This is why we can't have nice things! January 24, 2005 3:14 PM   Subscribe

Someone here decided to thoroughly break our new toy. Not cool.
posted by Asparagirl to Bugs at 3:14 PM (120 comments total)

im in ur base killin all ur doodz
posted by naxosaxur at 3:20 PM on January 24, 2005


By the way, do not under any circumstances visit freequonsar.com right now; a homemade Goatse photo (!) is the top blog post. NSFW. Argh.
posted by Asparagirl at 3:21 PM on January 24, 2005


(This might have something to do with it.)

TAGS PWNED.
posted by naxosaxur at 3:23 PM on January 24, 2005


Doesn't look like it worked completely, though. At least on Firefox, I couldn't tell what you were talking about until I looked way at the bottom and found the footer links (Home About Archives MetaTalk Post Customize Search) were blinking. A look at the start shows what they tried to do. Does the whole thing blink in IE?
posted by Bugbread at 3:25 PM on January 24, 2005


"This is why we can't have nice things" in 4...3....2....
posted by contessa at 3:30 PM on January 24, 2005


I dunno, I'm using Firefox too. It's not that the links display funny, it's what happens (or doesn't happen) when you click them...
posted by Asparagirl at 3:30 PM on January 24, 2005


So well executed, huh...
posted by dash_slot- at 3:31 PM on January 24, 2005


Of course q didn't do this (at attempt at an [h4]-size blinking 'free quonsar'), and I assume would not condone it, but the *ahem* member who did -- zero fucking tolerance would be my recommendation, for what little its worth.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 3:34 PM on January 24, 2005


I thought it was pretty cool, and in fairness, the person doing it tried to close his/her tags. It wasn't meant to be a huge defacement. I'm pretty curious as to who did it. Whoever it is, you'll probably find the culprit lurking round #mefi.
posted by seanyboy at 3:35 PM on January 24, 2005


And I'd check facts before pointing fingers stav. The link you pointed to isn't the problem link.
posted by seanyboy at 3:37 PM on January 24, 2005


don't go blaming stynx unless you have proof, stav.
posted by amberglow at 3:37 PM on January 24, 2005


not cool.
posted by amberglow at 3:38 PM on January 24, 2005


And I too should check facts.
posted by seanyboy at 3:40 PM on January 24, 2005


thoroughly break

You mean the blinking footer, right? ;)
posted by scarabic at 3:40 PM on January 24, 2005


stynx it is.
posted by seanyboy at 3:40 PM on January 24, 2005


Look at fucking tag in that thread! It says 'free quonsar' does it not?

I'll say it again, more clearly -- zero fucking tolerance for that AND the idiot who tried for the BIG BLINKY version, if they're different people.

'not cool' indeed.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 3:40 PM on January 24, 2005


Another attempted hack, by the same asshole.
posted by smackfu at 3:40 PM on January 24, 2005


oh dear.
posted by seanyboy at 3:42 PM on January 24, 2005


Yes, it appears that stav is right. The tagging form appears to have done something to ameliorate the situation (either that or Matt is doing fixes right now) but it's pretty clear that the intention was a big, blinking "FREE QUONSAR."

Me-tooing a tired in-joke and causing Matt one more headache is sooooo fucking funny.

Har.
posted by scarabic at 3:43 PM on January 24, 2005


quite funny though
posted by seanyboy at 3:43 PM on January 24, 2005


Let me add before this turns into a shitstorm -- although I hope it doesn't -- that since I started the last thread that may have precipitated this, that I would be willing to accept that q was not gaming the system. The idea of freeform tags is just that -- freeform. Tagging each of his posts with 'quonsar' was stupid, sure, but not necessarily destructive, I think. I'm not sure that mathowie need have banned him again, but then there's probably backstory of which I'm not aware.

This, on the other hand -- this is just vandalism. No excuse, that I can think of.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 3:45 PM on January 24, 2005


quite funny though

No. And I generally like quonsar and tend to find his antics amusing rather than annoying, but this is just sucky and stupid.

