126 Comments Gone With The Wind September 14, 2011 7:12 AM Subscribe
This post had 126 comments before it was deleted. I'm curious, what is the record number of comments made in a deleted thread? Do you still take the number of comments made into consideration before deleting?
I'm not defending the post or asking why it was deleted, I was just curious. I know in the past the mods have sometimes stated something like, "We know this isn't a great post but we got to it a little late and we are going to let it stand." Is that still the case, or has the policy changed?
I'm not defending the post or asking why it was deleted, I was just curious. I know in the past the mods have sometimes stated something like, "We know this isn't a great post but we got to it a little late and we are going to let it stand." Is that still the case, or has the policy changed?
Thank you mods for deleting that wantonly negative, mean-spirited, misleading and badly-framed thread.
posted by Potomac Avenue at 7:20 AM on September 14, 2011 [15 favorites]
posted by Potomac Avenue at 7:20 AM on September 14, 2011 [15 favorites]
Do you still take the number of comments made into consideration before deleting?
We totally do. However, one of the downsides to not having real 24/7 moderation is that middle-of-the-US-night posts may still be deleted once we wake up and, in this case, can talk to each other about the post. Sometimes there are awful posts that attract flags like wildfire and are slam dunk deletes that vacapinta deletes. This one was still in the judgment call range and so cortex and I talked about it and [as comments were still pouring in] decided to nix it.
Someone wants to make a better post about the incident, please go head. This post was pure "let's talk abotu the ugly shit the Tea Party is doing and go hate on them" and had a bunch of comments to match. We'd like to go into election season being a bit more clear about how we'd like election-oriented posts to go and the answer is "not like this one"
So, no policy changes at all except that we're all gearing up for an election year and we're being a bit more proactive about not giving bad posts a pass because they were posted in the middle of the night.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 7:20 AM on September 14, 2011 [3 favorites]
We totally do. However, one of the downsides to not having real 24/7 moderation is that middle-of-the-US-night posts may still be deleted once we wake up and, in this case, can talk to each other about the post. Sometimes there are awful posts that attract flags like wildfire and are slam dunk deletes that vacapinta deletes. This one was still in the judgment call range and so cortex and I talked about it and [as comments were still pouring in] decided to nix it.
Someone wants to make a better post about the incident, please go head. This post was pure "let's talk abotu the ugly shit the Tea Party is doing and go hate on them" and had a bunch of comments to match. We'd like to go into election season being a bit more clear about how we'd like election-oriented posts to go and the answer is "not like this one"
So, no policy changes at all except that we're all gearing up for an election year and we're being a bit more proactive about not giving bad posts a pass because they were posted in the middle of the night.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 7:20 AM on September 14, 2011 [3 favorites]
We totally do. However, one of the downsides to not having real 24/7 moderation is that middle-of-the-US-night posts may still be deleted once we wake up and, in this case, can talk to each other about the post.
NOT GOOD ENOUGH
I DEMAND ONE OF YOU MOVE TO DJIBOUTI
posted by mightygodking at 7:24 AM on September 14, 2011 [13 favorites]
NOT GOOD ENOUGH
I DEMAND ONE OF YOU MOVE TO DJIBOUTI
posted by mightygodking at 7:24 AM on September 14, 2011 [13 favorites]
It's this one at 502 comments. But it's called "editing window test" so maybe that doesn't count?
If not then it's The King of Pop joins the King of Rock and Roll at 319 comments.
posted by FishBike at 7:24 AM on September 14, 2011
If not then it's The King of Pop joins the King of Rock and Roll at 319 comments.
posted by FishBike at 7:24 AM on September 14, 2011
I'm OK with very seldom deletion of long posts, if it's on a "We don't want to but sometimes we gotta" basis. Some of the worst fights, with multiple rage quits have happened because of such. I imagine they're enormous pains to moderate too.
posted by bonehead at 7:26 AM on September 14, 2011
posted by bonehead at 7:26 AM on September 14, 2011
Oh, and if that one doesn't count either because it's a dupe, then it's George Bush needs to go pee, which I assume from the deletion reason ("jesus jumped up christ.") was deleted for not being a good post for MetaFilter.
posted by FishBike at 7:27 AM on September 14, 2011
posted by FishBike at 7:27 AM on September 14, 2011
Oh, and if that one doesn't count either because it's a dupe, then it's George Bush needs to go pee, which I assume from the deletion reason ("jesus jumped up christ.") was deleted for not being a good post for MetaFilter.
Nah, that was a dupe, too. Check the comments.
posted by jedicus at 7:28 AM on September 14, 2011
Nah, that was a dupe, too. Check the comments.
posted by jedicus at 7:28 AM on September 14, 2011
Man, I wish it had been deleted just for being a dumb post, but 2005 was a different, less-staffed time.
posted by cortex (staff) at 7:30 AM on September 14, 2011
posted by cortex (staff) at 7:30 AM on September 14, 2011
Sometimes there are awful posts that attract flags like wildfire and are slam dunk deletes that vacapinta deletes. This one was still in the judgment call range and so cortex and I talked about it and [as comments were still pouring in] decided to nix it.
Just to confirm. I saw the post. It had a lot of flags but I was still unsure about it myself. So I decided to leave it to the mod team to examine in the morning. The fact that it accumulated comments in that time is more of a side-effect of this process, I guess.
posted by vacapinta at 7:31 AM on September 14, 2011
Just to confirm. I saw the post. It had a lot of flags but I was still unsure about it myself. So I decided to leave it to the mod team to examine in the morning. The fact that it accumulated comments in that time is more of a side-effect of this process, I guess.
posted by vacapinta at 7:31 AM on September 14, 2011
So it is. Hmm. How about Burning Man at 291 comments, deletion reason "not really a good post (an excuse to talk is more like it)"?
posted by FishBike at 7:32 AM on September 14, 2011
posted by FishBike at 7:32 AM on September 14, 2011
Jesus jumped up christ, though, as a reason for being deleted is a classic!
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 7:32 AM on September 14, 2011 [3 favorites]
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 7:32 AM on September 14, 2011 [3 favorites]
Wait a minute. Jesus jumped up christ! Are you telling me that George Bush Has to Pee was posted twice!!? Oh man. Fun times, fun times.
Also, I think a WWJJUCD bracelet would be a fine item for the metafilter shoppee.
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 7:36 AM on September 14, 2011
Also, I think a WWJJUCD bracelet would be a fine item for the metafilter shoppee.
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 7:36 AM on September 14, 2011
I know this isn't the place for it, but I want to nominate this AskMe answer for the sidebar. It's just really clever and poignant, and that thread is full of other great advice.
Return to your regularly scheduled discussion.
posted by Potomac Avenue at 7:43 AM on September 14, 2011
Return to your regularly scheduled discussion.
posted by Potomac Avenue at 7:43 AM on September 14, 2011
Are you telling me that George Bush Has to Pee was posted twice!!? Oh man. Fun times, fun times.
Actually it was posted at least four times: one, two, three, four. The deletion reasons tell a little story of moderator frustration:
"good lord. Can someone get [the poster] a library pass?"
