Is this thread signal? April 6, 2004 10:37 AM Subscribe
I'm not trying to make a personal callout, nor am I Chicken Littling, but I wonder if this thread is of the more interesting variety of political threads, or if it is more of a simple "gotcha." For those who don't think that all politics FPP's are necessarily noise, is this thread signal?
Cool. Sorry to raise a ruckus.
posted by Ignatius J. Reilly at 10:42 AM on April 6, 2004
posted by Ignatius J. Reilly at 10:42 AM on April 6, 2004
is this thread signal?
That depends on what the meaning of "signal" is.
posted by hama7 at 10:46 AM on April 6, 2004
That depends on what the meaning of "signal" is.
posted by hama7 at 10:46 AM on April 6, 2004
I have always maintained that there can be good political or newsie FPPs, but the key is how they are presented. This particular one is not presented in a very helpful manner. It is merely an article from the NY Times. One way to make the same essential post, but make it better, is to do some leg work. Find a link to the original statement from Cheney. Perhaps find some links from sources agreeing with Cheney that dirt cheap oil would be a bad thing for the United States. Then include some sources which suggest that cheap is a good thing. That would be better because people could have some different views upon which to base their analysis.
The topic could be a good one, depending on what the topic is suppose to be about. Is the topic suppose to be whether a high cost of oil is ultimately beneficial to the United States? If that is the topic, then it could be a very good one, as there are respectful arguments for both sides.
However, if the topic was posted in order to accuse Cheney of flip-flopping or to merely score partisan points by mudslinging, then it is a bad topic. Again, if it is framed in this way, then the resulting discussion will be nothing but crap. The posters view of Cheney is not a discussion worthy topic. The effects of pricing of oil is a discussion worthy topic.
So as to your question about whether this thread is "signal," then I would have to say that because of the deficiencies of the wording of the post, the answer to your question will come by the behavior of the participants. If the thread was constructed better, than I think it would have been excellent signal.
posted by Seth at 10:56 AM on April 6, 2004
The topic could be a good one, depending on what the topic is suppose to be about. Is the topic suppose to be whether a high cost of oil is ultimately beneficial to the United States? If that is the topic, then it could be a very good one, as there are respectful arguments for both sides.
However, if the topic was posted in order to accuse Cheney of flip-flopping or to merely score partisan points by mudslinging, then it is a bad topic. Again, if it is framed in this way, then the resulting discussion will be nothing but crap. The posters view of Cheney is not a discussion worthy topic. The effects of pricing of oil is a discussion worthy topic.
So as to your question about whether this thread is "signal," then I would have to say that because of the deficiencies of the wording of the post, the answer to your question will come by the behavior of the participants. If the thread was constructed better, than I think it would have been excellent signal.
posted by Seth at 10:56 AM on April 6, 2004
I liked this post (Probably because I agreed with Cheney of yore and enjoy how it plays out with current times). That said, how can this be called out, but the over-abundance of Iraq in the past two days be legitimate?
posted by BlueTrain at 11:05 AM on April 6, 2004
posted by BlueTrain at 11:05 AM on April 6, 2004
Seth, why don't you lead by example? Considering you have yet to post an FPP.
posted by archimago at 11:06 AM on April 6, 2004
posted by archimago at 11:06 AM on April 6, 2004
I liked this post (Probably because I agreed with Cheney of yore and enjoy how it plays out with current times). That said, how can this be called out, but the over-abundance of Iraq in the past two days be legitimate?
There was one Iraq post this morning, none yesterday, and one the day before (in my time zone). The one two days ago (y2karl's) was interesting, contained a lot of information, had several links, and was on a topic that is really multifaceted. I thought, at first, that the FPP in question was really just a "gotcha," but now I see the discussion in that thread is going along fine without me complaining, so I guess maybe I was wrong.
posted by Ignatius J. Reilly at 11:13 AM on April 6, 2004
There was one Iraq post this morning, none yesterday, and one the day before (in my time zone). The one two days ago (y2karl's) was interesting, contained a lot of information, had several links, and was on a topic that is really multifaceted. I thought, at first, that the FPP in question was really just a "gotcha," but now I see the discussion in that thread is going along fine without me complaining, so I guess maybe I was wrong.
posted by Ignatius J. Reilly at 11:13 AM on April 6, 2004
Seth, could you please post an FPP just so I don't have to read someone cite the fact that you've never posted an FPP? Or you could stop critiquing others' threads. Either way.
posted by stonerose at 11:23 AM on April 6, 2004
posted by stonerose at 11:23 AM on April 6, 2004
what's a "gotcha"?
posted by SpaceCadet at 11:26 AM on April 6, 2004
posted by SpaceCadet at 11:26 AM on April 6, 2004
Seth, why don't you lead by example? Considering you have yet to post an FPP.
posted by archimago at 11:06 AM PST on April 6
I've already answered this question a thousand times, and I really am tiring of having to make the same answer a hundred times to this weak and off-topic response. Posting is not a requirement for membership here. If you want to know my explanation, then check my comment history and you will find plenty of explanations.
Perhaps you care to address my point? Or would you rather just make a lazy refutation based on some un-related premise?
For what it is worth, I make a comment in that thread addressing the only thing worthy of discussing in that thread, and my comment is consistent with the point I made above. Let us take notice of how my comment is received.
posted by Seth at 11:32 AM on April 6, 2004
posted by archimago at 11:06 AM PST on April 6
I've already answered this question a thousand times, and I really am tiring of having to make the same answer a hundred times to this weak and off-topic response. Posting is not a requirement for membership here. If you want to know my explanation, then check my comment history and you will find plenty of explanations.
Perhaps you care to address my point? Or would you rather just make a lazy refutation based on some un-related premise?
For what it is worth, I make a comment in that thread addressing the only thing worthy of discussing in that thread, and my comment is consistent with the point I made above. Let us take notice of how my comment is received.
posted by Seth at 11:32 AM on April 6, 2004
gotcha: It's the art of making political attacks by culling through someone's past statements to make them look like bad. It usually involves taking things out of context, or chopping a quote (remember the Howard Dean "I hate the Iowa caucus" 'gaffe'?), and has been mastered by Karl Rove and Democratic operative Chris Lehane.
posted by Ignatius J. Reilly at 11:34 AM on April 6, 2004
posted by Ignatius J. Reilly at 11:34 AM on April 6, 2004
what's a "gotcha"?
