Too much self-moderation? July 22, 2003 11:14 AM   Subscribe

Even giving the poster's intentions the benefit of the doubt, there's a whole lot of self-moderating going on in this thread.
posted by Space Coyote to Bugs at 11:14 AM (15 comments total)

Only 0.111111111111111111111111111111111111111111~%

But as soon as that .1111111111111111111111111111and so on becomes a .12
posted by Witty at 11:36 AM on July 22, 2003

I don't follow
posted by dirtylittlemonkey at 11:36 AM on July 22, 2003

Four comments out of forty-five (at this moment) doesn't seem excessive to me, especially since the first one is more of a "more inside" type comment. ROU_Xenophobe and techgnollogic each have more comments in that thread than pardonyou? does.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 11:40 AM on July 22, 2003

What's wrong with commenting a lot to the discussion of your own FPP?
posted by dirtylittlemonkey at 11:53 AM on July 22, 2003

What's wrong with commenting a lot to the discussion of your own FPP?

It's considered bad form to present a topic and then to lord over the conversation with too many of your own opinions, or worse, to try and conduct the flow of things like a, well... uh, conductor. Usually it's kind of a rookie mistake. (Sorry Ignatius--but I needed examples, and I didn't feel like searching through Miguel's early-period post archive)

For the record, I don't think pardonyou? was self-moderating.
posted by dhoyt at 12:27 PM on July 22, 2003

I don't either. He didn't dive back in until provoked by this:
The setup for this is clever, but somewhat self-Godwin-ing: i.e. Hitler once said "I like pie," therefore, if you say you like pie, you must think the way Hitler does.

I understand your opinion here, pardonyou, but the implication that Dingell said something similar to a segregationist makes it tantamount to racism is ridiculous.
Now come on, if someone accused you of "self-Godwin-ing" and being ridiculous, you'd respond. And as mr_crash_davis says, others have been far more active in the discussion. Nothing to see here.
posted by languagehat at 12:34 PM on July 22, 2003

I believe this thread is a completely unnecessary attempt to shut poardonyou? up...and I don't think it's fair. The poster expressed himself a few times and considering the fact that he was formally addressed within the thread, it's a completely acceptable amount of contributions.
posted by BlueTrain at 1:19 PM on July 22, 2003

I don't think it has anything to do with the number of comments pardonyou? has posted, but what he's attempting to do with the post. Here's some quotes from his posts, in chronological order:

Imagine the (fully justified) outcry that would ensue if a white Republican congressperson published letter to the head of the NAACP...

My secondary reason for posting is that I suspect Dingell won't get so much as a hand slap, while a conservative Congressman, using the same words, would get drummed out of Congress.

I see you'd treat them differently based on ideology. I guess I find that troubling.

For many of you who claim not to be troubled by Dingell's letter, let me remove race from the issue and treat it as a matter of political speech. Suppose your congressman wrote a letter to the organizer of an anti-war demonstration...There's no doubt that such a letter would have kicked off a shitstorm unlike any we've ever seen on MetaFilter. If you refuse to acknowledge that (or to see that it's a pure analogy), then you're blind to a pretty glaring double standard.

It seems to me like he set out to prove that some subset of Mefites and/or liberals are raging hypocrites, and failing to get the right kind of response to the post, has laid it all on the line with the last post I quoted. In effect, it says: "You all are hypocrites, damn it! Why can't you just admit it!" If I'm wrong, I apologize, but that's the way his behavior comes off to me, and that's not constructive in the least.
posted by pitchblende at 1:20 PM on July 22, 2003

but what he's attempting to do with the post.

Even if I agree with your analysis that he is, in fact, trying to push the discussion in a certain direction, most MeFi posters do just that every single day and none of them get called out for it. I can name you at least 3 political posts a day whose posters are arguing a very one-sided view, but none have received MeTa attention. Which makes me concerned as to why he is now the subject of criticism. Oh, that's right, he's saying something disagreeable. Get him!
posted by BlueTrain at 1:33 PM on July 22, 2003

FWIW, I often find pardonyou? to be a little more relentless than desirable (especially since we so often disagree on things), but I don't see any excessive "self-moderating" here. The person who posts a link should be allowed to make provocative and/or obnoxious comments about it just as much as the rest of us.
posted by soyjoy at 1:33 PM on July 22, 2003

Wow, I've been MeTa'd. I'm touched!

I don't really know what to say. I actually thought the thread reads pretty well -- it's an interesting discussion. I just thought the train went off the tracks a bit with the AA discussion, and I wanted to redirect to what I thought was the core issue. Oh, well, I think I'm done now, if that's any consolation.

FWIW, I often find pardonyou? to be a little more relentless than desirable...

Heh. FWIW, so does my wife.
posted by pardonyou? at 1:50 PM on July 22, 2003

Let that be a lesson to you. Don't ever have an opinion in your own thread again.
posted by eyeballkid at 2:34 PM on July 22, 2003

Once you post it, it's no longer your thread.
posted by timeistight at 2:43 PM on July 22, 2003

Unless it breaks one of the rules, in which case, DAMN YOU!!
posted by graventy at 3:10 PM on July 22, 2003

*steals timeistight's comment and makes it his own*
posted by eyeballkid at 3:20 PM on July 22, 2003

« Older As far as I'm aware, this is still a no-no.   |   Why the title change? Newer »

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