"oh come on"
"jesus jumped up christ."
posted by jedicus at 7:49 AM on September 14, 2011 [2 favorites]
Actually it was posted at least four times: one, two, three, four. The deletion reasons tell a little story of moderator frustration:
"good lord. Can someone get [the poster] a library pass?"
"oh come on"
"jesus jumped up christ."
posted by jedicus at 7:49 AM on September 14, 2011 [2 favorites]
So I am actually reading the Bush Pee post that was left to stand and come across a comment that I was enjoying reading until I discovered the poster was ....me. Wow. Not only do I have no memory of this, it doesn't even seem like my style. It is definitely written by someone enraged by the presidency-- to the breaking point. Now, 6 years later I'm so horrified by the specter of a Perry Presidency that Bush seems like a poor, befuddled knucklehead in my rear view mirror.
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 7:58 AM on September 14, 2011 [3 favorites]
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 7:58 AM on September 14, 2011 [3 favorites]
I'm not going to defend the post, but have to say I don't have a problem doing this:
This post was pure "let's talk abotu the ugly shit the Tea Party is doing and go hate on them" and had a bunch of comments to match.
If people are doing shitty things then pointing at them and saying "that's shitty" seems like a good idea to me.
I realize that may not be metafilter's job, but avoiding these threads because they get ugly seems counter-productive as well. It's like focusing on that 2% of climate scientists that think global warming is fake. If you only show people when they are being rational then it makes them seem rational.
posted by cjorgensen at 8:21 AM on September 14, 2011 [2 favorites]
This post was pure "let's talk abotu the ugly shit the Tea Party is doing and go hate on them" and had a bunch of comments to match.
If people are doing shitty things then pointing at them and saying "that's shitty" seems like a good idea to me.
I realize that may not be metafilter's job, but avoiding these threads because they get ugly seems counter-productive as well. It's like focusing on that 2% of climate scientists that think global warming is fake. If you only show people when they are being rational then it makes them seem rational.
posted by cjorgensen at 8:21 AM on September 14, 2011 [2 favorites]
cjorgensen: “If people are doing shitty things then pointing at them and saying ‘that's shitty’ seems like a good idea to me.”
On the contrary, it's almost the most pointless thing a person can do. It's incredibly easy to point at something and say "that's shitty," and that's why it's the most popular pastime on the internet. We could do that – or we could think about how to fix it. But those two options are mutually exclusive, and the more time we waste on "this is shitty, let's talk about how we hate it" posts, the less time anybody is going to spend on making things better.
posted by koeselitz at 8:35 AM on September 14, 2011 [3 favorites]
On the contrary, it's almost the most pointless thing a person can do. It's incredibly easy to point at something and say "that's shitty," and that's why it's the most popular pastime on the internet. We could do that – or we could think about how to fix it. But those two options are mutually exclusive, and the more time we waste on "this is shitty, let's talk about how we hate it" posts, the less time anybody is going to spend on making things better.
posted by koeselitz at 8:35 AM on September 14, 2011 [3 favorites]
Who(m) Would Jesus Jump?
He totally jumped Lazarus's bones.
posted by Horace Rumpole at 8:38 AM on September 14, 2011 [1 favorite]
He totally jumped Lazarus's bones.
posted by Horace Rumpole at 8:38 AM on September 14, 2011 [1 favorite]
I found it rather interesting when a few days ago, after I'd made a comment in a FPP that was subsequently deleted, my comment continued to collect favourites for a day or two. There were people still reading a deleted post, and I wondered how they'd come across it, and if perhaps some people make a practice of checking for deleted threads.
posted by orange swan at 8:42 AM on September 14, 2011
posted by orange swan at 8:42 AM on September 14, 2011
Hey, why don't you dial that shit back a bit? This thread is not about LiB (who makes plenty of valuable contributions to the site, and also has an axe he likes to grind a little too much), and you're out of line.
posted by Horace Rumpole at 8:50 AM on September 14, 2011 [11 favorites]
posted by Horace Rumpole at 8:50 AM on September 14, 2011 [11 favorites]
Jerks complaining about jerks that complain about jerks.
It's jerks all the way down.
posted by Stagger Lee at 8:53 AM on September 14, 2011 [3 favorites]
It's jerks all the way down.
posted by Stagger Lee at 8:53 AM on September 14, 2011 [3 favorites]
If you only show people when they are being rational then it makes them seem rational.
I understand that people feel this way, but MetaFilter is not primarily a news site and as much as I know that people feel that this sort of thing is speaking truth to power, from our perspective it's just launching into a group hate thread which is MetaFilter nearly at its worst. There are many ways to go out and be the change you want to see in the world, but commenting on a not-super-influential website is not one of them.
Don't get me wrong, I really like it here and I enjoy talking to other people in this way about things that I care about, even politics, but "TEAPARTY SUX AMIRITE" threads are not the way to go about that. People who feel that a post on MeFi (about an event that has been on basically every other news blog in the world) also needs to be here, may be unclear about this site's core purpose.
And this is also out way of saying that people should be mindful of this moving into the US election season. People are welcome to make posts about politics, but "look at these assholes" posts about the Tea Party, Backman, Perry or anyone else in that general vicinity still need to be good MeFi posts; we don't lower the axe-grinding bar just because we (maybe) agree that person is despicable.
Why LiB feels the need to troll like this is beyond me
If you want to take this up in the appropriate place, start a MeTa thread about it. This sort of sideways dig at other members in a thread about something entirely different doesn't really forward this discussion any. If you're making some sort of comment about how it's a similar example, make that plain. Otherwise keep the shitty swipes at people out of this thread that is not about them. Not okay.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 8:54 AM on September 14, 2011 [5 favorites]
I understand that people feel this way, but MetaFilter is not primarily a news site and as much as I know that people feel that this sort of thing is speaking truth to power, from our perspective it's just launching into a group hate thread which is MetaFilter nearly at its worst. There are many ways to go out and be the change you want to see in the world, but commenting on a not-super-influential website is not one of them.
Don't get me wrong, I really like it here and I enjoy talking to other people in this way about things that I care about, even politics, but "TEAPARTY SUX AMIRITE" threads are not the way to go about that. People who feel that a post on MeFi (about an event that has been on basically every other news blog in the world) also needs to be here, may be unclear about this site's core purpose.
And this is also out way of saying that people should be mindful of this moving into the US election season. People are welcome to make posts about politics, but "look at these assholes" posts about the Tea Party, Backman, Perry or anyone else in that general vicinity still need to be good MeFi posts; we don't lower the axe-grinding bar just because we (maybe) agree that person is despicable.
Why LiB feels the need to troll like this is beyond me
If you want to take this up in the appropriate place, start a MeTa thread about it. This sort of sideways dig at other members in a thread about something entirely different doesn't really forward this discussion any. If you're making some sort of comment about how it's a similar example, make that plain. Otherwise keep the shitty swipes at people out of this thread that is not about them. Not okay.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 8:54 AM on September 14, 2011 [5 favorites]
FishBike: "Oh, and if that one doesn't count either because it's a dupe, then it's George Bush needs to go pee, which I assume from the deletion reason ("jesus jumped up christ.") was deleted for not being a good post for MetaFilter."
