Yay! Congratulations to everyone on the handover!
posted by NotLost at 5:37 AM on December 20 [11 favorites]

These 9 cent foreign transaction fees are killing us.
posted by Lemkin at 5:48 AM on December 20

Woohoo! MeFi officially a non-profit! Congrats, and thank you to all those who have worked so hard over the past few years!
posted by umber vowel at 5:49 AM on December 20 [4 favorites]

"MetaFilter LLC has been formally donated to MetaFilter Community Foundation" - that's great news - I'm very glad to see progress here. Congratulations!

Brandon, in the last site update thread, after we discovered that account wipes don't actually remove 'wiped' comments from the database, which means that they could be made public in future (which isn't, I think, what most users expect), I asked whether every IP address that a comment is posted from is likewise kept in the database for perpetuity, even after a so-called account wipe (which has obvious privacy implications). Do you have an update on this, please?
posted by siskin at 5:51 AM on December 20 [2 favorites]

Ooh, lots of progress! Nice.
posted by Bugbread at 6:16 AM on December 20

Yes, this update shows good progress on multiple fronts!
posted by NotLost at 6:19 AM on December 20

Whoa, congrats everyone!

I don't think we ever got a chance to see bylaws, etc., and it might have been prudent to get some of that hammered out with community input before handing over the bank account, but I guess pressure was building to just get this done with, and that seems fine.

Thanks for shepherding this, founding Foundation board! (Don't go stripping the site for parts, pls.)
posted by nobody at 6:34 AM on December 20 [6 favorites]

This is a solid update and congratulations everyone.
posted by warriorqueen at 6:36 AM on December 20 [9 favorites]

Interesting to see the demo. I'm relieved to not see downvotes, that would drive me straight outta there, we don't need more Reddit like features.
posted by tiny frying pan at 6:46 AM on December 20

MetaFilter LLC has been formally donated to MetaFilter Community Foundation

So, theoretically, resignations could be demanded now, if persons were inclined to demand such?
posted by snofoam at 6:55 AM on December 20 [4 favorites]

MetaFilter LLC has been formally donated to MetaFilter Community Foundation

Yay! A treat!

Seriously, I’m glad to see it.
posted by nat at 7:01 AM on December 20 [1 favorite]

I suppose this is as eventful a moment in MeFi history as the re-opening of registrations.

I’m glad I was here to see it. And I hope I will be able to reflect on it for as long.
posted by Lemkin at 7:11 AM on December 20 [1 favorite]

I'm delighted by the updates and all the progress made -- I know getting here was not easy. A great way to wrap up the year for sure. :)

Thank you!
posted by mochapickle at 7:18 AM on December 20 [2 favorites]

can the financial updates also include the current cash balance? i asked for that and got it a few months back but it doesn't seem to have made it into the recurring reports.
posted by mullacc at 7:31 AM on December 20 [7 favorites]

So, theoretically, resignations could be demanded now, if persons were inclined to demand such?

Speaking for myself here:

Management, you can feel free to cut me loose right now if you see fit, seriously and politely.

To be clear, I don't want to go, but there's no point in beating around the bush, so if changes need to be made, let's proceed what needs to done. 'Cause while I enjoy the work and like the overall community, the constant calls, demands, or jokes to be let go do get old.

It never encourages or inspires staff members to do better, it just become a crappy part of the job that you have to ignore or navigate around.

But yeah, if changes need to be made, let me know or just lock me out of the backend.
posted by Brandon Blatcher (staff) at 7:39 AM on December 20 [35 favorites]

So, theoretically, resignations could be demanded now, if persons were inclined to demand such?

We all know nothing on that end will change.
posted by 922257033c4a0f3cecdbd819a46d626999d1af4a at 7:41 AM on December 20

Excellent, lots of good news here about the new site and transition.
posted by TheophileEscargot at 7:49 AM on December 20

(•_•) Looks like this community
( •_•)>⌐■-■
(⌐■_■) got owned.
YEAAAAAAHHHHHH–
posted by lucidium at 7:53 AM on December 20 [5 favorites]

Now that the transition has happened, let's immediately reduce our moderation costs so we can have the funds to hire/contract an ED or manager to do the rest of the transition and hopefully get the site back on track. We should do this ASAP while there's still a little money in the bank and coming in. I agree that there's no reason to drag this out. It has to happen and we should do it.
posted by snofoam at 8:09 AM on December 20 [2 favorites]

Some things in this update that sound very good. Thank you.

Frimble is working on a simple moderation log for the current site

Will this be the log users requested or just a compilation of the comments mods already leave across the site?

Can we get an ETA?
posted by trig at 8:13 AM on December 20 [1 favorite]

But yeah, if changes need to be made, let me know or just lock me out of the backend.

I can't speak for the board, but I would hope that even if that happens down the line that it would be handled much better than that. I don't think that's the only outcome from everything that's going on.

To be clear personally I agree with the idea that no one knows what current staff is capable of because it's been a leadership mess for a few years.

It also occurred to me that all the current mods were probably trained by, or trained by someone who was trained by, cortex at a time that cortex was already feeling underwater. I've observed in various environments that if you tell someone on their first week "your job is to hold the water back from this hole in the dam, see, put your finger here" they often won't go looking for a cement patching kit.
posted by warriorqueen at 8:18 AM on December 20 [21 favorites]

It never encourages or inspires staff members to do better, it just become a crappy part of the job that you have to ignore or navigate around.

FWIW, as someone who has repeatedly said I think the site is not in the right hands and that this needs to change sooner rather than later: I haven't been saying that with an intention to harass any of the staff, or make life unpleasant or help burn them out.

I made them because I feel there is a real need for change and accountability for the site to even survive, let alone thrive. And because there doesn't seem to be a manager in charge able or willing to (a) implement changes in effective and timely ways, and (b) hold staff accountable, with consequences, for inadequate performance over time.

I've said these things publicly because MetaTalk is currently the only avenue for even trying to hold staff accountable, whether for individual actions or for long-standing patterns of performance. Because it has been made clear there is no effective internal structure for accountability.

I know it's got to be deeply unpleasant to read as a mod. (And I know that for users who haven't really been following along, it probably feels unwarranted, mean-spirited, and off-putting to read.)

Still: taking this kind of feedback seriously, rather than ignoring or navigating around it, would go a long way towards eliminating my perceived need for it. I would be happy with an outcome where mods' stewardship of this site becomes good enough that it makes sense for the current staffing to continue.

