Removing the MetaTalk queue June 10, 2025 9:31 AM Subscribe
Hey y’all,
We’re turning off the queue in MetaTalk based on community feedback. For the past few weeks, we’ve been approving everything that’s been posted to the queue and intend to get rid of the queue by Friday. This means two major things:
Submissions to MetaTalk will go live immediately with no need of mod approval
There will be no limit to how often a member can post to MetaTalk. This was done after Kybard needed access more often to post updates about the new site and possibly the Moderation Oversight Committee. If the community decides a limit would be beneficial, one could be implemented.
With that change comes the question of how the community, both members and mods, will interact in the subsite.
MetaTalk has traditionally been lightly moderated, as it’s intended to be a place where the community talks about the site itself and/or to each other.
MeTa has also been a subsite where discussions can and do become more heated.
As we move towards a more community-driven site and community-owned model, we'd like to hear from the community about your preferences for moderating this section of the site. We're exploring what "lightly moderated" means in practice. When would moderation intervention be most helpful? What kinds of discussions and conduct should MetaTalk accommodate that might have different guidelines than other parts of the site? Are there any other things that should be considered with this change?
Summing things up:
MetaTalk has traditionally been lightly moderated, as it’s intended to be a place where the community talks about the site itself and/or to each other.
MeTa has also been a subsite where discussions can and do become more heated.
As we move towards a more community-driven site and community-owned model, we'd like to hear from the community about your preferences for moderating this section of the site. We're exploring what "lightly moderated" means in practice. When would moderation intervention be most helpful? What kinds of discussions and conduct should MetaTalk accommodate that might have different guidelines than other parts of the site? Are there any other things that should be considered with this change?
Summing things up:
- There is currently no limit on the number of MetaTalk posts that a user can make. Previously it was only once every seven days
- At some point on this coming Friday, the queue will be turned off and MetaTalk posts will no longer require any approval at all
- We are asking the community about what, if anything, needs to change in terms of how members use MetaTalk and/or how it is moderated
Thank you for listening to community feedback on this and removing the queue! I like that this post gives context and a timeline for implementation and a few days notice.
As far as moderator engagement… I think it’d also be helpful to clarify “moderator/staff” vs “board” engagement. Lately we have had a lot of Metatalk topics for board review, and I think it’s fair to recognize that mods shouldn’t be expected to respond to those (although I do think the mods could perhaps be asked to support the board in reviewing/responding, assuming that’s an option with given resources and if that’s what the board + mods agree upon).
posted by samthemander at 10:00 AM on June 10 [9 favorites]
As far as moderator engagement… I think it’d also be helpful to clarify “moderator/staff” vs “board” engagement. Lately we have had a lot of Metatalk topics for board review, and I think it’s fair to recognize that mods shouldn’t be expected to respond to those (although I do think the mods could perhaps be asked to support the board in reviewing/responding, assuming that’s an option with given resources and if that’s what the board + mods agree upon).
posted by samthemander at 10:00 AM on June 10 [9 favorites]
I’d like to see everyone acting in an official capacity have a “staff” or “board” tag on their username.
In most cases I don’t think deletion should be used in MetaTalk.
posted by Miko at 10:18 AM on June 10 [15 favorites]
In most cases I don’t think deletion should be used in MetaTalk.
posted by Miko at 10:18 AM on June 10 [15 favorites]
This is a terrible idea, as this past weekend showed.
posted by NotMyselfRightNow at 10:26 AM on June 10 [9 favorites]
posted by NotMyselfRightNow at 10:26 AM on June 10 [9 favorites]
In my perfect world, I’d want a filter that lets me see MeTa posts that are 1) about board/site business or 2) about the death of a user, but not see the rest of it. I don’t know how feasible this is.
posted by eirias at 10:41 AM on June 10 [2 favorites]
posted by eirias at 10:41 AM on June 10 [2 favorites]
So as not to abuse the edit window I’ll add separately that the link I see between what I want and this site change is that I anticipate more noise, specifically more noise that weakens my interest in being part of the community, which is a problem since this is where all the community-oriented stuff belongs.
posted by eirias at 10:44 AM on June 10 [2 favorites]
posted by eirias at 10:44 AM on June 10 [2 favorites]
If you still intend to remove the queue, then MetaTalk cannot be "lightly moderated" anymore. It will have to be moderated at least to the same amount as the main site, and probably moreso because everyone who posts here will be asking a question where some kind of input from the board or the moderators is requested. Some questions will be asked that only a mod or a board member can answer. Members of the Moderation Oversight may also have follow-up questions which should be asked and answered publicly.
