Revisiting posts that disappear from the MeTa queue March 25, 2025 7:32 PM Subscribe
Brandon Blatcher said, in February, that
Since December 24, 2024, the queue has been operating under the premise of just push anything through that isn't hugely fighty.However, there are at least two MeTa posts just in the last month which have vanished into thin air. I'm not sure what the earlier one was, because the person who wanted to post it has apparently wiped their account, but it is referenced in my comment here. The second is a MeTa which Violet Blue apparently made. Now, it's possible that both of these MeTas were in fact "hugely fighty", but there is no evidence of that. Most of the people who post on the Grey (certainly including me) already have less than zero trust in the moderators' judgment by this point, and failing to live up to assurances that you made not even six weeks ago only serves to further erode the possibility of ever trusting it again. What can be done about this, both in the case of the specific posts which were disallowed and in general?
Re: VB's situation and what I'm taking from it -
I'm thinking out loud towards eventual forum culture: for one thing i would really like people to move away from framing the matter that relates to Jewish politics or Palestinian life (please note my distinction) as "I/P" because it's a right-wing framing that makes the relationship between a colonizing state and an occupied one equal, and one we've conceded on.
I really think we can treat as irrelevant the matter of whether Israel has the right to exist (states don't have rights, people do; also, states exist until they don't, so yes Israel is a country. What animates any country's political systems is a matter for people who reside in the territory, so I'm disinterested or rather I'm as interested about it just like I am with Turkish politics) and instead work on separating out the country Israel, the occupation of Palestine, and the antisemitism faced by Jewish people wherever they are minorities.
Unfortunately the rightwing politics of Israel and the West makes it seem near-impossible but there has got to be a way that conflating what minoritarians face and what majoritarians do (even when they're conducted by the same person in different contexts, like a BIPOC American getting better treatment as a tourist overseas or as an expatriate than someone of similar ethnicity from a global south country for a mild example, or a Jewish-American who then serves in the IDF and committing actual war crimes for the most flagrant one) is flaggable forum behaviour that deserves a mod note.
I find VB's most recent FPP actually tried to keep its focus tight on American-only political antisemitism except the blind spot that also made it unable to capture how much institutional Jewish institutions have failed them through allying with rightwing politics in order to subdue anti-genocide protests (what more Palestinian statehood advocacy) because of the deliberate conflation of the mandate to protect minority rights with majoritarian politics and their attendant and necessary racism. A fact that's immediately identified from the first comment, but unfortunately this seemed to be an unacceptable point to make in their FPP. But without it, the matter will continue to be badly handled, where stochastic terrorism towards Jewish communities continue while Jewish institutions continue to advocate for policies that continue to harm members of said community, and yet there's no space to discuss either.
Because even as that is acknowledged, I need to ask, has anyone checked in with your western Muslim and Arab friends lately? Especially those under threat of deportations or outright physical harm such as permanent disability and death? Or something "milder" like loss of income from being fired? I know trying to balance different axes of oppression may be spectacularly hard but I need to ask this question because it seems like there's also a feeling of loss the way white women seem to have with feminism the moment it's apparent that in a mixed setting perhaps other women of colour would have more urgent safety concerns that need addressing. But I only offer that as a point to chew over, not as a way to feel reluctant to express how unsafe you feel because there is no such thing as oppression Olympics.
posted by cendawanita at 7:46 PM on March 25 [28 favorites]
I'm thinking out loud towards eventual forum culture: for one thing i would really like people to move away from framing the matter that relates to Jewish politics or Palestinian life (please note my distinction) as "I/P" because it's a right-wing framing that makes the relationship between a colonizing state and an occupied one equal, and one we've conceded on.
I really think we can treat as irrelevant the matter of whether Israel has the right to exist (states don't have rights, people do; also, states exist until they don't, so yes Israel is a country. What animates any country's political systems is a matter for people who reside in the territory, so I'm disinterested or rather I'm as interested about it just like I am with Turkish politics) and instead work on separating out the country Israel, the occupation of Palestine, and the antisemitism faced by Jewish people wherever they are minorities.
Unfortunately the rightwing politics of Israel and the West makes it seem near-impossible but there has got to be a way that conflating what minoritarians face and what majoritarians do (even when they're conducted by the same person in different contexts, like a BIPOC American getting better treatment as a tourist overseas or as an expatriate than someone of similar ethnicity from a global south country for a mild example, or a Jewish-American who then serves in the IDF and committing actual war crimes for the most flagrant one) is flaggable forum behaviour that deserves a mod note.
I find VB's most recent FPP actually tried to keep its focus tight on American-only political antisemitism except the blind spot that also made it unable to capture how much institutional Jewish institutions have failed them through allying with rightwing politics in order to subdue anti-genocide protests (what more Palestinian statehood advocacy) because of the deliberate conflation of the mandate to protect minority rights with majoritarian politics and their attendant and necessary racism. A fact that's immediately identified from the first comment, but unfortunately this seemed to be an unacceptable point to make in their FPP. But without it, the matter will continue to be badly handled, where stochastic terrorism towards Jewish communities continue while Jewish institutions continue to advocate for policies that continue to harm members of said community, and yet there's no space to discuss either.
Because even as that is acknowledged, I need to ask, has anyone checked in with your western Muslim and Arab friends lately? Especially those under threat of deportations or outright physical harm such as permanent disability and death? Or something "milder" like loss of income from being fired? I know trying to balance different axes of oppression may be spectacularly hard but I need to ask this question because it seems like there's also a feeling of loss the way white women seem to have with feminism the moment it's apparent that in a mixed setting perhaps other women of colour would have more urgent safety concerns that need addressing. But I only offer that as a point to chew over, not as a way to feel reluctant to express how unsafe you feel because there is no such thing as oppression Olympics.
posted by cendawanita at 7:46 PM on March 25 [28 favorites]
So is this a thread about the non-posting of MeTas or a thread where we post what we would have said in the MeTas had they been posted?
posted by Bugbread at 7:49 PM on March 25 [11 favorites]
posted by Bugbread at 7:49 PM on March 25 [11 favorites]
It's true, I'm taking the early tangent - but I think this is one question that cannot depend on generalities. Are all fighty MeTas bad? It depends. Trying to only follow some kind of rule where a higher volume in sentiment is what disappears a comment or a post instead of the content has been what's driving most of mod actions that unnecessarily impacted minorities negatively.
posted by cendawanita at 7:55 PM on March 25 [7 favorites]
posted by cendawanita at 7:55 PM on March 25 [7 favorites]
So is this a thread about the non-posting of MeTas or a thread where we post what we would have said in the MeTas had they been posted?