Oh image tag, how I miss you.
posted by octothorpe at 8:55 AM on September 14, 2011
Oh image tag, how I miss you.
posted by octothorpe at 8:55 AM on September 14, 2011
Horselover Phattie, I think you may want to go visit Finland. I hear it's lovely this time of year for pony trekking or camping, or just watching TV.
Finland, Finland, Finland ...
posted by philip-random at 8:59 AM on September 14, 2011 [1 favorite]
Finland, Finland, Finland ...
posted by philip-random at 8:59 AM on September 14, 2011 [1 favorite]
Metafilter: more on the thin and silly and people are having a good time side.
posted by Melismata at 8:59 AM on September 14, 2011
posted by Melismata at 8:59 AM on September 14, 2011
Thank you mods for deleting that wantonly negative, mean-spirited, misleading and badly-framed thread.
I watched that debate and there was nothing misleading about the thread, nor anything positive about the debate. The post was framed factually. I could not believe what I was hearing from those people. Watch the next one and tell me it's not the truth.
posted by Hoopo at 9:10 AM on September 14, 2011
I watched that debate and there was nothing misleading about the thread, nor anything positive about the debate. The post was framed factually. I could not believe what I was hearing from those people. Watch the next one and tell me it's not the truth.
posted by Hoopo at 9:10 AM on September 14, 2011
There were people still reading a deleted post, and I wondered how they'd come across it, and if perhaps some people make a practice of checking for deleted threads.
I use a grease monkey script that shows all the deleted threads. I read the interesting ones because a mod's reason for deletion may not always be a reason for me to ignore the thread. In this particular case I had posted a comment and was continuing to read the thread. It was my first Red Box sighting! WhooHoo!
Still not defending the post (it wasn't presented well) but it did give me plenty to think about-- No, not just "Tea Party sux, amirite!" I was thinking about the consequences of not treating anyone without insurance, both short-term individual consequences and long-term National consequences. I also wondered about the Ron Paul story guy as many other commenters did. What was his background and why was his mother (in her 70's, surely?) given his medical bill. And as a side note I was continuing to research the sub-theme of tightening state budgets versus expensive state executions.
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 9:13 AM on September 14, 2011 [4 favorites]
I use a grease monkey script that shows all the deleted threads. I read the interesting ones because a mod's reason for deletion may not always be a reason for me to ignore the thread. In this particular case I had posted a comment and was continuing to read the thread. It was my first Red Box sighting! WhooHoo!
Still not defending the post (it wasn't presented well) but it did give me plenty to think about-- No, not just "Tea Party sux, amirite!" I was thinking about the consequences of not treating anyone without insurance, both short-term individual consequences and long-term National consequences. I also wondered about the Ron Paul story guy as many other commenters did. What was his background and why was his mother (in her 70's, surely?) given his medical bill. And as a side note I was continuing to research the sub-theme of tightening state budgets versus expensive state executions.
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 9:13 AM on September 14, 2011 [4 favorites]
Yeah I sympathize. Often there are lots of terrific things worth discussing even in a weirdly-framed post about a hot button topic. However, we have to realistically assess whether that's what people are actually discussing or are even going to discuss. We get email from people a lot either before posting or after their posts have been deleted where they sort of explain what they want the thread to be about, why they think making a post on a provocative topic is or was a good idea. And I can totally see that, there is a platonic MetaFilter ideal where threads go the way I want them to and we all have illuminating conversations about Big Ideas and all go away feeling at least a little bit better about the world and our place in it.
But the problem is that real life MetaFilter doesn't always go that way, sometimes it does and sometimes it doesn't. And I've been here long enough to feel that how a post is framed is part of it, as well as some other indicators such as who is making the post, what their site history is, what else people have been talking about on the site, the first few comments in the thread, the reputation of the site being linked to, the quotes that are chosen for the post, etc.
So sometimes I'm surprised and a thread like this one goes better than I thought it would be. It's much more unusual that a carefully written well-sourced post go to shit (it does happen, but not with anywhere near the frequency of the former occurrence) and that's what we encourage people to do if they've got the wherewithall to work on it a bit.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 9:21 AM on September 14, 2011
But the problem is that real life MetaFilter doesn't always go that way, sometimes it does and sometimes it doesn't. And I've been here long enough to feel that how a post is framed is part of it, as well as some other indicators such as who is making the post, what their site history is, what else people have been talking about on the site, the first few comments in the thread, the reputation of the site being linked to, the quotes that are chosen for the post, etc.
So sometimes I'm surprised and a thread like this one goes better than I thought it would be. It's much more unusual that a carefully written well-sourced post go to shit (it does happen, but not with anywhere near the frequency of the former occurrence) and that's what we encourage people to do if they've got the wherewithall to work on it a bit.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 9:21 AM on September 14, 2011
I watched that debate and there was nothing misleading about the thread, nor anything positive about the debate. The post was framed factually. I could not believe what I was hearing from those people. Watch the next one and tell me it's not the truth.
To be honest, I don't understand how people found that post misleading, either. I saw most of the debate on CNN with my own eyes, and it happened more or less as described. Some people might not like political discussion on Metafilter, and that's fine, but that's a wholly separate discussion from dismissing the post on its factual merits.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 9:23 AM on September 14, 2011 [2 favorites]
To be honest, I don't understand how people found that post misleading, either. I saw most of the debate on CNN with my own eyes, and it happened more or less as described. Some people might not like political discussion on Metafilter, and that's fine, but that's a wholly separate discussion from dismissing the post on its factual merits.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 9:23 AM on September 14, 2011 [2 favorites]
Can I just ask a question here about "the X is Y AMIRITE!!!" figure of speech: amirite is a berylium-aluminum silicate, is it not? I just don't understand why the mineral content of an proposition is relevant to the question of the proposition's validity. I don't go around saying, "Lovecraft in Brooklyn is great, calcium carbonate!!!" That clearly doesn't make any sense, smoky quartz!!! And that's all I have to say about that topatourbiolilepiquorthite!!!
posted by the quidnunc kid at 9:27 AM on September 14, 2011 [7 favorites]
posted by the quidnunc kid at 9:27 AM on September 14, 2011 [7 favorites]
amirite is a berylium-aluminum silicate, is it not?
Yes, it's a direct reference to the colorless gemstone aggregate. "X, amirite" is a way of saying "my observation about X is a real gem".
posted by cortex (staff) at 9:32 AM on September 14, 2011 [5 favorites]
Yes, it's a direct reference to the colorless gemstone aggregate. "X, amirite" is a way of saying "my observation about X is a real gem".
posted by cortex (staff) at 9:32 AM on September 14, 2011 [5 favorites]
I came in here to note that, while there are bound to be more political posts coming up than normal, if we make a new post every time Michele Bachmann says something stupid then we're going to have at least three or four a day. However, while I was typing that, jessamyn was already deleting the one I was thinking of. So, uh, yeah. The flagging system works, and the mods are on it. Awesome. Thanks, mods.
posted by koeselitz at 9:32 AM on September 14, 2011
posted by koeselitz at 9:32 AM on September 14, 2011
Every time you make a post about a right-winger saying something stupid you're stealing money out of Jacob Weisberg's pocket.
posted by villanelles at dawn at 9:36 AM on September 14, 2011
posted by villanelles at dawn at 9:36 AM on September 14, 2011
Some people might not like political discussion on Metafilter, and that's fine, but that's a wholly separate discussion from dismissing the post on its factual merits.