But I think this absolutely requires a setup where there is a manager, or managers, actually ensuring good performance. With consequences if that fails to happen over time. I hope that the nonprofit team is thinking about this requirement, and its urgency, seriously. Recognizing how deep frustration around this is. And that we see discussion of it in the upcoming nonprofit update thread.
posted by trig at 8:33 AM on December 20 [18 favorites]

(by which I mean, recognition and discussion of this as a central issue in the post, by the nonprofit team.)
posted by trig at 8:42 AM on December 20 [4 favorites]

Hurrah! Thank you for this update, and congratulations to everyone who's been working to make this transfer happen.
posted by cupcakeninja at 9:06 AM on December 20

So, theoretically, resignations could be demanded now, if persons were inclined to demand such?

Maybe you could wait a few days and do it on Christmas Eve to really turn the knife.
posted by kbanas at 9:07 AM on December 20 [15 favorites]

Gentle reminder that not everyone celebrates Christmas. Please be more culturally aware when deciding when to twist your knives. Thank you.
posted by phunniemee at 9:15 AM on December 20 [26 favorites]

Great news on the handover! Looking forward to positive change from the Foundation.
posted by Sparky Buttons at 9:29 AM on December 20 [1 favorite]

[Running to window, opening it, putting out head]

"What's to-day, my fine fellow?"
posted by snofoam at 9:35 AM on December 20 [5 favorites]

I guess pressure was building to just get this done with, and that seems fine.

Yep, for various business-and-taxes reasons, trying to wrap up before the end of the year was the goal. And, as the person who was doing legal-and-paperwork (with the help of the SC in the first part of it--my eternal gratitude to them--and then not) since 2022, it was past time. It would be a grace and a kindness to the incoming board to give them a little bit of time to get up to speed.

We're still doing a lot of transferring of the 15-20 accounts on the back end (a job that can range from a few clicks to actually-impossible) that make up the MeFi extended universe after signing paperwork on the 14th. Hoping for no major bumps but last time through this transition took six months and so far it's been less than a week.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 10:05 AM on December 20 [36 favorites]

I'm on the board of a nonprofit that got up and running as a 501(c)(3) in the last year, and another that is in the middle of 501(c)(3) paperwork right now. I can't take on another board role lest my partner stage an intervention, but if the incoming board wants to bounce ideas or questions off me I'm happy to support as I can.
posted by brook horse at 10:33 AM on December 20 [13 favorites]

Congratulations on getting it done. Such a labour of love.
posted by jouke at 11:19 AM on December 20 [2 favorites]

Congratulations to all! ♥
posted by Lynsey at 11:52 AM on December 20

snofoam: So, theoretically, resignations could be demanded now, if persons were inclined to demand such?

trig: I know it's got to be deeply unpleasant to read as a mod. (And I know that for users who haven't really been following along, it probably feels unwarranted, mean-spirited, and off-putting to read.)

phunniemee: Gentle reminder that not everyone celebrates Christmas. Please be more culturally aware when deciding when to twist your knives. Thank you.

This endless hounding of staff and volunteers has to stop. MetaTalk has become too toxic to be useful.
posted by Kattullus at 11:55 AM on December 20 [63 favorites]

I'm glad someone is finally reading my comments with the dire and serious intent they're written in. I don't understand why people always think I'm trying to be funny.
posted by phunniemee at 12:14 PM on December 20 [10 favorites]

You are funny. I’ve laughed at many of your jokes though the years, but the jokes you aim at people in MetaTalk are hurtful and pointed, and it makes me sad to read them.
posted by Kattullus at 12:25 PM on December 20 [38 favorites]

Speaking for myself here
You can speak for me as well.

To be clear personally I agree with the idea that no one knows what current staff is capable of
Yes, I fully agree and I'm looking forward to seeing that (whether from here or from afar).
posted by loup (staff) at 12:26 PM on December 20 [2 favorites]

This is a truly solid update and a lot of hopeful progress. Thank you for that, to everyone involved. It feels apt to let old MeFi go and bring the new one in with the solstice.
posted by donnagirl at 12:34 PM on December 20 [7 favorites]

This endless hounding of staff and volunteers has to stop. MetaTalk has become too toxic to be useful.

That's a valid perspective, but please keep in mind that's not a universal perspective. Many of us started out with that perspective too. Today, I personally find the "all you critics are toxic" approach can itself be pretty negative, ugly, and dismissive. And I think a lot of us have been trying to present our criticism as patiently and reasonably as we can.

Anyway, from my perspective, a lot of the (encouraging!) changes in this update are a direct result of "endless hounding". Staff wasn't making needed changes on their own, and occasional polite requests for action weren't having any effect either. I don't know if it's the "endless" polite requests that have actually led to a little traction, or if it's the "toxic" comments that have done it, or the combination of both. But the staff has been making it clear and explicit - for years - that they would prefer not to, for almost anything that members have asked. Even as the site finances and membership dwindle.

Even the fact that we ever got to the point of having fairly regular site updates, with issues kinda-sorta tracked from update to update, took a huge amount of "hounding". Months and months and months of it. Same for getting even one mod to interact with members in those threads.

I too would prefer a staff that doesn't need to be hounded into even basic action. Improvements shouldn't require committed, sustained begging, cajoling, or hounding.


Which is why I am hoping very much that Mefi as a nonprofit will prioritize effective, capable, energetic leadership and staffing. I am hoping to hear a lot more about the new structure is going to help us get there in the near future. Without that, I worry that a nonprofit with the same internal systems and people is going to be much of the same.
posted by trig at 12:44 PM on December 20 [18 favorites]

From my perspective, the main thing that’s wrong with MetaFilter is the toxic atmosphere in MetaTalk.

If we are going to operate as community-run site, the forum for community discussions needs to be functional, and not a place where bullying is tolerated.
posted by Kattullus at 1:09 PM on December 20 [35 favorites]

I'm impressed by all the progress.

I had a quick look at the demo. It was a bit shocking at first to see reaction buttons below the post - so un-metafilter-y - but then I remembered how useful those buttons are for getting good discussions. So if, like me, your first reaction is an unpleasant one, I really would encourage you to give it a chance.

(I'm not quite sure how it helps, but it seems to steer the gut reactions towards the buttons so that the text reactions are both more meaningful and more thoughtful.)
posted by demi-octopus at 1:20 PM on December 20 [5 favorites]

It's a Festivus miracle!
posted by glonous keming at 1:28 PM on December 20 [4 favorites]

I think if you leave an angry emoticon choice for comment favoriting that it will be used for ill will towards users but thats my only apprehension.
posted by tiny frying pan at 1:30 PM on December 20 [3 favorites]

About the demo, I'm not sure about an angry emoji.
posted by NotLost at 1:39 PM on December 20 [3 favorites]

Like. I don't want that level of emotion-leaving on my comments, I can just picture someone using "sad emoticon" to make fun of something I said. Favorite or no favorite is at least is somewhat neutral. But I might be biased because these are the same emoticon choices for my work email and I find them eyerolling and tiring sometimes.
posted by tiny frying pan at 1:40 PM on December 20 [4 favorites]

Update: [the test site] will ... be open to all members by the end of February

Also Update, different section: Replies and quotes in comments similar to this demo [link]

user: I had a quick look at the demo. It was a bit shocking at first to see reaction buttons below the post

It seems like at least two plenty of people have understood "this demo" to mean "the test version of the new Metafilter".