It's like when Matt notices you posting about the same topic over and over again and deletes your FPP.
Or what Ignatius said.
posted by stonerose at 11:36 AM on April 6, 2004
It's like when Matt notices you posting about the same topic over and over again and deletes your FPP.
Or what Ignatius said.
posted by stonerose at 11:36 AM on April 6, 2004
I really am tiring of having to make the same answer a hundred times.
Not as tired as we are of having to listen to you gripe about posts that don't meet your criteria every time. :)
To continue my Breakfast Club theme...
archimago: Seth, why don't you lead by example?
Brian Johnson: Why don't you just answer the question?
Andrew Clark: Be honest.
John Bender: No big deal.
Brian Johnson: Yeah answer it.
Andrew Clark: Answer the question, [Seth].
posted by terrapin at 11:58 AM on April 6, 2004
Not as tired as we are of having to listen to you gripe about posts that don't meet your criteria every time. :)
To continue my Breakfast Club theme...
archimago: Seth, why don't you lead by example?
Brian Johnson: Why don't you just answer the question?
Andrew Clark: Be honest.
John Bender: No big deal.
Brian Johnson: Yeah answer it.
Andrew Clark: Answer the question, [Seth].
posted by terrapin at 11:58 AM on April 6, 2004
What seth said. Twice.
Being a good metafilterian does not require, nay, does not even encourage, posting. If every member posted, we'd all cry. I've been a member here for four years and I've made four posts (er, on preview, I've made six).
posted by zpousman at 12:00 PM on April 6, 2004
Being a good metafilterian does not require, nay, does not even encourage, posting. If every member posted, we'd all cry. I've been a member here for four years and I've made four posts (er, on preview, I've made six).
posted by zpousman at 12:00 PM on April 6, 2004
I thought it was a fine post, but then, I'm a politics junkie, and a liberal at that. Also I've been here for four days.
In fact....
forget I said anything.
posted by John Kenneth Fisher at 12:00 PM on April 6, 2004
In fact....
forget I said anything.
posted by John Kenneth Fisher at 12:00 PM on April 6, 2004
Seth, I must admit you have my sympathies on this one. I'm also tired of that so frequent exchange wherein MeFier A criticizes a FPP and MeFier B says, "Well, you never post anything."
By this logic only a carpenter who builds flawless houses could tell you your house is leaning to the one side.
However, I will add that if this non-carpenter is too vocal too often about the flaws in other people's houses he maybe should consider piping down and/or showing people how it's done.
No criticism of you, Seth, just an observation.
posted by orange swan at 12:02 PM on April 6, 2004
By this logic only a carpenter who builds flawless houses could tell you your house is leaning to the one side.
However, I will add that if this non-carpenter is too vocal too often about the flaws in other people's houses he maybe should consider piping down and/or showing people how it's done.
No criticism of you, Seth, just an observation.
posted by orange swan at 12:02 PM on April 6, 2004
I have always maintained that there can be good political or newsie FPPs, but the key is how they are presented.
And Seth hath spoken, and yea, verily, all must hearken to it.
posted by norm at 12:06 PM on April 6, 2004
And Seth hath spoken, and yea, verily, all must hearken to it.
posted by norm at 12:06 PM on April 6, 2004
I don't think that all politics posts are noise.
I do think that a politics post, consisting of a single link to a story from a major news source (including but not limited to New York Times, Washington Post, USA Today, CNN, or BBC) is noise.
Seth, why don't you lead by example? Considering you have yet to post an FPP.
I'm not Seth, but since I also have yet to post a Front Page Post (FPP) I'll respond anyway. I am leading by example. I read cnn.com nearly every day, and I lead by example by not posting those stories here. I read news.bbc.co.uk frequently, and I lead by example by not posting those stories here. When I find something that I consider "the best of the web" that I think most MeFites won't have seen already, I'll post it. Until then, the only way I can lead by example is by not posting things that do not meet those criteria.
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 12:22 PM on April 6, 2004
I do think that a politics post, consisting of a single link to a story from a major news source (including but not limited to New York Times, Washington Post, USA Today, CNN, or BBC) is noise.
Seth, why don't you lead by example? Considering you have yet to post an FPP.
I'm not Seth, but since I also have yet to post a Front Page Post (FPP) I'll respond anyway. I am leading by example. I read cnn.com nearly every day, and I lead by example by not posting those stories here. I read news.bbc.co.uk frequently, and I lead by example by not posting those stories here. When I find something that I consider "the best of the web" that I think most MeFites won't have seen already, I'll post it. Until then, the only way I can lead by example is by not posting things that do not meet those criteria.
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 12:22 PM on April 6, 2004
You know, it truly, truly pains me to say this, but I agree with Seth on this. Maybe because I'm used to my blood pressure exploding while reading his comments and that didn't happen this time, but he's actually being reasonable. A link to a NYT article and that's it? Frig man, if that's all it takes for a top notch FPP, I'd be posting one every other day.
As for all those complaining about his lack of FPP posting, sheesh. If that's the best you can do to refute his argument, you've got nothing.
posted by GhostintheMachine at 12:35 PM on April 6, 2004
As for all those complaining about his lack of FPP posting, sheesh. If that's the best you can do to refute his argument, you've got nothing.
posted by GhostintheMachine at 12:35 PM on April 6, 2004
I never said that making FPPs was a requirement of being part of the community. If you can't do better, or won't even try, then don't criticize someone else's attempts.
By this logic only a carpenter who builds flawless houses could tell you your house is leaning to the one side.
No. By this logic, some who claims to be a carpenter but has never built a thing shouldn't be telling someone the correct way to level a wall.
Your "point," Seth, that I am not addressing, is that you know how to do better. So show us. That's my point.
posted by archimago at 12:37 PM on April 6, 2004
By this logic only a carpenter who builds flawless houses could tell you your house is leaning to the one side.
No. By this logic, some who claims to be a carpenter but has never built a thing shouldn't be telling someone the correct way to level a wall.