On preview: what the wonderchicken said.
posted by Asparagirl at 3:49 PM on January 24, 2005


it's not an attempted hack. clearly he has already stole all of your megahertz.
posted by angry modem at 3:50 PM on January 24, 2005


This wasn't quonsar, Asparagirl.
posted by Ryvar at 3:50 PM on January 24, 2005


Please everybody, take time to thank your local librarian.
posted by Hildago at 3:50 PM on January 24, 2005


quonsar is banned, so you'd probably need good evidence to prove that it's him.
And please Matt. Don't ban him. It was probably meant as a harmless joke.
posted by seanyboy at 3:52 PM on January 24, 2005


hey everyone. ever notice stavrosthewonderchicken acts like he gets to make all the judgements on metafilter?
posted by angry modem at 3:53 PM on January 24, 2005


Good job Samwise Gamgee
posted by naxosaxur at 3:53 PM on January 24, 2005


Will the real Matt Haughey please stand up?
posted by kyle at 3:55 PM on January 24, 2005


And angry modem. You can fuck off back to whichever IRC channel you're saying "watch what reaction this one gets" on.
posted by seanyboy at 3:55 PM on January 24, 2005


This isn't quonsar, seanyboy.
posted by graventy at 3:56 PM on January 24, 2005


I dunno. I had to bite my typing fingers to keep myself from trying something like this just to see if it would work. It's a case of never trust user input.
posted by timeistight at 3:56 PM on January 24, 2005


Angry modem: hey everyone. ever notice stavrosthewonderchicken acts like he gets to make all the judgements on metafilter?

I've noticed most people on MetaTalk do.
posted by Bugbread at 3:57 PM on January 24, 2005


yeah, imagine a couple hundred members getting busy with "harmless jokes" -- the site would become unusable. I like q, but Jesus Christ he really must be a 12 year old -- Matt must have banned him, like, a hundred times now. from an administrator's point of view he is a fucking nightmare.

and I find his antics less and less charming
posted by matteo at 3:58 PM on January 24, 2005


Don't ban him.
as in... don't ban stynxno...
graventy.
posted by seanyboy at 3:58 PM on January 24, 2005


We should ban that stynxno like they banned that guy who made every person on metafilter a contact, causing the database server to totally fuck up.
posted by angry modem at 3:59 PM on January 24, 2005


This wasn't quonsar

No, probably just his posse/fanclub/circlejerk buddies. And all his previous bad behavior (going back years, not just the most recent stuff) just opened the door for it. How many times has he been banned now...?

Like I said, I like the guy, but c'mon.
posted by Asparagirl at 3:59 PM on January 24, 2005


imagine a couple hundred members getting busy with "harmless jokes"
a couple hundred members **aren't** getting busy with harmless jokes. If they do, then by all means get rough. Until that time my preference is for a warning only.
Nobody was hurt, metafilter is still working and personally I think peoples reactions here are a bit strong.
posted by seanyboy at 4:03 PM on January 24, 2005


The sad thing is that if that "crowd of circlejerk buddies" were banned, metaFilter would be a less interesting place. This is all puritanical nonsense.
posted by seanyboy at 4:06 PM on January 24, 2005


I dunno who else is in the big crowd of circlejerk buddies, but I don't think we'd miss much by quonsar himself being gone.
posted by Bugbread at 4:11 PM on January 24, 2005


We should ban that stynxno like they banned that guy who made every person on metafilter a contact, causing the database server to totally fuck up.

and, of course, the guy who thinks quondar is an appropriate tag
posted by jessamyn at 4:13 PM on January 24, 2005


If the font sizes are meant to indicate the popularity of a tag, that's a damn neat idea!
posted by five fresh fish at 4:13 PM on January 24, 2005


a couple hundred members **aren't** getting busy with harmless jokes. If they do, then by all means get rough. Until that time my preference is for a warning only.

"broken windows"
posted by Armitage Shanks at 4:14 PM on January 24, 2005


I would.
posted by seanyboy at 4:15 PM on January 24, 2005


What seany said.

And Asparagirl. Oh, and Stav, too.

