Is MetafilterSelf-Policing?

January 25, 2005 6:47 AM

There's been an awful lot of talk about levels of enforcement on MeFi of late, it seems, and it occurs to me that we maybe need to come up with more constructive means of dealing with the issues. [MI]
posted by ChrisR to MetaFilter-Related at 6:47 AM (34 comments total)

In the thread on the latest poking at the tagging system, rushmc made a very interesting point about enforcement. Matt really does run this site with a very gentle hand a significant fraction of the time, and I think that he generally does a pretty good job. There are outstanding issues, to be sure (the incredible disappearing comments come to mind) but on the whole it seems to work well. Something that really stood out from the discussion I've cited above, though, is the comment that Matt expects "longtime users to act like adults every once in a while," which you would think would be a reasonable thing to do.

I'd like to go on record, as a non-longtime user as saying that the reason I've lurked on MeFi for years (Had no credit card for the last round of signups) has been because of the generally adult behaviour of the longtime members. Although rushmc makes a decent point about the erratic enforcement, I would argue that it shouldn't have to be consistent. Rather, the community as a whole should know better than to push just because Matt has better things to do with his time. It also seems to me that this worked way better before the round of new user signups that allowed me onto the site.

It feels odd to be saying "Things were better in the old days" when I'm not an old-timer, but that's kind of the way I feel too. The thing is, I feel that way about the old-timers as much as the new ones. The callouts and rudeness that infected the blue have died down, but it seems that any change to the system -- be it the addition of hordes of screaming monke... erm, new users, or a nice new pony like the tagging system -- seems to upset the precarious balance of the community, and it's kind of disappointing.

That being said, don't take away the tags!

What I think MeFi needs is not more consistent enforcement, unless it's generally less, but rather to grow up and realize that we shouldn't need it. Although I'm sure we're not all adults here, is it really too much to ask that we act like them on the blue, green and grey? Why should we need #1 to step in? <plaintive>Why can't we all just get along?</plaintive>

I'm not offering solutions because I don't know what would work. But I'm sure there are reasonable people here who may have some suggestions that could realistically be implemented, and I'd like to see what they have to say.
posted by ChrisR at 6:47 AM on January 25, 2005

we need a republic of democracy
posted by Hands of Manos at 7:17 AM on January 25, 2005

Matt's pimp hand is strong.
posted by birdherder at 7:41 AM on January 25, 2005

So you want Metafilter to be an adult site? But then I couldn't read it at work...
posted by rocketman at 7:42 AM on January 25, 2005

I vote for a benevolent dictatorship, with occasional quirkiness.
posted by ackptui at 7:43 AM on January 25, 2005

I agree, ChrisR - I don't really understand what has happened. Until sometime in 2004, even with the fooling around, it still seemed mostly like smart adult people fooling around. These days it's more and more kiddie stuff, which, for me, is disappointing and boring.
posted by taz at 7:47 AM on January 25, 2005

My suggestion is that it ain't broke, and doesn't need fixin'. Let Matt continue to play the benevolent dictator, taking into account the poster's history, the content of the message, what he had for lunch, whether it's rainy or sunny, whether the sun is rising in Capricorn, or whatever.

But if the future is standards and enforcement, I'd start with the following:

• Issue a list of MeFi infractions. I suggest that they include: Ad hominem attacks, doubleposts that should have been caught, comments unrelated to the post, AskMe answers unrelated to the question, and actions deliberately taken to misuse a feature -- whether the intent is humor or malice -- that cost Matt time (*cough* HTML tags *cough*).
• Implement a "warning" system visible to the user that can go up in, say, 25% increments for each infraction. After that, the person is banned, permanently.
• Make clear that Matt is the sole and final aribter of whether infractions have been committed, that the issue will not be open for public debate, and that any appeals to MeTa will be immediately deleted. The last thing you need is lawyer-like debates over the meaning of certain terms ("How can you say I 'should have known' not to post the vibrating broomstick? It was last posted more than a year ago!")

Again, I don't think this is necessary, but maybe it would comfort the people who feel they need to be specifically told how to behave in an online community.
posted by pardonyou? at 7:54 AM on January 25, 2005

I like the list of infractions idea, and would add "pursuing a personal grudge/vendetta across multiple threads." Not that we've ever seen that.
posted by LarryC at 7:58 AM on January 25, 2005

Make clear that Matt is the sole and final aribter of whether infractions have been committed, that the issue will not be open for public debate, and that any appeals to MeTa will be immediately deleted.