Your "point," Seth, that I am not addressing, is that you know how to do better. So show us. That's my point.
posted by archimago at 12:37 PM on April 6, 2004
/enter rant mode
I continue to not understand why it is that people can't just ignore the posts they either have no interest in or which they feel have no worth. When I sit down with my morning paper each day, I don't read the whole thing front to back, as there are a great many things in the newspaper which don't interest me. The same thing applies to web sites. I scan the "headlines". The only time I click a link and read it any further is if it both catches my eye and is something that I haven't already read on my usual rounds of web sites and news services (unless it's something I'd really like to read other people's commentary on or feel strongly about). It's really easy to ignore newsfilter, Iraqfilter, and all the other filters that people keep complaining about, and what I find interesting or worth reading and commenting on changes from day to day. I don't mind if people want to post/discuss politics, news or whether or not the moon is made of cheese. There are days when I will read these posts and days when I will ignore them.
What I find more annoying than people posting what they find interesting and want to share is all these Meta call-outs about posts that don't fit whatever the particular member's idea of a good post is. And then after said call-out and subsequent head bashing, the very people who gripe the loudest about the unworthiness of said post continue to take part in the post (not so much in this case as in others). If you ignore it, it will actually go away. Don't bother complaining in the comments. Don't make a Meta thread to state that you think the post sucks. Just don't click the link and move on to the next one.
This is really the biggest reason that I find myself coming here less and less ... the constant bickering about what should be considered a good front page post. "Good" has a different definition for every person. Some people enjoy the politics, religion, news posts and some don't. Some people like flash posts and some don't. I don't like that my neighbor has planted sweet peas in her yard, but I'm not about to walk over there and tell her she has to stop planting them because I think they are "bad" plants. I'll just have to learn to ignore them, and they will be around longer than a front page post to the blue will be.
Why the hell does everyone seem to think that the entire community has to live up to their own specific standards of what is and is not a good post seeing as the definition of such is highly variable?
/rant mode off
posted by Orb at 2:00 PM on April 6, 2004
I continue to not understand why it is that people can't just ignore the posts they either have no interest in or which they feel have no worth. When I sit down with my morning paper each day, I don't read the whole thing front to back, as there are a great many things in the newspaper which don't interest me. The same thing applies to web sites. I scan the "headlines". The only time I click a link and read it any further is if it both catches my eye and is something that I haven't already read on my usual rounds of web sites and news services (unless it's something I'd really like to read other people's commentary on or feel strongly about). It's really easy to ignore newsfilter, Iraqfilter, and all the other filters that people keep complaining about, and what I find interesting or worth reading and commenting on changes from day to day. I don't mind if people want to post/discuss politics, news or whether or not the moon is made of cheese. There are days when I will read these posts and days when I will ignore them.
What I find more annoying than people posting what they find interesting and want to share is all these Meta call-outs about posts that don't fit whatever the particular member's idea of a good post is. And then after said call-out and subsequent head bashing, the very people who gripe the loudest about the unworthiness of said post continue to take part in the post (not so much in this case as in others). If you ignore it, it will actually go away. Don't bother complaining in the comments. Don't make a Meta thread to state that you think the post sucks. Just don't click the link and move on to the next one.
This is really the biggest reason that I find myself coming here less and less ... the constant bickering about what should be considered a good front page post. "Good" has a different definition for every person. Some people enjoy the politics, religion, news posts and some don't. Some people like flash posts and some don't. I don't like that my neighbor has planted sweet peas in her yard, but I'm not about to walk over there and tell her she has to stop planting them because I think they are "bad" plants. I'll just have to learn to ignore them, and they will be around longer than a front page post to the blue will be.
Why the hell does everyone seem to think that the entire community has to live up to their own specific standards of what is and is not a good post seeing as the definition of such is highly variable?
/rant mode off
posted by Orb at 2:00 PM on April 6, 2004
However, if the topic was posted in order to accuse Cheney of flip-flopping or to merely score partisan points by mudslinging, then it is a bad topic. Again, if it is framed in this way, then the resulting discussion will be nothing but crap. The posters view of Cheney is not a discussion worthy topic. The effects of pricing of oil is a discussion worthy topic.
Seth, I have to disagree with this, for the most part. Where you are correct is in stating that the poster's view of Cheney is not discussion worthy. Where I feel you to be incorrect is that, if Cheney has flip-flopped, and it bares directly on energy policy, set in secret by that very Dick Cheney then it is a perfectly appropriate post, regardless of whether you approve of the discussion it spawns or not. You can assume its partisan until the cows come home (as you so obviously always have), but that doesn't lend you any moral weight in deciding the form by which the rest of us discuss our elected (heh) leaders.
On preview: gaze into the Orb, for wisdom is to be seen there.
posted by Wulfgar! at 2:09 PM on April 6, 2004
Seth, I have to disagree with this, for the most part. Where you are correct is in stating that the poster's view of Cheney is not discussion worthy. Where I feel you to be incorrect is that, if Cheney has flip-flopped, and it bares directly on energy policy, set in secret by that very Dick Cheney then it is a perfectly appropriate post, regardless of whether you approve of the discussion it spawns or not. You can assume its partisan until the cows come home (as you so obviously always have), but that doesn't lend you any moral weight in deciding the form by which the rest of us discuss our elected (heh) leaders.
On preview: gaze into the Orb, for wisdom is to be seen there.
posted by Wulfgar! at 2:09 PM on April 6, 2004
Why the hell does everyone seem to think that the entire community has to live up to their own specific standards of what is and is not a good post seeing as the definition of such is highly variable?
Because we're all selfish, self-centered cocksuckers - every last one of us.
I think it's called being human.
posted by Ryvar at 2:12 PM on April 6, 2004
Because we're all selfish, self-centered cocksuckers - every last one of us.
I think it's called being human.
posted by Ryvar at 2:12 PM on April 6, 2004
I continue to not understand why it is that people can't just ignore the posts they either have no interest in or which they feel have no worth.
So when someone sees a post they don't like in the blue, they should just ignore it and move on, but when you see a post you don't like in the brown, you write a four-paragraph rant?
Why the hell does everyone seem to think that the entire community has to live up to their own specific standards of what is and is not a good post seeing as the definition of such is highly variable?