I understood that "demo" link to be referring only to the feature "replies and quotes in comments" (and that bullet point is not in the "New Site Status" section). The link has no "Metafilter Demo" text or anything vaguely hinting in that direction. Or possibly, I'm Principal Skinner here, but I hope not, cuz that demo loses everything I like about metafilter's style
posted by sylvanshine at 1:42 PM on December 20 [5 favorites]

I'm glad there is not a plan to implement up/downvoting or comment threading, even though I know a lot of people feel those would improve Metafilter. I think reddit has become a really valuable, maybe indispensable, part of the internet ecosystem, but that doesn't mean its features need to be replicated everywhere. A linear and static conversation offers something, I don't know, egalitarian? participatory? that in my opinion still has value to keep around.
posted by dusty potato at 1:48 PM on December 20 [8 favorites]

Yeah - I just checked the linked demo (on mobile) and I'm not sure what I'm actually seeing.

Are we moving to threaded comments and emoji reactions? Is that link actual metafilter dev work? Or is the link just meant to be a generic example of what quoting and replying means, for people who don't know?

(If yes, and these major changes have been being worked on behind the scenes with no user discussion while we've been told "bear with us" for basic, much-discussed, much-requested changes and bug fixes for, once again, years - then sorry but what the hell?)
posted by trig at 1:49 PM on December 20 [6 favorites]

GIVE ME AN ANGRY BUTTON TO PRESS
posted by mittens at 1:50 PM on December 20 [5 favorites]

Great to hear this part of the transition is finally done. Hopefully, we can soon get beyond a legal transition and onto an actual one that involves some leadership for the staff and a chance for them to prove they weren't the problem all along. I don't think they were (definitely not all, anyway), but absent leadership will always make the whole team look bad.
posted by dg at 1:53 PM on December 20 [6 favorites]

It is huge to be able to announce an accomplishment like this as the year closes. Huge. Congratulations to all.
posted by eirias at 1:57 PM on December 20 [4 favorites]

From my perspective, the main thing that’s wrong with MetaFilter is the toxic atmosphere in MetaTalk.

I disagree.
posted by knobknosher at 1:58 PM on December 20 [5 favorites]

From my perspective, the main thing that's wrong with MetaFilter is that people think that the main thing that's wrong with MetaFilter is the toxic atmosphere in MetaTalk.
posted by april of time at 2:04 PM on December 20 [14 favorites]

Also, if this is where we're workshopping the features in the demo (?), personally I don't like the emoji reactions at all. Not really for social reasons-- I think there are already way more direct ways for people on here to antagonize each other-- but it just seems like unnecessary cruft that makes me feel like I'm on facebook or the comment section of a low-quality newspaper.
posted by dusty potato at 2:10 PM on December 20 [10 favorites]

Yeah as the best of the web we should be insulting each other with words, not emojis ♥️
posted by phunniemee at 2:12 PM on December 20 [13 favorites]

this 97-year-old web forum's users still antagonize each other the old-fashioned way
posted by dusty potato at 2:15 PM on December 20 [4 favorites]

I'm not sure what I'm actually seeing.

I did mean this as a serious question. What is that link means to show? What are the UI changes being developed? Does that demo page show how things are supposed to work and/or look? What are we supposed to understand about upcoming site changes?

Also:
- What are the upcoming improvements to flagging?
- What's the plan for community input on all these changes?
- Did the nonprofit board know about these upcoming changes and approve them?
posted by trig at 2:42 PM on December 20 [8 favorites]

The linked demo is just an example page on the Waterhole platform site, so I wouldn't read anything design-intent-wise into it beyond being a pre-existing functional demonstration of the "reply" button attached to each comment and the "quote" button that pops up if you select some text in a comment.
posted by lucidium at 2:44 PM on December 20 [2 favorites]

*inhales*
That said, I think emoji reactions can be a useful pressure valve.
posted by lucidium at 2:47 PM on December 20 [1 favorite]

I think the transition deserves its own post.

The nonprofit board has been working very hard to get this done. They deserve some kudos.

I think moderators coming to this thread to be negative are being quite disrespectful to the board, if I’m honest.
posted by knobknosher at 2:47 PM on December 20 [7 favorites]

I disagree
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 2:49 PM on December 20 [5 favorites]

I think moderators coming to this thread to be negative are being quite disrespectful to the board, if I’m honest.

Let me walk this back. I think I’m being too harsh because they are responding to negative comments aimed towards them.

I just feel the way this announcement is being handled is kinda depressing and that makes me sad. I don’t know anyone’s motives but it comes across as almost passive aggressive and that bums me out.
posted by knobknosher at 2:51 PM on December 20 [7 favorites]

trig's questions really need answering ASAP, imho.

Is the Waterhole site just an example of a similar Laravel-based discussion forum or is the new site going to be hosted on Waterhole? Because if Metafilter is going to turn into yet another cardboard cutout MS Teams-style "workspace".. yeah, no.
posted by fight or flight at 2:51 PM on December 20 [10 favorites]

I think the transition deserves its own post.

This post says there will be one
posted by Pre-Taped Call In Show at 3:13 PM on December 20 [9 favorites]

no jokes, no snark, i just want to say thanks to everyone who helped get this done, and let's keep building wins into the future, together.

here's to another 25 years.
posted by glonous keming at 3:16 PM on December 20 [19 favorites]

This post says there will be one

Thanks—I appreciate the correction. I think it would have been cool for the metafilter staff to make their own post but I will be the change I want to see in the world and shut up about it
posted by knobknosher at 3:38 PM on December 20 [2 favorites]

Kudos! It’s a big move and hard won. Thank you to those who have made this happen!
posted by samthemander at 4:03 PM on December 20 [4 favorites]

I think moderators coming to this thread to be negative are being quite disrespectful to the board, if I’m honest.

I just feel the way this announcement is being handled is kinda depressing and that makes me sad. I don’t know anyone’s motives but it comes across as almost passive aggressive and that bums me out.

My sincere apologies. I, personally, could not be happier and have never been more hopeful about the future of the site. And, truly, both Jessamyn and the Board have been fantastic and deserve nothing but praise for the huge amount of support, love, attention, care and dedication they have put toward this milestone. The LLC, felt like a new chapter for MeFi, but this feels like an entirely new book. I, too, hope we can soon get beyond a legal transition and onto an actual one.

