MetaTalk

I love the unique titles MeFites comes up with for posts. I live for a well-constructed description full of links and clever word play. But, that makes it hard, sometimes, to differentiate a thread about some current event and the latest political catch-all. Can we have an above-the-fold notice that this, for whatever the value of 'this' is, is the current political megathread? [more inside]
posted by hanov3r on Jul 5, 2018 - 40 comments

Metafilter as a general policy does not consider offsite behavior from the moderator perspective unless it is something ridiculously egregious. If you want to talk trash on a user here over on Reddit, more power to you. I think that's kind of jerky if you make a habit out of it, but whatever. People need an outlet. This is not in general a bad policy at all. I like that I can be more free wheeling with my commentary elsewhere without it potentially souring my relationship with this community. So in general, there is a firewall between offsite and onsite behavior and the potential for mod involvement. We've had debates about to what degree that should be the case in the past, but I think the consensus has been pretty clear that this is the right way to go so I don't really want to re-fight that battle. [more inside]
posted by Drinky Die on Mar 12, 2015 - 150 comments

The obesity-as-disease thread is going much, much better than I expected it to, and I just wanted to thank all those responsible. [more inside]
posted by flabdablet on Jun 20, 2013 - 60 comments

Over in this post, Artw was taking a stand that no one else in the thread was. And he did it by providing close readings, links, and cogent arguments. He was told "don't turn this into the Artw show." I'm wondering what that means. [more inside]
posted by ThatFuzzyBastard on May 27, 2013 - 303 comments

Game of Thrones spoiler policy: is information from books 2-4 considered a spoiler for the TV show? [more inside]
posted by showbiz_liz on Jun 14, 2011 - 513 comments

Could we have a real documented policy on spoilers, ideally enforced by the people who approve the posts in question? Is it *really* necessary to approve posts (Warning: multiple "House" spoilers!) that are basically spoilers as read, or that have unwarned *spoiler* links? Perhaps all spoilers should be in the "more inside" section, with a prominent warning in the description field?! If multiple people are complaining that a post basically spoiled the episode, then what's the point of expecting the *spoilers!* or *NSFW* courtesies from posters at all, if no such standards actually exist?
posted by markkraft on Apr 7, 2009 - 182 comments

Was I really in the wrong here? I posted a question about my car stereo and I got a bunch of great answers. I thanked everyone and posted some additional information. A user posted a lengthy follow-up answer, which I appreciated. But then Thanksgiving, spotty Internet, and just life in general got in my way I didn't have a chance to mess with my car stereo, much less update my AskMe thread. (Frankly, it never occurred to me that people would be on tenterhooks about my Caprice's stereo.)

So then, seven days later, the same user posted this bizarre rant about how I never followed up with the thread. Was I at fault?
posted by Ian A.T. on Nov 29, 2005 - 136 comments