Why the hell do you seem to think that the entire community has to live up to your own specific standard of what is and is not a good MeTa post seeing as the definition of such is highly variable?
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 2:14 PM on April 6, 2004
So when someone sees a post they don't like in the blue, they should just ignore it and move on, but when you see a post you don't like in the brown, you write a four-paragraph rant?
Why the hell does everyone seem to think that the entire community has to live up to their own specific standards of what is and is not a good post seeing as the definition of such is highly variable?
Why the hell do you seem to think that the entire community has to live up to your own specific standard of what is and is not a good MeTa post seeing as the definition of such is highly variable?
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 2:14 PM on April 6, 2004
Seth, you state that you lack the skills required to go find great things on the web, but then proceed in detail to describe how you would reconstruct EmoChild's post.
You can't middle-manage without understanding what you are asking of people. If your intention is only to offer helpful suggestions, then you need to drop the air of authority.
posted by eddydamascene at 2:19 PM on April 6, 2004
You can't middle-manage without understanding what you are asking of people. If your intention is only to offer helpful suggestions, then you need to drop the air of authority.
posted by eddydamascene at 2:19 PM on April 6, 2004
I don't like that my neighbor has planted sweet peas in her yard, but I'm not about to walk over there and tell her she has to stop planting them because I think they are "bad" plants.
I don't think your analogy holds up, Orb. Nobody has their own garden here – everyone's planting their sweet peas, roses, skunk cabbage, strawberries and poison ivy in the community garden. Not that there's much we can do about it.
posted by timeistight at 2:30 PM on April 6, 2004
I don't think your analogy holds up, Orb. Nobody has their own garden here – everyone's planting their sweet peas, roses, skunk cabbage, strawberries and poison ivy in the community garden. Not that there's much we can do about it.
posted by timeistight at 2:30 PM on April 6, 2004
Orb: I continue to not understand why it is that people can't just ignore the posts they either have no interest in or which they feel have no worth. When I sit down with my morning paper each day, I don't read the whole thing front to back, as there are a great many things in the newspaper which don't interest me. The same thing applies to web sites.
Only for web sites where you don't have an input. A group weblog, like this one, is where you can provide feedback and contribute to the tone. The authors and readers form a combined pool and the same individuals can fulfill both roles. Newspaper content does get influenced, but by a small restricted group. Since we can interact with this weblog, should we? What could happen if a strict ignore policy is voluntarily effected, is that users could form cliques and stick to them. That in turn would either decrease particpation by certain cliques or increase front-page volume with bits of content serving only those cliques. This already happens to an extent. A fragmented community isn't one. Some compromise is necessary and the Grey is fair game to induce that.
posted by Gyan at 2:38 PM on April 6, 2004
Only for web sites where you don't have an input. A group weblog, like this one, is where you can provide feedback and contribute to the tone. The authors and readers form a combined pool and the same individuals can fulfill both roles. Newspaper content does get influenced, but by a small restricted group. Since we can interact with this weblog, should we? What could happen if a strict ignore policy is voluntarily effected, is that users could form cliques and stick to them. That in turn would either decrease particpation by certain cliques or increase front-page volume with bits of content serving only those cliques. This already happens to an extent. A fragmented community isn't one. Some compromise is necessary and the Grey is fair game to induce that.
posted by Gyan at 2:38 PM on April 6, 2004
archimago, see my past comments on this subject or what DevilsAdvocate said above to understand why your "point" is a non-starter.
Orb: Some people care about this website. I do immensely. Some people worry that the signal-to-noise ratio is becoming increasinlgy out-of-whack. I think it has become increasingly worse over the last six months. Metafilter is a self-regulating forum.
So to your question: why do people feel the need to ask for norms. Well, for one, it is the point of self-policing. If we let everything slide, then that concept is hollow. Secondly, I believe I am witnessing a lowering of the bar on quality, so I wish to not let that become acceptable. (And I fear what the new blood thinks of MeFi... whether they see it as a special unique place to find the best of the web or whether they think it is just a discussion forum like DU or LGF).
I'm never a fan of the slippery-slope argument, but I do think that Daniel Patrick Moynihan described the effects of deviancy in closed societies perfectly. Here is his theory and then consider the application: A society has a limit on the amount of deviancy that it can accept or recognize. This is called the Durkheim constant after the sociologist Emile Durkheim. When the amount of deviancy changes, society has to re-evaluate what it defines as deviancy. Deviancy can be defined up or down. (There is the rejoinder that a community of angels and a commuinty of thieves will have the same amount of deviancy, but the standards will be vastly different) If there is an excess of deviancy, then deviancy is "defined down." That is, practices which once were considered deviant are normalized. After a while, deviancy might increase, and society will have to define deviancy even further down.
Apply this theory to Metafilter. A site that is designed to share the best and unique things found on the web. Some people start posting things that are not "the best" or "unique." MeFi normalizes this behavior. Then people start posting newsfilter stories. MeFi normalizes that behavior so that it is no longer considered deviant. Then people start posting op/ed articles, which isn't even news, but slanted news takes. MeFi normalizes that behavior. Now deviancy is defined down to where MeFi is nothing but blog churn.
This is what I see happening on Metafilter. And since this is a self-policing website, I feel that it is my duty to help police it because I desperately don't want MeFi to turn into a blog churn site or a political discussion forum. There are plenty of places on the web to get those things if you are interested. (E-mail me and I will send you the links so you can bookmark them and read them there). But I hope MeFi stays unique. So I am trying to do my part to define deviancy back up. Hopefully by pointing out areas for improvement, we can improve the overall quality of the blue.
So hopefully that answers your "why?" question.
As far as you view that I am the one being solipsistic in my demands, surely you can recognize the irony in that. (On preview: DevilsAdvocate makes the point well). #1 has give MeFi to all us. But you are telling me what not to post or skip what you don't like. Wouldn't the same logic apply to you? Skip my posts if you don't like them? I suspect that that particular answer is not sufficient for you. So why don't we settle on this: we can both read and comment as we see fit about what should be and shouldn't. You can tell me to shut up, and I can post what I want. I don't expect everyone to agree with what I have to say or try to incorporate some advice I put forth, and you should expect me to do the same with your advice.
