment, flattened was the Adjective swimmingly mistook.
I envisioned this bent dirge, an Osinato with re-coda ring
Too it.
Anywho, the Geist of this Doc may be the right ta-ha. But the forum filter is the wrong toe so.
posted by clavdivs at 9:05 PM on January 12, 2016
For a moment, flattened was the Adjective swimmingly mistook.
I envisioned this bent dirge, an Osinato with re-coda ring
Too it.
Anywho, the Geist of this Doc may be the right ta-ha. But the forum filter is the wrong toe so.
posted by clavdivs at 9:05 PM on January 12, 2016
Indeed child i.
posted by Joseph Gurl at 9:16 PM on January 12, 2016
posted by Joseph Gurl at 9:16 PM on January 12, 2016
tl;dr: comfort must be preserved, pronounced correctly and be undickish.
posted by quonsar II: smock fishpants and the temple of foon at 4:15 AM on January 13, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by quonsar II: smock fishpants and the temple of foon at 4:15 AM on January 13, 2016 [2 favorites]
You jacked that from the IKEA sample brochure.
posted by clavdivs at 8:42 AM on January 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by clavdivs at 8:42 AM on January 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
not just because no one wants to figure out how to pronounce InJoFi.
like IN YO FACE but FEE instead of FACE?
posted by numaner at 12:01 PM on January 13, 2016
like IN YO FACE but FEE instead of FACE?
posted by numaner at 12:01 PM on January 13, 2016
Would one of the mods mind MeMailing the comment to me? This seems like an important issue - collecting public information from newspaper sources and posting it in a relevant thread is now delete-worthy? - and I'd like to have a more clear understanding of the line being drawn for future reference, because my current understanding is pretty vague. I promise not to use it send Ex-lax to anyone.
posted by mediareport at 7:09 AM on January 14, 2016
posted by mediareport at 7:09 AM on January 14, 2016
> ... collecting public information from newspaper sources and posting it in a relevant thread is now delete-worthy?
It is not that act that makes it delete-worthy, but the nature of the information. Comments based on wild mis-characterization are the bane of this site.
posted by benito.strauss at 8:18 AM on January 14, 2016 [1 favorite]
It is not that act that makes it delete-worthy, but the nature of the information. Comments based on wild mis-characterization are the bane of this site.
posted by benito.strauss at 8:18 AM on January 14, 2016 [1 favorite]
I double dog doxx you. I guess linking to an article that reveals particulars is against policy. Though in this case the mutant twits at the refuge have chest beaten and publicised to the greatest extent possible already, giving out their mailing address and panhandling, anything to support their delusions of mandeur.
posted by Oyéah at 9:00 AM on January 14, 2016
posted by Oyéah at 9:00 AM on January 14, 2016
"I double dog doxx you."
I envision two people playing marbles electronically.
[get commercial, quick]
posted by clavdivs at 9:55 AM on January 14, 2016
I envision two people playing marbles electronically.
[get commercial, quick]
posted by clavdivs at 9:55 AM on January 14, 2016
Would one of the mods mind MeMailing the comment to me?
Sure, done.
This seems like an important issue - collecting public information from newspaper sources and posting it in a relevant thread is now delete-worthy?
Not inherently, no. The specific feel and context here was just weird enough, despite obvious non-malicious intentions, that I felt like it was better for it to go than stay, along with the odd metaconversation that was spooling out behind it in the thread.
posted by cortex (staff) at 10:47 AM on January 14, 2016
Sure, done.
This seems like an important issue - collecting public information from newspaper sources and posting it in a relevant thread is now delete-worthy?
Not inherently, no. The specific feel and context here was just weird enough, despite obvious non-malicious intentions, that I felt like it was better for it to go than stay, along with the odd metaconversation that was spooling out behind it in the thread.
posted by cortex (staff) at 10:47 AM on January 14, 2016
The specific feel and context here was just weird enough, despite obvious non-malicious intentions, that I felt like it was better for it to go than stay ...
In the spirit of comity, can I say that this is precisely what's so exasperating about the whole thing? There's no appeal to "it just felt weird." There's no way to know if it could be done differently. There's no really satisfactory way to know how to talk about it at all. And while I absolutely agree that making lists of real names on the internet is fraught with all kinds of peril, tracking the names of admitted belligerents in a discussion of a political event with regional, if not national, significance seems pretty fundamental to following the story. If I a topic like this is worth having at all, then there should be some middle ground here between "doxxing" and simply pretending not to know.