I think it would have been cool for the metafilter staff to make their own post

There will be plenty of time for that, we just wanted to get the news out as soon as this happened.
posted by loup (staff) at 4:36 PM on December 20 [16 favorites]

Thanks loup, really appreciate this and hope the transition goes smoothly for everyone!
posted by knobknosher at 4:48 PM on December 20 [4 favorites]

I'm having one set of (good, hopeful, if a bit wary) emotions about the transition, and a completely different set of emotions about the oh btw side note we're turning Mefi into a threaded-comment emoji-full site stuff. Maybe, our communication's unclear. And we're not answering questions about it.

Seriously: what?
posted by trig at 5:13 PM on December 20 [9 favorites]

If anyone's not sure what I'm talking about, I'm referring to this part of the update:

- Replies and quotes in comments similar to this demo (log into see functionality)

If you haven't checked out the demo link, seriously check out the demo link. I'm hoping that much of it is irrelevant to what is actually being implemented for Mefi, but... could we get some actual clarification and communication about this?
posted by trig at 5:27 PM on December 20 [7 favorites]

Yeah that demo… is not Metafiltery at all. What is that?
posted by Vatnesine at 5:32 PM on December 20 [2 favorites]

It's just an example page from a code library the new site might use.
posted by lucidium at 5:36 PM on December 20 [6 favorites]

Also we have tiny flags now so what else is there to fix with that? As I remember, people pulled their hair out and screamed and gnashed their teeth about the flags and then they were changed. And since then it’s been a non-issue. So what is left to do with them?
posted by Vatnesine at 5:38 PM on December 20

In regards to what features are relevant from that demo page: Replies and quotes in comments similar to this demo

I took this to literally mean that only the replies and quotes shown in this demo are relevant, and not anything else, like the emojis. From what I can see there aren’t threaded comments but if you reply to someone then your comment will reflect that instead of us having to do it manually, which I am pretty into since this is a reply to trig’s comment above and I am too lazy (and fat-fingered on mobile) to make it clear who I am replying to at the beginning of my comment.

Also unrelated to the above except that I want to send some appreciation to people like trig: for what it’s worth, on the times when I happened to read MetaFilter and specifically MetaTalk in the past couple years since I basically stopped participating here at all, I would have agreed that people are really rude and harsh to the mods here, BUT, after recently spending a truly insane amount of time reading past Meta threads, I have done a complete turnaround on who I think is making this place less pleasant.

I truly appreciate every single person who is still making jokes, pointing out mistakes that have never been addressed, and asking for accountability, and it is because of you all and your supposed bullying that I want to come back and participate more across the site. I have seen you all respond in good faith and step up and try to propose solutions only to see those efforts get totally ignored over and over again. The fact that any of you are still here and engaged makes it obvious to me that you care about this site.
posted by the thorn bushes have roses at 5:39 PM on December 20 [22 favorites]

Brookhorse, that is a fantastic feedback document. I think it summarises a whole lot of really important stuff covered in the last few years (?) of contentious metatalks in a really good way.

Huzzah for progress! I hope that Jessamyn will feel better now not owning metafilter, and thank you for taking on an epic task to get us here.
posted by freethefeet at 6:00 PM on December 20 [8 favorites]

It's just an example page from a code library the new site might use

[Kicks empty Jerry can under couch, sheepishly blows out match]
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 6:00 PM on December 20 [3 favorites]

The linked demo is just an example page on the Waterhole platform site, so I wouldn't read anything design-intent-wise into it beyond being a pre-existing functional demonstration of the "reply" button attached to each comment and the "quote" button that pops up if you select some text in a comment.

This is exactly right and I'm sorry for causing any confusion.

Is the Waterhole site just an example of a similar Laravel-based discussion forum or is the new site going to be hosted on Waterhole?

Just an example of a similar forum, from which I'll appropriate the most MetaFilter-like features.

I took this to literally mean that only the replies and quotes shown in this demo are relevant, and not anything else, like the emojis.

Yes, that's correct.
posted by kirkaracha (staff) at 6:13 PM on December 20 [21 favorites]

Just a reminder, from the perspective of a WebDev (IANYWD): I have seen a number of complaints about the new site not being done yet, and I also see lots of feature requests/condemnations from the community here in MeTa. These things are incompatible. Either we let the site be coded and then praise it/offer improvement ideas, or we keep arguing about ponies until the heat death of the universe. We can't do both.
posted by jet_pack_in_a_can at 6:17 PM on December 20 [19 favorites]

Ha, Kirk beat me to it.

let the site be coded and then praise it/offer improvement ideas
I agree! And no we won't have emoji reactions. Also, remember we will not be sharing the "final product" but rather giving access to a MVP of the site for testing. From there I think the path ahead is a lot more collaborative and open to feedback, given the nature and goal of MeFiCoFo.

Every week I meet with Kirkaracha and we go over priorities, planning, and overall philosophy behind the project. And here are some principles both agree on that can give you an idea of what to expect for the MVP:

– Prioritize functionality over appearance (we can get assistance with front end development later).
– Build it in a way that can be easily modified/upgraded.
– Prioritize accessibility.
– Make sure there's an easy way to grant different levels of access to different features (to account for different roles or even groups like the BIPOC Board, and, of course volunteers)
– Try not to build stuff from scratch (à la good devs copy, great devs appropriate)
posted by loup (staff) at 6:24 PM on December 20 [8 favorites]

This is a good update and it's been great to see the rush of details and enthusiasm from lots of staff in the last day or two.
posted by one for the books at 7:15 PM on December 20 [4 favorites]

Thanks, kirkaracha. I'd asked that a ways upthread ("is the link just meant to be a generic example of what quoting and replying means, for people who don't know?") and the lack of an answer, combined with other people's discussion of emoji reactions here, was worrying.

I think the path ahead is a lot more collaborative and open to feedback, given the nature and goal of MeFiCoFo.

Yes, please. Transparency and acting on feedback have been basically the two biggest asks for a long time.

(In the meantime, could you let us know about the moderation log plans and what the flagging improvement is?)

Given the (well-earned, pretty deep) trust gap between users and site leadership, I'm hoping communication is going to start being consciously more careful and more thorough. Please don't leave us guessing or in the dark about what's actually going on. A number of people asked questions in this thread besides me. Please don't leave us hanging.

the thorn bushes have roses, thank you. It's no fun to feel like a bad guy :-)
posted by trig at 7:22 PM on December 20 [6 favorites]

By the way, about replies: in that demo, you can follow a link from a reply to see the original comment it's replying too, which is nice. There's no link from the original to its replies, though. That's an unusual feature for unthreaded comments, but I've seen it in one forum and it's actually really helpful. Comments there have a display like "[0 replies]" or "[13 replies]", so for example - in a use case relevant to Metafilter - if there's some comment you feel angry about, you can immediately see that hey, 13 other people have also apparently felt that way, so maybe you don't actually need to rush in and add to the pileon. Maybe what you want to say has already been said. And if you click the "[13 replies]" you can see little snippets of said replies, with links to them. Which gives you the ability to follow a sub-conversation within the comments while maintaining an overall flat thread experience.