(On preview: Wulfgar, that is your opinion, and you are entitled to it. I tend to disagree. I don't see what value is added to Metafilter for the same group of people to express, yet again, their dislike for Bush and others. When there is a perfectly good topic to talk about, why resort to mindless "they are evil, we must win" talk? Interestingly in that thread, I think some of us de-railed a Bush bash session by posting on topic. It is shocking to see someone de-rail something on to the topic.)
posted by Seth at 2:42 PM on April 6, 2004
Orb: Some people care about this website. I do immensely. Some people worry that the signal-to-noise ratio is becoming increasinlgy out-of-whack. I think it has become increasingly worse over the last six months. Metafilter is a self-regulating forum.
So to your question: why do people feel the need to ask for norms. Well, for one, it is the point of self-policing. If we let everything slide, then that concept is hollow. Secondly, I believe I am witnessing a lowering of the bar on quality, so I wish to not let that become acceptable. (And I fear what the new blood thinks of MeFi... whether they see it as a special unique place to find the best of the web or whether they think it is just a discussion forum like DU or LGF).
I'm never a fan of the slippery-slope argument, but I do think that Daniel Patrick Moynihan described the effects of deviancy in closed societies perfectly. Here is his theory and then consider the application: A society has a limit on the amount of deviancy that it can accept or recognize. This is called the Durkheim constant after the sociologist Emile Durkheim. When the amount of deviancy changes, society has to re-evaluate what it defines as deviancy. Deviancy can be defined up or down. (There is the rejoinder that a community of angels and a commuinty of thieves will have the same amount of deviancy, but the standards will be vastly different) If there is an excess of deviancy, then deviancy is "defined down." That is, practices which once were considered deviant are normalized. After a while, deviancy might increase, and society will have to define deviancy even further down.
Apply this theory to Metafilter. A site that is designed to share the best and unique things found on the web. Some people start posting things that are not "the best" or "unique." MeFi normalizes this behavior. Then people start posting newsfilter stories. MeFi normalizes that behavior so that it is no longer considered deviant. Then people start posting op/ed articles, which isn't even news, but slanted news takes. MeFi normalizes that behavior. Now deviancy is defined down to where MeFi is nothing but blog churn.
This is what I see happening on Metafilter. And since this is a self-policing website, I feel that it is my duty to help police it because I desperately don't want MeFi to turn into a blog churn site or a political discussion forum. There are plenty of places on the web to get those things if you are interested. (E-mail me and I will send you the links so you can bookmark them and read them there). But I hope MeFi stays unique. So I am trying to do my part to define deviancy back up. Hopefully by pointing out areas for improvement, we can improve the overall quality of the blue.
So hopefully that answers your "why?" question.
As far as you view that I am the one being solipsistic in my demands, surely you can recognize the irony in that. (On preview: DevilsAdvocate makes the point well). #1 has give MeFi to all us. But you are telling me what not to post or skip what you don't like. Wouldn't the same logic apply to you? Skip my posts if you don't like them? I suspect that that particular answer is not sufficient for you. So why don't we settle on this: we can both read and comment as we see fit about what should be and shouldn't. You can tell me to shut up, and I can post what I want. I don't expect everyone to agree with what I have to say or try to incorporate some advice I put forth, and you should expect me to do the same with your advice.
(On preview: Wulfgar, that is your opinion, and you are entitled to it. I tend to disagree. I don't see what value is added to Metafilter for the same group of people to express, yet again, their dislike for Bush and others. When there is a perfectly good topic to talk about, why resort to mindless "they are evil, we must win" talk? Interestingly in that thread, I think some of us de-railed a Bush bash session by posting on topic. It is shocking to see someone de-rail something on to the topic.)
posted by Seth at 2:42 PM on April 6, 2004
What, another MeTa thread about Seth? He's getting to be the most talked-about MeFite since a certain user whose relation is about to visit our homes in the dead of night and leave its droppings for our children to eat. Sheesh.
posted by dg at 3:01 PM on April 6, 2004
posted by dg at 3:01 PM on April 6, 2004
So I am trying to do my part to define deviancy back up.
You're not, and you're tiresome. If you were really defining deviancy back up, you'd post something worthwhile, not just critique all the posts you don't like or don't think are worthy. You do nothing pro-active about what you see as bad posts. You do nothing to make the site better. You don't post yourself, thereby leading by example. You do nothing to raise the bad posts up, as many others do, by either posting supplementary links or scintillating conversation or expert commentary. You do nothing but insult and add negative noise and complaints, over and over and over. You add negative value to Metafilter, yet complain continually about others.
This is why you are not listened to. If you added anything of value beyond complaints and criticism, maybe you would be.
posted by amberglow at 3:05 PM on April 6, 2004
You're not, and you're tiresome. If you were really defining deviancy back up, you'd post something worthwhile, not just critique all the posts you don't like or don't think are worthy. You do nothing pro-active about what you see as bad posts. You do nothing to make the site better. You don't post yourself, thereby leading by example. You do nothing to raise the bad posts up, as many others do, by either posting supplementary links or scintillating conversation or expert commentary. You do nothing but insult and add negative noise and complaints, over and over and over. You add negative value to Metafilter, yet complain continually about others.
This is why you are not listened to. If you added anything of value beyond complaints and criticism, maybe you would be.
posted by amberglow at 3:05 PM on April 6, 2004
certain user whose relation is about to visit our homes in the dead of night and leave its droppings for our children to eat
Miguel???? No, that can't be right...
posted by dness2 at 3:06 PM on April 6, 2004
Miguel???? No, that can't be right...
posted by dness2 at 3:06 PM on April 6, 2004
Because we're all selfish, self-centered cocksuckers - every last one of us. Hey Ryvar - I resent that. I am neither selfish nor self-centered!
posted by Lynsey at 3:07 PM on April 6, 2004
posted by Lynsey at 3:07 PM on April 6, 2004
You know, MeFi is pretty good, and AskMe is extremely good. MeTa, however, is just a cesspit of self-important MetaWhinging. Hell, why talk about FPPs when we can talk about the people who talk about FPPs!
posted by five fresh fish at 3:22 PM on April 6, 2004
posted by five fresh fish at 3:22 PM on April 6, 2004
Posting every little news item about Bush's team doing something wrong is definitely lame for this site and generally leads to pointless threads.
