Closing MeTa threads February 3, 2025 11:12 AM Subscribe
There's a new mod trend of abruptly closing MeTa threads when they don't like how it's going. Let's discuss as a community how we feel about that, because it's an un-asked for change that was made without consulting anyone.
bluntly, I'm in favour of mods doing whatever they feel they need to do in order to maintain their sanity. Because it happens -- threads become insane (ie: too much happening in too many directions for too many reasons). So yeah, by all means, if shit's going crazy in a thread, SHUT IT DOWN (permanently or temporarily -- whichever seems appropriate).
What I'm hoping would come from such a policy is ... sanity.
Or put it this way. I was a weddings-parties-anything kind of DJ for decades. Most events would go fine. I could never please everyone at all times but, in general, the event was a success, nobody threatened me or had a nervous breakdown. I got a good tip at the end of the night. But every now and then, for reasons, shit would lurch into chaosity. One wedding comes to mind. One chunk of the crowd HATED disco. One chunk of the crowd LOVED disco. Four guys LOVED the blues and wouldn't shut up about it. Three drunk teenagers kept trying to steal some of my albums. Meanwhile the bride and groom had supplied me with a playlist of their favourite party music, none of which was popular with anyone but them it seemed -- certainly nobody was dancing to any of it. If it was Holy Roman Empire in the early decades of the 17th century, the Thirty Years War would have fucking broken out.
As is, I finally just played mostly disco music because at least those folks were dancing, having fun. But what I really wanted to do was shut everything down and go home. Because no amount of cash was worth the combination of threats, insults and overall dysfunction that wasn't just getting thrown my way, it had permeated the room (yes, there was a fight). Except I actually needed the cash to make that month's rent, so I stuck it out. And, of course, there was no tip at the end of things.
Anyway, at its worst, I imagine being a mod around here is similar to what I went through that night. And you can't even blame anybody, not really. Society's to blame and all that. And sorry, no individual should be expected to go crazy on every one else's behalf.
So yeah, maybe if we kept shutting chaotic threads down, we (the community) would get the message. Stop feeding the beast. Be kind. And if you really, really must unleash some well earned angst, go find a fucking moshpit. They're good for that.
posted by philip-random at 11:40 AM on February 3 [24 favorites]
What I'm hoping would come from such a policy is ... sanity.
Or put it this way. I was a weddings-parties-anything kind of DJ for decades. Most events would go fine. I could never please everyone at all times but, in general, the event was a success, nobody threatened me or had a nervous breakdown. I got a good tip at the end of the night. But every now and then, for reasons, shit would lurch into chaosity. One wedding comes to mind. One chunk of the crowd HATED disco. One chunk of the crowd LOVED disco. Four guys LOVED the blues and wouldn't shut up about it. Three drunk teenagers kept trying to steal some of my albums. Meanwhile the bride and groom had supplied me with a playlist of their favourite party music, none of which was popular with anyone but them it seemed -- certainly nobody was dancing to any of it. If it was Holy Roman Empire in the early decades of the 17th century, the Thirty Years War would have fucking broken out.
As is, I finally just played mostly disco music because at least those folks were dancing, having fun. But what I really wanted to do was shut everything down and go home. Because no amount of cash was worth the combination of threats, insults and overall dysfunction that wasn't just getting thrown my way, it had permeated the room (yes, there was a fight). Except I actually needed the cash to make that month's rent, so I stuck it out. And, of course, there was no tip at the end of things.
Anyway, at its worst, I imagine being a mod around here is similar to what I went through that night. And you can't even blame anybody, not really. Society's to blame and all that. And sorry, no individual should be expected to go crazy on every one else's behalf.
So yeah, maybe if we kept shutting chaotic threads down, we (the community) would get the message. Stop feeding the beast. Be kind. And if you really, really must unleash some well earned angst, go find a fucking moshpit. They're good for that.
posted by philip-random at 11:40 AM on February 3 [24 favorites]
So yeah, maybe if we kept shutting chaotic threads down, we (the community) would get the message. Stop feeding the beast. Be kind. And if you really, really must unleash some well earned angst, go find a fucking moshpit. They're good for that.
For what it's worth I think this is all really well said and inline with my feelings exactly.
posted by kbanas at 11:58 AM on February 3 [6 favorites]
For what it's worth I think this is all really well said and inline with my feelings exactly.
posted by kbanas at 11:58 AM on February 3 [6 favorites]
I hesitate to use the word "punish" as though it's a terrible thing not to be able to post a comment on Metatalk, but bear with me: Closing a thread punishes anyone who might want to talk about the topic of the thread. We don't know what the mod shifts are, and a 'temporary' closure can look very open-ended and indefinite.