By removing the queue, you're signaling a return to the "high-touch" mod style that cortex moved away from back in the day, since you're giving up the opportunity for MeTa quality control on the intake. Therefore you'll need to compensate in the output. One or several mods should commit to reading MeTa, watching for flags, and responding to requests for answers. (This will become easier the sooner you admit the inevitability of volunteer moderators.)
Establish a clear signal that can go in MeTa comments -- something like the #PleaseAnswer or choose something else that you can easily search for -- and commit to giving responses within a pre-determined, responsible timeframe. Even if the answer is "I don't know. In order to answer I need info X Y Z and it will take me a few more days".
posted by The Pluto Gangsta at 10:44 AM on June 10 [13 favorites]
By removing the queue, you're signaling a return to the "high-touch" mod style that cortex moved away from back in the day, since you're giving up the opportunity for MeTa quality control on the intake. Therefore you'll need to compensate in the output. One or several mods should commit to reading MeTa, watching for flags, and responding to requests for answers. (This will become easier the sooner you admit the inevitability of volunteer moderators.)
Establish a clear signal that can go in MeTa comments -- something like the #PleaseAnswer or choose something else that you can easily search for -- and commit to giving responses within a pre-determined, responsible timeframe. Even if the answer is "I don't know. In order to answer I need info X Y Z and it will take me a few more days".
posted by The Pluto Gangsta at 10:44 AM on June 10 [13 favorites]
We are asking the community about what, if anything, needs to change in terms of how members use MetaTalk and/or how it is moderated
Let's forget the history of MetaTalk, and stop using that history as an excuse for "heated" behavior. Let's have moderation that increases the value of our conversations, rather than the kind that steps away from pile-ons because MetaTalk has traditionally been more fighty. Everyone doesn't need a hug, but they do need a space where they can talk about this site they care about, in a way that they won't end up feeling so hounded or dismal or hopeless that they leave.
posted by mittens at 10:53 AM on June 10 [21 favorites]
Let's forget the history of MetaTalk, and stop using that history as an excuse for "heated" behavior. Let's have moderation that increases the value of our conversations, rather than the kind that steps away from pile-ons because MetaTalk has traditionally been more fighty. Everyone doesn't need a hug, but they do need a space where they can talk about this site they care about, in a way that they won't end up feeling so hounded or dismal or hopeless that they leave.
posted by mittens at 10:53 AM on June 10 [21 favorites]
By removing the queue, you're signaling a return to the "high-touch" mod style that cortex moved away from back in the day, since you're giving up the opportunity for MeTa quality control on the intake
I think this is what you meant, but for clarity: what used to be the case before loup and the latter days of cortex was that MetaTalk was extremely lightly moderated in terms of comment deletions; the bar was significantly higher for deletion than in any other part of the site, and it almost never happened. (If I recall correctly the bar was violent threats towards users.) But the flip side was that MetaTalk was intensively moderated in terms of mods actually participating in threads, especially argumentative ones and policy-oriented ones. It was more common than not for all the mods, and sometimes even pb, to engage actively in those discussions, both in terms of discussing content and in terms of moderating it, telling people to back off when necessary, etc.. Sometimes they even had different points of view and hashed it out as the thread went on.
I don't think that removal of the queue necessarily demands quite that level of engagement (I think the health of the site demands something much much closer to it than we have now, but that's unrelated to the queue). I do think that it means that someone's got to be keeping a closer eye on what posts are coming in and doing some real moderation where necessary. For example, if mods believe there should be a very high bar for doing something as contentious and aggressive as posting a user-specific callout thread, then they should be stating that clearly and either making sure the discussion somehow has value and isn't a mobbing, or closing the thread.
I wanted to clarify this because it wasn't that long ago that we saw multiple mods deleting comments purely because they were critical of the site, and using justifications like "they contained profanity!" or "they insulted the mods!", and that specific kind of high-touch moderation needs to not happen.
I would like to see moderators participate in the discussion more, acting like part of the community, rather than a force outside of it.