But when any one of us blasts all political posts or all Bush-themed posts or all Nader posts or whatever... we lose the occasional item that is significant, interesting, and/or both. I think Cheney going on record for a tax on oil is big news I haven't heard anywhere else. I've seen all the Bush ads talking about Kerry's gas tax thing, and I've seen explanations from independent people saying why it wasn't really fair.
It would have been nice if the orginal post dug up the text of the bill or some other background history on it, but I think it's a significant turn and touches on an interesting topic we're all grappling with right now ($2+ gas prices). Thanks Seth for also posting a lengthy, meaty response in the thread. You made it better.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 3:23 PM on April 6, 2004
But when any one of us blasts all political posts or all Bush-themed posts or all Nader posts or whatever... we lose the occasional item that is significant, interesting, and/or both. I think Cheney going on record for a tax on oil is big news I haven't heard anywhere else. I've seen all the Bush ads talking about Kerry's gas tax thing, and I've seen explanations from independent people saying why it wasn't really fair.
It would have been nice if the orginal post dug up the text of the bill or some other background history on it, but I think it's a significant turn and touches on an interesting topic we're all grappling with right now ($2+ gas prices). Thanks Seth for also posting a lengthy, meaty response in the thread. You made it better.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 3:23 PM on April 6, 2004
After writing another three paragraphs, on preview ... what mathowie said, as he said it better. Anyone interested in hearing what I had to say can find it if they look.
Now I will pay my penance for having the audacity of thinking I had the right to post four paragraphs to Metatalk by silently lurking for another year.
posted by Orb at 4:06 PM on April 6, 2004
Now I will pay my penance for having the audacity of thinking I had the right to post four paragraphs to Metatalk by silently lurking for another year.
posted by Orb at 4:06 PM on April 6, 2004
I'll be happy as long as there's no more dog-killing talk.
posted by timeistight at 4:11 PM on April 6, 2004
posted by timeistight at 4:11 PM on April 6, 2004
You know, MeFi is pretty good, and AskMe is extremely good. MeTa, however, is just a cesspit of self-important MetaWhinging.
Ah, but that's part of the brilliance of the site, and I'm half-convinced Numbuh One intentionally set it up to be exactly that. In any sort of group blog/discussion site like this one, with hundreds of active users, some people are going to complain about other people. You can't stop it. It's precisely because we have the brown (or the gray, depending on just how your monitor is set and how the light hits it) available to be our cesspit of self-important MetaWhinging, that the MetaWhinging stays there and, for the most part, off of the blue and the green. If we didn't have all this complaining in MeTa, it would show up in MeFi and AskMe. It's precisely because MeTa is a cesspit that MeFi is pretty good, and AskMe is extremely good.
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 4:44 PM on April 6, 2004
Ah, but that's part of the brilliance of the site, and I'm half-convinced Numbuh One intentionally set it up to be exactly that. In any sort of group blog/discussion site like this one, with hundreds of active users, some people are going to complain about other people. You can't stop it. It's precisely because we have the brown (or the gray, depending on just how your monitor is set and how the light hits it) available to be our cesspit of self-important MetaWhinging, that the MetaWhinging stays there and, for the most part, off of the blue and the green. If we didn't have all this complaining in MeTa, it would show up in MeFi and AskMe. It's precisely because MeTa is a cesspit that MeFi is pretty good, and AskMe is extremely good.
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 4:44 PM on April 6, 2004
Wulfgar, that is your opinion, and you are entitled to it. I tend to disagree. I don't see what value is added to Metafilter for the same group of people to express, yet again, their dislike for Bush and others. When there is a perfectly good topic to talk about, why resort to mindless "they are evil, we must win" talk?
Seth, pull your head out. You're once again assuming the Bush-bad agenda of us all. Yes, some did resort to mindless drivel, and here you take credit for dragging us up out of such nonsense, as if. But you still, by your very action, can't defend the worthlessness of the post, just because some don't argue as you see fit. Basically, what you've said is that people do things that you don't like. You do things you like, so you are superior. No. You do better than some, worse than others. That still doesn't establish or defend your point ... that such things on MeFi should suit your desire. People saying x is good, people saying Y is bad ... *sigh*. You can't cherry-pick the topics or comments just to suit yourself. Sorry if that pains.
posted by Wulfgar! at 4:47 PM on April 6, 2004
Seth, pull your head out. You're once again assuming the Bush-bad agenda of us all. Yes, some did resort to mindless drivel, and here you take credit for dragging us up out of such nonsense, as if. But you still, by your very action, can't defend the worthlessness of the post, just because some don't argue as you see fit. Basically, what you've said is that people do things that you don't like. You do things you like, so you are superior. No. You do better than some, worse than others. That still doesn't establish or defend your point ... that such things on MeFi should suit your desire. People saying x is good, people saying Y is bad ... *sigh*. You can't cherry-pick the topics or comments just to suit yourself. Sorry if that pains.
posted by Wulfgar! at 4:47 PM on April 6, 2004
But you still, by your very action, can't defend the worthlessness of the post, just because some don't argue as you see fit.
this, coming from someone telling somebody else to pull their head out. funny.
Seth may rub people the wrong way by always pointing out what is wrong with the site, but is this necessarily a bad thing or do people here just have a problem with Seth? and why do most people attack the person rather than the argument being made?
Most arguments i've seen him/her make have been well thought out and expose the weaknesses of mefi. if, as Seth has tried time and again to explain, mefi's self-policing policy is a benefit, why do so many here attack him/her for trying to make mefi a better place?
and since we're continually bringing up Seth's posting history, why not tell the whole story (being as we're such scientifically-minded fuckwits)? Seth has posted 0 mefi, 1 meta and 7 askme threads?
posted by poopy at 5:43 PM on April 6, 2004
this, coming from someone telling somebody else to pull their head out. funny.
Seth may rub people the wrong way by always pointing out what is wrong with the site, but is this necessarily a bad thing or do people here just have a problem with Seth? and why do most people attack the person rather than the argument being made?