I'm not sure if it's that people don't like political discussion per se, or if it's more like there's really not much to say. In my mind the post was bang-on. The debate was marked by loud booing an jeering of the candidates and shouts from the audience while they were speaking. I've never seen anything like it. The crowd got up and cheered at precisely the part the OP described and a number of others that were definitely "ugly". What can you really say about it though? I'm just in shock.
posted by Hoopo at 9:36 AM on September 14, 2011
I'm not sure if it's that people don't like political discussion per se, or if it's more like there's really not much to say. In my mind the post was bang-on. The debate was marked by loud booing an jeering of the candidates and shouts from the audience while they were speaking. I've never seen anything like it. The crowd got up and cheered at precisely the part the OP described and a number of others that were definitely "ugly". What can you really say about it though? I'm just in shock.
posted by Hoopo at 9:36 AM on September 14, 2011
Speaking of deleted Tea Party threads, Jessamyn, I was a little surprised to see you cite the post's framing as the problem when it seemed to be trying hard to be NPOV. Or were you using framing in a broader sense of "present a context that makes this more than a single political grarfilter post"? Is there a framing that would make that a good post?
posted by Horace Rumpole at 9:37 AM on September 14, 2011
posted by Horace Rumpole at 9:37 AM on September 14, 2011
my observation about X is a real gem
You're a diamond geezer.
posted by the quidnunc kid at 9:39 AM on September 14, 2011 [1 favorite]
You're a diamond geezer.
posted by the quidnunc kid at 9:39 AM on September 14, 2011 [1 favorite]
from that test post:
Your mother uses Internet Explorer
No, I most certainly do not, except for one site at work that requires it, and it pains me every time.
posted by Mom at 9:40 AM on September 14, 2011 [1 favorite]
Your mother uses Internet Explorer
No, I most certainly do not, except for one site at work that requires it, and it pains me every time.
posted by Mom at 9:40 AM on September 14, 2011 [1 favorite]
Heh, we both deleted that post, seconds apart. My deletion reason, otherwise lost to the stacks of the admin log:
Man, it would be great to not have yet another vaccine thread just because a candidate known for saying wacky shit said some wacky shit again. Unless there's a much better reason to revisit this -- in which case a post needs to really make that clear -- let's give this a pass.
Which is, you know, both of us seeing a big pile of flags on a new post and coming at a complicated this-is-not-a-good-way-to-post situation from different angles but trying to communicate the same essential thing: a post that functions as "let's talk about unlikeable person's dumb statements on contentious topic" is not really a good reason to be making a post, and if there's a post worth making buried in all that it needs to be much clearer what that substantial and post-worthy in a non-GRAR-bait fashion.
posted by cortex (staff) at 9:43 AM on September 14, 2011
Man, it would be great to not have yet another vaccine thread just because a candidate known for saying wacky shit said some wacky shit again. Unless there's a much better reason to revisit this -- in which case a post needs to really make that clear -- let's give this a pass.
Which is, you know, both of us seeing a big pile of flags on a new post and coming at a complicated this-is-not-a-good-way-to-post situation from different angles but trying to communicate the same essential thing: a post that functions as "let's talk about unlikeable person's dumb statements on contentious topic" is not really a good reason to be making a post, and if there's a post worth making buried in all that it needs to be much clearer what that substantial and post-worthy in a non-GRAR-bait fashion.
posted by cortex (staff) at 9:43 AM on September 14, 2011
Is there a framing that would make that a good post?
Cortex and I both deleted it and we were getting into an IM discussion about who "wins" when we both delete something nearly simultaneously. I'm not sure you can argue that "immune to the facts?" is a way to be at all neutral about this topic.
That said, you're right, the post was bad mostly because it was single-ling blog op-ed (for the most part) Bachman+antivaxer stuff. Pulling out idiotic comments that Tea Party people make isn't really a great jumping off point for discussion or posts here and we'd like to strongly encourage people who really enjoy those sorts of discussions to either make better posts that aren't one-off "this person is an idiot" posts, or go somewhere else entirely. I know people like talking about politics and related issues with other MeFites, but there's a limit to how much of that is going to be able to happen here and we want people to be cognizant of that now and not act surprised when this is the way it goes 10-12-14 months from now.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 9:43 AM on September 14, 2011
Cortex and I both deleted it and we were getting into an IM discussion about who "wins" when we both delete something nearly simultaneously. I'm not sure you can argue that "immune to the facts?" is a way to be at all neutral about this topic.
That said, you're right, the post was bad mostly because it was single-ling blog op-ed (for the most part) Bachman+antivaxer stuff. Pulling out idiotic comments that Tea Party people make isn't really a great jumping off point for discussion or posts here and we'd like to strongly encourage people who really enjoy those sorts of discussions to either make better posts that aren't one-off "this person is an idiot" posts, or go somewhere else entirely. I know people like talking about politics and related issues with other MeFites, but there's a limit to how much of that is going to be able to happen here and we want people to be cognizant of that now and not act surprised when this is the way it goes 10-12-14 months from now.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 9:43 AM on September 14, 2011
To be honest, I don't understand how people found that post misleading, either. I saw most of the debate on CNN with my own eyes, and it happened more or less as described.
Nnnnnot quite. I saw the clip too, and what went down was something like this (I will paraphrase):
1. Suppose we go to "faith-based" charitable giving as a means to alleviate the health care system. Does this violate the First Amendment at all? To wit, does government turning this duty over to religious organizations blur the separation between church and state? Would the government have the ability to enforce payment of such a fund that a religious organization would have refused on solely religious grounds (meaning, "Oh, yes, we have the money to pay for your sterilization, but we don't believe women should be sterilized so fuck you")?
2. On the other hand, we considered that if we DO compell churches to pick up the slack on this, they may be too busy to get involved with politics and may finally leave the rest of us the hell alone?...
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 9:43 AM on September 14, 2011 [2 favorites]
Nnnnnot quite. I saw the clip too, and what went down was something like this (I will paraphrase):
WOLF BLITZER: So, say there was a healthy guy who just decided "screw it, I'm not getting insurance," but then he got hit by a jeep. Would you turn him away if you were the ER doc?But the way the story is often being presented, is something like this (again, I will paraphrase):
RON PAUL: See, what we actually want to do here is advocate people taking responsibility for their own health and accepting the consequences for their own actions, so...
AUDIENCE: Yeah! You tell 'em!
WOLF: Okay, but that didn't answer my question -- this guy who doesn't have insurance has turned up in your hospital. Would you turn him away if you were the ER doc?
AUDIENCE: YES!
RON PAUL: No. As a doctor, and an adherant to the Hippocratic Oath, I can't. And incidentally we didn't before we had insurance - we encouraged churches and charities to help out people who couldn't pay for medical care, and I don't see why we can't return to that.