I think the latter should wait until Violet Blue leads off with whatever the concerns were.
posted by NotLost at 7:56 PM on March 25 [1 favorite]
I think the latter should wait until Violet Blue leads off with whatever the concerns were.
posted by NotLost at 7:56 PM on March 25 [1 favorite]
Bugbread: As the poster of this MeTa, i don't care what people talk about in it as long as it's at least tangentially related, tbh. I think the entire situation is bullshit and the entire moderation staff needs to go away because i cannot see any conceivable path by which they could rebuild users' trust in their judgment.
posted by adrienneleigh at 7:57 PM on March 25 [4 favorites]
posted by adrienneleigh at 7:57 PM on March 25 [4 favorites]
Violet Blue's proposed MeTa wasn't posted because it was going to be another Israel/Palestine fight and we have plenty enough of those on the main site, we don't need to continue that on MeTa.
By all means disagree, argue, get heated, etc, etc. But having similar fights over the same issue rarely causes anyone to change their mind. We usually get messages or notes in flags about how people are sick of these sort of repeated arguments so we do keep that in mind.
So the mods discussed whether it should be posted and we agreed that there was no really good reason to do so.
I'm still committed to posting almost any MeTa that's submitted, but yeah, occasionally some may be denied.
posted by Brandon Blatcher (staff) at 7:58 PM on March 25 [5 favorites]
By all means disagree, argue, get heated, etc, etc. But having similar fights over the same issue rarely causes anyone to change their mind. We usually get messages or notes in flags about how people are sick of these sort of repeated arguments so we do keep that in mind.
So the mods discussed whether it should be posted and we agreed that there was no really good reason to do so.
I'm still committed to posting almost any MeTa that's submitted, but yeah, occasionally some may be denied.
posted by Brandon Blatcher (staff) at 7:58 PM on March 25 [5 favorites]
Again, there have been TWO MeTas in the past month that have not been posted. The other one is arguably moot, at this point, because of the account wipe, but this isn't a one-off, it's a pattern. And it's a pattern you explicitly dismissed as a problem literally a month and change ago.
posted by adrienneleigh at 7:59 PM on March 25 [4 favorites]
posted by adrienneleigh at 7:59 PM on March 25 [4 favorites]
IF any MeTas are denied posting at all, I think that should be able to be appealed to either a member of the board of directors, the full board, or the moderation oversight committee.
posted by NotLost at 8:01 PM on March 25 [7 favorites]
posted by NotLost at 8:01 PM on March 25 [7 favorites]
I think it would be helpful if the posts that dont make it through the queue are noted on the mod log.
posted by Sparky Buttons at 8:10 PM on March 25 [27 favorites]
posted by Sparky Buttons at 8:10 PM on March 25 [27 favorites]
The mods discussing whether a post should be posted is not the same as getting rid of the queue.
And I agree with cendawanita's comment. "Avoiding conflict" promotes a space in which pushing back against racism is swept under the rug.
posted by lapis at 8:10 PM on March 25 [9 favorites]
And I agree with cendawanita's comment. "Avoiding conflict" promotes a space in which pushing back against racism is swept under the rug.
posted by lapis at 8:10 PM on March 25 [9 favorites]
I think it would be helpful if the posts that dont make it through the queue are noted on the mod log.
Yes. Any MeTas that aren't immediately posted should be noted at the time received, with updates when any decisions are made, etc.
posted by NotLost at 8:14 PM on March 25 [6 favorites]
Yes. Any MeTas that aren't immediately posted should be noted at the time received, with updates when any decisions are made, etc.
posted by NotLost at 8:14 PM on March 25 [6 favorites]
Process question, asked because I have never encountered the situation myself: When it is decided, by whoever is modding MeTa at the time, that a queued MeTa post is not going to be posted, is that decision and the reason why communicated to the person who created the post (via MeMail or other communication method)? Because if not, it absolutely should be. #pleaseanswer
posted by pdb at 8:45 PM on March 25 [5 favorites]
posted by pdb at 8:45 PM on March 25 [5 favorites]
Not the same, but when my MeTas were delayed, that was communicated to me.
posted by NotLost at 8:58 PM on March 25
posted by NotLost at 8:58 PM on March 25
Thank you cendawanita.
posted by dusty potato at 9:06 PM on March 25 [7 favorites]
posted by dusty potato at 9:06 PM on March 25 [7 favorites]
We usually get messages or notes in flags about how people are sick of these sort of repeated arguments so we do keep that in mind.
If and when these issues have their own posts and threads, then people who are sick of the arguments can easily skip them.
posted by NotLost at 9:09 PM on March 25 [9 favorites]
If and when these issues have their own posts and threads, then people who are sick of the arguments can easily skip them.
posted by NotLost at 9:09 PM on March 25 [9 favorites]
Adding another "thank you" to cendawanita.
posted by mydonkeybenjamin at 9:51 PM on March 25 [4 favorites]
posted by mydonkeybenjamin at 9:51 PM on March 25 [4 favorites]
If and when these issues have their own posts and threads, then people who are sick of the arguments can easily skip them.
Makes sense on the Blue, but I thought part of the purpose of MetaTalk was to point to a sort of site consensus.
posted by mark k at 10:21 PM on March 25 [1 favorite]
Makes sense on the Blue, but I thought part of the purpose of MetaTalk was to point to a sort of site consensus.
posted by mark k at 10:21 PM on March 25 [1 favorite]
Then don't skip it. They just said "people who are sick of the arguments can easily skip them" not "must skip them."
posted by Bugbread at 10:43 PM on March 25 [3 favorites]
posted by Bugbread at 10:43 PM on March 25 [3 favorites]
Hell, weâve been told that even mods and board members arenât expected to read Metatalk, thereâs no reason any random member has to.
posted by bowbeacon at 3:58 AM on March 26 [4 favorites]
posted by bowbeacon at 3:58 AM on March 26 [4 favorites]
It's possible that the process should be changed to "posted but closed with deletion reason" rather than just not posted, because visibility has been such a huge issue. If something's a privacy issue or spam or whatever, that could be redacted with an explanation. That was the pre-queue system for handling MetaTalks like this one - MetaTalk is the only subsite that allows a post to be closed but still visible, and that was built that way specifically for transparency. Especially for a post like this - "my thread didn't go how I wanted so I want a do-over" MeTas are a terrible idea for a MetaTalk and always have been but there's absolutely zero need for people not to know one was submitted.
posted by restless_nomad (retired) at 6:10 AM on March 26 [28 favorites]
posted by restless_nomad (retired) at 6:10 AM on March 26 [28 favorites]
MeTas are a terrible idea for a MetaTalk ... .
