Zdravstvuite valued Party Comrades! Latest Troll-state propaganda has it that the glorious Mefi motherland is wilting in the face of superior technological competitors ! Beware decadent democratic popularity-seeking! The Party already knows the minds of all citizens and our diligent moderating heros must continue to enforce the lessons of years of collective toil!
How do mods resolve differences? [more inside]
I think it's deleting this link twice shows that Metafilter mods don't have a sense of humour about themselves.
Not sure why, but my first post was deleted. It was about the News Corp discussions with Microsoft. Definitely not spam, so I'm not sure what happened.
This post was flagged and the system worked as it usually does with cortex quite rightly deleting it. [more inside]
WTF Matt? [more inside]
This post which raised the issue of fears among some in the African-American electorate that Barack Obama would not be safe as president. The thread was shut down for reasons of WTF. Not exactly sure what the problem was, and I was disappointed, as I had recently heard about this and was hoping the thread would shed some light on the issue. This NYT article would be a good starting point for discussion.
"[I removed all the links to cat photos, put them in your profile if they're nevessary for this question]" [more inside]
Which guideline did the BoC post violate? [more inside]
I'll be the first to admit that it was a weak post and an unknown double. However, I'm unclear as to what 'basic site guideline' I violated.
A post about how women experience street harassment has been deleted. The one about how the psychology of exhibitionist men remains. The grounds: This post was deleted for the following reason: one exhibitionism post per day is enough. This is linked in the thread just below this. Please don't use MetaFilter to forward your point from metatalk. -- jessamyn My point was to continue a discussion some people thought valuable from a previous thread deleted apparently because that post was poor. Just can't get the hang of this thing. Hey ho.
Minor issue with mods removing comments and not noting it [more inside]
Deleted: It's obvious from the comments that almost no one read the linked sites. It's obvious that the mod that deleted my post didn't either. I didn't express an opinion within the post, but tried to objectively cite various viewpoints and facts. It was essentially a response to what is currently being reported on the major news outlets, pointing to several sites in connection to what is being reported in those broadcasts. I honestly have no opinion as to the cause of the fires, nor do I have any opinion regarding 'eco-terrorism', nor even on what George Carlin said. These ideas are being discussed on all news outlets. [more inside]
This post was deleted for the following reason: this is an axegrindy HC post. I know it's election time and all, but it's too early for "your favorite candidate sucks" posts and if you have issues with the way other political posts have been handled, it would be better to take those to Metatalk or your own blog. -- jessamyn [more inside]
Thank you, Matt, Jessamyn, PB and Cortex. I don't idolize you. I don't always agree with you. Sometimes your decisions confuse me. Sometimes they anger me. Sometimes your ban hammer needs fine-tuning. More often than not, you are spot on. But no matter what, every little thing every one of you does is analyzed to the nth degree, and I wouldn't want your job. So, thank you for doing the dirty work so I can come in here and obsessively reload every day.
Hi there, mods. Yes, you. Mathowie, jessamyn and cortex. Please stop closing MeTa threads so early and so often. I think you're forgetting the "community" part. [more inside]
Any chance of explaining this: "This post was deleted for the following reason: clearly my filter for these isn't working properly. But wait, Hitchens AND Dawkins you say...? * taps pager * Damn this thing is broken. -- jessamyn"
Wait.. a longtime user criticises the deletion of a post about one intellectual's review of another intellectual's book - a deletion with obscure sarcastic reason "clearly my filter for these isn't working properly. But wait, Hitchens AND Dawkins you say...? * taps pager * Damn this thing is broken. -- jessamyn" ... then you close the Meta thread? [more inside]
I'm not going to make any callouts, but could short comments like "that was ghey" or "boring" be deleted as policy? They seem way too... youtubey. I wouldn't want to see an end to criticism or snark, but grunts of dissent tend to damage my perception of the Metafilter brand.
I just wanted to say thanks to Matt for putting that extra-special touch on my post about Comic Sans. I have made a very few good posts and a number of bad ones, but this has completely made my MetaFilter day, no, wait - my MetaFilter year.
The Michael Vick plea is a pretty big deal. He's probably going to be banned from football. Why all the deletions of the Michael Vick FPP's? This is, if not on the same level, at the least very close to Pete Rose being banned from baseball. Plus the juicy dog fighting thing, of course. The deletions seem really administrator-specific. Though you may not like sports, lots of people on Metafilter do.
Curious why Poolio's first comment was deleted.
I know I'll be run out on a rail for this, but jessamyn's deletion of the Bonds HR record FPP was weaker than the post itself. I take it she's not a baseball fan, because plenty of breaking newsfilter/obitfilter has stuck around on just such a quick post.