I'm definitely not expecting any complicated features like that at this point, but it might be a useful one for Mefi down the line and worth thinking about for the future.
posted by trig at 7:41 PM on December 20 [8 favorites]

By the way, about replies: in that demo, you can follow a link from a reply to see the original comment it's replying too, which is nice. There's no link from the original to its replies, though.

If you click the speech bubble next to the reaction emoji on a comment, you get effectively a sub-thread with all the replies to that comment.
posted by Dysk at 10:12 PM on December 20 [3 favorites]

Oh, nice! I missed that.
posted by trig at 2:23 AM on December 21

trig: Given the (well-earned, pretty deep) trust gap between users and site leadership, I'm hoping communication is going to start being consciously more careful and more thorough.

I don’t think that’s at all what’s going on here. I think this is a story that you, and a group of other people that hang out in MetaTalk tell yourself to excuse your behavior towards staff and volunteers.

You said in your comment that you didn’t like to feel like a bad guy. I want to be really clear about this, I don’t think anyone here is acting from a desire to hurt people, rather I believe that everyone here is deeply personally invested in MetaFilter as a place, and feels emotionally rooted here. This is community for a lot of people in a meaningful way, this is our home, and we all want our home to feel good.

However, it has somehow become socially permissible to make personal attacks on people who work and volunteer for MetaFilter. This is a textbook case of a workplace bullying situation (also known as mobbing, if that terminology is more familiar to you).

As a rule, people who are in a bullying group don’t feel like they’re participating in harmful behavior, and don’t intend to harm. And I genuinely believe that no one here is aiming to hurt people. For the people on the other side of this group dynamic, however, this is painful.

I know I’m like a broken record on this, but if we’re genuinely going to be a self-governing web community, our forum for community discussion and governance has to be functional, and it won’t be if bullying is socially permissible.
posted by Kattullus at 6:32 AM on December 21 [35 favorites]

I agree with Kattullus.
posted by JanetLand at 6:56 AM on December 21 [8 favorites]

Katullus, it's hard to have this discussion with you without knowing how much you've been following Metatalk over the past few months and the past few years. In other words, I don't know if we're seeing things differently because of different takes on the same information, or if our takes are based on different amount of exposure to what's been going on.

What does bullying mean to you? Is it about using ugly words or a sharp tone? Is it being direct about the staff's failures in any tone at all? Is it, after years of closely following things, coming to the conclusion that the current staff makeup is either unable or unwilling to fix the most important problems with this site, and has itself been responsible for several of them? Is it coming to the conclusion, after years of closely following things, that for any hope of real improvement to happen, this group needs to either be closely, firmly overseen by someone with better judgment and leadership skills, or just replaced by people with better judgment and leadership skills? Is there any way of expressing those admittedly harsh, but serious conclusions that you would find acceptable?

Will it be bullying, in the upcoming thread, to - if the board does not address this themselves, which I hope they do because I don't actually want to do it - advocate strongly for transparency as to the board's plans for the next several months, and to advocate strongly for bringing in leadership that will at minimum impose accountability on the site staff? Such that we might finally have a staff whose word means something, a staff that listens to input instead of ignoring or flatly rejecting it, a staff that doesn't moderate based on self-protection, a staff that doesn't repeatedly, baldly lie to users, a staff that can be counted on to complete projects in reasonable timeframes and to communicate in a respectful and thorough way?

(If that list of "doesn'ts" seems exaggerated to anyone, or you (anyone) can't think of multiple examples of what each refers to, then please, either withhold judgment, or really read all those frustrating Metatalk threads you've noped out of. For the past while I've made a particular effort in comments to look up and provide some explanatory links to things I mention, so that people who aren't following can at least understand at least a small part of where the frustration is coming from even if they don't agree with it. But for this comment, I'm too tired. Go back and read even just the past two months of Metatalk. Not enough? Make it four or six. If that's too big a time commitment that's fine - but again, consider withholding judgment if you're not willing to see what people are responding to.)

If bullying is, to you, less about the content of what's said than the way in which it's said - if it's the sarcasm and the jibes and accusations and so on that get to you - then I completely understand, but wonder at how you miss the sarcasm and jibes and accusations - mostly from a minority of users, occasionally from mods themselves - towards users who express criticism, or even just disappointment, about what's been going on. As for disrespect, I have no words for how disrespectful so much of the mods' communication and behavior has been. Not all of it - and I personally have made a point of trying to acknowledge and applaud the good stuff, and I think a lot of others have too - but the good stuff has been in short supply and swamped by the dysfunctional and the ugly.

I know I’m like a broken record on this, but if we’re genuinely going to be a self-governing web community, our forum for community discussion and governance has to be functional, and it won’t be if bullying is socially permissible.

I'm like a broken record on a different message: if we’re genuinely going to be a self-governing web community, our forum for community discussion and governance has to be one where community input is actually (a) heard and (b) not sent to /dev/null with varying amounts of stonewalling, delaying, obfuscation, or prejudice.

The term bullying does involve power, and right now the only power dissatisfied users have is to leave, withhold funding, or try to change things by speaking up on Metatalk. And speaking up on Metatalk has almost never created actual change - except when things get ugly, at which point some small concessions have been made. That is not a healthy structure incentivizing healthy behavior on any side. The power to change that structure is in the hands of the people who actually get to impose their decisions. Those are the mods, and now - in what will hopefully be a real change on this dynamic - the new board.

But the members of the board - and how many they are and who they are is something I'd guess a lot of people reading this thread probably don't know - have not been very active in MetaTalk, with the partial exception of Rhaomi. Have they been following along? Do they know what users are so het up about? Do they, like Katullus, think this is just a case of never-satisfied users bullying the mods and being mean?

If so, I'm worried.
posted by trig at 10:28 AM on December 21 [26 favorites]

Seems like there are few people here who will need a grindstone from Santa next week.
posted by adamvasco at 11:01 AM on December 21 [4 favorites]

I would actually love some good grinding tools :-)
posted by trig at 11:07 AM on December 21 [5 favorites]

There are some people (maybe me included) who could plausibly be seen as bullying or mobbing the mods. I tend to disagree with that characterization, given the history with specific people who are persistently harsh in tone and content (eg racially charged deletions/mischaracterizations), but I see how someone could get there.

Trig is 1000% not one of those people and has worked really, really hard to be fair and constructive and I’m unhappy to see them being treated this way.
posted by knobknosher at 11:16 AM on December 21 [10 favorites]

I think this is a story that you, and a group of other people that hang out in MetaTalk tell yourself to excuse your behavior towards staff and volunteers.