Cosigned a thousand times, except that it should be "moderators and the board".
posted by trig at 11:26 AM on June 10 [30 favorites]
I think this is what you meant, but for clarity: what used to be the case before loup and the latter days of cortex was that MetaTalk was extremely lightly moderated in terms of comment deletions; the bar was significantly higher for deletion than in any other part of the site, and it almost never happened. (If I recall correctly the bar was violent threats towards users.) But the flip side was that MetaTalk was intensively moderated in terms of mods actually participating in threads, especially argumentative ones and policy-oriented ones. It was more common than not for all the mods, and sometimes even pb, to engage actively in those discussions, both in terms of discussing content and in terms of moderating it, telling people to back off when necessary, etc.. Sometimes they even had different points of view and hashed it out as the thread went on.
I don't think that removal of the queue necessarily demands quite that level of engagement (I think the health of the site demands something much much closer to it than we have now, but that's unrelated to the queue). I do think that it means that someone's got to be keeping a closer eye on what posts are coming in and doing some real moderation where necessary. For example, if mods believe there should be a very high bar for doing something as contentious and aggressive as posting a user-specific callout thread, then they should be stating that clearly and either making sure the discussion somehow has value and isn't a mobbing, or closing the thread.
I wanted to clarify this because it wasn't that long ago that we saw multiple mods deleting comments purely because they were critical of the site, and using justifications like "they contained profanity!" or "they insulted the mods!", and that specific kind of high-touch moderation needs to not happen.
I would like to see moderators participate in the discussion more, acting like part of the community, rather than a force outside of it.
Cosigned a thousand times, except that it should be "moderators and the board".
posted by trig at 11:26 AM on June 10 [30 favorites]
Your job is thankless. I don't know why you put up with the abuse. I know that I couldn't.
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 11:31 AM on June 10 [12 favorites]
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 11:31 AM on June 10 [12 favorites]
Cosigned a thousand times, except that it should be "moderators and the board".
I accept your amendment and support it in return.
posted by jacquilynne at 11:36 AM on June 10 [2 favorites]
I accept your amendment and support it in return.
posted by jacquilynne at 11:36 AM on June 10 [2 favorites]
It seemed like the justification for getting rid of the queue was that the mods weren't participating in MeTa anyway, so the queue was serving only to suppress posts critical of moderator actions.
I agree that in an ideal world, mods and board members would be participating here a lot, and that deletions and such wouldn't happen much because the moderation would be happening through conversation, not deletion.
In this world, however, I think there's a case to be made for everyone just assuming that the mods are not actually reading or moderating MetaTalk, since they really haven't been for however many years at this point.
I do think there needs to be a major exception for MeTas that attack other users. I don't believe in deleting stuff, but closing threads should be an option if they're going after other users (not if they're going after moderation decisions).
posted by lapis at 11:40 AM on June 10 [12 favorites]
I agree that in an ideal world, mods and board members would be participating here a lot, and that deletions and such wouldn't happen much because the moderation would be happening through conversation, not deletion.
In this world, however, I think there's a case to be made for everyone just assuming that the mods are not actually reading or moderating MetaTalk, since they really haven't been for however many years at this point.
I do think there needs to be a major exception for MeTas that attack other users. I don't believe in deleting stuff, but closing threads should be an option if they're going after other users (not if they're going after moderation decisions).
posted by lapis at 11:40 AM on June 10 [12 favorites]
Your job is thankless.
I don't think this is true at all, but good point: Thank you to the mods for listening to the feedback on this, and asking for more.
posted by trig at 11:51 AM on June 10 [14 favorites]
I don't think this is true at all, but good point: Thank you to the mods for listening to the feedback on this, and asking for more.
posted by trig at 11:51 AM on June 10 [14 favorites]
I argued for turning off the queue in previous post(s) but I still believe what I said then: You should definitely be willing to close MeTa posts if it makes sense. The threshold to delete, of course, should be higher, but just because there's no queue doesn't mean there should be no moderation.
posted by skynxnex at 11:58 AM on June 10 [9 favorites]
posted by skynxnex at 11:58 AM on June 10 [9 favorites]
It seemed like the justification for getting rid of the queue was that the mods weren't participating in MeTa anyway, so the queue was serving only to suppress posts critical of moderator actions.
yes. as a counterpoint, i offer a response received from mods on a proposed meta:
I do think there needs to be a major exception for MeTas that attack other users.
i agree with this (maybe reach out to people directly first?)
posted by HearHere at 12:05 PM on June 10 [3 favorites]
yes. as a counterpoint, i offer a response received from mods on a proposed meta:
Just letting you know we saw your post in the MetaTalk queue and generally think it's fine, but believe it could use a bit of fleshing out. If you could state what you're hoping to accomplish with a group email chain, even if it's just fun, that would be great.that was a while ago & i haven’t gotten around to expanding it, yet thought this could be good to share now
Also, if you could link to the comment in the original thread that talked about group emails, that would be helpful too. Its this link: https://www.metafilter.com/204623/LGBT-and-Marginalized-Voices-are-not-Welcome-on-Threads#8589716
Otherwise, there's no issue with your proposal and it should go through just fine once you've expanded it a bit.