How could you have MetaTalk without MeTas? Or did you mean something else?
posted by NotLost at 6:15 AM on March 26 [1 favorite]
How could you have MetaTalk without MeTas? Or did you mean something else?
posted by NotLost at 6:15 AM on March 26 [1 favorite]
"my thread didn't go how I wanted so I want a do-over" MeTas as one phrase :P
posted by restless_nomad (retired) at 6:22 AM on March 26 [8 favorites]
posted by restless_nomad (retired) at 6:22 AM on March 26 [8 favorites]
"posted but closed with deletion reason"
This would be some improvement, for sure. Wouldn't solve everything but it's a start.
posted by tiny frying pan at 6:28 AM on March 26 [3 favorites]
This would be some improvement, for sure. Wouldn't solve everything but it's a start.
posted by tiny frying pan at 6:28 AM on March 26 [3 favorites]
We usually get messages or notes in flags about how people are sick of these sort of repeated arguments so we do keep that in mind.
Out of interest, why do messages or notes in flags have more weight in the decision than (hypothetically) a MeTa that might be 90% decent discussion amid the fighty-ness? This isn't the first time the mod team have indicated that they place more weight on flags (or even favorites) than the actual experience of the post itself, which may be largely positive. A single flag or note seems to be enough to get rid of some comments, even if they have multiple positive or productive responses. Is it just me or is this an ongoing vibe?
posted by fight or flight at 6:54 AM on March 26 [6 favorites]
Out of interest, why do messages or notes in flags have more weight in the decision than (hypothetically) a MeTa that might be 90% decent discussion amid the fighty-ness? This isn't the first time the mod team have indicated that they place more weight on flags (or even favorites) than the actual experience of the post itself, which may be largely positive. A single flag or note seems to be enough to get rid of some comments, even if they have multiple positive or productive responses. Is it just me or is this an ongoing vibe?
posted by fight or flight at 6:54 AM on March 26 [6 favorites]
Just to clarify my position: "I don't like seeing this" with no rule breaking content as a flag shouldn't be enough to get rid of a post (or a comment), imho.
posted by fight or flight at 6:56 AM on March 26 [9 favorites]
posted by fight or flight at 6:56 AM on March 26 [9 favorites]
Mod note: Sparky Buttons: "I think it would be helpful if the posts that dont make it through the queue are noted on the mod log."
Agreed and it was requested back on March 22 that the moderation log on the new site record that information. Mentioning that to make it clear there's no objection to making that information visible, just no clear technical way at them moment, but restless_nomad has suggested a work around.
pdb: " is that decision and the reason why communicated to the person who created the post (via MeMail or other communication method)? Because if not, it absolutely should be. #pleaseanswer
"
Yes, the member is emailed the reason why it wasn't published. Both of the mentioned MeTas were emailed.
It's possible that the process should be changed to "posted but closed with deletion reason" rather than just not posted,
Decent idea, will talk it over with the other mods, thanks for suggesting it!
Out of interest, why do messages or notes in flags have more weight in the decision than (hypothetically) a MeTa that might be 90% decent discussion amid the fighty-ness?
They don't necessarily have more weight, it's very conditional. In this particular instance, I'm mentioning them as way that members have communicated, along with emails, what they think of particular situations.
posted by Brandon Blatcher (staff) at 7:17 AM on March 26 [1 favorite]
Agreed and it was requested back on March 22 that the moderation log on the new site record that information. Mentioning that to make it clear there's no objection to making that information visible, just no clear technical way at them moment, but restless_nomad has suggested a work around.
pdb: " is that decision and the reason why communicated to the person who created the post (via MeMail or other communication method)? Because if not, it absolutely should be. #pleaseanswer
"
Yes, the member is emailed the reason why it wasn't published. Both of the mentioned MeTas were emailed.
It's possible that the process should be changed to "posted but closed with deletion reason" rather than just not posted,
Decent idea, will talk it over with the other mods, thanks for suggesting it!
Out of interest, why do messages or notes in flags have more weight in the decision than (hypothetically) a MeTa that might be 90% decent discussion amid the fighty-ness?
They don't necessarily have more weight, it's very conditional. In this particular instance, I'm mentioning them as way that members have communicated, along with emails, what they think of particular situations.
posted by Brandon Blatcher (staff) at 7:17 AM on March 26 [1 favorite]
My rights versus yours. What if Iâm very interested in the topic (letâs say itâs a I/P) but I really donât like the tone in the thread? A meta is queued and not accepted because itâs going to be fighty and weâve done that before and we know how itâs going to go, so I have no recourse but to suck it up or just not read/participate in those threads. That seems somewhat dismissive to me.
Iâm pretty sure that my position on this in the past has been to get rid of the queue; I donât remember to be honest and itâs possible that Iâm reversing my position on this but I donât think so - it all gets posted and if rules are getting broken in a meta then act accordingly.
posted by ashbury at 7:22 AM on March 26 [3 favorites]
Iâm pretty sure that my position on this in the past has been to get rid of the queue; I donât remember to be honest and itâs possible that Iâm reversing my position on this but I donât think so - it all gets posted and if rules are getting broken in a meta then act accordingly.
posted by ashbury at 7:22 AM on March 26 [3 favorites]
gain, there have been TWO MeTas in the past month that have not been posted. The other one is arguably moot, at this point, because of the account wipe, but this isn't a one-off, it's a pattern. And it's a pattern you explicitly dismissed as a problem literally a month and change ago.
I would actually say the MeTa about running afoul of European laws is actually the more damning of the two to have not been let through.
The stated standard was something along the lines of anything that's not super fighty will be let through. You can make a pretty strong argument that Violet Blue's was going to be fighty just by you know, reading this conversation. Like, it's both true that AntiSemitic violence is on the rise in America, and that people are purposefully conflating calling out the actions of the Israeli government and military with being AntiSemitic as a way of deflecting criticism. This is a messy topic, with people having immediate and ongoing reasons to fear for their and their families lives. I'd say that regardless of how you feel about filtering to remove fighty MeTas, that one getting caught in the filter is the filter working as intended.
The other meta that didn't get let through, the stated reason for not letting it through was "we're talking about this with our lawyers". Which o.k, talk with lawyers is a smart move on legal matters, BUT that's not what we were told the queue was for.
Like, the mods could have let it through and closed it immediately with a mod note saying "we're talking about this with our lawyers, and will re-open this pending their advice." It's not like that is any less on the public record than saying that in another thread. If there's legal trouble, you can bet someone's going to do a search on all the comment made by the current staff and find either one. Or leave it open with that mod note at the beginning saying that until they hear back from the lawyers, they won't be commenting on that post. Either way would have been much more in line with THE STATED GUIDELINE. Or hell, they could make an announcement that due to an unforeseen complication you have to change that guideline to: no extra fighty Metas and no MeTas about ongoing legal issues. Most of us get that lawyers advise folks to not discuss stuff like that in public.
AS it stands folks can't be sure that what the mods say is the rule this week will be the rule two weeks from now, and that if it does change for some reason, that they'll tell us rather than hoping nobody notices.
posted by Gygesringtone at 8:04 AM on March 26 [10 favorites]
I would actually say the MeTa about running afoul of European laws is actually the more damning of the two to have not been let through.