WOLF BLITZER: So, say there was a healthy guy who just decided "screw it, I'm not getting insurance," but then he got hit by a jeep. Would you turn him away if you were the ER doc?The audience doesn't come across great in either case, which is in itself alarming. But Ron Paul's actual response is more nuanced. And -- it actually opens up a new line of questioning - to wit:
RON PAUL: Yeah. Fuck 'em.
AUDIENCE: Yeah!
1. Suppose we go to "faith-based" charitable giving as a means to alleviate the health care system. Does this violate the First Amendment at all? To wit, does government turning this duty over to religious organizations blur the separation between church and state? Would the government have the ability to enforce payment of such a fund that a religious organization would have refused on solely religious grounds (meaning, "Oh, yes, we have the money to pay for your sterilization, but we don't believe women should be sterilized so fuck you")?
2. On the other hand, we considered that if we DO compell churches to pick up the slack on this, they may be too busy to get involved with politics and may finally leave the rest of us the hell alone?...
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 9:43 AM on September 14, 2011 [2 favorites]
it actually opens up a new line of questioning
But hopefully not in this Metatalk thread, please.
posted by cortex (staff) at 9:45 AM on September 14, 2011 [1 favorite]
But hopefully not in this Metatalk thread, please.
posted by cortex (staff) at 9:45 AM on September 14, 2011 [1 favorite]
No. As a doctor, and an adherant to the Hippocratic Oath, I can't
You are being very, very charitable.
posted by Hoopo at 9:46 AM on September 14, 2011 [2 favorites]
You are being very, very charitable.
posted by Hoopo at 9:46 AM on September 14, 2011 [2 favorites]
Cortex: Arg, sorry, I meant more "that could have been a direction that post could have gone" and not "let's talk about THIS in HERE now". Sorry that wasn't clear.
hoopo: Charitable how? I saw the clip, and he SAID those very words.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 9:51 AM on September 14, 2011
hoopo: Charitable how? I saw the clip, and he SAID those very words.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 9:51 AM on September 14, 2011
I demand that moderators provide adequate statistics to justify their deletion reasons, e.g.:
This post was deleted according to the following criteria:
Flags - 4
Comments - 24
Unlikeable personalities - 5
Wacky shit - 19
"Meh"-ness - 61
GRAR - 4.8
And then we can harvest the various deleted posts and their reasons and produce a "Top Trumps" pack. It's a money-spinner - and we need some more revenue streams around here to achieve Matt's tough pintern growth targets.
posted by the quidnunc kid at 9:51 AM on September 14, 2011 [3 favorites]
This post was deleted according to the following criteria:
Flags - 4
Comments - 24
Unlikeable personalities - 5
Wacky shit - 19
"Meh"-ness - 61
GRAR - 4.8
And then we can harvest the various deleted posts and their reasons and produce a "Top Trumps" pack. It's a money-spinner - and we need some more revenue streams around here to achieve Matt's tough pintern growth targets.
posted by the quidnunc kid at 9:51 AM on September 14, 2011 [3 favorites]
I'm not sure you can argue that "immune to the facts?" is a way to be at all neutral about this topic.
No, you're right, I don't think I noticed the post title. And for the record, I'm very happy to see a high bar set for those kind of threads.
posted by Horace Rumpole at 9:54 AM on September 14, 2011
No, you're right, I don't think I noticed the post title. And for the record, I'm very happy to see a high bar set for those kind of threads.
posted by Horace Rumpole at 9:54 AM on September 14, 2011
QFT: people should be mindful of this moving into the US election season. People are welcome to make posts about politics, but "look at these assholes" posts about the Tea Party, Backman, Perry or anyone else in that general vicinity still need to be good MeFi posts; we don't lower the axe-grinding bar just because we (maybe) agree that person is despicable.
Why .LiB feels the need to troll like this is beyond me
If you want to take this up in the appropriate place, start a MeTa thread about it
Or, MeMail the person, and have a discussion.
posted by theora55 at 9:58 AM on September 14, 2011
Why .LiB feels the need to troll like this is beyond me
If you want to take this up in the appropriate place, start a MeTa thread about it
Or, MeMail the person, and have a discussion.
posted by theora55 at 9:58 AM on September 14, 2011
hoopo: Charitable how? I saw the clip, and he SAID those very words.
No he said nothing about the Hippocratic Oath. He did say "no", said he had never turned anyone away, but then launched into something about the church and personal responsibility and alternative healthcare. But as the post described accurately, right at the time he got to "no" the crowd was shouting "YEAH"
posted by Hoopo at 9:58 AM on September 14, 2011
No he said nothing about the Hippocratic Oath. He did say "no", said he had never turned anyone away, but then launched into something about the church and personal responsibility and alternative healthcare. But as the post described accurately, right at the time he got to "no" the crowd was shouting "YEAH"
posted by Hoopo at 9:58 AM on September 14, 2011
Certain topics gather more noise and heat, and require more care when posting. I'm pretty unlikely to watch the debates, as it's far too soon for me to deal with the election and its attendant Grarrrrrrrrrrr. I like to know about this stuff, and MeFi really acts as my filter on lots of news, but yelling about the election is just noise.
posted by theora55 at 10:01 AM on September 14, 2011
posted by theora55 at 10:01 AM on September 14, 2011
I remembered something about him having taken the Hippocratic oath in there, but okay.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 10:02 AM on September 14, 2011
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 10:02 AM on September 14, 2011
FWIW he looked rather uncomfortable with the crowd's shouting too. The combination of the position Wolf Blitzer put him in with the question itself and the crowd's shouting appeared to throw him off his game.
posted by Hoopo at 10:13 AM on September 14, 2011
posted by Hoopo at 10:13 AM on September 14, 2011
The transcript, and the video, at the main link of the deleted post say:
posted by Flunkie at 10:13 AM on September 14, 2011
BLITZER: But Congressman, are you saying that society should just let him die?That's the end of both the transcript and the video. Perhaps he said something about the Hippocratic Oath after it. Or maybe you're thinking of something else, for example this comment from the deleted post:
PAUL: No. I practiced medicine before we had Medicaid, in the early 1960s, when I got out of medical school. I practiced at Santa Rosa Hospital in San Antonio , and the churches took care of them. We never turned anybody away from the hospitals.
(APPLAUSE)
PAUL: And we’ve given up on this whole concept that we might take care of ourselves and assume responsibility for ourselves. Our neighbors, our friends, our churches would do it. This whole idea, that’s the reason the cost is so high.
The cost is so high because they dump it on the government, it becomes a bureaucracy. It becomes special interests. It kowtows to the insurance companies and the drug companies, and then on top of that, you have the inflation. The inflation devalues the dollar, we have lack of competition.
There’s no competition in medicine. Everybody is protected by licensing. And we should actually legalize alternative health care, allow people to practice what they want.
The most disturbing part is that Ron Paul is a physician. He has taken the Hippocratic Oath, swearing to help the sick with all measures that are required and with warmth and sympathy.Incidentally, Ron Paul's health care plan involves getting rid of licensing and allowing people to practice what they want?! At least the man's consistent, I guess.