I do think there needs to be a major exception for MeTas that attack other users.
i agree with this (maybe reach out to people directly first?)
posted by HearHere at 12:05 PM on June 10 [3 favorites]
that thread, of course, only came about because of how the queue was used against n_p in the first place
posted by sagc at 12:35 PM on June 10 [10 favorites]
posted by sagc at 12:35 PM on June 10 [10 favorites]
We're exploring what "lightly moderated" means in practice.
To me this means that moderation restricts itself to enforcing the rules and doesn't try to "direct the conversation," e.g. forbidding derails, deciding what gets posted and what doesn't, etc. It doesn't mean no rules.
If there's going to be no queue - and I think it's a good idea to try it out, because of the lack of consistency and the subsequent lack of trust in how it was being handled - then there should be some rules about what is and isn't allowed on MetaTalk. Not many.
I agree that there should be a rule against posts that call out a single user. If a user is violating site guidelines, then that's something to bring to the moderators; if the moderation doesn't act, then that's now a moderation issue you can post about. If a user isn't violating site guidelines then you either have a personal issue that you can just deal with on your own or you have a general issue with the site guidelines that you can post about.
Obviously this wouldn't apply to discussions of actions (or inactions) by staff, board members, etc.
And obviously there would still be judgement calls about what counts as calling out a single user, when something crosses the line into needing to be deleted rather than just closed, and so on, but that's the case for any rule. Having some general principles to refer to can help keep the consistency between judgement calls up and can help keep your touch "light."
posted by Kutsuwamushi at 12:35 PM on June 10 [7 favorites]
To me this means that moderation restricts itself to enforcing the rules and doesn't try to "direct the conversation," e.g. forbidding derails, deciding what gets posted and what doesn't, etc. It doesn't mean no rules.
If there's going to be no queue - and I think it's a good idea to try it out, because of the lack of consistency and the subsequent lack of trust in how it was being handled - then there should be some rules about what is and isn't allowed on MetaTalk. Not many.
I agree that there should be a rule against posts that call out a single user. If a user is violating site guidelines, then that's something to bring to the moderators; if the moderation doesn't act, then that's now a moderation issue you can post about. If a user isn't violating site guidelines then you either have a personal issue that you can just deal with on your own or you have a general issue with the site guidelines that you can post about.
Obviously this wouldn't apply to discussions of actions (or inactions) by staff, board members, etc.
And obviously there would still be judgement calls about what counts as calling out a single user, when something crosses the line into needing to be deleted rather than just closed, and so on, but that's the case for any rule. Having some general principles to refer to can help keep the consistency between judgement calls up and can help keep your touch "light."
posted by Kutsuwamushi at 12:35 PM on June 10 [7 favorites]
watching for flags
I always assumed any mod on duty would be notified of a flag as soon as it came in.
If they have to stop doing something else and actively look for any, that seems sub-ideal.
posted by Lemkin at 12:48 PM on June 10 [2 favorites]
I always assumed any mod on duty would be notified of a flag as soon as it came in.
If they have to stop doing something else and actively look for any, that seems sub-ideal.
posted by Lemkin at 12:48 PM on June 10 [2 favorites]
Finally. "Take it to MetaTalk" will actually mean something again and I hope this leads to fewer buttonings.
posted by phunniemee at 12:49 PM on June 10 [11 favorites]
posted by phunniemee at 12:49 PM on June 10 [11 favorites]
I applaud this decision - the queue has been the cause of a lot of angst in the past and never really solved the alleged issue of MeTa taking up too much of the mod resources.
MeTa should be a place where members can speak openly about any issue related to the community and that includes members acting badly. The expectation should be that a post criticising the behaviour of a member should be about the behaviour, not a personal attack on any member or members. I know that can be a fine line and not everyone will agree where that line is. The first action any member should take in the case of bad behaviour is to flag the issue for mod attention and, only when that has not resolved the issue or not resolved it in a satisfactory way, should MeTa be used.