I thought this was already pretty clear. We can debate all we want, but I don't think I have ever seen comments or threads restored.
posted by Quartermass at 8:19 AM on January 25, 2005

Rather, the community as a whole should know better than to push just because Matt has better things to do with his time.

And we should all be issued checks for $5000 each month for our contributions. However, in the real world, there will always be a few individuals who do not know how to behave/control themselves who, unchecked, will cause problems for the well-behaved majority. It is this disruptive subset of members which has to be dealt with in some fashion.

It also seems to me that this worked way better before the round of new user signups that allowed me onto the site.

I assure you, it didn't.

We can debate all we want, but I don't think I have ever seen comments or threads restored.

It has happened.
posted by rushmc at 8:33 AM on January 25, 2005

I don't think rules and standards are a good idea, past already established things like self-links. Why? Because rules breed loopholes. Assholes are always going to be assholes. Why give them a roadmap?
posted by shawnj at 8:34 AM on January 25, 2005

I thought this was already pretty clear. We can debate all we want...

My suggestion was to get rid of the debate. The "Why was my thread deleted?" / "Why was X banned?" / "Please ban Y" threads don't serve any purpose but provide a forum for bickering. If Matt truly is the sole and final arbiter, there's nothing to debate.
posted by pardonyou? at 8:52 AM on January 25, 2005

..and Don't Be A Dick shall be the whole of the Law.
posted by robocop is bleeding at 9:15 AM on January 25, 2005

I'm on another board where the overriding rule #1 is "Don't be a jerk". It seems to cover most loopholes.
posted by smackfu at 9:21 AM on January 25, 2005

...pursuing a personal grudge/vendetta across multiple threads...

In my experience, that sort of behavior usually increases as a community gets older. It can take years to work up a really good grudge, after all.
posted by nebulawindphone at 9:37 AM on January 25, 2005

It's like 'death by cop' for the online community.
posted by orange clock at 11:19 AM on January 25, 2005

Maybe 'suicide by cop.' Or 'victim precipitated homicide.'
posted by orange clock at 11:21 AM on January 25, 2005

Metafilter: Don't be a dick (but if you are one, you'll probably get away with it, depending on user number and history?)
posted by amberglow at 11:30 AM on January 25, 2005

Maybe Matt should appoint somebody, who is both trusted and has more free time, to deal with day to day lameness -- things that are obviously undesirable, etc. A sort of MeFi cop: someone who doesn't make policy, but just enforces it for trivial scenarios.
Or not. Just a thought.
posted by Mark Doner at 11:53 AM on January 25, 2005

Why's that a problem? If new users gets turfed, they haven't lost much more than their five bucks. It's no great tragedy for them to start over with a new account and a clean slate. Banning is a much more serious punishment for those with long histories.
posted by timeistight at 11:53 AM on January 25, 2005

Mark, User #1 has asked User #292 to help out.

Meanwhile, I recommend that other MeFites sign up a politeness cop userid and use it to request civility in threads. I prefer self-policing as a different persona than my usual MeFi id.

And don't think I won't ground you.
posted by Mom at 12:55 PM on January 25, 2005

"A sort of MeFi cop"

A majority of the problems originate by infantile, self righteous, single issue oriented "MeFi cops" who strut about pontificating with the presumption that they have the ownership on to what and how should be posted.

Otherwise, as usual, what taz said.
posted by semmi at 3:38 PM on January 25, 2005

Semmi, I guess that's a side effect of the so-called 'self-policing' thing, which IMHO has failed. If there were actual written rules and somebody whose role it was to enforce those rules consistently, we could rid ourselves of all the extraneous "MeFi cops" you speak of.
posted by Mark Doner at 4:03 PM on January 25, 2005

If there were actual written rules and somebody whose role it was to enforce those rules consistently, we could rid ourselves of all the extraneous "MeFi cops" you speak of.

Like speed limits stop speeders; harsh DUI punishments stop drunk drivers; ridiculous drug laws curbing pot consumption; a gigantic IRS stopping a large minority of tax-cheats, etc, etc, etc.

The problem isn't the lack of codified rules; it's people who abuse this site, people who overreact to the abuse on this site, and a very light-touch moderator. In other words, US. WE are the problem. And until we take some personal responsibility, the site won't change. How do you code personal responsibility? How do you code manners, civility, and intelligence?
posted by BlueTrain at 4:46 PM on January 25, 2005

Part of that came off a bit harsh; I love Matt's involvement in this site. Always have. But my consistent view has been that perhaps this site needs a bit moderation. I'm glad that you're getting help, Matt, and quite frankly, I can't think of a single user on this site I'd trust more with the task than jessamyn. She's consistently intelligent and level-headed, something that very few of us can claim.