I dunno when Q got banned, but if it was for the tagging of his own posts, thats sad - I doubt thats it. Who ever pissed that much on the tag feature, and that circumstantially looks like Stynxno - needs a long time out.
posted by dash_slot- at 4:18 PM on January 24, 2005


Windows will always get broken. They're Windows. Made of glass. Which is easily broken. They just need to be fixed moderately quickly. Your analogy is false.

Anyway, looks like someone is in there sorting things out. I really hope they don't ban anyone.
posted by seanyboy at 4:18 PM on January 24, 2005


They just need to be fixed moderately quickly.

Are you under the impression that the work is magically carried out at night by elves?
posted by Asparagirl at 4:24 PM on January 24, 2005


This conversation has gone a long way without Stynxno appearing to 'splain himself.

I'm leaning toward "harmless hijinks that he had no idea would cause this much harm," but I'm reserving judgement.

(Has anyone contacted him yet? He might not even know what havoc he's wrought.)
posted by chicobangs at 4:25 PM on January 24, 2005


You mean the work isn't carried out by elves. I'd never have guessed. Oh how stupid I am, labouring under my fairytale misconception. Let me tell you. I feel really embarrassed now.

I know it's extra work, but I think there has to be a trade off between how much work is done, and how readily someone is banned.

tell you what. Why don't we ban everybody. Pull the site off the internet. Then Matt won't have to do a thing.
posted by seanyboy at 4:36 PM on January 24, 2005


I guess I'll be lumped in with the circle-jerk posse, but if Matt didn't want HTML in the tags, he should've coded against it. If he's going to be mad at someone for doing something he had the power to prevent but didn't, it ought to be himself.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 4:39 PM on January 24, 2005


Free Quosnar?
posted by mr.marx at 4:47 PM on January 24, 2005


if Matt didn't want HTML in the tags, he should've coded against it. If he's going to be mad at someone for doing something he had the power to prevent but didn't, it ought to be himself.

Ah yes, and boy how I hate myself today.

Just because I haven't coded a filter on every single text entry on this site doesn't mean it's a great idea to do it. I'm tired, annoyed, and pissed off at what happened today because I'm busy with dayjob work and deadlines, but I had to take a couple hours out of my day stop what I was doing and clean up all these messes. So it's now fixed, Styxno is banned, and you can't submit HTML as a tag name.

I know users game systems and I was expecting it on the first day I released it, but after it survived a week I figured folks could be adults about it and help make it useful for everyone else, but it looks like today was the day for people to screw with it. Which sucks.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 4:48 PM on January 24, 2005 [2 favorites]


Someone invented a time machine that let him post to closed threads, and someone else found a new user backdoor while signups were closed. They both got pats on the back.

Stynxno finds a way to use the site for an unsupported purpose, and people just go apeshit.
posted by trharlan at 4:48 PM on January 24, 2005


Well, matt, I should have previewed, but: Do your workload and rest level determine whether someone who exploits the site earns a reward or a punishment
posted by trharlan at 4:51 PM on January 24, 2005


Stynxno finds a way to use the site for an unsupported purpose, and people just go apeshit.

The difference is that Matt is trying to build something that will increase the usefulness of Metafilter and others decided to piss on it.

If he's going to be mad at someone for doing something he had the power to prevent but didn't, it ought to be himself.

Yeah, and its my parents faults for all my screwups because they didnt hire round-the-clock babysitters.
posted by vacapinta at 4:54 PM on January 24, 2005


That doesn't wash, vacapinta. When Matt closed signups (for the purpose of improving Metafilter) someone decided to piss on his locked door, and got to keep his membership.

Why is my metaphor inappropriate?
posted by trharlan at 4:58 PM on January 24, 2005


vacapinta, that's hardly the same situation, and you know it. Matt knows people will put HTML anywhere they possibly can, and he's made sure that only certain tags are allowed in certain fields on other parts of the site - so he clearly knows how to prevent it. What he did was release something that wasn't ready for prime-time, so to speak, and when someone did what users inevitably will do, he hurried to patch it up to make it the way it should have been in the first place, and then took his frustration out by banning the user, which, as trharlan has pointed out, hasn't necessarily been his policy in the past.