More broadly, and it's just my opinion, metafilter is a lot less worth engaging when comments are deleted because "they just looked weird" or because "it seemed like a good idea at the time" or because one of the mods "has just had enough." Honestly, outside of really abusive behavior, I often have no idea why comments—my own included—get deleted. Of the two I had removed from the Oregon thread, the first was deleted for a joke about mailing bags of dicks to an address that was not only all over the internet, but actually promulgated by the owners themselves (again: what's "weird" here? Could I have merely linked to a page that had the address? Is it "weird" to even note that address exists?); the second comment was deleted because you took offense at a joke about my first deleted comment and are apparently tired of Deadwood jokes. And in the past I've had substantive multi-paragraph comments removed because a mod objected to a sentence or a couple of words. To me, it often looks less like "moderation" and more like editing for tone.
Which isn't to say that isn't your right. I'm not making a "freeze peach" argument here. It's not a big deal. But it does make me less and less inclined to engage with my favorite waste of time on any level. Dunno. You may see that as a feature, not a bug.
posted by octobersurprise at 1:58 PM on January 14, 2016 [2 favorites]
In the spirit of comity, can I say that this is precisely what's so exasperating about the whole thing? There's no appeal to "it just felt weird." There's no way to know if it could be done differently. There's no really satisfactory way to know how to talk about it at all. And while I absolutely agree that making lists of real names on the internet is fraught with all kinds of peril, tracking the names of admitted belligerents in a discussion of a political event with regional, if not national, significance seems pretty fundamental to following the story. If I a topic like this is worth having at all, then there should be some middle ground here between "doxxing" and simply pretending not to know.
More broadly, and it's just my opinion, metafilter is a lot less worth engaging when comments are deleted because "they just looked weird" or because "it seemed like a good idea at the time" or because one of the mods "has just had enough." Honestly, outside of really abusive behavior, I often have no idea why comments—my own included—get deleted. Of the two I had removed from the Oregon thread, the first was deleted for a joke about mailing bags of dicks to an address that was not only all over the internet, but actually promulgated by the owners themselves (again: what's "weird" here? Could I have merely linked to a page that had the address? Is it "weird" to even note that address exists?); the second comment was deleted because you took offense at a joke about my first deleted comment and are apparently tired of Deadwood jokes. And in the past I've had substantive multi-paragraph comments removed because a mod objected to a sentence or a couple of words. To me, it often looks less like "moderation" and more like editing for tone.
Which isn't to say that isn't your right. I'm not making a "freeze peach" argument here. It's not a big deal. But it does make me less and less inclined to engage with my favorite waste of time on any level. Dunno. You may see that as a feature, not a bug.
posted by octobersurprise at 1:58 PM on January 14, 2016 [2 favorites]
There definitely have been many more deletions. I had something deleted on MetaTalk in the EL thread that was pretty mild, in my opinion, especially for MetaTalk, where it used to be that very very little got deleted.
I often write my comments now not sure if they'll get wiped or not. I think people need to make a calculation on how much that potentially wasted effort is worth it to them.
This isn't a criticism of toomuchmodz or anything btw. I just think it's definitely true that there are more deletions, and that some are more or less arbitrary. I think it's a positive in lots of ways and a negative in lots of ways. It's just a different site than it was two or five years ago. Which again has positives and negatives.
posted by sweetkid at 2:03 PM on January 14, 2016
I often write my comments now not sure if they'll get wiped or not. I think people need to make a calculation on how much that potentially wasted effort is worth it to them.
This isn't a criticism of toomuchmodz or anything btw. I just think it's definitely true that there are more deletions, and that some are more or less arbitrary. I think it's a positive in lots of ways and a negative in lots of ways. It's just a different site than it was two or five years ago. Which again has positives and negatives.
posted by sweetkid at 2:03 PM on January 14, 2016
I completely did not realize that Reagan and dragon were brought before. I'll make a beeline (or jetty) to the MeFi podcasts!
posted by halifix at 1:30 PM on January 15, 2016
posted by halifix at 1:30 PM on January 15, 2016
You are not logged in, either login or create an account to post comments
posted by restless_nomad (staff) at 8:49 AM on January 9, 2016 [52 favorites]