What I would be looking for is that moderators and the board are active and honest participants in any discussion. There's no point in members hashing out an issue unless there is input from those who make and/or enforce the community's expectations. The biggest frustration I've seen in MeTa is exactly this - radio silence from moderators when the community is seeking their input. This also means members need to be respectful about that input, even when they disagree.
There also needs to be a willingness to close a MeTa thread if things get out of hand. Meta threads should not, however, be deleted except in extreme circumstances. Part of what has made MeFi a place people want to hang out in is the transparency and community engagement MeTa brings and the recorded history of why things are done a certain way.
Importantly, for MeTa to fulfil its purpose, all moderators and board members must be willing to participate. That doesn't mean they have to agree with anything and it's OK for them to say 'this is not OK and you should stop doing it', whether it's regarding a specific member or the community as a whole. Moderators and board members will get a lot more respect if they are seen to be part of the community and participating honestly.
posted by dg at 1:26 PM on June 10 [9 favorites]
MeTa should be a place where members can speak openly about any issue related to the community and that includes members acting badly. The expectation should be that a post criticising the behaviour of a member should be about the behaviour, not a personal attack on any member or members. I know that can be a fine line and not everyone will agree where that line is. The first action any member should take in the case of bad behaviour is to flag the issue for mod attention and, only when that has not resolved the issue or not resolved it in a satisfactory way, should MeTa be used.
What I would be looking for is that moderators and the board are active and honest participants in any discussion. There's no point in members hashing out an issue unless there is input from those who make and/or enforce the community's expectations. The biggest frustration I've seen in MeTa is exactly this - radio silence from moderators when the community is seeking their input. This also means members need to be respectful about that input, even when they disagree.
There also needs to be a willingness to close a MeTa thread if things get out of hand. Meta threads should not, however, be deleted except in extreme circumstances. Part of what has made MeFi a place people want to hang out in is the transparency and community engagement MeTa brings and the recorded history of why things are done a certain way.
Importantly, for MeTa to fulfil its purpose, all moderators and board members must be willing to participate. That doesn't mean they have to agree with anything and it's OK for them to say 'this is not OK and you should stop doing it', whether it's regarding a specific member or the community as a whole. Moderators and board members will get a lot more respect if they are seen to be part of the community and participating honestly.
posted by dg at 1:26 PM on June 10 [9 favorites]
In ye olden days, MetaTalk posts were often closed when they ought to have been an email, were hostile, or where the discussion was going off the rails in a harmful way. Closing but explaining the resolution and leaving them up meant transparency and helped to steer community norms about what is/isn't okay and how to get the right kind of attention to something. I won't lionize olden days moderation (who's to say what's better), but I will say that having no queue does not mean there should be no moderation or control over what happens on MetaTalk. You can still be light on deletions while calling out bad behaviour, for example. You can't just ignore what's happening here.
posted by lookoutbelow at 1:29 PM on June 10 [27 favorites]
posted by lookoutbelow at 1:29 PM on June 10 [27 favorites]
Yes, thank you for doing this.
Also, count me as one who thinks closing threads quickly when a "bad" one comes through is a perfectly fine answer.
posted by a non mouse, a cow herd at 2:28 PM on June 10 [7 favorites]
Also, count me as one who thinks closing threads quickly when a "bad" one comes through is a perfectly fine answer.
posted by a non mouse, a cow herd at 2:28 PM on June 10 [7 favorites]
Thank you for doing this, and for communicating it and looking for feedback. I think site leadership (mods(plural, on purpose!) and Board members) should be engaging with people here. It's an opportunity to build community. Im good with mods choosing to close a thread when its a train wreck or pile-on, although I'd prefer if they stayed up instead of being deleted.
posted by Sparky Buttons at 2:47 PM on June 10 [4 favorites]
posted by Sparky Buttons at 2:47 PM on June 10 [4 favorites]
I appreciate that you’re moving away from the old status quo and actually trying something. Maybe it won’t work but it’s better to try to do something different than to do nothing at all. And if it doesn’t work then we try something else.
posted by ashbury at 5:03 PM on June 10 [2 favorites]
posted by ashbury at 5:03 PM on June 10 [2 favorites]
Not Anonymous: "
(I understand it may be hard if the "anonimizing" process overwrites IDs or something like that. That is on you. Figure it out)."
