Author derails own thread January 21, 2003 8:37 PM   Subscribe

What do we do when the post's author is derailing his/her own thread? [more inside]
posted by qbert72 to Etiquette/Policy at 8:37 PM (15 comments total)

The linked article is about pet cloning. papacito obviously only wants to talk about (against?) genetically modified food.

We've also got name calling, pushing an agenda and thread moderating. Thankfully, some comments are insightful and on topic, but those are in the minority.

I am most offended by the trolling accusation directed at Stan Chin. Obviously, papacito has not taken the time to carefully read Stan Chin's comment, which was just the first to call out the post's faulty logic.

So it's not just moderation, it's poor moderation.

(I hate this feeling, being a whistle blower...)
posted by qbert72 at 8:40 PM on January 21, 2003

It just makes him/herself look like a complete jackass. Since MeFi's structure is based upon reputation alone (and not mod points, karma, quality/tastelessness of photoshop skills, etc.), it's really the ill-mannered author's loss. Let him/her stew in his/her own juices. If someone posts interesting links but acts like a wannabe mod, then other users will learn to avoid his/her posts.
posted by LimePi at 9:47 PM on January 21, 2003

(You really love this feeling, being a whistle blower...)
posted by quonsar at 4:11 AM on January 22, 2003

posted by anathema at 4:51 AM on January 22, 2003

Thanks to crash_davis for pointing me here with his link.

It is not my intention to "moderate" anything. In my experience, "moderation" on web boils down to one thing : some guy/girl in a user group that has more power then me, deletes some message or bans the person involved. I hate that, I'd never do that. Imho, one could simply put a timeout on discussion, not allowing more flame post to add more crap to database, so forcing the conversation to move on another grounds (email,irc,another forum) So much for moderation issue, but I'm always open to more discussion on it.

As for the derailing my own post , let's give a look at the title of the post:

Cloned Cat Doesn't look and behave like the original cat.Public perception of cloning is clone=original, but we have the proof it isn't always true. Isn't that the proof complex systems doesn't always work like we want, so it'd better to slow down the marketing of genetic engineered food ?

As you can see, I guess I've pointed out that my interest is a) clones b) public perception of cloning c)correlation between cloning a cat and GM food. Where am I derailing?

I don't say anywhere in the post that the cat cloning is the godsent, perfect, undebateable proof GM is evil , in fact I use a big question mark at the end of the sentence, suggesting that I'm not sure that a correlation exists between cat cloning and GM food.

My intention was and still is to -spark- debate on a issue I see as very controversial and worth close attention. We have some precious link post by LimePi and moonbiter that I think are very useful, the kind of links that make Metafilter much more precious then other forums to me.

As for the agenda pushing (gm evil idea pushing). I don't think I've every said GM is evil, not even suggested it is. I'm a big fan of GM as I know it can be extremely useful, but also extremely dangerous if an unscrupolous venture capitalists (or some other guy which wants quick profits) pushes some GM product to market without accurate testing. But the public perception of cloning, as I see it, is misleading and I think public (that includes metafilter/any forum reader) needs to have more informed and detailed opinions on the topic, as well as I do.
posted by elpapacito at 4:58 AM on January 22, 2003

..."moderation" on web boils down to one thing : some guy/girl in a user group that has more power then me, deletes some message or bans the person involved.

At Metafilter, moderation involves a member, usually the front page poster, controlling the direction of the discussion. While this isn't necessarily a bad thing, it is usually frowned on because often the discussion boils down to a shouting match or flame war or a metatalk call-out. Sparking a discussion is one thing, but guiding a discussion in a direction that it doesn't seem to want to go in is quite another, hence some of the nasty comments sent your way and the derail accusation.
posted by ashbury at 5:16 AM on January 22, 2003

a previous moderation discussion ...
posted by walrus at 7:20 AM on January 22, 2003

derailing his/her own thread?

You do the same thing you would do in any other situation.
There is no "his/her own" thread. If you think there is, then you're buying into the moderation concept before it even starts.
posted by Su at 8:05 AM on January 22, 2003

Exactly. We don't own the posts - we just find links and offer them up, and hopefully others will find them interesting and have something to say about them. At least, that's what we're supposed to be doing. I'm very hesitant to comment in the threads that result from "my" posts, but not for fear of being called a moderator. I just like to see the discourse go where it wants, with no prodding from me.
posted by iconomy at 8:59 AM on January 22, 2003

"The post...we send it out into the world, as our child., but though it comes from us, it is not of us....(Kahlil Gibrahn)

"The post - it is the thing-in-itself. We construct the meanings we attach to it. It means nothing.....and everything. It lies there resplendant before us, an enigma, a cipher, an icon...." (Derrida)

Heeerrre, Kitty kitty kitty! kitty kitty kitty! Kitty kitty......
posted by troutfishing at 9:06 AM on January 22, 2003

Heh. I had actually thought of using the "If you love something, let it go" poem in my comment.
posted by iconomy at 9:20 AM on January 22, 2003

iconomy - the Gibrahn quote is real - you know that already - but the Derrida quote is....ummm...."constructed"
posted by troutfishing at 10:50 AM on January 22, 2003

I have a certain amount of sympathy for elpapacito, having been in a slightly similar situation with one of my FPPs. To me, it makes a difference if you go back into the thread with additional links, rather than just rebuttals. Unless they're truly off-topic or redundant, links are a kind of added value for people's posts, something outside the closed system of the argument at hand, which may spur additional valuable perspectives from others - even if they're perspectives that are contradictory to the goals of the original poster.
posted by soyjoy at 12:00 PM on January 22, 2003

My intention was and still is to -spark- debate on a issue I see as very controversial and worth close attention

I've heard throught the grapevine that this is not such a hot idea for MetaFilter. Rather, the discovery of fascinating links or websites to share with other members makes everybody exceedingly happy.
posted by hama7 at 2:54 PM on January 22, 2003

Well, I don't really like this thread. The poster has a limited understanding of the concepts involved, so when they dominate the discussion it forces it more into an explanation of the topics brought up. The fact that clones are not identical in every way is unremarkable, GM foods are, as stan mentioned, not really linked logically to this article about cloning cats. So instead of debating GM foods commenter after commenter has to explain the fundamental assumptions.
posted by rhyax at 7:48 PM on January 22, 2003

« Older New window not wanted   |   Is that thread helpful or not? Newer »

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