Separately, I think this is a story you and people who have not been paying much attention tell yourself to avoid acknowledging that there are not clearcut villains in this particular dynamic.
posted by knobknosher at 11:18 AM on December 21 [14 favorites]

What does bullying mean to you?

on the most basic level, it means using a power imbalance to your advantage.

Which I hope isn't overtly accusing anyone of anything. I haven't been in these threads enough to really have a firm position in that regard.
posted by philip-random at 11:34 AM on December 21 [3 favorites]

... and then on preview (and not wanting to abuse the edit window), I realize that's far too broad a definition. Because there's pretty much always a power imbalance in situations involving humans. I guess, what needs to be added is that bullying is when this power advantage is used to throw one's weight around, with the sly trick of power being that we often don't even know we have it. It creeps up on us/into us. It uses us in not necessarily benevolent ways without us really being aware.
posted by philip-random at 11:38 AM on December 21 [1 favorite]

knobknosher, trig literally admits upthread to hounding the staff over administrative details. I don't think anyone here is saying there haven't also been well-justified complaints recently, especially in damaging interactions with users where the staff themselves walked back decisions and/or apologized. Certainly incidents like those have unclear boundaries, and there may be others that are unresolved.

But it isn't right to conflate this with complaints over administrative delays, unclear job duties, lack of basic project and/or product management practices, and other backseat micromanagement, hall monitor, and/or Yelp review kinds of stuff. Personally, I am fine with a staff that keeps this place just north of Memepool with the caveat that users with the perspective to guide us on real notorious matters of systemic social impact need the latitude to say that how they need to.

But I definitely can't imagine thinking hounding people about administrative trivia was OK. Getting to a community-run site was certainly an achievement, but not only is getting there by hounding people not OK, it remains to be seen if any of it mattered. Honestly the new feature I'm most excited about is the muting function, because it's hard to quit a site I've been reading since August 2000 cold turkey and muting batches of people very gradually was very helpful in leaving Facebook and Twitter.
posted by Wobbuffet at 11:48 AM on December 21 [4 favorites]

I don’t want to get into an extended back and forth over this, but will say that:

trig literally admits upthread to hounding the staff over administrative details

This is not an accurate characterization of their comment, which used about a dozen scare quotes around the word “hounding” and did not include the words “administrative” or “details”.

If you disagree with them, fine, but it’s not fair to misrepresent what they said.

Honestly, I see this as (1) Brandon, to his credit, putting in a lot of needed effort in and (2) that effort being spurred on by needed critical feedback.

It’s understandable for people to see the improved situation and then think that the effort it took to get there was obviously not needed. But the bullying/mobbing accusations seem unnecessary.
posted by knobknosher at 11:59 AM on December 21 [10 favorites]

where the staff themselves walked back decisions and/or apologized

One more thing—some credit to the staff for this, but it only happened after several people spoke up. The initial reaction was blaming users, giving timeouts, etc. I don’t believe in holding that over their heads forever, but I also don’t believe in whitewashing the incident by making it seem that the staff “themselves” walked things back. No. They did not do that independently or spontaneously.
posted by knobknosher at 12:03 PM on December 21 [18 favorites]

This is not an accurate characterization

What trig said included, "I too would prefer a staff that doesn't need to be hounded into even basic action. Improvements shouldn't require committed, sustained begging, cajoling, or hounding." Are you or trig saying this was limited to action on the rice cooker or Uber threads and debatably two others where the mod actions still stand? Because if it's in any way linked to this thread, I think it's administrative trivia.
posted by Wobbuffet at 12:05 PM on December 21 [1 favorite]

whitewashing

I would be grateful if you applied your own standards of mischaracterization to your own comments.
posted by Wobbuffet at 12:07 PM on December 21 [1 favorite]

I don’t think we agree on enough to have a constructive discussion so I’m going to move on from this at this point.
posted by knobknosher at 12:08 PM on December 21 [3 favorites]

I also agree with Kattalus.
posted by Jacqueline at 12:14 PM on December 21 [7 favorites]

The thing that's toughest for me is when the...loudest people here bring the full force of their rhetoric to bear against the more trivial of complaints. Like, often I can step back and see that they have a point -- they're not totally wrong -- but they've swept everything up into such a big ball of trouble that they've (to my eye) lost perspective about what's actually important, actually a danger to the site. (For one thing, they seem to have an outsized sense of how many people have actually buttoned, walked away, or even stopped donations recently in response to this stuff, even though at least one of those recent examples probably represents a real miscarriage of justice, and definitely represents a real slip from ideals we agreed to a couple years ago.^*)

There are a lot of ways in which I look at the blue and green and think: whatever's going on behind the scenes, and ignoring maybe a couple edge cases here and there, things are running fine. And since the blue and the green are the heart of the site, that means a lot.

But then in one of these recent threads someone started posting links to older mod/staff MeTa interactions, and it was kind of amazing to see how far we've...shifted from those days. We probably can't ever go back, but, as that person pointed out, it would be worth collecting some more of those as examples of what to aim a little closer to. (I think that may already be having some effect.)

Lastly, I think a lot of this stuff is congealing into something that's feeling very partisan, at least as an analogy. There are some differences in underlying ground-truth, or maybe differences in...focus, if not in values, that are leading to very different assessments of the current state of things and definitely to very different calls for what to do moving forward. And neither number-of-comments or favorite-counts in MeTa are cutting it to get a sense where the site as a whole stands on it (they've varied so much between the most recent MeTa threads). I hope we can hold a poll or referendum some time soon, on a bunch of these questions, so everyone inclined to position themselves on either "side" can have a better sense of what the site as a whole thinks. We need that, before anyone with really strong takes on this -- in either direction -- will be willing to bend.

^*The other most prominent recent example I'm less clear about. I think they may have just flamed out! And then repeatedly continued to flame out! But I can kinda see the other side to that, if I squint right.
posted by nobody at 1:49 PM on December 21 [11 favorites]

I, too, agree with Kattullus.

grindstone from Santa next week.
dude, so last night I'm doing research for a post and I thought I'd do it on Harold and Vita and then decided to do it on Vita and Virginia and I came across your excellent post
so I find a few things about just Virginia and vita, was going to start off with a quote from Nigel Nicholson's collection where is ....it....ah, look at me, dogged eared the page, bad, 10 January 1923.