Suggestion to reduce complaint-filter: a MeTa queue similar to anonymous AskMe. If a complaint can be handled by an admin one-on-one, the admin can deny the requested post and take the conversation to e-mail. If it's a meetup request or a policy issue that seems worthy of discussion, the admin can approve it and let everyone chime in.
jessamyn: Wait, what? [more inside]
Strangely, my answer to this ridiculous question was favorited 17 times, then deleted. The answer was sincere, if not hyperbolic. Should I just email the admins directly next time I disagree with what I perceive to be
out of control heavy-handed decimation? Thanks.
Cortex, can you chill out? More inside.
This deletion of a post on Christians United for Israel was way over the line. We leave in a Lindsay Lohan linkfest, but we take down a newsworthy post about how people who happily look forward to Armageddon are influencing our country's foreign policy. Max Blumenthal may be an arrogant documentary film-maker, but the footage is still important.
What's the line between axegrinding (this axegrinding ? or some kind of GodWin rule ? ) which caused the deletion of this post of mine and showing the psycological troubles of bunch of indoctrinated kids that are just parrotting talking points ? It this better and/or acceptable , because it clearly (?) shows a nascar redneck or because he makes fun of Michael Moore, therefore it must be "republitard" BUT it fits under "satire/comedy ?" I tolerate deletion with no problem, and may even accept that I was deemed brutal and deleted, but I would like to understand where the borderline could be, according to you guys.
This post was deleted for the following reason: seen it. -- jessamyn Huh?
Mirror Pond please! (Or do you have better ideas? If I were at Ground Kontrol, what would I drink? Should I talk to strangers or play video games? People are scarrrryyy!!!)
"This post was deleted for the following reason: Wingers, wingnuts, wikipedia, wikipedia. I'm not sure where the quality content is supposed to be, here. -- cortex" Can we get a ruling on what constitutes "quality content" given the crap linked to in some of these posts? Or is it just that gossipy "outing" posts can only be made about Republicans?
Was there really a good reason why every post in this AskMe thread was deleted? Looking at the question, it looked as though the poster was looking for A) good tech news sites and B) whether it would be worth it to start one. Not my fault it turned into a fight.
Just curious why yet another Ask Metafilter answer was immediately deleted with no email explanation. Thanks.
God help me, but I'm starting a thread on getting additional AskMe questions. There are weeks that go by with no need to ask anything ... but then there are times when a second question would be a life-saver. Whatabout either (a) "rollover questions," a la Cingular's rollover minutes, say, up to a maximum of 2-3 in the bank at any time; or (b) a fee to ask a second question in one week? I can think of several times when I would have ponied up an additional $5 to ask, say, a work-related question where I knew AskMe's community would have the best answer.
Can admins take a look at this AskMeFi question? It's a genuine question about a biblical story but it's being hijacked by the atheist brigade.
Overeager moderation? I'm sure that I saw a spot-on comment (from Optimus Chyme, I believe?) about a possibly hypocritical comment concerning gay vs. interracial marriage. Now it's gone. WTF?
This AskMe has been inappropriately curtailed. The question is not a simple maths question, it is more complex as nuclear capacity is hydrocarbon dependent and the question is predicated on terminating hydrocarbon use. My post late in the thread raises this issue, and at least one (sensible) reply to it has been deleted.
Getting the dog high? Why wasn't the whole thing deleted? Letting any comments ride on that one is a slippery slope, I should think. Especially ones condoning it or speaking of giving a dog something toxic.
Today, for the first time, I wished I could favorite a thread deletion justification. "This post was deleted for the following reason: im in ur over-trafficked meme, stating ur ironic deletion raisin" - cortex
Cortex, you ruthless bastard.
Are the deletions a bit wonky today? Some are showing up as the less uncommon scorched-earth-deletes (61928, 61950); some aren't appearing on the front page but have no deletion reason and appear open once you enter their thread (61932, 61936, 61942).
Given the events of last week, it is really inappropriate to "moderate" comments to this question, which announces (vaguely and without details or motive) a course of action that could very well be dangerous to public health. While requesting that responses be limited to those from people who agree with you is always counterproductive, here it is just stupid, and the moderators should either delete the question or leave on-topic comments alone. That. Is. All.
One is deleted because it has no link. The other is deleted because it's a dupe of the first. But can you dupe a deleted thread? Can you dupe a thread that has no link? Or is this just capitalist revisionism?
Could someone direct me to specific policies that state why posts are removed? I had one removed today because someone chose to use inappropriate language in a comment. The language use was apparently blamed on the article I posted. That is very strange. I don't know where the policy is that states what can and can't be posted.
If I hadn't said that I had any connection in this posting would it still have been deleted?
Often there are questions posted to Ask Metafilter that have a similar format. The poster will have a general health problem, and will also be fat. In 95% of the cases, losing weight is the first step to solving the problem. Yet, this answer is often immedietly removed. Is it really so terrible to point out the elephant in the room? And, more pointedly, are we doing others a diservice by not being frank?
Exactly why did this stay up on MeFi?