Most arguments i've seen him/her make have been well thought out and expose the weaknesses of mefi. if, as Seth has tried time and again to explain, mefi's self-policing policy is a benefit, why do so many here attack him/her for trying to make mefi a better place?
and since we're continually bringing up Seth's posting history, why not tell the whole story (being as we're such scientifically-minded fuckwits)? Seth has posted 0 mefi, 1 meta and 7 askme threads?
posted by poopy at 5:43 PM on April 6, 2004
"I am leading by example. I read cnn.com nearly every day, and I lead by example by not posting those stories here. I read news.bbc.co.uk frequently, and I lead by example by not posting those stories here. When I find something that I consider "the best of the web" that I think most MeFites won't have seen already, I'll post it.—DevilsAdvocateAmen, brother. NewsFilter and BiasFilter posts annoy the hell out of me—and I say this as a long-time luker who reads most threads, most days—because they're trivial and insulting. They're not the "Best of the Web", and I already know this stuff. Every damn breaking news story shows up on MetaFilter as if it were CNN. It's not, it's MetaFilter. BiasFilter is okay as long as it's "best of the web" and content rich. Usually, though, it's not.
Orb can talk about just skipping what he doesn't like, but he's wrong both in the "community garden" sense and in the de facto sense. If 90% of MetaFilter posts are X, then MetaFilter is XFilter, that's what it's become.
It doesn't really matter to me that MeFi tilts lefward—so do I. I like that about MeFi. What I don't like is to continually see various members' stale, oft expressed, very predictable, and simple-minded political views every damn day on the front page and in comments, usually using a nearly bare link to the lede du jour as a "justification". It's like stepping into cold cat vomit—it never gets any more pleasant.
And while Seth is right that the letter of the law does not require posting links, he's wrong that the spirit of the law does not. From MetaFilter's charter to Matt's quite clear preferences, there's no doubt whatsoever that the only contribution to MeFi that really matters is good FPPs. This is not supposed to be a chat board. In that context, while I generally agree with Seth's complaints here on MeTa, I wish he'd either shut up or lead by example. He writes well, he's reasonable and intelligent, and he's a conservative—if he went to the trouble to post, it'd probably be a good one from a fresh point of view.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 5:44 PM on April 6, 2004
I am also annoyed by Seth's incessant nannying and hectoring.
Wait, sorry, what was this thread about again?
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 5:55 PM on April 6, 2004
Wait, sorry, what was this thread about again?
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 5:55 PM on April 6, 2004
being as we're such scientifically-minded fuckwits
I don't think many of us are scientifically-minded at all.
posted by dg at 6:06 PM on April 6, 2004
I don't think many of us are scientifically-minded at all.
posted by dg at 6:06 PM on April 6, 2004
Nothing is preventing Seth from posting. I don't even try that hard and managed to do it a few times.
posted by john at 6:40 PM on April 6, 2004
posted by john at 6:40 PM on April 6, 2004
I guess I must be the only one who likes newsfilter posts.
And one preview, what Ryvar said.
posted by drpartypoopercrankypantsesquire at 6:48 PM on April 6, 2004
And one preview, what Ryvar said.
posted by drpartypoopercrankypantsesquire at 6:48 PM on April 6, 2004
Wulfgar! - But you still, by your very action, can't defend the worthlessness of the post, just because some don't argue as you see fit.
poopy - this, coming from someone telling somebody else to pull their head out. funny.
And how do you spell non-sequitur? Poopy, you accuse others of not challenging Seth's arguments, when that is exactly what I've done, and then fail to challenge my arguments for no reason other than I told Seth to pull his head out? You make no sense with that, and furthermore, establish yourself as a hypocrite.
poopy - if, as Seth has tried time and again to explain, mefi's self-policing policy is a benefit, why do so many here attack him/her for trying to make mefi a better place?
Uhmm, you're cherry-picking your causes aren't you? I've argued directly against Seth's arguments, many times, but I guess its easier to seem wise if you defend the non-existant, isn't it, poopy?
Face the facts: Seth claims that posts are worthless based on a criteria of what he wishes to see or debate. I think most here have been amazingly tolerant of such blatant arrogance. For you to pop on in here and defend the arrogance as if its our failing is ... well ... pretty damn poopy, in my opinion of course. Self-policing might often entail telling the arrogant that think themselves our betters to get over their delusions, don't you think? For what its worth, I do. Seth appears to be able to adjudicate the good thread from the bad. Sorry, not for me. He really does need to pull his head out, and frankly, so do you.
posted by Wulfgar! at 6:51 PM on April 6, 2004
poopy - this, coming from someone telling somebody else to pull their head out. funny.
And how do you spell non-sequitur? Poopy, you accuse others of not challenging Seth's arguments, when that is exactly what I've done, and then fail to challenge my arguments for no reason other than I told Seth to pull his head out? You make no sense with that, and furthermore, establish yourself as a hypocrite.
poopy - if, as Seth has tried time and again to explain, mefi's self-policing policy is a benefit, why do so many here attack him/her for trying to make mefi a better place?
Uhmm, you're cherry-picking your causes aren't you? I've argued directly against Seth's arguments, many times, but I guess its easier to seem wise if you defend the non-existant, isn't it, poopy?
Face the facts: Seth claims that posts are worthless based on a criteria of what he wishes to see or debate. I think most here have been amazingly tolerant of such blatant arrogance. For you to pop on in here and defend the arrogance as if its our failing is ... well ... pretty damn poopy, in my opinion of course. Self-policing might often entail telling the arrogant that think themselves our betters to get over their delusions, don't you think? For what its worth, I do. Seth appears to be able to adjudicate the good thread from the bad. Sorry, not for me. He really does need to pull his head out, and frankly, so do you.
posted by Wulfgar! at 6:51 PM on April 6, 2004
And I fear what the new blood thinks of MeFi...
Like it just fine, thank you. Could do without the whining, though.
posted by mr.marx at 7:39 PM on April 6, 2004
Like it just fine, thank you. Could do without the whining, though.
posted by mr.marx at 7:39 PM on April 6, 2004
And how do you spell non-sequitur?
i don't even know what the hell it means so how am i to spell it?