I see zero comments here https://www.metafilter.com/activity/59590/comments/mefi/
posted by 922257033c4a0f3cecdbd819a46d626999d1af4a at 6:13 PM on June 10
(I understand it may be hard if the "anonimizing" process overwrites IDs or something like that. That is on you. Figure it out)."
I see zero comments here https://www.metafilter.com/activity/59590/comments/mefi/
posted by 922257033c4a0f3cecdbd819a46d626999d1af4a at 6:13 PM on June 10
Mod note: General note: mods are just reading and listening for the moment, seems the best thing to do at the moment.
As to a specific comment about about removing a former account that doesn't appear to have been properly removed, we're looking into it.
posted by Brandon Blatcher (staff) at 6:31 PM on June 10 [1 favorite]
As to a specific comment about about removing a former account that doesn't appear to have been properly removed, we're looking into it.
posted by Brandon Blatcher (staff) at 6:31 PM on June 10 [1 favorite]
I too see zero comments there, but I see a heap of comments by "Anonymous" in, e.g. this thread. Who do you think made them? There are also replies to those comments in reply referring to the poster by name (and the name is not "Anonymous").
posted by GeckoDundee at 6:33 PM on June 10 [1 favorite]
posted by GeckoDundee at 6:33 PM on June 10 [1 favorite]
Are users also not allowed to use the contact form for their first week?
posted by Ice Cream Socialist at 9:20 PM on June 10
posted by Ice Cream Socialist at 9:20 PM on June 10
I emailed the admins 3 days ago asking that my comments be wiped. No response yet.
posted by NotLost at 9:24 PM on June 10 [8 favorites]
posted by NotLost at 9:24 PM on June 10 [8 favorites]
I for one am very glad this was asked on the board and not via contact form.
posted by Ashenmote at 10:40 PM on June 10 [3 favorites]
posted by Ashenmote at 10:40 PM on June 10 [3 favorites]
The new process for account wipes (comment anonymisation) is an improvement on the old one (comment deletion), and it would be silly to make a special exception for Dr Curare.
posted by Klipspringer at 11:58 PM on June 10 [1 favorite]
posted by Klipspringer at 11:58 PM on June 10 [1 favorite]
It's not a special exception just for them because I want my account here actually wiped too.
posted by Ashenmote at 12:07 AM on June 11 [1 favorite]
posted by Ashenmote at 12:07 AM on June 11 [1 favorite]
But of course you can opt for anonymization, Klipspringer, that's fine with me.
posted by Ashenmote at 12:11 AM on June 11
posted by Ashenmote at 12:11 AM on June 11
Oh, sorry. I took that to mean that the response to the request for a clean wipe was the anonymization in question.
I can see how it would be frustrating and how a user would want a rapid response, but I can also see a hijacked thread here that wasn’t yet at the recipe-posting stage.
Would it help/be a huge hassle for someone to make a new Metatalk post about the anonymization issue and just cut-paste the derail in this conversation to the start of that thread?
Only makes sense if it’s feasible. As usual, I sound like an asshole when I’m trying to help. Sorry.
posted by Ice Cream Socialist at 12:45 AM on June 11
I can see how it would be frustrating and how a user would want a rapid response, but I can also see a hijacked thread here that wasn’t yet at the recipe-posting stage.
Would it help/be a huge hassle for someone to make a new Metatalk post about the anonymization issue and just cut-paste the derail in this conversation to the start of that thread?
Only makes sense if it’s feasible. As usual, I sound like an asshole when I’m trying to help. Sorry.
posted by Ice Cream Socialist at 12:45 AM on June 11
The moment this comment is signed 'Anonymous' it will trigger a Curse upon this place and Metafilter will grow fightier and more dysfunctional by the day, forever.
(On preview: I don't think carefully moving the comment to a different post would trigger the Curse, but I haven't worked this spell before)
posted by Ashenmote at 1:02 AM on June 11
(On preview: I don't think carefully moving the comment to a different post would trigger the Curse, but I haven't worked this spell before)
posted by Ashenmote at 1:02 AM on June 11
How terrifying a change, after you just sanctioned a post that did nothing but tear down a member here. Those posts should NEVER be allowed, they have a chilling effect on participation here, and are an ugly look besides. If someone posts a MetaTalk attacking or wanting the community to "discuss" one user, it should be shut down and the poster who did that should be told its not acceptable. Do we have any assurances mods will do that going forward? I really want an answer but the way things are going don't expect one.
posted by tiny frying pan at 5:11 AM on June 11 [3 favorites]
posted by tiny frying pan at 5:11 AM on June 11 [3 favorites]
Deleted due to mistake on my part
posted by thepuppetisasock at 7:44 AM on June 11
posted by thepuppetisasock at 7:44 AM on June 11
Thank you for this change.