I don't remember there being a line about "only if they could afford it."
posted by Flunkie at 10:13 AM on September 14, 2011
It doesn't really matter whether Ron Paul mentioned the Hippocratic oath, honestly. This is not the thread; it's the thread about the thread.
The post was certainly misleading – and, in fact, flatly incorrect – because it posited a case not discussed in the debate – the case of a person who couldn't pay for health care. In the debate, Wolf Blitzer asked a question about someone who could pay for health care but chose not to. It was an awful, pandering question, yes – it was designed to rile up anti-entitlement types, yes.
This was not, however, a case of Republicans cheering for the death of the poor and uninsured. And anybody who saw that while watching the debate was watching with some high-quality blinders on her or his eyes.
posted by koeselitz at 10:15 AM on September 14, 2011 [1 favorite]
The post was certainly misleading – and, in fact, flatly incorrect – because it posited a case not discussed in the debate – the case of a person who couldn't pay for health care. In the debate, Wolf Blitzer asked a question about someone who could pay for health care but chose not to. It was an awful, pandering question, yes – it was designed to rile up anti-entitlement types, yes.
This was not, however, a case of Republicans cheering for the death of the poor and uninsured. And anybody who saw that while watching the debate was watching with some high-quality blinders on her or his eyes.
posted by koeselitz at 10:15 AM on September 14, 2011 [1 favorite]
Flunkie: Okay. But what you've posted proves that he didn't say "yeah, I'd turn away someone who didn't have insurance, fuck'em," which was my point anyway, so yay.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 10:30 AM on September 14, 2011 [1 favorite]
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 10:30 AM on September 14, 2011 [1 favorite]
This was not, however, a case of Republicans cheering for the death of the poor and uninsured.
It was however most certainly a case of Republicans cheering for the death of the uninsured. They cheered and shouted "YEAH" in response to Wolf Blitzer's question "But Congressman, are you saying that society should just let him die?"
I'm a little confused about the "couldn't pay" distinction you're making. The hypothetical patient is uninsured. I think the question is pretty clear that he couldn't pay right now, because he has no insurance, rather than a "he could have been paying for insurance already because he could have afforded it." Blitzer is explicitly asking about the immediate situation of whether the man gets treatment right now or dies.
But what you've posted proves that he didn't say "yeah, I'd turn away someone who didn't have insurance, fuck'em,"
The post acknowledged Ron Paul's "no" response before the fold even, it was talking about the crowd's reaction. That detail was factual in the post. I suppose people taking part in the discussion inside may have had the details wrong though.
posted by Hoopo at 11:55 AM on September 14, 2011 [1 favorite]
It was however most certainly a case of Republicans cheering for the death of the uninsured. They cheered and shouted "YEAH" in response to Wolf Blitzer's question "But Congressman, are you saying that society should just let him die?"
I'm a little confused about the "couldn't pay" distinction you're making. The hypothetical patient is uninsured. I think the question is pretty clear that he couldn't pay right now, because he has no insurance, rather than a "he could have been paying for insurance already because he could have afforded it." Blitzer is explicitly asking about the immediate situation of whether the man gets treatment right now or dies.
But what you've posted proves that he didn't say "yeah, I'd turn away someone who didn't have insurance, fuck'em,"
The post acknowledged Ron Paul's "no" response before the fold even, it was talking about the crowd's reaction. That detail was factual in the post. I suppose people taking part in the discussion inside may have had the details wrong though.
posted by Hoopo at 11:55 AM on September 14, 2011 [1 favorite]
This is not that deleted post.
posted by smackfu at 12:12 PM on September 14, 2011 [1 favorite]
posted by smackfu at 12:12 PM on September 14, 2011 [1 favorite]
I suppose people taking part in the discussion inside may have had the details wrong though.
Precisely. It was one such person I was responding to in the first place.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 12:12 PM on September 14, 2011
Precisely. It was one such person I was responding to in the first place.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 12:12 PM on September 14, 2011
This is not that deleted post.
You are correct, and it is also not a post discussing the deletion reason either. I was taking issue with the second comment in here, but it's off topic and I'll stop.
posted by Hoopo at 12:29 PM on September 14, 2011
You are correct, and it is also not a post discussing the deletion reason either. I was taking issue with the second comment in here, but it's off topic and I'll stop.
posted by Hoopo at 12:29 PM on September 14, 2011
I'm a little confused about the "couldn't pay" distinction you're making. The hypothetical patient is uninsured. I think the question is pretty clear that he couldn't pay right now, because he has no insurance, rather than a "he could have been paying for insurance already because he could have afforded it." Blitzer is explicitly asking about the immediate situation of whether the man gets treatment right now or dies.
Republicans have a lot of myths about people scamming the system, so they like questions that imply that. There is also the question of what we would do with Obamacare and no mandate when people would have an incentive not to bother buying insurance if they can buy coverage later anyway.
Paul's answer was that nobody should be turned away, but they are still on the hook to pay for the bill instead of the taxpayers. That's a middle ground between just letting the irresponsible die and letting them take advantage of the system.
If the question was meant to be about the poor who simply can't afford coverage, the question would not have been framed how it was. Believe it or not, most Republicans don't believe in letting the poor die. That's kind of a myth liberals tell themselves to hate on the evil other side. The cheers were not coming from the majority of the crowd.
posted by furiousxgeorge at 1:16 PM on September 14, 2011
Republicans have a lot of myths about people scamming the system, so they like questions that imply that. There is also the question of what we would do with Obamacare and no mandate when people would have an incentive not to bother buying insurance if they can buy coverage later anyway.
Paul's answer was that nobody should be turned away, but they are still on the hook to pay for the bill instead of the taxpayers. That's a middle ground between just letting the irresponsible die and letting them take advantage of the system.
If the question was meant to be about the poor who simply can't afford coverage, the question would not have been framed how it was. Believe it or not, most Republicans don't believe in letting the poor die. That's kind of a myth liberals tell themselves to hate on the evil other side. The cheers were not coming from the majority of the crowd.
posted by furiousxgeorge at 1:16 PM on September 14, 2011
I find it interesting you're so certain that "the cheers were not coming from the majority of the crowd," as only an eye-witness would have that kind of information.
I also don't recall anyone saying definitively whether it mattered how many or few people in the crowd were saying it, only expressing horror that ANYONE said it.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 1:23 PM on September 14, 2011
I also don't recall anyone saying definitively whether it mattered how many or few people in the crowd were saying it, only expressing horror that ANYONE said it.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 1:23 PM on September 14, 2011
I find it interesting you're so certain that "the cheers were not coming from the majority of the crowd," as only an eye-witness would have that kind of information.
I used a magic box to spy on the proceedings from my home here in PA.
posted by furiousxgeorge at 1:25 PM on September 14, 2011
I used a magic box to spy on the proceedings from my home here in PA.
posted by furiousxgeorge at 1:25 PM on September 14, 2011
Please do not turn this into a discussion-by-proxy of the original deleted post. Thanks.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 1:26 PM on September 14, 2011 [1 favorite]
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 1:26 PM on September 14, 2011 [1 favorite]
The question of the misleading framing in the FPP seems pretty relevant?
posted by furiousxgeorge at 1:28 PM on September 14, 2011
posted by furiousxgeorge at 1:28 PM on September 14, 2011
The question of the misleading framing in the FPP seems pretty relevant?