Fifty bucks says if the tag involved hadn't had anything to do with quonsar, we wouldn't be having this discussion.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 4:59 PM on January 24, 2005


great
Whatever people say, I believe this was an extreme response to a minor infraction.
Matt, I hope you reconsider.
posted by seanyboy at 5:00 PM on January 24, 2005


Fifty bucks says if the tag involved hadn't had anything to do with quonsar, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

$75 says if this hadn't had anything to do with q no one would be defending Stynxno.
posted by PinkStainlessTail at 5:05 PM on January 24, 2005

"And someone on MetaFilter explained it well with the old adage you hear from anyone that ever built an application used by many: never trust user input. ... Sounds about right to me.
- A Whole Lotta Nothing January 19, 2005
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 5:06 PM on January 24, 2005


I would
posted by seanyboy at 5:07 PM on January 24, 2005


trharlan: When you try to push the limits of how things work, a negative reaction from those responsible for maintaining it is part of the risk involved. Those not willing to assume that risk ought to find a different hobby. While it's a nice change when someone can discover a vulnerability and get thanked, it's awfully odd to think that that means that everyone discovering a vulnerability will get thanked. Stynxno wasn't acting in good faith, so there's no reason to expect good faith in return.

Some people have called the whole freequonsar-tags thing civil disobedience, but you can't be performing civil disobedience and whining about getting caught.
posted by mendel at 5:13 PM on January 24, 2005 [1 favorite]


Someone invented a time machine that let him post to closed threads, and someone else found a new user backdoor while signups were closed. They both got pats on the back.

Well, neither of those compromised functionality, though in fairness that's because the user who figured both of those out (same guy, if memory serves) didn't tell anyone but Matt how he did it. Until it got fixed, this little stunt made the tags page useless. Does that make a difference?
posted by PinkStainlessTail at 5:15 PM on January 24, 2005


Christ, people, there's 21,000 users here. Matt could ban at random and it would be fine with me. You want mercy for people who link to goatse?
posted by Saucy Intruder at 5:16 PM on January 24, 2005


$75 says if this hadn't had anything to do with q no one would be defending Stynxno.
posted by PinkStainlessTail at 5:05 PM PST on January 24


Stynxno is probably the nicest guy, tied with Riffola, for nicest guy on IRC ever.
posted by angry modem at 5:16 PM on January 24, 2005


I see, mendel. (not being sarcastic)

Logical induction in the face of arbitrary moderation makes for black swans.
posted by trharlan at 5:17 PM on January 24, 2005


I would be willing to accept that q was not gaming the system.

stavros, you've been very gracious about bringing attention to a potential abuse of the tagging system. Don't feel bad for your other thread or this one. I also am willing to believe that Q simply thought that was a fair use, but it could just as easily be interpreted as self-aggrandizing hijacking. I see zero reason for you to apologize for your role in the discussions that have followed.

If he's going to be mad at someone for doing something he had the power to prevent but didn't, it ought to be himself.

I'm not going to touch the blame assignment angle, but I will say that if you want to avoid the headache of cleaning up someone's abuse of a sytem, you have to think creatively to anticipate and prevent it. This is a very difficult part of managing a big website, because it's hard to be smarter than 20K people put together, but any good site manager wants to head off trouble at the pass before it gets to this point. Again, no blame assignment, just a realistic perspective on what it's like to maintain a website used by a large community. Any time you release any feature, you have to sit down for a day and imagine how someone would try to fuck it in the ear. In other words, Matt was right when he said what Steve quotes, above. But I've been burned too, with many paid engineers on my team, so I know what it's like. Correct, learn, do better next time.
posted by scarabic at 5:20 PM on January 24, 2005


Fifty bucks says if the tag involved hadn't had anything to do with quonsar, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

So what's the point? Am I not allowed to feel annoyed if I'm busy or need to fix things that were too open in the first place? I have a history of cutting people loads of slack on this stuff and even thanking them for showing me gaping security holes I had to patch up. But I'm busy, and I'm tired, and I expect longtime users to act like adults every once in a while.