Poopy, you accuse others of not challenging Seth's arguments, when that is exactly what I've done, and then fail to challenge my arguments for no reason other than I told Seth to pull his head out?
actually Wulfgar!, i'm glad you brought this up, because your previous argument is well worth repeating:
Seth, I have to disagree with this, for the most part. Where you are correct is in stating that the poster's view of Cheney is not discussion worthy. Where I feel you to be incorrect is that, if Cheney has flip-flopped, and it bares directly on energy policy, set in secret by that very Dick Cheney then it is a perfectly appropriate post, regardless of whether you approve of the discussion it spawns or not. You can assume its partisan until the cows come home (as you so obviously always have), but that doesn't lend you any moral weight in deciding the form by which the rest of us discuss our elected (heh) leaders.
i have no debate with this. however, i do have a problem with bullshit:
Face the facts: Seth claims that posts are worthless based on a criteria of what he wishes to see or debate. I think most here have been amazingly tolerant of such blatant arrogance. For you to pop on in here and defend the arrogance as if its our failing is ... well ... pretty damn poopy, in my opinion of course. Self-policing might often entail telling the arrogant that think themselves our betters to get over their delusions, don't you think? For what its worth, I do. Seth appears to be able to adjudicate the good thread from the bad. Sorry, not for me. He really does need to pull his head out, and frankly, so do you.
you're right Wulfgar!, i can be just as arrogant and Up-Your-Ass as the rest of you.
kisses and hugs, poopy.
posted by poopy at 8:15 PM on April 6, 2004
i don't even know what the hell it means so how am i to spell it?
Poopy, you accuse others of not challenging Seth's arguments, when that is exactly what I've done, and then fail to challenge my arguments for no reason other than I told Seth to pull his head out?
actually Wulfgar!, i'm glad you brought this up, because your previous argument is well worth repeating:
Seth, I have to disagree with this, for the most part. Where you are correct is in stating that the poster's view of Cheney is not discussion worthy. Where I feel you to be incorrect is that, if Cheney has flip-flopped, and it bares directly on energy policy, set in secret by that very Dick Cheney then it is a perfectly appropriate post, regardless of whether you approve of the discussion it spawns or not. You can assume its partisan until the cows come home (as you so obviously always have), but that doesn't lend you any moral weight in deciding the form by which the rest of us discuss our elected (heh) leaders.
i have no debate with this. however, i do have a problem with bullshit:
Face the facts: Seth claims that posts are worthless based on a criteria of what he wishes to see or debate. I think most here have been amazingly tolerant of such blatant arrogance. For you to pop on in here and defend the arrogance as if its our failing is ... well ... pretty damn poopy, in my opinion of course. Self-policing might often entail telling the arrogant that think themselves our betters to get over their delusions, don't you think? For what its worth, I do. Seth appears to be able to adjudicate the good thread from the bad. Sorry, not for me. He really does need to pull his head out, and frankly, so do you.
you're right Wulfgar!, i can be just as arrogant and Up-Your-Ass as the rest of you.
kisses and hugs, poopy.
posted by poopy at 8:15 PM on April 6, 2004
Being a good metafilterian does not require, nay, does not even encourage, posting. If every member posted, we'd all cry.
and by the same token, if every member flipped out when a political post was made, we'd cry harder.
posted by mcsweetie at 10:36 PM on April 6, 2004
and by the same token, if every member flipped out when a political post was made, we'd cry harder.
posted by mcsweetie at 10:36 PM on April 6, 2004
What the hell? When did Metafilter become this snide? God damn, when the arguments start becoming a big Sophia Copalla snear and preppy glance at the end? Seth doesn't want crappy one link posts to main stream sites. That's what fark is for (no diss on fark, I go there sometimes).
As much as I like metafilter, it's a fucking web site about links. This is turning into those nerds who sit at the end of the lunch table arguing about some stupid shit no one understands and getting really into it. And everyone is just going "what in god's name are they jacking off to over there" because to everyone but them it's trivial.
So my ineloquently made point is such: don't be THOSE guys. It's getting to the point where commenting on anything and you have people all over you. As far as I can tell seth stays away from making snide jabs. Why the hate for keeping his argument backed up and well reasoned?
I'll be regretting this comment in about 10 minutes.
posted by geoff. at 10:39 PM on April 6, 2004
As much as I like metafilter, it's a fucking web site about links. This is turning into those nerds who sit at the end of the lunch table arguing about some stupid shit no one understands and getting really into it. And everyone is just going "what in god's name are they jacking off to over there" because to everyone but them it's trivial.
So my ineloquently made point is such: don't be THOSE guys. It's getting to the point where commenting on anything and you have people all over you. As far as I can tell seth stays away from making snide jabs. Why the hate for keeping his argument backed up and well reasoned?
I'll be regretting this comment in about 10 minutes.
posted by geoff. at 10:39 PM on April 6, 2004
A whinge about how the whingers are whinging wrongly? My god. How much more Meta can this thread get?
posted by five fresh fish at 11:43 PM on April 6, 2004
posted by five fresh fish at 11:43 PM on April 6, 2004
Why the hate for keeping his argument backed up and well reasoned?
No one said they hate him. His argument is no more backed-up or well-reasoned that it was the first thousand times we all heard it. The continued insistence that Seth's "critique" be entertained every time he feels like repeating it is arrogant--it assumes that the only appropriate response is complete acquiescence to seth's worldview. The bottom line is that it can't be refuted, because it is entirely subjective.
seth-
Is there anything short of completely getting your way that would make you accept that you have made your point and may want to move on?
posted by Ignatius J. Reilly at 11:47 PM on April 6, 2004
No one said they hate him. His argument is no more backed-up or well-reasoned that it was the first thousand times we all heard it. The continued insistence that Seth's "critique" be entertained every time he feels like repeating it is arrogant--it assumes that the only appropriate response is complete acquiescence to seth's worldview. The bottom line is that it can't be refuted, because it is entirely subjective.
seth-
Is there anything short of completely getting your way that would make you accept that you have made your point and may want to move on?
posted by Ignatius J. Reilly at 11:47 PM on April 6, 2004
"How much more Meta can this thread get?—five fresh fishIt's metas all the way down.
...down to Hell†!
† They say that the road to Hell is paved with glazed navels.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 11:52 PM on April 6, 2004
You are not logged in, either login or create an account to post comments
posted by mathowie (staff) at 10:41 AM on April 6, 2004