If users are fighting in a bad enough way that a simple mod note in the thread cannot stop it, then it seems like the moderation should be toward those users rather than to just anyone participating in the thread.
That's setting aside the issue of whether this battle was big enough to warrant drastic mod action in the first place. It's possible that two users sniping at one another is not a moderation emergency. (It didn't look like one when I stopped looking at the thread, but I don't know what happened after that.)
We should consider whether a temporary closure kills the discussion more than an argument would. At least when two users are arguing, you can still get your own comments in. But these closures really threaten the overall momentum of the thread.
I made a little joke earlier, but the more I think about it, the more it concerns me, if this is just going to be the way threads go now: If you wanted to disrupt a thread and stop any further discussion, all you'd have to do is start a fight with someone late at night, and that would get the thread closed.
posted by mittens at 12:03 PM on February 3 [9 favorites]
If users are fighting in a bad enough way that a simple mod note in the thread cannot stop it, then it seems like the moderation should be toward those users rather than to just anyone participating in the thread.
That's setting aside the issue of whether this battle was big enough to warrant drastic mod action in the first place. It's possible that two users sniping at one another is not a moderation emergency. (It didn't look like one when I stopped looking at the thread, but I don't know what happened after that.)
We should consider whether a temporary closure kills the discussion more than an argument would. At least when two users are arguing, you can still get your own comments in. But these closures really threaten the overall momentum of the thread.
I made a little joke earlier, but the more I think about it, the more it concerns me, if this is just going to be the way threads go now: If you wanted to disrupt a thread and stop any further discussion, all you'd have to do is start a fight with someone late at night, and that would get the thread closed.
posted by mittens at 12:03 PM on February 3 [9 favorites]
If it's "unprecedented" then I think we should talk about it before a precedent gets set by default. I think any one person unilaterally deciding to close the thread is bad. It kills discussion even if it's eventually reopened. It breaks the way the site has historically worked. It places all the power for who can talk and when in the hands of a very few people, several of whom have demonstrated or said out loud that heated situations are not their forté. In all truth, since most mods avoided MeTa for years leaving it to loup, and heard about how it went from loup, I'd be hard put to think that their judgement over what constitutes a good discussion here is better than most users who have been present here since cortex left.
At the very least, sweeping policy changes like this should require board input at this point.
And to BB's point that I am mischaracterizing why the threads were closed, I used your and taz's own statements to come to that conclusion, so, at best, the closures were poorly communicated.
posted by donnagirl at 2:30 PM on February 3 [4 favorites]
At the very least, sweeping policy changes like this should require board input at this point.
And to BB's point that I am mischaracterizing why the threads were closed, I used your and taz's own statements to come to that conclusion, so, at best, the closures were poorly communicated.
posted by donnagirl at 2:30 PM on February 3 [4 favorites]
It’s also worth noting that both closures were a reaction to member actions.
Oh, we made you do it? This has strong angry-dad energy, it's a weird new vibe here.
And as for it not causing any specific problems - it's sparked its own metatalk, so it's not without impact.
posted by Vatnesine at 3:23 PM on February 3 [8 favorites]
Oh, we made you do it? This has strong angry-dad energy, it's a weird new vibe here.
And as for it not causing any specific problems - it's sparked its own metatalk, so it's not without impact.
posted by Vatnesine at 3:23 PM on February 3 [8 favorites]
"You kids settle down or I'm turning this MeTa around"
posted by donnagirl at 3:26 PM on February 3 [6 favorites]
posted by donnagirl at 3:26 PM on February 3 [6 favorites]
Gonna stick my head up and say "We're closing this thread temporarily because we don't have enough mod coverage and it's super cranky in here" is way better than cranky people complaining in an open MeTa because mods aren't responding and nobody knows why.
posted by gentlyepigrams at 3:31 PM on February 3 [12 favorites]
posted by gentlyepigrams at 3:31 PM on February 3 [12 favorites]
"…mods aren't responding and nobody knows why."If the worry is people not knowing why the mods aren't responding over night, there's always the option of just communicationg that by commenting "We don't have enough mod coverage, so there won't be an official mod response until tomorrow morning," which can be done without also closing the thread.
posted by JiBB at 3:49 PM on February 3 [7 favorites]
Cranky people don't always want mod responses, and we are so accustomed to not getting them that it hardly matters. I'm not looking for mod responses on *anything* any more, including this thread. I only care what the regular people who aren't drawing paychecks to be here think.
posted by donnagirl at 3:50 PM on February 3 [5 favorites]
posted by donnagirl at 3:50 PM on February 3 [5 favorites]
I feel like we didn’t used to expect moderators to be on shift all the time, and folks just got along without them.