I'm frustrated that I've tried to build something to make MetaFilter (and Ask MetaFilter and other new stuff) more useful and people are gaming it anyway. I don't care if people hijack their own user pages, never have, because those didn't seem so vital to the site. Tagging seems like the first new useful feature in a while and I worked for the past week on it. I spent all weekend working on fixing bugs instead of doing usual weekend things, like relaxing and doing nothing for a while.

So yes, I'm frustrated and banning people for infractions that wouldn't merit a banning on a different day, but I believe I'm allowed to be frustrated by this and I've explained why. When people are frustrated, they tend to make mistakes and I'd be happy to admit I pulled quonsar's posting rights as a precaution and for a somewhat harmless thing in the grand scheme of things.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 5:21 PM on January 24, 2005


Matt could ban at random and it would be fine with me. You want mercy for people who link to goatse?

Apparently your feelings toward Matt resemble goatse.

;)
posted by scarabic at 5:22 PM on January 24, 2005


So yes, I'm frustrated and banning people for infractions that wouldn't merit a banning on a different day, but I believe I'm allowed to be frustrated by this and I've explained why.

I hope Stynxno is allowed to return after a timeout period and an apology. If the infraction wouldn't merit banning on a different day, the punishment should be temporary.
posted by eddydamascene at 5:37 PM on January 24, 2005


aw. stynxno's a good guy.
posted by fishfucker at 5:38 PM on January 24, 2005


Am I not allowed to feel annoyed if I'm busy or need to fix things that were too open in the first place?
You are, and if I were you, I'd probably have not only banned stynxno, but would have gone on some mindless rampage involving petrol and small birds.
Leave the site be, pour the wife an orange juice, get yourself a beer.

Unfortunately, we'll still be here nonsensically bickering away when you get back.
posted by seanyboy at 5:39 PM on January 24, 2005


Stynxno's a regular in the mefi chatroom and, as a character witness, you'd be hard pressed to find a nicer guy.

I really don't understand the reason for banning him. So he made a tag really big. What a tragedy. Get me the president.
posted by Tacodog at 5:47 PM on January 24, 2005


You rang?
posted by George W. Bush at 5:49 PM on January 24, 2005


I hope Stynxno is allowed to return after a timeout period and an apology. If the infraction wouldn't merit banning on a different day, the punishment should be temporary.

I agree wholeheartedly with this.

stynxno's a good guy.

I also agree with this.

It's a given, as has been said, that in a site with so many users, people will try to game the system. While I agree that some policing is probably necessary, I don't agree with banning out of anger. If this was not normally a bannable offense, then stynxno should not be banned.
posted by veronitron at 5:50 PM on January 24, 2005


Way to go with the empathy there Tacodog. Jeez. I'm so going to bed.
posted by seanyboy at 5:51 PM on January 24, 2005


The reason for banning him is clear: he fucked with something new that Matt's poured a lot of energy into. He got on Matt's bad side on a shitty day. Was this a just banning? Maybe not. Was it a kind and merciful act? Not so much. Is it so goddam surprising and unacceptable from a pragmatic perspective? Nuh-uh.

Money says Styxno will get his posting rights back soon, and quonsar will too, because Matt really is a pretty accomodating and even-headed guy on the whole, s'far as I can tell.

But Christ on a stick, cut him some slack for not being a fucking saint on this one.
posted by cortex at 5:52 PM on January 24, 2005


Just as an FYI for those joining us late, who therefore didn't see the tags page in its previous state, the prank broke every tag on the page.
posted by Asparagirl at 5:53 PM on January 24, 2005


Styxno and quonsar have their posting rights back.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 5:54 PM on January 24, 2005


And Bertrand Russell's chickens will sleep another night.
posted by trharlan at 5:57 PM on January 24, 2005


But I'm busy, and I'm tired, and I expect longtime users to act like adults every once in a while.