The stated standard was something along the lines of anything that's not super fighty will be let through. You can make a pretty strong argument that Violet Blue's was going to be fighty just by you know, reading this conversation. Like, it's both true that AntiSemitic violence is on the rise in America, and that people are purposefully conflating calling out the actions of the Israeli government and military with being AntiSemitic as a way of deflecting criticism. This is a messy topic, with people having immediate and ongoing reasons to fear for their and their families lives. I'd say that regardless of how you feel about filtering to remove fighty MeTas, that one getting caught in the filter is the filter working as intended.
The other meta that didn't get let through, the stated reason for not letting it through was "we're talking about this with our lawyers". Which o.k, talk with lawyers is a smart move on legal matters, BUT that's not what we were told the queue was for.
Like, the mods could have let it through and closed it immediately with a mod note saying "we're talking about this with our lawyers, and will re-open this pending their advice." It's not like that is any less on the public record than saying that in another thread. If there's legal trouble, you can bet someone's going to do a search on all the comment made by the current staff and find either one. Or leave it open with that mod note at the beginning saying that until they hear back from the lawyers, they won't be commenting on that post. Either way would have been much more in line with THE STATED GUIDELINE. Or hell, they could make an announcement that due to an unforeseen complication you have to change that guideline to: no extra fighty Metas and no MeTas about ongoing legal issues. Most of us get that lawyers advise folks to not discuss stuff like that in public.
AS it stands folks can't be sure that what the mods say is the rule this week will be the rule two weeks from now, and that if it does change for some reason, that they'll tell us rather than hoping nobody notices.
posted by Gygesringtone at 8:04 AM on March 26 [10 favorites]
This is a scope problem. Youâre asking MetaTalk to discuss how to trust the mods that you donât trust. You canât deal with that problem here. Thatâs something you need to email the board about and they can act or not as they see fit.
Which is to say, Iâm sure youâre right that âMost of the people who post on the Grey . . . already have less than zero trust in the moderators' judgmentâ, but Iâm equally sure that most of the people who just read the Grey, like myself, think almost every MetaTalk is an instant shit-show due to too many active users being disinclined to debate in good faith and inclined to read every comment in the least generous way possible, and that most moderators decisions are good and rationale and that the ones that arenât ae easily explainable and understandable as mistakes, and that the huge effort the mods go to trying to make people happy is mostly wasted because people have decided that they wonât be happy with the mods no matter what.
More importantly, I see no contridction at all in the post at the top of this thread. The mods said they were only going to prevent fighty things coming though the queue and did that. VB raises an import and serious issue, in what is just about the least productive way possible, which is harmful not only to the serious and important issues they raise, but also harmful to the quality and enviroment of the site itself. âSomeone is wrong on the Internetâ presented as such, is not an issue that MetaTalk can fix, and VB does not seem to get that.
So my vote is that:
1) the item that didnât get through the queue was correctly moderated,
2) The promise about what would get through the queue was not violated, as the later deletion of an existing post was:
a) correctly done following established precedent,
b) mostly meaningless to all those posters opposed to it because they have multiple comments in the thread and can still find it easily if they want to, so that treating it as a major moderation failure is disingenuous.
posted by tiamat at 9:54 AM on March 26 [15 favorites]
Which is to say, Iâm sure youâre right that âMost of the people who post on the Grey . . . already have less than zero trust in the moderators' judgmentâ, but Iâm equally sure that most of the people who just read the Grey, like myself, think almost every MetaTalk is an instant shit-show due to too many active users being disinclined to debate in good faith and inclined to read every comment in the least generous way possible, and that most moderators decisions are good and rationale and that the ones that arenât ae easily explainable and understandable as mistakes, and that the huge effort the mods go to trying to make people happy is mostly wasted because people have decided that they wonât be happy with the mods no matter what.
More importantly, I see no contridction at all in the post at the top of this thread. The mods said they were only going to prevent fighty things coming though the queue and did that. VB raises an import and serious issue, in what is just about the least productive way possible, which is harmful not only to the serious and important issues they raise, but also harmful to the quality and enviroment of the site itself. âSomeone is wrong on the Internetâ presented as such, is not an issue that MetaTalk can fix, and VB does not seem to get that.
So my vote is that:
1) the item that didnât get through the queue was correctly moderated,
2) The promise about what would get through the queue was not violated, as the later deletion of an existing post was:
a) correctly done following established precedent,
b) mostly meaningless to all those posters opposed to it because they have multiple comments in the thread and can still find it easily if they want to, so that treating it as a major moderation failure is disingenuous.
posted by tiamat at 9:54 AM on March 26 [15 favorites]
If you read through my comments in recent MeTa's I think you'll find that more often than not, I come done on the Mods' side, or at least on the side that they're doing they're best in an impossible situation, and often argue against folks who say there's no way they can possibly be trusted.
And I agree with you that not allowing the VP post is enforcing the current rules as stated.
But like, what about the other post? There never was a post that made it through the queue about the possibility that the Mods notes on users might run afoul of specific European laws. It didn't happen. There was no discussion that was deleted or findable. Just someone saying "hey I thought we were letting almost all posts through, why not mine?" And, even the mods admit that the post was not fighty. We had just been told that the ONLY reason that things would not go through is if they were fighty, and it still didn't get posted.
I looked it up and, here is what were told about the queue, "Since December 24, 2024, the queue has been operating under the premise of just push anything through that isn't hugely fighty."
Here is the stated reason for not letting the GDPR post through, "Now, in this particular case, yes, I checked with both the team and the board given the importance of the subject and we all agreed this was the way to go, it's not even "no" for an answer, it's "give us some time to talk to a lawyer and figure out the best way to proceed" as I mentioned in my reply to anotherpanacea we're a small organization, with limited bandwidth, and we need to approach this with thought and care."
Those are very different things. As I've said many times, I'm o.k. with rules changing and evolving, but you have to acknowledge the fact that they're changing, and quite frankly the fact that nobody on the mod team ever hinted that they saw the contradiction is what feels so bad.
posted by Gygesringtone at 10:45 AM on March 26 [4 favorites]
And I agree with you that not allowing the VP post is enforcing the current rules as stated.
But like, what about the other post? There never was a post that made it through the queue about the possibility that the Mods notes on users might run afoul of specific European laws. It didn't happen. There was no discussion that was deleted or findable. Just someone saying "hey I thought we were letting almost all posts through, why not mine?" And, even the mods admit that the post was not fighty. We had just been told that the ONLY reason that things would not go through is if they were fighty, and it still didn't get posted.
I looked it up and, here is what were told about the queue, "Since December 24, 2024, the queue has been operating under the premise of just push anything through that isn't hugely fighty."
Here is the stated reason for not letting the GDPR post through, "Now, in this particular case, yes, I checked with both the team and the board given the importance of the subject and we all agreed this was the way to go, it's not even "no" for an answer, it's "give us some time to talk to a lawyer and figure out the best way to proceed" as I mentioned in my reply to anotherpanacea we're a small organization, with limited bandwidth, and we need to approach this with thought and care."