It's largely moot, given the post in question was deleted because it was poorly put together. Debating the issue is not going to change that in the least. So it's an argument for the sake of an argument, and we'd like to maybe have less of those where possible.
posted by cortex (staff) at 1:36 PM on September 14, 2011
It's largely moot, given the post in question was deleted because it was poorly put together. Debating the issue is not going to change that in the least. So it's an argument for the sake of an argument, and we'd like to maybe have less of those where possible.
posted by cortex (staff) at 1:36 PM on September 14, 2011
Oh, and if [the deleted Michael Jackson obit thread] doesn't count either because it's a dupe
I don't think it counts as a dupe, because the MJ obit thread that stayed was posted after the deleted one.
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 1:52 PM on September 14, 2011
I don't think it counts as a dupe, because the MJ obit thread that stayed was posted after the deleted one.
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 1:52 PM on September 14, 2011
That was one of those super weird situations where we left the newer post because it was better, iirc.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 2:05 PM on September 14, 2011
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 2:05 PM on September 14, 2011
Yeah, it was like crap post, delete; crap post, delete; crap post, delete; crap post, delete; slightly less crap post, fuck it, I guess we'll leave—oh, hey, an actually good post, never mind, delete that other one.
I am thankful that Michael Jackson does not die every day.
posted by cortex (staff) at 2:12 PM on September 14, 2011 [2 favorites]
I am thankful that Michael Jackson does not die every day.
posted by cortex (staff) at 2:12 PM on September 14, 2011 [2 favorites]
Speaking of thin obituaries I didn't realize until about a month or more afterwards how close I probably came to having my first post -- a heartfelt but thin obit -- deleted. I was very new but hadn't seen that many obituary posts and wasn't really aware that it was bad form to just link to a print obituary. I apparently pulled off another classic noob move in my first askme by literally jumping in the thread to say, Thanks guys, keep em coming!
Now that I know better I still look in the mirror every morning and say, "Every day, in every way, I'm becoming a better MeFi* user."
*pronounced mee-fie, natch
posted by villanelles at dawn at 2:24 PM on September 14, 2011
Now that I know better I still look in the mirror every morning and say, "Every day, in every way, I'm becoming a better MeFi* user."
*pronounced mee-fie, natch
posted by villanelles at dawn at 2:24 PM on September 14, 2011
I would like to publicly apologize to the MeFi community for making that non-deleted Bush Pee post. I'm very, very sorry about that.
posted by mr.marx at 2:44 PM on September 14, 2011
posted by mr.marx at 2:44 PM on September 14, 2011
Taken out of context, the phrase "Bush Pee Post" looks really funny. (That is all.)
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 2:52 PM on September 14, 2011
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 2:52 PM on September 14, 2011
"Bush Pee Post" - Kinda like Boy Loses Penis In Ass.
posted by Ardiril at 3:19 PM on September 14, 2011
posted by Ardiril at 3:19 PM on September 14, 2011
pee pee poop poop micheal jackson
posted by furiousxgeorge at 3:20 PM on September 14, 2011
posted by furiousxgeorge at 3:20 PM on September 14, 2011
That clearly doesn't make any sense, smoky quartz!!!
I am so working that into an argument sometime this week.
posted by Durn Bronzefist at 4:28 PM on September 14, 2011 [1 favorite]
I am so working that into an argument sometime this week.
posted by Durn Bronzefist at 4:28 PM on September 14, 2011 [1 favorite]
Wow, I would have assumed the winner would have been one of the "this broom - it vibrates" posts. I recall an innocent time where somebody was positing that link anew practically every day for months, maybe years.
posted by Joey Michaels at 4:55 PM on September 14, 2011
posted by Joey Michaels at 4:55 PM on September 14, 2011
So it's an argument for the sake of an argument, and we'd like to maybe have less of those where possible.
Don't worry, hockey pool season is starting soon so my attention will be elsewhere, I promise.
posted by Hoopo at 5:37 PM on September 14, 2011
Don't worry, hockey pool season is starting soon so my attention will be elsewhere, I promise.
posted by Hoopo at 5:37 PM on September 14, 2011
So tempted to make an outraged "Why was tbe Gordon Ramsey sex dwarf post deleted?!" MeTa post right now.
The answer of course would be that I flagged it, along with everyone else on Metafilter.
posted by Horace Rumpole at 7:49 PM on September 14, 2011
The answer of course would be that I flagged it, along with everyone else on Metafilter.
posted by Horace Rumpole at 7:49 PM on September 14, 2011
Gordon Ramsey has the kind of face where it would be weirder if he didn't have a sex dwarf lookalike, dead in a badger den or otherwise.
posted by villanelles at dawn at 8:02 PM on September 14, 2011 [2 favorites]
posted by villanelles at dawn at 8:02 PM on September 14, 2011 [2 favorites]
And no one got a chance to use a joke involving "LOOK AT THAT! IT'S RAW!", which is the real tragedy.
posted by Marisa Stole the Precious Thing at 9:13 PM on September 14, 2011 [1 favorite]
posted by Marisa Stole the Precious Thing at 9:13 PM on September 14, 2011 [1 favorite]
i liked the part where the dude was all stfu and leave already and they were all oh yeah we already did fraulein so there and the first dude was all fuuuuuu
posted by obiwanwasabi at 12:08 AM on September 15, 2011
posted by obiwanwasabi at 12:08 AM on September 15, 2011
I was responsible for the original post - sorry it was so crappy. I was lazy - I took the post largely from Mediaite, a conservative-leaning media website precisely to avoid the kind of obvious outrage I'd seen from liberal websites. The audiences' strong support for, well, death throughout the debates is, I think, very noteworthy, regardless of political party. But I see why it was deleted, and I have no problem with it.
This morning, though, someone else did another post on Ron Paul's debate comments, this time with a lot less shock at the audience reaction. Pretty simple - one link to the video, one other link. About 10 comments down, someone posts that they're flagging it for editorializing. Is mere discussion of certain subjects or people editorializing? I've seen quite a few posts and discussions filled to the brim with LOL-whoever or that I'd easily call "outragefilter" that don't get deleted.
Delete my crappy posts, sure, but I'm hoping that Ron Paul isn't a sacred cow.
posted by jhandey at 2:39 AM on September 15, 2011 [1 favorite]
This morning, though, someone else did another post on Ron Paul's debate comments, this time with a lot less shock at the audience reaction. Pretty simple - one link to the video, one other link. About 10 comments down, someone posts that they're flagging it for editorializing. Is mere discussion of certain subjects or people editorializing? I've seen quite a few posts and discussions filled to the brim with LOL-whoever or that I'd easily call "outragefilter" that don't get deleted.
Delete my crappy posts, sure, but I'm hoping that Ron Paul isn't a sacred cow.
posted by jhandey at 2:39 AM on September 15, 2011 [1 favorite]
Michael Jackson does not die every day.