Sometimes that meant crazy spam posts stayed up for a little while, and folks would cavort in the comments knowing that the end was nigh.
I guess there have been problems with that! I don’t personally mind if MetaTalk as a whole just shuts down during off-peak hours. “These posts are open from 9am to 6pm M-F EST” seems perfectly reasonable if you’re trying to make mods’ lives better. The internet makes everything seem urgent and 24hrs but this part of the site doesn’t have to be that.
I do think the question is whether the mods need to personally monitor and respond to everything they see in MetaTalk. I’d have thought not! But if these threads NEED to be monitored then it makes sense to me to close them when no monitors are present.
MetaTalk used to mostly be for members to engage in self-governance but at some point it seemed like everything became about the mods’ actions. That’s a loss, I think: I remember when users remonstrating with each other was the primary role of this part of the site, and maybe we should consider that again.
posted by anotherpanacea at 3:57 PM on February 3 [5 favorites]
Sometimes that meant crazy spam posts stayed up for a little while, and folks would cavort in the comments knowing that the end was nigh.
I guess there have been problems with that! I don’t personally mind if MetaTalk as a whole just shuts down during off-peak hours. “These posts are open from 9am to 6pm M-F EST” seems perfectly reasonable if you’re trying to make mods’ lives better. The internet makes everything seem urgent and 24hrs but this part of the site doesn’t have to be that.
I do think the question is whether the mods need to personally monitor and respond to everything they see in MetaTalk. I’d have thought not! But if these threads NEED to be monitored then it makes sense to me to close them when no monitors are present.
MetaTalk used to mostly be for members to engage in self-governance but at some point it seemed like everything became about the mods’ actions. That’s a loss, I think: I remember when users remonstrating with each other was the primary role of this part of the site, and maybe we should consider that again.
posted by anotherpanacea at 3:57 PM on February 3 [5 favorites]
I’m fine with temporary thread closures when warranted but just like many things that the mods do (or don’t do), it’s a judgement call that may not be appreciated by some and the opposite by others.
donnagirl, your phrasing of the post and subsequent comment shows that you’ve made up your mind about mods which is fine but I don’t think every decision the mods make are bad ones.
posted by ashbury at 4:05 PM on February 3 [2 favorites]
donnagirl, your phrasing of the post and subsequent comment shows that you’ve made up your mind about mods which is fine but I don’t think every decision the mods make are bad ones.
posted by ashbury at 4:05 PM on February 3 [2 favorites]
Overheated fights on MeTa about modding followed a Meta post complaining about the modding on the MeTa complaining aboud modding??? Metafilter is BACK baby! Bring it ON.
posted by haptic_avenger at 4:42 PM on February 3 [5 favorites]
posted by haptic_avenger at 4:42 PM on February 3 [5 favorites]
I don't think that every mod decision is bad. I think the mods have hard-ish jobs and make some good calls and some bad calls, like we all do at work. What I don't appreciate is the trend of the past few years where mods who were never members of the site attempt to control things here in a way that is disrespectful to site norms and culture. There is history here, I didn't pull this concern out of thin air.
posted by donnagirl at 4:43 PM on February 3 [5 favorites]
posted by donnagirl at 4:43 PM on February 3 [5 favorites]
Shut down all the garbage mashers on the detention level!
Seriously, though, I don’t think temporary thread closures are a very good tool. Only allowing meta participation during mod hours seems like it would be pretty unfair to people in parts of the work where their peak activity time might be off hours for the mods.
Personally, I think it would be okay to have more temporary time outs if they were done transparently and based on clear rules. I feel like giving someone a time out from just meta, or just a specific thread might be a good way to wrangle an escalating derail with a minimum of collateral damage.
posted by snofoam at 5:16 PM on February 3 [5 favorites]
Seriously, though, I don’t think temporary thread closures are a very good tool. Only allowing meta participation during mod hours seems like it would be pretty unfair to people in parts of the work where their peak activity time might be off hours for the mods.
Personally, I think it would be okay to have more temporary time outs if they were done transparently and based on clear rules. I feel like giving someone a time out from just meta, or just a specific thread might be a good way to wrangle an escalating derail with a minimum of collateral damage.
posted by snofoam at 5:16 PM on February 3 [5 favorites]
What I don't appreciate is the trend of the past few years where mods who were never members of the site attempt to control things here in a way that is disrespectful to site norms and culture. There is history here, I didn't pull this concern out of thin air.