Those are very different things. As I've said many times, I'm o.k. with rules changing and evolving, but you have to acknowledge the fact that they're changing, and quite frankly the fact that nobody on the mod team ever hinted that they saw the contradiction is what feels so bad.
posted by Gygesringtone at 10:45 AM on March 26 [4 favorites]
The mod team, at the time, in post that may or may not have been deleted in the purge, indicated that the discussion would happen fairly soon. And then it just...didn't.
posted by bowbeacon at 10:58 AM on March 26 [1 favorite]
posted by bowbeacon at 10:58 AM on March 26 [1 favorite]
I thought the second post this was referencing was the post nouvelle-personae submitted to the MeTa queue (which was never posted, though someone did end up making a meta post after the original thread on the blue, which went sideways due to unequivocally bad mod decisions, started derailing discussion in unrelated MeTas, which also went sideways in no small part due to mod disengagement).
posted by knucklebones at 11:45 AM on March 26 [1 favorite]
posted by knucklebones at 11:45 AM on March 26 [1 favorite]
I thought the second post this was referencing
As I recall (now memory holed) about 200 comments in to his n-p/d_d retrospective thread, anotherpanacea dropped that he had submitted yet another MeTa about GDPR related privacy concerns, referencing the secret notes the mods keep on users that he had been made aware of via his brief stint on the oversight committee. I think he said something like the mods won't let this through the queue so I'm posting it here, and posted the text of that unreleased MeTa at the bottom of an already contentious but wholly unrelated MeTa. Then buttoned and wiped presumably after people called him out for being blatantly racist, but who knows maybe it was the refusal to put the privacy MeTa through the queue.
posted by phunniemee at 11:58 AM on March 26 [4 favorites]
As I recall (now memory holed) about 200 comments in to his n-p/d_d retrospective thread, anotherpanacea dropped that he had submitted yet another MeTa about GDPR related privacy concerns, referencing the secret notes the mods keep on users that he had been made aware of via his brief stint on the oversight committee. I think he said something like the mods won't let this through the queue so I'm posting it here, and posted the text of that unreleased MeTa at the bottom of an already contentious but wholly unrelated MeTa. Then buttoned and wiped presumably after people called him out for being blatantly racist, but who knows maybe it was the refusal to put the privacy MeTa through the queue.
posted by phunniemee at 11:58 AM on March 26 [4 favorites]
My deleted MetaTalk was about a comment that mocked the existence of Israel. As I said in the deleted post, itâs not the opinion that bothered me â we can agree to disagree â it was the disrespect.
Cendawandita makes a crucial point when she says mefites need to:
i_am_joe's_spleen more or less speaks for me on these issues toward the end of the Rogan thread:
First, he talks about his fear as a Jew and the kinds of conversations Jews canât have here:
As I said in the BIPOC thread, there was literally no other place to post at that point. How do the mods respond? Not privately, but publicly with threatened bans. Reread i_am_joe's_spleen, who is suddenly doubtful about spending more time here. On-going disrespect is infuriating, depressing â and ultimately alienating.
posted by Violet Blue at 12:10 PM on March 26 [1 favorite]
Cendawandita makes a crucial point when she says mefites need to:
⊠work on separating out the country Israel, the occupation of Palestine, and the antisemitism faced by Jewish people wherever they are minorities."Those two issues â disrespect and nonseparation â have been increasing issues for me especially as anti-Semitism has risen in the U.S.
i_am_joe's_spleen more or less speaks for me on these issues toward the end of the Rogan thread:
First, he talks about his fear as a Jew and the kinds of conversations Jews canât have here:
I just got back from a security committee meeting for my congregation.... There's no space for Jews to talk about our experience or our sense of fear and threat about things that are NOT about the state of Israel or the Zionist project or the malfeasance of the ADL or whatever. .... My worry is someone coming in with a semi-automatic and shooting up the [synagogue] like they did at the mosque a few kms away.Then, he talks about disagreement among Jews, and the conversations he would like to have, but, again, canât have here:
We can see in this discussion the deep rifts between Jews but much more a ton of (self)-righteous gentiles charging in with your reckons. I'd like to be able to talk about what the Rogan gateway means, or Snyder's take on who gets to define who's a Jew and what a good Jew is (and oh the irony visible in this discussion). But it's not going to happen because you won't let it happen.He concludes by summing up my feelings precisely.
I have given up hope on this post, and frankly as far as respect for Jews goes, on Metafilter. As the kids say, it is not a safe space. See you in a month or two, maybe.It doesnât bother me if the mods thought my post was too fighty. What does is the fact that they refused to communicate about it. Wiser mods might have asked me to rewrite the post. Wiser mods would encourage reasoned debate and respect throughout the site. But these mods don't do that. Instead, they take the easy route on a high horse: First they ignore me, and then they label the post fighty, me fighty, and conveniently dismiss me, the deleted post â and, crucially, the issues motivating it.
As I said in the BIPOC thread, there was literally no other place to post at that point. How do the mods respond? Not privately, but publicly with threatened bans. Reread i_am_joe's_spleen, who is suddenly doubtful about spending more time here. On-going disrespect is infuriating, depressing â and ultimately alienating.
posted by Violet Blue at 12:10 PM on March 26 [1 favorite]
You are boosting a quote where someone complains about:
a ton of (self)-righteous gentiles charging in with your reckons
yet you were full of (self)-righteous outrage when I implied that whether or not you are Jewish might be relevant to your (self)-appointed role in this conversation. A question that you won't answer, which is your prerogative, but tbh it's getting really weird.
posted by dusty potato at 12:25 PM on March 26 [3 favorites]
a ton of (self)-righteous gentiles charging in with your reckons
yet you were full of (self)-righteous outrage when I implied that whether or not you are Jewish might be relevant to your (self)-appointed role in this conversation. A question that you won't answer, which is your prerogative, but tbh it's getting really weird.
posted by dusty potato at 12:25 PM on March 26 [3 favorites]
It doesnât bother me if the mods thought my post was too fighty.
With respect: it really seems to, based on this thread and others.
What does is the fact that they refused to communicate about it.
How do the mods respond? Not privately
They didn't actually refuse to communicate about it, unless they lied in this comment. Are you saying that you did not get a communication from a mod when it was decided your MeTa was not going to be published?
posted by pdb at 12:26 PM on March 26 [3 favorites]
With respect: it really seems to, based on this thread and others.
What does is the fact that they refused to communicate about it.
How do the mods respond? Not privately
They didn't actually refuse to communicate about it, unless they lied in this comment. Are you saying that you did not get a communication from a mod when it was decided your MeTa was not going to be published?
posted by pdb at 12:26 PM on March 26 [3 favorites]
Are you saying that you did not get a communication from a mod when it was decided your MeTa was not going to be published?