I am so working that into an argument sometime this week.
posted by mediareport at 4:04 AM on September 15, 2011 [1 favorite]
I am so working that into an argument sometime this week.
posted by mediareport at 4:04 AM on September 15, 2011 [1 favorite]
HOW DARE YOU CALL RON PAUL A COW.
There are no sacred cows, jhandey. If a post is solid enough to stand, it will, and if it isn't, it won't. It's a tautology of sorts, but as long as you don't find yourself getting too attached to any one post (difficult when it's your own, or one on a topic you're interested in) you'll likely find it works out in the end.
That said: The mods have repeatedly stated that some topics require a delicate touch to be framed in a way that won't be problematic. Do note that the second Ron Paul post you mentioned did not get deleted. People making noise in a thread about what they perceive as editorializing isn't always a great indicator of the quality of the post. Those with a better sense of how this place works know that that's what the flagging system is for.
posted by SpiffyRob at 4:43 AM on September 15, 2011
There are no sacred cows, jhandey. If a post is solid enough to stand, it will, and if it isn't, it won't. It's a tautology of sorts, but as long as you don't find yourself getting too attached to any one post (difficult when it's your own, or one on a topic you're interested in) you'll likely find it works out in the end.
That said: The mods have repeatedly stated that some topics require a delicate touch to be framed in a way that won't be problematic. Do note that the second Ron Paul post you mentioned did not get deleted. People making noise in a thread about what they perceive as editorializing isn't always a great indicator of the quality of the post. Those with a better sense of how this place works know that that's what the flagging system is for.
posted by SpiffyRob at 4:43 AM on September 15, 2011
I'd like some clarification, though, about the whole inheritance of debt thing. I've always been led to believe that your estate/family DOES have to cover your bills. I've heard plenty of stories about people dying and their families having to pay down credit card debt, etc.
posted by sadiehawkinstein at 6:48 AM on September 15, 2011
posted by sadiehawkinstein at 6:48 AM on September 15, 2011
Delete my crappy posts, sure, but I'm hoping that Ron Paul isn't a sacred cow.
I deleted that other post (made at one a.m., woo) this morning, and not because it was giving Ron Paul a hard time (something that has certainly happened here more than once), but because it was another example of not really bringing up an interesting subject in a substantive way. "Ron Paul said this thing but also A GUY WHO WORKED FROM HIM DIED LIKE THAT" isn't even broaching a subject in an approachable way, to say nothing of the aspirational notion, somewhere off on the foggy horizon, of sharing something interesting or cool from the web.
Tough topics need careful handling. Health care is a touchy topic for personal and political and financial reasons, and it's been through an absolute wringer the last couple years thanks to the political cycle. Like I said in the deletion reason for that newer post, if someone wants to make a solid post that approaches this as something to discuss rather than something to argue or be appalled about, they can do that, but that post wasn't it.
posted by cortex (staff) at 7:18 AM on September 15, 2011
I deleted that other post (made at one a.m., woo) this morning, and not because it was giving Ron Paul a hard time (something that has certainly happened here more than once), but because it was another example of not really bringing up an interesting subject in a substantive way. "Ron Paul said this thing but also A GUY WHO WORKED FROM HIM DIED LIKE THAT" isn't even broaching a subject in an approachable way, to say nothing of the aspirational notion, somewhere off on the foggy horizon, of sharing something interesting or cool from the web.
Tough topics need careful handling. Health care is a touchy topic for personal and political and financial reasons, and it's been through an absolute wringer the last couple years thanks to the political cycle. Like I said in the deletion reason for that newer post, if someone wants to make a solid post that approaches this as something to discuss rather than something to argue or be appalled about, they can do that, but that post wasn't it.
posted by cortex (staff) at 7:18 AM on September 15, 2011
So tempted to make an outraged "Why was tbe Gordon Ramsey sex dwarf post deleted?!" MeTa post right now.
Someone actually made such a post TO be deleted?....Wow, that was fast.
(I actually read that article and loved it for the wackiness, but that sort of LOLCRAZY is more Facebook fodder, no?)
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 8:03 AM on September 15, 2011
Someone actually made such a post TO be deleted?....Wow, that was fast.
(I actually read that article and loved it for the wackiness, but that sort of LOLCRAZY is more Facebook fodder, no?)
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 8:03 AM on September 15, 2011
FishBike: "It's this one at 502 comments. But it's called "editing window test" so maybe that doesn't count?"
...Wait a second. Are you telling me that there was beta testing for a three-minute edit window? Three years ago? What happened?!
posted by Gordafarin at 9:28 AM on September 16, 2011
...Wait a second. Are you telling me that there was beta testing for a three-minute edit window? Three years ago? What happened?!
posted by Gordafarin at 9:28 AM on September 16, 2011
What happened?!
Every time we bring it up for a discussion here there appears to be a split between people who think this is a great idea and people who think it's the Worst Thing Ever and/or not needed. I'm pretty sure we even had a more recent discussion about it but it ended sort of at a stalemate.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 9:35 AM on September 16, 2011
Every time we bring it up for a discussion here there appears to be a split between people who think this is a great idea and people who think it's the Worst Thing Ever and/or not needed. I'm pretty sure we even had a more recent discussion about it but it ended sort of at a stalemate.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 9:35 AM on September 16, 2011
Every time we bring it up for a discussion here there appears to be a split between people who think this is a great idea
These people are write.
posted by furiousxgeorge at 9:55 AM on September 16, 2011
These people are write.
posted by furiousxgeorge at 9:55 AM on September 16, 2011
...Wait a second. Are you telling me that there was beta testing for a three-minute edit window? Three years ago? What happened?!
There was some discussion about the technical details, and it was decided to alter the timing of the edit window slightly: it's the three minutes before clicking the "Post Comment" button instead of the three minutes after.
posted by FishBike at 10:19 AM on September 16, 2011 [1 favorite]
There was some discussion about the technical details, and it was decided to alter the timing of the edit window slightly: it's the three minutes before clicking the "Post Comment" button instead of the three minutes after.
posted by FishBike at 10:19 AM on September 16, 2011 [1 favorite]
I wrote hear when I meant here and someone favorited it and every time I click my favorites now I do so in shame.
posted by cjorgensen at 10:49 AM on September 16, 2011 [1 favorite]
posted by cjorgensen at 10:49 AM on September 16, 2011 [1 favorite]
« Older Checkbox to set "mymefi" tab as default | How did the author of Javascript come to answer a... Newer »
You are not logged in, either login or create an account to post comments
I know in the past the mods have sometimes stated something like, "We know this isn't a great post but we got to it a little late and we are going to let it stand." Is that still the case, or has the policy changed?
Key word there is "sometimes"; it is something we think about a bit when trying to figure out a borderline situation, but it's never been a guarantee and never will be. It's only sometimes because we're not committed to be really black and white about the whole thing, in which case it'd be "never" instead.
If our general practice has changed on it, it's probably nudging more toward deletion than not when the messy-but-been-up-a-while thread is not just a not-great post but also something contentious or ideologically charged, so a thin "these people are terrible" thing like this is more headed for the dustbin than something more on the thin and silly and people are having a good time side.
posted by cortex (staff) at 7:17 AM on September 14, 2011 [1 favorite]