"tomorrow I dine with my darling Mrs.woolf at richmond, a picnic more than a dinner, as the press has overflowed both into the dining room and into the larder. I love Mrs woolf and with a sick passion. so will you. in fact, I don't think I will let you know her."

so I was thinking of like doing a sub addendum kind of post sorta worked it out, good pull quote but it just it didn't augment the original post thought the work they wrote to another, Vita and Seducers in Ecuador with Virginia's Orlando was interesting.

so I'm going to do one on Medbh McGuckian

anywho, the flurry of updates and progress thus updated is encouraging, thanks.
posted by clavdivs at 2:04 PM on December 21 [7 favorites]

Trig, I just want to say again that when I was reading past threads in MetaTalk, your presence was immensely appreciated. I don’t know how to keep this from becoming a back and forth about you and other users Kattalus calls out by name but it just…feels silly when in this very thread you’ve been replying in good faith and humor to mod comments and giving credit where credit is due to improvements made. (Speaking of credit where credit is due, I think Brandon handles criticism with good faith and humor too.)

It’s entirely possible people have been engaged this whole time and disagree with me, and that’s fine, really. I don’t mean to imply if people just read all the things I did that we’d reach the same conclusions about other people’s intent and behavior, but since I completely changed my perspective when going from casual reading to prolific reader of contentious MetaTalk threads, I echo Knobknosher in wondering if people have been following along closely or just casually and if that would change how you feel about negative comments about moderation or staffing decisions.

Clicking through the comment history of some folks you (general you, not replying to anyone in particular here) think are acting like bullies could tell a different story, I did that a lot when trying to get “caught up” with a bunch of conflicts I missed while not engaging with the site. I cannot recommend the route I eventually took which was reading MetaTalk threads like novels for the last month or two because I am embarrassed to admit how many hours I put into that. However it made what I was reading as oddly hostile comments in isolation when I was just skimming MetaTalk threads turn out to be understandable and from people who were engaging in helpful or positive ways too and not just shitting all over threads no matter what.
posted by the thorn bushes have roses at 2:05 PM on December 21 [24 favorites]

Going off on a barista that you feel is regularly antagonistic, frustrating, or incompetent may feel good, garner some sympathetic “Right on”s, and possibly even lead to a constructive outcome, but one should also be prepared for other patrons and staff at the coffee shop to think you’re a giant fucking asshole.
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 2:23 PM on December 21 [10 favorites]

Yeah, for sure, but is that what is happening here? Like Brandon replied, let's give each other the grace of believing the other person is suggesting, talking, arguing, or working to do what's best for the site — are people regularly going off on their barista or are you setting up them as some straw Karen analogy when generally they are just asking for accountability and getting frustrated by serious lapses in judgement but willing to keep engaging because they care about the site just as much as you do? I think we all agree the behavior you are describing is one of an asshole but I don’t think it describes any active mefites.
posted by the thorn bushes have roses at 2:33 PM on December 21 [10 favorites]

MetaFilter: you’re a giant fucking asshole

lol happy solstice!
posted by glonous keming at 2:33 PM on December 21 [3 favorites]

Ultimately, I don’t think that coming across as an asshole is necessarily a bad thing. It’s distinct from being an asshole, and it’s distinct from being wrong. I realize that for a lot of people, that point won’t resonate.

Anyway, there’s a bit of a double bind here. Going into detail about the history seems likely to lead to more accusations of bullying because it necessarily requires criticizing mods. And personally, I think it would be shitty for the mods so it’s not something I would enjoy doing.

However, not going into detail about the history allows for a lot of minimization and for the shaping of a narrative that I find insulting and unfair to many people.

That’s life, I guess!
posted by knobknosher at 2:38 PM on December 21 [7 favorites]

One other point—I hope my last one on this particular topic—I find it especially unfair to conflate the treatment of the mods with the treatment of volunteers. I think it has been very different, as is appropriate.
posted by knobknosher at 2:40 PM on December 21 [13 favorites]

MetaTalk: Ultimately, I don’t think that coming across as an asshole is necessarily a bad thing.
posted by box at 3:11 PM on December 21 [6 favorites]

Inevitably, one of the blind men poking the elephant will feel a giant asshole.
posted by lucidium at 5:37 PM on December 21 [6 favorites]

It’s more than being an asshole; it’s abuse. Like the abusive husband who tells his wife she is fat and ugly and then says “I’m only telling you this because I love you.”
posted by Melismata at 8:01 PM on December 21 [3 favorites]

The thing that's toughest for me is when the...loudest people here bring the full force of their rhetoric to bear against the more trivial of complaints[…] that they've swept everything up into such a big ball of trouble that they've (to my eye) lost perspective about what's actually important, actually a danger to the site

One hard truth for everyone here, I think, is that the actual biggest problems facing the site have nothing to do with MetaTalk, and only a little bit to do with moderation. More judicious moderation might have kept some people from walking out - beyond the people who explicitly walked out over moderation - but ultimately it’s a different internet than it was 25 years ago and people here manifestly don’t even all want the same things from it. The worst aspects of the culture show up on MeTa from time to time but they are actually more problematic on the blue has the green - you know, the places a new user would theoretically show up and try to post. Everybody could stand to keep these things in perspective.

At the same time, I don’t know how anyone could pay attention to MeTa over the past few years without noticing how dysfunctional the site is on an administrative level. Things that are promised don’t happen. Things that are happening don’t get communicated. An all-hands-on-deck volunteer-led effort was required to dig out of a financial hole. I don’t know the cause of these issues but I defy anyone not to notice them after reading all the threads. That one can use the site and not notice a lot of this stuff is a result of the fact that it is, in the end, a smallish message board at steady state, which doesn’t need a lot of intervention to function as such on a basic level. So again, on one hand, the stakes are not high enough to be an asshole about it, but on the other let’s not pat ourselves on the back for making that work with only a couple hundred thousand dollars in annual donations.
posted by atoxyl at 8:34 PM on December 21 [28 favorites]

In this case it’s feeling like the random internet commentator who is convinced a celebrity they don’t know is in an abusive relationship and comments on all their posts telling them they should leave their spouse.

I have enjoyed your contributions across the site for many years, and I know I have agreed with you in the past on many things, but I have seen the consistent accusations and insults that you’ve lobbed at people in MetaTalk and some of them I am surprised were allowed to stand, melismata. Claiming to know what Cortex and current mods feel and experience makes it more toxic here, not less, and I think if you want to push back on what you see as unfair you have to come with a lot more to back that up and actually engage with the criticism being given against mods beyond just saying it’s abusive. Especially when mods have engaged themselves with that criticism and apologized or changed behavior, which I think indicates that not all that criticism was meritless.

I think saying someone is coming across as an asshole because of how you yourself experience them is fair game but I don’t think it’s fair to claim you know why Cortex left or whether loup/Brandon/other staff and volunteers are experiencing objective abuse from members without providing any evidence.
posted by the thorn bushes have roses at 8:43 PM on December 21 [12 favorites]

And so I don’t appear totally obtuse, of course I have seen a ton of the “bitch eating crackers” phenomenon towards mods the entire time I have been a member, but the people being accused of being abusive or impossible to please have consistently shown up and celebrated every step forward, including the good news shared in this thread!
posted by the thorn bushes have roses at 8:51 PM on December 21 [3 favorites]

knobnosher: One other point—I hope my last one on this particular topic—I find it especially unfair to conflate the treatment of the mods with the treatment of volunteers. I think it has been very different, as is appropriate.