See, that's the problem. Intermittent enforcement is worse than no enforcement at all. No one knows which day you expect us to act like adults (that may sound snarky, but I mean it quite literally), whereas if you make it known that you expect it as a site norm, then there is a validity to complaints (by you and by us) when it's violated. Timeouts will always be a poor replacement for simple declarative statements (one need not go so far as to say "rules") in establishing preferred site etiquette. I agree that this was a dumb thing for someone to do, and I sympathize with the work the doing of dumb things creates for you, but it comes with the territory, I'm afraid. And there was considerable discussion on Meta in advance of the types of ploys the tagging would be open to by those seeking attention or trying to "game" the system. We may wish that no one here would do it, but we also know that there are some here who always will.
posted by rushmc at 5:58 PM on January 24, 2005


I say cast away the detritus. Enter the new.
posted by orange clock at 5:58 PM on January 24, 2005


As Taco said, stynx is the sort of guy that - when you've had a wretched day and come riding in on the wings of a torrent of feverishly angry profanity - will greet you with a smile and a shoulder to punch until you feel better.

To be perfectly honest, the basic idea "Hey! Could you put HTML in tags?" was mine. I couldn't test my idea because I've never encountered anything I deemed worthy of being a FPP. Stynx ran with it, and was banned for it.

I doubt anybody here will believe me, but I typed that out before I hit preview and saw that Matt had unbanned Stynxno. Matt, I fully realize that what I think about the way you run your site matters so little as to be all but completely inconsequential, but thanks.
posted by Ryvar at 6:08 PM on January 24, 2005


You should have made them pay the $10 again. Hit them where it hurts.
posted by smackfu at 6:17 PM on January 24, 2005


It's the apocalypse.

I actually agree with rushmc.
posted by konolia at 6:17 PM on January 24, 2005


konolia!!! : >

so maybe this is right after all? (except we had a happy ending--thks matt)
posted by amberglow at 6:35 PM on January 24, 2005


If you can't do the time, don't do the crime.

In fact, I wish Matt would use the banhammer more often. And more randomly. Just to keep things interesting around here. Not permanent bans, mind, just one-day bans. It'd do everyone a good deal of good, getting to spend a day thinking about how much they really hate not having access to this resource.

So there.
posted by five fresh fish at 6:39 PM on January 24, 2005


FUCK MATT HAUGHEY
FUCK HIM FUCK HIM FUCK HIM IN THE EAR
THAT STUPID, FASCIST MOTHERFUCKER
He deleted the quonsar tag
That STUPID, ASSHOLE MOTHERFUCKER. FUCK HIM IN THE ASS MORNING, NOON, AND NIGHT
GAaaaaaah


Metafilter Angst 11:43 AM

Matt, I fully realize that what I think about the way you run your site matters so little as to be all but completely inconsequential, but thanks. 6:08 PM

A little moodswing action there...
posted by y2karl at 6:40 PM on January 24, 2005


I'd also like to say once again that sizing the font by the popularity of the tag is just fucking brilliant. Matt, you should patent it!
posted by five fresh fish at 6:40 PM on January 24, 2005


Well, fuck me in the ear. I could swear I just saw y2karl posting IRC logs.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 6:44 PM on January 24, 2005


This is gonna hurt a little crash, but the good news is that you'll never have to hear those McDonald's "I'm Lovin' It!" jingles anymore.
posted by eyeballkid at 7:01 PM on January 24, 2005


I really don't understand the reason for banning him. So he made a tag really big. What a tragedy. Get me the president.

I really don't understand the angst and teethgnashing here. So he got temporarily banned. What a tragedy. Get me the president.
posted by Bugbread at 7:05 PM on January 24, 2005


y2karl I don't know what the hell kind of crap you're trying to pull here, but it was you who came onto IRC this morning and said that first bit. Here's the full text, straight from y2karl's link, for those who don't want to see the snow goatse on freequonsar.com:

<Y2karl> FUCK MATT HAUGHEY
<Y2karl> FUCK HIM FUCK HIM FUCK HIM IN THE EAR
<Y2karl> THAT STUPID, FASCIST MOTHERFUCKER
<Y2karl> He deleted the quonsar tag
<Y2karl> That STUPID, ASSHOLE MOTHERFUCKER. FUCK HIM IN THE ASS MORNING, NOON, AND NIGHT
<Y2karl> GAaaaaaah
<Y2karl> Where is my bike?
posted by Ryvar at 7:05 PM on January 24, 2005


Well, fuck me in the ear. I could swear I just saw y2karl posting IRC logs.