As far as moderation going forward, I agree that closing a thread early on if it breaks a guideline/is incoherent is a great idea. Additionally, I think moderators should not be empowered to delete MeTa threads, only close them. It’s too easy for shit behavior from users and mods to be disappeared if deletions are allowed.
posted by donnagirl at 12:39 PM on June 11 [7 favorites]
As far as moderation going forward, I agree that closing a thread early on if it breaks a guideline/is incoherent is a great idea. Additionally, I think moderators should not be empowered to delete MeTa threads, only close them. It’s too easy for shit behavior from users and mods to be disappeared if deletions are allowed.
posted by donnagirl at 12:39 PM on June 11 [7 favorites]
Not Anonymous: "And I am genuinely sorry for hijacking this thread, it felt like the only option. I made this account with the intention of posting a new MetaTalk thread, but new users are not allowed to do so for 1 week."
You're totally, it's not an issue and points out a points that new users do have limited permissions. We're still looking into the issue with your request, frimble will have to tak a lot either tonight (EST time) or tomorrow.
Otherwise, I'm eh on removing the queue, but am glad that there's a general agreement that MeTa posts should be closed if problematically calling out another member or if there's issues.
That could still be a problem, as no one likes to be called out, so seeing that there's a post about you, but you can't respond may cause other issues. But even a deleting that may still be understandably upsetting.
Otherwise, I'm just listening for the now. My understanding is that people wanted the queue turned off because they believed it was silencing people. Turning it off will probably cause a brief run in the other direction, of a lot of MeTas that maybe don't need to be one, but that's manageable.
I do think the structure of MeTa may need to change in terms of finding and verifying consensus about an issue or feature, but we're all aware of that. Maybe a queue, where members (not mods) can vote on whether a post should be published (say five votes would release it from that queue so members could comment on the post)?
Otherwise, I expect it'll be a little bumpy, but change usually is, but we all want the same thing, a better, more community minded and driven MetaFilter, so I'm confident we can get there.
posted by Brandon Blatcher (staff) at 4:25 PM on June 11 [4 favorites]
You're totally, it's not an issue and points out a points that new users do have limited permissions. We're still looking into the issue with your request, frimble will have to tak a lot either tonight (EST time) or tomorrow.
Otherwise, I'm eh on removing the queue, but am glad that there's a general agreement that MeTa posts should be closed if problematically calling out another member or if there's issues.
That could still be a problem, as no one likes to be called out, so seeing that there's a post about you, but you can't respond may cause other issues. But even a deleting that may still be understandably upsetting.
Otherwise, I'm just listening for the now. My understanding is that people wanted the queue turned off because they believed it was silencing people. Turning it off will probably cause a brief run in the other direction, of a lot of MeTas that maybe don't need to be one, but that's manageable.
I do think the structure of MeTa may need to change in terms of finding and verifying consensus about an issue or feature, but we're all aware of that. Maybe a queue, where members (not mods) can vote on whether a post should be published (say five votes would release it from that queue so members could comment on the post)?
Otherwise, I expect it'll be a little bumpy, but change usually is, but we all want the same thing, a better, more community minded and driven MetaFilter, so I'm confident we can get there.
posted by Brandon Blatcher (staff) at 4:25 PM on June 11 [4 favorites]
I hereby resolve to improve MetaFilter by not looking at MetaTalk for the next 30 days (July 12). If I can do that, I'll upgrade to 30 more, and so on and so on until, hopefully, I forget this part of the site exists.
Why? Because for me it's largely a place to vent frustrations. I've long since given up on the idea of anything I say having an effect on the site itself. And venting frustration can become addictive, and I have addiction issues, and as addictions go, this one is stupid and not gratifying.