Both of the mods who made the decisions to close recent threads have been very active members here for 20+ years.
posted by St. Sorryass at 5:25 PM on February 3 [12 favorites]
Both of the mods who made the decisions to close recent threads have been very active members here for 20+ years.
posted by St. Sorryass at 5:25 PM on February 3 [12 favorites]
Also fine with temporary closures. Just stick with the given timeframe. Or don't give one.
posted by Diskeater at 6:22 PM on February 3 [2 favorites]
posted by Diskeater at 6:22 PM on February 3 [2 favorites]
It's actually fine to moderate post hoc. Not everything needs to be moderated in real time. The worst thing that can happen is that some not ok stuff stays up for a few hours. It seems more drastic and disruptive to close the thread for all discussion, than to allow a few possibly unwanted hypothetical comments stay up for a few hours.
posted by Joakim Ziegler at 12:27 AM on February 4 [7 favorites]
posted by Joakim Ziegler at 12:27 AM on February 4 [7 favorites]
> I feel like we didn’t used to expect moderators to be on shift all the time, and folks just got along without them.
I think it's the (internet-wide and cultural) change from mods being ambiently too-online like the rest of us to being shift workers. So "mods are asleep, shitpost" went from being a jovial thing to being a "Fuck's ache" to deal with when clocking in.
posted by lucidium at 12:53 AM on February 4 [1 favorite]
I think it's the (internet-wide and cultural) change from mods being ambiently too-online like the rest of us to being shift workers. So "mods are asleep, shitpost" went from being a jovial thing to being a "Fuck's ache" to deal with when clocking in.
posted by lucidium at 12:53 AM on February 4 [1 favorite]
MetaFilter: folks would cavort in the comments knowing that the end was nigh
posted by Lemkin at 6:22 AM on February 4 [4 favorites]
posted by Lemkin at 6:22 AM on February 4 [4 favorites]
if you want your comment to stand you must include the initials of god's only begotten son
Fuckin' right, dude!
posted by y2karl at 9:09 AM on February 4
Fuckin' right, dude!
posted by y2karl at 9:09 AM on February 4
begotten: while this may be an unknownable and undescribable attribute for a deity, it's still how anthromorphic babyy is formed.
posted by clavdivs at 1:24 PM on February 4
posted by clavdivs at 1:24 PM on February 4
These posts are open from 9am to 6pm M-F EST” seems perfectly reasonable
Metafilter also happens outside America you know.
This sort of small thinking has always been one of Mefi's problems. Very Americ-Centric. Thats no way to grow the site.
posted by adamvasco at 2:58 PM on February 6 [3 favorites]
Metafilter also happens outside America you know.
This sort of small thinking has always been one of Mefi's problems. Very Americ-Centric. Thats no way to grow the site.
posted by adamvasco at 2:58 PM on February 6 [3 favorites]
You are not logged in, either login or create an account to post comments
The temp closures were not because a mod didn’t like the way something was going. Rather, it seemed like a useful way to slow a situation down or prevent it from becoming more heated within unique situations.
The first situation was to deal with a serious off topic accusation in one thread and temp closure was done with the idea of preventing a potentially major derail, while setting up a space for the derailing topic to be publicly addressed. Yes, the original thread stayed closed way longer than intended because the mod on duty (me) saw the derail while off shift and just before going bed, knowing there was a moderation gap, and took admittedly unorthodox action with the goal of keeping the community healthy by addressing serious concerns immediately.
The second instance was a similar situation of dealing with moderation gap during overnight (eastern time) hours and a thread derailing from its original topic.
In both cases, a note was posted by a mod to explain the temporary closure and to make it clear that it was temporary. As far as I can tell, no specific problem occurred or was caused by either closure.
The moderation team is open to suggestions on different solutions to those situations, within our current limits of staff and technology. In a perfect world, it would have been good to be able to temporarily slow down the speed at which a user could post in a thread and/or temporarily slow down how quickly posts could be made to a specific thread (called slow mode), which are capabilities on other sites, but MetaFiler doesn’t have those abilities and probably won’t until the new site has been up and running for a bit.
It’s also worth noting that both closures were a reaction to member actions. The first to factually untrue claim and the second due to members choosing to start and continue fighting. Things are currently crappy in the world and people are understandably more anxious and angry, which can carry over into dynamics on the site.
So as we talk about this, I think it would be good to look at the larger picture and discuss if temporarily closing threads is an actual problem, if so what can be done to mitigate those problems, and if there’s anything that the community can do to lower the overall temperature on the site.
Thanks for listening!
posted by Brandon Blatcher (staff) at 11:13 AM on February 3 [2 favorites]