But the bottom line, Mark Doner, is that a few obvious members are abusing this site, and countless others constantly interject annoying one-liners. And you can't code them to stop. No "rules" are going to change these people's behavior. I don't care about double posts or self- links; that'll happen sometimes. But what really pisses me off is the constant disrespect some users display here. Perhaps this site does take itself too seriously at times; if you don't like that, find another watering hole. Quit using your "humor" to make this place better. Quit making people's comments so personal.

I wish I had time to comment more often. I do miss the intelligent banter.
posted by BlueTrain at 5:28 PM on January 25, 2005

One could stop them by deleting their accounts. Or just a few of them, to wake the others up. Yes, it's harsh to delete the account of someone who's been here for years, but at some point the undesirable behavior has to be countered in some suitably effective manner.

Speed limits may not stop speeders, but other methods are more effective in other situations. Towing somebody's car from a red zone clears the obstruction, and a hefty fee to get the car out of impound convinces that person, at least, not to park in the red again.

"Self-policing" is based in the idea that the users on this site want to be accepted and respected by the other members. In some prominent cases, this clearly does not hold. Without social consequences to stand in the way, there is no reason not to use this site a personal soapbox for whatever rants or shenanigans one may wish to inflict on those who read the site. Sure, your post or comment may get deleted, but not until the relevant authorities get around to it, and by then many will have read it; Repeat ad nauseam. However, banning the user (harsh as that may be) takes the soapbox away, and if they want to use it they'll have to play by the rules.
posted by Mark Doner at 6:27 PM on January 25, 2005

How can I say this in an adult way?

Everything in this post and the [MI] has been said a thousand times, and, far from offering any suggestions about how to get from point A to point B, merely laments that we should be at point B already. That just isn't very helpful, and in fact winds up being a bit of a whinge.
posted by scarabic at 10:16 PM on January 25, 2005

1. Debate.

2. ??????

3. Civility!
posted by mono blanco at 10:47 PM on January 25, 2005

What about some kind of a karma/moderating system? I remember hearing that a redesign is in the works, and wouldn't that be the best time to implement something like this? I am honestly amazed at how civil metafilter is, its like a secret oasis of serenity in the interdesert. I think as the size grows however, it seems reasonable to hand over some level of control to the userbase that is the lifeblood of this site.
I've got nothing but respect for Matt, but shouldn't he get a break from dealing with the issues of impoper/inappropriate posting?

Grant anyone in the top 100 for FPP or comments moderator status, able to vote a post up/down and maybe 10 votes together to delete it. Could this be done with the database? Im not sure but i would guess so.
posted by sophist at 10:51 PM on January 25, 2005

I still think that things will settle down sooner or later.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 2:02 AM on January 26, 2005

scarabic, I acknowledge that there isn't much in the way of a solution in this post, which isn't too surprising given the divided nature of the issue -- on the one hand there's a drive to tout increased and more consistent moderation, a push that I'll confess I'm against, and on the other, well, personal responsibility.

The latter is something that cannot be brought about by demanding it, or flat-out stating it as a solution to the problem, but rather the people who are issues must come to feel that things need to change on their own. I hope that postings like this might prod at least one of them to re-examine their behaviour through the lens of "the site as community" and realize that their behaviour is not benefitting them by virtue of harming the site.
posted by ChrisR at 7:34 AM on January 26, 2005

How do you code personal responsibility? How do you code manners, civility, and intelligence?

History suggests that banishment is the only solution that works against those who repeatedly and willfully transgress the community standards.
posted by rushmc at 8:51 AM on January 26, 2005

the people who are issues must come to feel that things need to change on their own. I hope that postings like this might prod at least one of them to re-examine their behaviour

Therein lies the contradiction I'm trying to point out. You can't make people change on their own, just like you can't install democracy by force. There is something called a "definition."

Fine intentions, though. Not knocking you.
posted by scarabic at 12:29 PM on January 26, 2005

I agree with scarabic here. While it would certainly be nice if nobody ever posted bad comments (or FPPs) we can't rely on that to happen.

Right now we have a Self-Proclaimed Monarchy

It seems logical that as this site grows, power may need to be redistributed to maintain law & order. I noticed Matt added another person to moderate recently, mostly in the AskMe section and it seems to have made a noticeable change already.
posted by sophist at 10:06 PM on January 29, 2005