I wouldn't know how to post an IRC log. I was re-posting a little quote from a High Fivin' White Boys subdomain. I can't believe what gets posted over there. Talk about hoist by your own retard.
posted by y2karl at 7:11 PM on January 24, 2005


It'll be here the next time you pull the little suck up act out, ryvar.
posted by y2karl at 7:14 PM on January 24, 2005


what'll be here?
posted by angry modem at 7:21 PM on January 24, 2005


You better watch out Ryvar; y2karl might post pictures of your cat.
posted by lazy-ville at 7:23 PM on January 24, 2005


ooo-catfight!
posted by amberglow at 7:24 PM on January 24, 2005


Talk about hoist by your own retard.

Okay, that was funny.
posted by euphorb at 7:27 PM on January 24, 2005 [1 favorite]


lazy: I'm more concerned about him posting pictures of a cat he's just abused and calling it mine.
posted by Ryvar at 7:29 PM on January 24, 2005


some honesty on my part is called for here.

i've not been kind to matt. always quick to smart off and criticize. i'm a knowitall jerk to a great degree.

matt has been kind to me, and communicated his recent displeasure to me privately.

i have been particularly cranky and restless the last week, for reasons i'm well acquainted with and that have nothing to do with matt or anyone else.

the justifications i asked shepd to post in the other thread, they were after-the-fact bullshit. the truth is, when i started tagging i just wanted to see the giant quonsar tag. i knew matt wouldn't like it but i continued anyway.

i have a history of venting my personal crap on mefi. i'm not real proud of it. nobody here deserves it. matt deserves it the least.

i do not deserve this reinstatement. whether he knew it or not, matt did make the proper response in suspending my priviledges. it's easy to accuse him of jerking his knee, but if i had not been assailing him perpetually over the course of several years now, he would have given me a lot of leeway on the tag thing. that's just the way he is.

as for what happened with the tagging today, i truly made no attempt to incite that. i didn't know about it but when i saw it i knew matt would be further provoked, and i was prepared to be permanently silenced.

in the face of all that, matt has apparently swallowed this big chunk of shit i pitched at him and relented. there is no way i deserve that consideration from him, even if in the big scheme of things you consider this mess 'small potatos'.
posted by quonsar at 7:32 PM on January 24, 2005 [16 favorites]


That was pretty slick quick chickenshit action there, ryvar or styxno, switching the
< ryvar>'s for < y2karl>'s already. But we all know ryvar said it. It's far more in character for him than I.

I haven't been to #mefi since last summer. #mefi is your smarmy little club. You guys are always playing catch up for your own stupid stunts, causing yourselves more trouble than anyone else ever could.
posted by y2karl at 7:36 PM on January 24, 2005


Meta-whatever: your smarmy little club.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 7:47 PM on January 24, 2005


But we all know ryvar said it.

Exactly.
posted by Evstar at 7:48 PM on January 24, 2005


y2karl, please seek help. I don't know why I've become the victim of your latest personal bullying jihad with these attempts to hold me accountable for your own actions, but I don't think that, however vicious our past disagreements, it's fair for you to single me out this way.

I'd point out that you're in no position to pass judgement on my character in the first place, but because even that's predicated on one gigantic lie there's no reason for me to even address it. Just please stop, now, before you further embarrass yourself.
posted by Ryvar at 7:48 PM on January 24, 2005


I'd point out that you're in no position to pass judgement on my character in the first place, but because even that's predicated on one gigantic lie there's no reason for me to even address it.

I cut and pasted a text that had < ryvar> in front of every little slime up there--except I forgot to put a space between the < /em>and the r. But click on View Source and there it is on this page with all the ryvar's intact and in place.

Do you really want to claim that you did not say that shit, but instead I did ? I did not write that crap. You wrote it. And you and everyone else knows it.