Yes.
posted by Violet Blue at 12:35 PM on March 26
Yes.
posted by Violet Blue at 12:35 PM on March 26
Is there any serious reason to keep the queue at all? It's stated purpose was to manage the volume of posts and comments to be moderated, but that was in 2013 to early 2014 when a fighty month could see 60-80 posts to the grey and over 10k comments. In these quieter times, 20 posts and 2k comments seems the norm.
The workarounds seem to invite more problems. If someone posts a Metatalk thread and it's visible on MeTa but closed to comments then everyone who has a strong opinion about it is just going to go into the nearest open thread and derail that.
posted by Klipspringer at 12:35 PM on March 26 [2 favorites]
The workarounds seem to invite more problems. If someone posts a Metatalk thread and it's visible on MeTa but closed to comments then everyone who has a strong opinion about it is just going to go into the nearest open thread and derail that.
posted by Klipspringer at 12:35 PM on March 26 [2 favorites]
The community was pretty loud in speaking out against the queue 2 months ago, but Brandon overruled everyone and decided to stick with the queue.
posted by bowbeacon at 1:01 PM on March 26 [6 favorites]
posted by bowbeacon at 1:01 PM on March 26 [6 favorites]
So we've got Brandon saying "Yes, the member is emailed the reason why it wasn't published. Both of the mentioned MeTas were emailed" and Violet Blue saying "How do the mods respond? Not privately" and answering "Yes" when asked if she did not get a communication from a mod.
posted by Bugbread at 1:05 PM on March 26
posted by Bugbread at 1:05 PM on March 26
It's possible that the process should be changed to "posted but closed with deletion reason" rather than just not posted,
Decent idea, will talk it over with the other mods, thanks for suggesting it!
late to the party on this one but why is this a mod decision and not a board decision?
posted by crime online at 1:09 PM on March 26 [4 favorites]
Decent idea, will talk it over with the other mods, thanks for suggesting it!
late to the party on this one but why is this a mod decision and not a board decision?
posted by crime online at 1:09 PM on March 26 [4 favorites]
So we've got Brandon saying "Yes, the member is emailed the reason why it wasn't published. Both of the mentioned MeTas were emailed" and Violet Blue saying "How do the mods respond? Not privately" and answering "Yes" when asked if she did not get a communication from a mod.
To be very clear here: Violet Blue is accusing a mod/the mods of lying.
Mods: did you or did you not email/memail VB when you decided not to publish her MeTa? I don't know that a screenshot of an outbox or whatever is definitive proof, but someone of the two parties isn't being honest here, and at some point receipts are going to need to be shown.
#pleaseanswer
posted by pdb at 1:15 PM on March 26 [4 favorites]
To be very clear here: Violet Blue is accusing a mod/the mods of lying.
Mods: did you or did you not email/memail VB when you decided not to publish her MeTa? I don't know that a screenshot of an outbox or whatever is definitive proof, but someone of the two parties isn't being honest here, and at some point receipts are going to need to be shown.
#pleaseanswer
posted by pdb at 1:15 PM on March 26 [4 favorites]
Mods: did you or did you not email/memail VB when you decided not to publish her MeTa? I don't know that a screenshot of an outbox or whatever is definitive proof, but someone of the two parties isn't being honest here, and at some point receipts are going to need to be shown.
I am at this very moment looking in the admin outgoing box and yep, an email was sent on Mar 3, 2025, 9:07âŻPM ET to the email we have on file for Violet Blue and it was cc'd to main admin email.
posted by Brandon Blatcher (staff) at 1:26 PM on March 26 [6 favorites]
I am at this very moment looking in the admin outgoing box and yep, an email was sent on Mar 3, 2025, 9:07âŻPM ET to the email we have on file for Violet Blue and it was cc'd to main admin email.
posted by Brandon Blatcher (staff) at 1:26 PM on March 26 [6 favorites]
Violet Blue can you check what email address shows up as yours if you pretend to make a new Metatalk post? I learned very recently that the default email for my account is my personal email, and not MeMail (which I had assumed, since thatâs where I get notifications about my Asks).
That might be the disconnect.
posted by Vatnesine at 1:38 PM on March 26 [1 favorite]
That might be the disconnect.
posted by Vatnesine at 1:38 PM on March 26 [1 favorite]
I understand your reasoning, pdb, but I don't think it's helpful here.
Mefites regularly express surprise that mods use e-mail to communicate with them about site matters. They're expecting MeFi-related messages to come via MeMail, and may not check whichever e-mail address they used to sign up (possibly more than a decade ago).
I know that the mods have stated that it's easier for them to use regular e-mail, since it allows all mods to check the sent messages (and replies), so there's reasonable arguments both for and against.
posted by demi-octopus at 1:40 PM on March 26
Mefites regularly express surprise that mods use e-mail to communicate with them about site matters. They're expecting MeFi-related messages to come via MeMail, and may not check whichever e-mail address they used to sign up (possibly more than a decade ago).
I know that the mods have stated that it's easier for them to use regular e-mail, since it allows all mods to check the sent messages (and replies), so there's reasonable arguments both for and against.
posted by demi-octopus at 1:40 PM on March 26
I've just forwarded that email (via Gmail) to the address we have on file for Violet Blue, would recommend they check their spam folder.
Did a search through the mod's Gmail and can see Violet Blue has replied from that email address to several times, several times in February of 2025 and also in August of 2024.
posted by Brandon Blatcher (staff) at 1:41 PM on March 26 [5 favorites]
Did a search through the mod's Gmail and can see Violet Blue has replied from that email address to several times, several times in February of 2025 and also in August of 2024.
posted by Brandon Blatcher (staff) at 1:41 PM on March 26 [5 favorites]
I got an email at 4:35 today. I see nothing from March 3rd. I am not accusing the mods of lying. I am simply saying I did not receive it, which is different.
I will note in today's version, Loup told me the mods had concluded that they did not believe the issue I posted about was antisemitic and that they thought the thread would be fighty. They also offered to talk about it but, again, for whatever reason the email arrived today.
posted by Violet Blue at 1:44 PM on March 26
I will note in today's version, Loup told me the mods had concluded that they did not believe the issue I posted about was antisemitic and that they thought the thread would be fighty. They also offered to talk about it but, again, for whatever reason the email arrived today.
posted by Violet Blue at 1:44 PM on March 26
I will note in today's version...
Can you clarify what you mean by "today's version"? Is there another version of that email?
posted by Brandon Blatcher (staff) at 1:50 PM on March 26
Can you clarify what you mean by "today's version"? Is there another version of that email?
posted by Brandon Blatcher (staff) at 1:50 PM on March 26
I meant in the email I got today.
posted by Violet Blue at 1:52 PM on March 26
posted by Violet Blue at 1:52 PM on March 26
My deleted MetaTalk was about a comment that mocked the existence of Israel
There is no such comment in that thread, so it's not possible to tell what you're even talking about?
posted by Pseudonymous Cognomen at 2:11 PM on March 26
I would be curious to know what the mods consider antisemitism, but I'm not really asking because I don't really want to get into it.