Instead, I'm going to try and contribute productively to the site itself, which is in rough shape. Contrary to what someone said in one of the instaclosed threads, I don't think MetaFilter is a once-vital site that has fallen into obsolescence. In fact I think MetaFilter is a once-trivial site that has, by din of survival when so much of the rest of the web went gangrenous and fell off, accidentally become vital even though its membership has dipped dramatically and it seems a little bit passe. In other words, using it as a place to whine about whether Lemkin is boyzone, and even to throw feces around in a misguided effort to finally solve the riddle of the 2024 election, is a waste, and worse, behavior that actively pushes the death date of the site closer. So, join me, won't you, in not being here! I won't know if you do, but...I hope you will.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 8:55 PM on June 11 [8 favorites]
Why? Because for me it's largely a place to vent frustrations. I've long since given up on the idea of anything I say having an effect on the site itself. And venting frustration can become addictive, and I have addiction issues, and as addictions go, this one is stupid and not gratifying.
Instead, I'm going to try and contribute productively to the site itself, which is in rough shape. Contrary to what someone said in one of the instaclosed threads, I don't think MetaFilter is a once-vital site that has fallen into obsolescence. In fact I think MetaFilter is a once-trivial site that has, by din of survival when so much of the rest of the web went gangrenous and fell off, accidentally become vital even though its membership has dipped dramatically and it seems a little bit passe. In other words, using it as a place to whine about whether Lemkin is boyzone, and even to throw feces around in a misguided effort to finally solve the riddle of the 2024 election, is a waste, and worse, behavior that actively pushes the death date of the site closer. So, join me, won't you, in not being here! I won't know if you do, but...I hope you will.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 8:55 PM on June 11 [8 favorites]
...but kittens for breakfast, now you'll spend a whole month or more without seeing the fist bump I just sent your way -- safe -- boom bow!
posted by Ice Cream Socialist at 10:55 PM on June 11
posted by Ice Cream Socialist at 10:55 PM on June 11
Mod note: Just a note that after testing just now, the queue is still up, am looking into what's happening, in order to complete the removal. Thanks for your patience, we'll get this fixed, will update when I have more information.
posted by Brandon Blatcher (staff) at 7:57 AM on June 14 [1 favorite]
posted by Brandon Blatcher (staff) at 7:57 AM on June 14 [1 favorite]
Mod note: Diskeater: "Any chance you'll have the time to address the brigading concerns once the queue issues are sorted out?"
Derailing comment removed. There have been a couple of previous mod notes (1, 2)about these sort of comments from you Diskeater, and since they seem to be continuing after requests for them to stop, we're going to move on to timeouts if another one is made.
No one wants to do that, we're in agreement that you have every right to question Board or staff statements and actions, but you can't keep derailing other threads to do. This the thread about elections, please keep queries and/or complaints about elections to that or similar threads. Link to this comment has been MeMailed to Diskeater.
posted by Brandon Blatcher (staff) at 9:48 AM on June 14
Derailing comment removed. There have been a couple of previous mod notes (1, 2)about these sort of comments from you Diskeater, and since they seem to be continuing after requests for them to stop, we're going to move on to timeouts if another one is made.
No one wants to do that, we're in agreement that you have every right to question Board or staff statements and actions, but you can't keep derailing other threads to do. This the thread about elections, please keep queries and/or complaints about elections to that or similar threads. Link to this comment has been MeMailed to Diskeater.
posted by Brandon Blatcher (staff) at 9:48 AM on June 14
Diskeater’s comment was certainly a derail for this thread, but I can’t help noticing that after claiming you have evidence for a risk of brigading in the election thread, you haven’t actually answered Diskeater’s question there, either. Are you planning to?
posted by siskin at 11:00 AM on June 14 [4 favorites]
posted by siskin at 11:00 AM on June 14 [4 favorites]
Hey, Brandon - what's the way of communicating with the mods and the boards that's most likely to result in them posting any sort of evidence that a we are 'walking into a brigading'? The mods (you, specifically!) have insinuated that you have also seen this evidence, but requests in the appropriate thread have gone without a response.
How do you envision this process going? Why would you think that just deleting the questions every but the one place where you deign to ignore them instead is somehow better community management than just answering the question, or providing accurate information as to why you're barred from doing so?
posted by sagc at 11:12 AM on June 14 [2 favorites]
How do you envision this process going? Why would you think that just deleting the questions every but the one place where you deign to ignore them instead is somehow better community management than just answering the question, or providing accurate information as to why you're barred from doing so?
posted by sagc at 11:12 AM on June 14 [2 favorites]
« Older Let's post about Queer Joys for Pride Month | "missed edit window" consecutive comments Newer »
You are not logged in, either login or create an account to post comments
posted by jacquilynne at 9:49 AM on June 10 [51 favorites]