Surely you don't really think because you can monkey around with what one of you backbiters--ryvar--wrote in #mefi and which another of you backbiters--styxno--posted on freequonsar, that anyone is fooled by your backbiting action, do you ?

posted by y2karl at 7:57 PM on January 24, 2005


So you admit to incompetence in addition to insanity? Wonderful. Nice to know that I've got a real class-act stalking me around the 'net now.
posted by Ryvar at 8:00 PM on January 24, 2005


asparagirl mentioned freequonsar.com in this thread and I checked it out to see what had been said about all this and found that quote. Nobody's stalking you, you poor little victim. You shot yourself in the foot with a friend's help.
posted by y2karl at 8:04 PM on January 24, 2005


Alter that qoatse jpeg to put your head up his ass, in other words.
posted by y2karl at 8:07 PM on January 24, 2005


Jesus, this is getting better than Passions. Or, for the old-skoolers, SOAP.

I think Matt should banhammer the whole damn works, user IDs 2-18000. Just to make a point.
posted by five fresh fish at 8:10 PM on January 24, 2005


This thread is like a glimpse into a brain ravaged by mad cow disease. Fascinating!
posted by pardonyou? at 8:19 PM on January 24, 2005


metafilter: like a glimpse into a brain ravaged by mad cow disease
posted by Krrrlson at 8:21 PM on January 24, 2005


i've not been kind to matt. always quick to smart off and criticize. i'm a knowitall jerk to a great degree.

Oh no! Someone has kidnapped quonsar and is forcing him to post comments to MetaTalk.

Seriously, that's one of the classiest apologies I've seen on here in a long while. If something like that can happen, then there's hope for Ryvar and y2karl.
posted by euphorb at 8:24 PM on January 24, 2005


I really have no idea why matt started closing threads.
posted by trharlan at 8:25 PM on January 24, 2005


Holy Joe! Karl made me laugh! My brian must be scoured of its rational functions by mad cow disease. Or perhaps his finally is :)

I say cast away the detritus. Enter the new.

If you're proposing we choose between you and quonsar, orange_clock, don't.

What rushmc said about consistency.
posted by scarabic at 8:28 PM on January 24, 2005


I rarely IRC, but I've known Ryvar for a long time and I just can't see him saying something like that.
posted by Krrrlson at 8:31 PM on January 24, 2005


Well, I know I haven't told any lies here, either by commission or omission.

How about you, ryvar ? Did you or did you not write the stuff from that IRC log I found on freequonsar and cut-and-pasted here ?

Be honest now. If you can, big man.
posted by y2karl at 8:33 PM on January 24, 2005


Oh no! Someone has kidnapped quonsar and is forcing him to post comments to MetaTalk.

Seriously, that's one of the classiest apologies I've seen on here in a long while. If something like that can happen, then there's hope for Ryvar and y2karl.


when it counts, quonsar always proves he has all of his marbles and a heart too. when i was super new, i wasn't sure what the fuss with q was all about; he seemed like just another snarker. if you read him long enough though you realize he's much more.

whoever said Matt should have a beer and relax and forgot all about us for a while...seconded.
posted by ifjuly at 8:43 PM on January 24, 2005


I hate the name calling, too. And yet I do it. I'm sorry I called jonmc a prick elsewhere. Or yelled at languagehat. You can disagree with a person without belittling him or her. I manage, most of the time, to follow that. Saying cruel things to strangers online doesn't appeal to me that much anymore. I can't stand to do it in real life. I would hate to have people I know personally read some of the things I've written here. But there's always someone who just rubs me the wrong way and at some point I blurt out something demeaning. I just hate it when I do it.
...
This is something you should remember--you don't know who you are talking to or the circumstances in their lives. I'm not preaching--I forget it all the time. All the time.

posted by y2karl at 6:57 PM PST on January 6

You forgot it again.
posted by filmgoerjuan at 8:43 PM on January 24, 2005


This is exactly why I had to code a close tag.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 8:48 PM on January 24, 2005


« Older Double post.   |   a very unclear and contradictory message Newer »

This thread is closed to new comments.