So instead I'll ask if the mods have given any consideration as to how to create a safer more respectful space for Jewish mefites? As noted, to date I've seen no effort whatsoever.
posted by Violet Blue at 2:13 PM on March 26
So instead I'll ask if the mods have given any consideration as to how to create a safer more respectful space for Jewish mefites? As noted, to date I've seen no effort whatsoever.
posted by Violet Blue at 2:13 PM on March 26
The MetaTalk was not about the Rogan thread.
posted by Violet Blue at 2:18 PM on March 26
posted by Violet Blue at 2:18 PM on March 26
Pseudonymous Cognomen, the MetaTalk VB is talking about was from March 3rd ("an email was sent on Mar 3, 2025, 9:07âŻPM ET"), long before the Joe Rogan thread, which was posted on March 22 or 23 (depending on your time zone).
posted by Bugbread at 2:26 PM on March 26
posted by Bugbread at 2:26 PM on March 26
So instead I'll ask if the mods have given any consideration as to how to create a safer more respectful space for Jewish mefites? As noted, to date I've seen no effort whatsoever.
That's not even remotely what this MeTa is about. Please stop moving the goalposts.
posted by pdb at 2:31 PM on March 26 [2 favorites]
That's not even remotely what this MeTa is about. Please stop moving the goalposts.
posted by pdb at 2:31 PM on March 26 [2 favorites]
Moving the goal posts? Are you fucking serious? What is wrong with you people?
posted by Violet Blue at 2:34 PM on March 26
posted by Violet Blue at 2:34 PM on March 26
Violet Blue: "Moving the goal posts? Are you fucking serious? What is wrong with you people?"
Isnât the topic âRevisiting posts that disappear from the MeTa queue â and not Violet Blue: "I would be curious to know what the mods consider antisemitism, but I'm not really asking because I don't really want to get into it.
So instead I'll ask if the mods have given any consideration as to how to create a safer more respectful space for Jewish mefites? As noted, to date I've seen no effort whatsoever."
posted by ashbury at 3:15 PM on March 26
Isnât the topic âRevisiting posts that disappear from the MeTa queue â and not Violet Blue: "I would be curious to know what the mods consider antisemitism, but I'm not really asking because I don't really want to get into it.
So instead I'll ask if the mods have given any consideration as to how to create a safer more respectful space for Jewish mefites? As noted, to date I've seen no effort whatsoever."
posted by ashbury at 3:15 PM on March 26
I hasten to add that having a safer and more respectful space for Jewish mefites is a fantastic topic, by the way, but perhaps it should be its own meta.
posted by ashbury at 3:18 PM on March 26 [12 favorites]
posted by ashbury at 3:18 PM on March 26 [12 favorites]
I hasten to add that having a safer and more respectful space for Jewish mefites is a fantastic topic, by the way, but perhaps it should be its own meta.
Yes, but if recent history is any indication, the mods won't let it through the queue. Or at least, they won't if certain people try to post it.
Also, as the poster of this MeTa, i said this early on:
As the poster of this MeTa, i don't care what people talk about in it as long as it's at least tangentially related, tbh. I think the entire situation is bullshit
and as far as i'm concerned, that means VB's posts aren't a derail. (Nor are cendawanita's.)
(Again, i absolutely loathe VB and i don't make any effort to hide it, but she is as much a member of the community here as anyoneâmore than i am, really, by quite a bitâand that means she falls under the aegis of the bullet point i keep harping on, which is that the purpose of moderation is to enable community members to have the conversations they want to have.)
posted by adrienneleigh at 3:42 PM on March 26 [10 favorites]
Yes, but if recent history is any indication, the mods won't let it through the queue. Or at least, they won't if certain people try to post it.
Also, as the poster of this MeTa, i said this early on:
As the poster of this MeTa, i don't care what people talk about in it as long as it's at least tangentially related, tbh. I think the entire situation is bullshit
and as far as i'm concerned, that means VB's posts aren't a derail. (Nor are cendawanita's.)
(Again, i absolutely loathe VB and i don't make any effort to hide it, but she is as much a member of the community here as anyoneâmore than i am, really, by quite a bitâand that means she falls under the aegis of the bullet point i keep harping on, which is that the purpose of moderation is to enable community members to have the conversations they want to have.)
posted by adrienneleigh at 3:42 PM on March 26 [10 favorites]
yes, I don't see a way to keep clean and clearly demarcated lanes, the way things are going
I could be wrong!
the shape of what we are facing is both old, same as it ever was, and different. I agree with adrienneleigh's comment that we are here to have conversations. People can have pleasant conversations about dachshunds and Sloan, and unpleasant conversations about genocide and antisemitism, and hopefully it leads to action in the latter.
here's hoping
posted by ginger.beef at 4:10 PM on March 26 [1 favorite]
I could be wrong!
the shape of what we are facing is both old, same as it ever was, and different. I agree with adrienneleigh's comment that we are here to have conversations. People can have pleasant conversations about dachshunds and Sloan, and unpleasant conversations about genocide and antisemitism, and hopefully it leads to action in the latter.
here's hoping
posted by ginger.beef at 4:10 PM on March 26 [1 favorite]
There are various problems with MetaTalk. One of those, is that even in the best of circumstances, it's often hard to even know what's going on. Multiple things are going on, there's different tangents (not even thinking of derails, there's no summary, it's hard to tell who or how many people come down where on any given issue or position.
Seriously, maybe we should broaden this particular discussion to think about potentially better tools or processes. One simple idea that would involve some intelligent labor is for someone to summarize a thread every day or so. Building on that might be to help facilitate a thread toward a constructive conclusion. Things often just seem to either peter out or blow up more toward the end.
There are also a number of digital tools designed to move from conflict toward consensus. I have never used it, but I am familiar with pol.is, which has been used in Taiwan for civic engagement. If anyone is interested, I can look into more.
posted by NotLost at 4:24 PM on March 26 [2 favorites]
Seriously, maybe we should broaden this particular discussion to think about potentially better tools or processes. One simple idea that would involve some intelligent labor is for someone to summarize a thread every day or so. Building on that might be to help facilitate a thread toward a constructive conclusion. Things often just seem to either peter out or blow up more toward the end.
There are also a number of digital tools designed to move from conflict toward consensus. I have never used it, but I am familiar with pol.is, which has been used in Taiwan for civic engagement. If anyone is interested, I can look into more.
posted by NotLost at 4:24 PM on March 26 [2 favorites]
Mod note: If Violet Blue, or anyone else, wants to create a MeTa about anti semitism on MetaFilter and how to reduce it, that's totally fine, go for it. I recommend avoiding making it personal and please avoid trying to police the thread and arguing with everyone who disagrees with your (general your, not a specific person) point of view.
This thread should stick to discussion about moderation and the MeTa queue.
posted by Brandon Blatcher (staff) at 4:26 PM on March 26
This thread should stick to discussion about moderation and the MeTa queue.
posted by Brandon Blatcher (staff) at 4:26 PM on March 26
I think if you'd delete a queued MeTa post, if no queue existed, approve it and immediately delete it with a deletion log. I'm pretty sure I've seen MeTas posted and then immediately closed with a mod comment, I think? That'd be fine to keep doing for those too.
posted by skynxnex at 5:04 PM on March 26 [4 favorites]
posted by skynxnex at 5:04 PM on March 26 [4 favorites]
I, a Jew, would find threads relating to Judaism, the state of Israel, and/or antizionism a hell of a lot more pleasant if one troll wasn't allowed to take up all the air in the room speaking for Jews and making decrees about who gets to be a "real" Jew and who doesn't. (Spoiler: it depends on whether your politics align with theirs! If they don't, you're actually an antisemite!) At some point it should be clear that this user has a pathological need to center themself, and does this by hijacking causes and positions that provide reasonable cover of social justice advocacy. (Well, now they do; five years ago the positions were reactionary and conservative but their behavior and underlying goals were the same.)
In the olden days users who behaved like this got timeouts for the day, and were typically told to rein it in (or stay out of certain threads entirely) if they wanted to avoid a longer ban. If we can't have that, maybe we can all pledge to ignore the trolls by pretending we're already on the new site, making use of the user-blocking tools it'll offer.
posted by knucklebones at 5:44 PM on March 26 [9 favorites]
In the olden days users who behaved like this got timeouts for the day, and were typically told to rein it in (or stay out of certain threads entirely) if they wanted to avoid a longer ban. If we can't have that, maybe we can all pledge to ignore the trolls by pretending we're already on the new site, making use of the user-blocking tools it'll offer.
posted by knucklebones at 5:44 PM on March 26 [9 favorites]
"If Violet Blue, or anyone else, wants to create a MeTa about anti semitism on MetaFilter and how to reduce it, that's totally fine, go for it."
Just submitted one to the queue.
Antisemitism on MetaFilter and how to reduce it
How can we create a safer and more respectful space for Jewish MeFites?
posted by Jacqueline to Etiquette/Policy
posted by Jacqueline at 7:31 PM on March 26 [5 favorites]
Just submitted one to the queue.
How can we create a safer and more respectful space for Jewish MeFites?
posted by Jacqueline to Etiquette/Policy
posted by Jacqueline at 7:31 PM on March 26 [5 favorites]
Published!
posted by Brandon Blatcher (staff) at 9:28 PM on March 26 [3 favorites]
posted by Brandon Blatcher (staff) at 9:28 PM on March 26 [3 favorites]
If anyone else wants to post a MetaTalk about something but you are worried that coming from you it will automatically be perceived as "fighty" because of your prior site history on the topic, please feel free to MeMail me if you'd like me to post a bland MetaTalk on your behalf to open the discussion space.
I don't like the queue either, but I'm willing to meet the mods where they're at while so many things continue to be in transition.
posted by Jacqueline at 9:48 PM on March 27 [2 favorites]
I don't like the queue either, but I'm willing to meet the mods where they're at while so many things continue to be in transition.
posted by Jacqueline at 9:48 PM on March 27 [2 favorites]
Man, you're willing to fall on that sword! When BB first suggested someone posting a Meta, I considered doing it as a neutral third-party, but you did it before I had the chance. After seeing the reaction you're getting, I was thinking "I dodged a bullet there," but here you are saying "Hey, if y'all need me to jump in front of any other bullets, just give me a holler."
posted by Bugbread at 9:53 PM on March 27 [3 favorites]
posted by Bugbread at 9:53 PM on March 27 [3 favorites]
but here you are saying "Hey, if y'all need me to jump in front of any other bullets, just give me a holler."
lol i literally told my shrink earlier this week "I think perhaps my anti-anxiety meds are working TOO well" because i have dissociated from reality to the point of being completely unbothered by anything and everything
posted by Jacqueline at 10:18 PM on March 27 [5 favorites]
lol i literally told my shrink earlier this week "I think perhaps my anti-anxiety meds are working TOO well" because i have dissociated from reality to the point of being completely unbothered by anything and everything
posted by Jacqueline at 10:18 PM on March 27 [5 favorites]
Brandon Blatcher: "I'm still committed to posting almost any MeTa that's submitted, but yeah, occasionally some may be denied."
Brandon Blatcher: " there's no objection to making that information visible, just no clear technical way at them moment,"
I know that Brandon decided on behalf of the foundation that MeTa posts will continue to be queued and filtered, but I wish the consistent noise before and since that decision saying it was not what the community wants (not saying this is true of every individual) had convinced them this was not the most correct decision. The belief that members are being refused the ability to bring issues up with the community and the hiding from the community of any context as to why continues to create unnecessary friction. It's perfectly OK that a decision made in the past doesn't have to be cast in stone and to decide, on further reflection, that a different decision is now the correct one.
There is a very clear and simple technical way to 'make that information visible' - immediately publish every submitted MeTa, even if it is immediately closed with a mod note saying why. If you make a decision, stand by that decision and, if you don't feel you can provide a coherent and logical reason for closing a discussion down, maybe rethink the decision?
posted by dg at 4:54 PM on March 30 [1 favorite]
Brandon Blatcher: " there's no objection to making that information visible, just no clear technical way at them moment,"
I know that Brandon decided on behalf of the foundation that MeTa posts will continue to be queued and filtered, but I wish the consistent noise before and since that decision saying it was not what the community wants (not saying this is true of every individual) had convinced them this was not the most correct decision. The belief that members are being refused the ability to bring issues up with the community and the hiding from the community of any context as to why continues to create unnecessary friction. It's perfectly OK that a decision made in the past doesn't have to be cast in stone and to decide, on further reflection, that a different decision is now the correct one.
There is a very clear and simple technical way to 'make that information visible' - immediately publish every submitted MeTa, even if it is immediately closed with a mod note saying why. If you make a decision, stand by that decision and, if you don't feel you can provide a coherent and logical reason for closing a discussion down, maybe rethink the decision?
posted by dg at 4:54 PM on March 30 [1 favorite]
The whole MeTa thread queue thing has got to 'Americans will use anything but the metric system' levels of nonsense. Just pull the plug on it.
posted by dg at 10:07 PM on March 30 [1 favorite]
posted by dg at 10:07 PM on March 30 [1 favorite]
You are not logged in, either login or create an account to post comments
posted by phunniemee at 7:45 PM on March 25 [8 favorites]