I first realized that something was really wrong in MetaTalk when 1adam12 posted and asked for assistance in filling out a tax-form. He was greeted by a wave of hostility.

This was a month ago, but it still took me until this thread to really understand what was going on, that this was a textbook example of bullying.

When I read MetaTalk, and noticed the constant criticism that staff faced, criticism often leveled by MeFites I think very highly of, whose judgment I trust, I assumed that there must be a reason for all the hostility.

But no, there isn’t. When bullying happens, it’s because a group dynamic forms that defines certain people as being harmful in some way, and then isolates them from a larger community. Narratives are constructed to enable the bullying.

The thing is, even now, I thought this must be a recent phenomenon, because the switch hadn’t flipped for me until now. So I went browsing back in time through older threads. But no, this dynamic has been going on for a long time. Staff are greeted by hostility when there’s no cause. Reactions to minor things the staff do, to nothing things, are way out of proportion. This has been going on for months, possibly even years.

Looking back, this dynamic is really obvious. But I didn’t see it. In thread after thread, threads I read at the time, this is plain as day, and I didn’t see it.

I feel really fucking ashamed of myself. I should’ve known better, and I should have said something, but I didn’t. And I have to live with that.

I know it’s essentially meaningless in face of what they’ve had to deal with, but I’d like to offer my apology to the staff, to volunteers, and to everyone else who’s been bullied in MetaTalk.

I’m really ashamed of myself and I’m really sorry.
posted by Kattullus at 10:35 PM on December 21 [18 favorites]

Surely calling other users assholes is against the Guidelines?

No "fuck you"s or name-calling
directed at others in a conversation. (Pointing out that a statement is racist or otherwise problematic is not name-calling.) In general, cursing is fine on the site, but cursing at another member or a staff member is not okay.

posted by TheophileEscargot at 10:39 PM on December 21 [1 favorite]

I’m really ashamed of myself and I’m really sorry.

Well, I guess I'll just say that I think differently about things and hope you're able to find peace and resolution on this particular issue.
posted by knobknosher at 11:09 PM on December 21 [10 favorites]

the people being accused of being abusive or impossible to please have consistently shown up and celebrated every step forward, including the good news shared in this thread!

I think I’m a second tier complainer at best but

Things that are promised don’t happen

given that this thread is about some long-awaited things happening, I honestly regret the overall negativity of my last comment. I don’t want my main response to some of the more significant updates in a long while to be getting baited into arguing about the same old shit. Credit to everyone who has worked to move the site forward, and congrats to the proud ex-owner! (absolutely joshing here, no meanness intended)
posted by atoxyl at 11:22 PM on December 21 [2 favorites]

Surely calling other users assholes is against the Guidelines?

I described behavior that could contribute to a user being perceived as an asshole. If no one recognizes themselves or their actions in my comment, I guess that means no one has anything to be offended about!
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 11:25 PM on December 21 [1 favorite]

I do agree that there has been some bullying, but I think it's easy to mistakenly think since some criticism has been bullying, all the criticism has been bullying. That's not, in my opinion, the case. For a while there I was getting a little worried that while the criticisms were valid, the motives of the critics were not, and it really didn't matter what happened, they were just going to criticize it anyway. That's why this thread was a big relief, as I've seen people who have been very critical in the past now expressing positivity.

It's not everyone, of course. Some of the people who were critical were criticizing as bullies. But some weren't. Believing that "the criticism was just bullying" and believing that "the criticism was all valid" are both, I think, inaccurate. I think it was/is highly dependent on the person.
posted by Bugbread at 11:41 PM on December 21 [9 favorites]

I'm really pleased that the site is moving forward on both the technical and nonprofit fronts, and I appreciate the work staff and volunteers have put in on it. Thanks!

As for the other stuff, I stick my head in the grey to read the mod updates and occasionally to put in my $0.02, but mostly I don't want to hang out here because it's always so mean and particularly to the mods. I'm not saying the mods are angels or that they're fast and responsive, but it feels like there's an active section of the commentariat in mod posts that takes everything mods say in the worst possible way. And likes to kick them for it. It always seems to me like some progress is being made in the regular updates, which, yay! But it also always seems like it's not enough, or staff is working on the wrong thing, or whatever.

Y'all who are criticizing the mods all the time are certainly right about some of this stuff, but you're not making Metafilter a place I'd want to invite my friends to hang out. Metafilter isn't a group marriage, enspousening jokes notwithstanding, but there is a question of whether we'd rather be right or get along here. Some folks are heavily on the "be right" end to the detriment of getting along.

And I'm not being passive aggressive about not naming names; I just generally nope out when the mean quotient gets too high, so I don't remember names. I spoke up this time because I know Katullus' name and the work he puts in for the community at large and I think his complaints have some merit.
posted by gentlyepigrams at 12:44 AM on December 22 [18 favorites]

Ultimately, I don’t think that coming across as an asshole is necessarily a bad thing. It’s distinct from being an asshole, and it’s distinct from being wrong. I realize that for a lot of people, that point won’t resonate.

It's not that it doesn't resonate, I just think you have to at least momentarily take stock of your approach if you're needing to split this particular hair.

I do agree that there has been some bullying, but I think it's easy to mistakenly think since some criticism has been bullying, all the criticism has been bullying.

I think the difficulty is that MetaTalk bullies have carved out a lane where any attempt to rein them in is going to be seen as Mod overreach and that the increasingly hostile approach is seen as justified by the lack of progress. I think putting this particular toy back in the box is not something the mods can do and site norms will need to change where users who may agree on some level with the general points being made but not the method need to clearly distance themselves from the bullies, else the bullies will continue to use the mob to fire off their one liners unabated.
posted by formeruser14 at 4:05 AM on December 22 [10 favorites]

The root problem here has been the leadership vacuum. Now that we have new ownership, I’m looking forward to us hiring a good manager who can help the org deliver on whatever’s important, and deprioritize any stuff that isn’t. I’m really excited!

I’m also hoping we can give the snark a rest. I hear warriorqueen when she points out that many online communities are worse places to work, and I have to acknowledge her greater lived experience here, but well — I’m put in mind of my dad, who used to say that Black people who complain about 21st century racism don’t know how good they have it, compared to what he grew up witnessing in Texas and Kentucky. Gross is still gross, tiresome is still tiresome, and whatever grit may be needed in a practical sense for staff to survive working for a social media entity, I want us to aim for better than that. Critical, yes, fine, it’s been helpful and needed, but keep it measured to the size of the problem, and leave the nastiness for your workplace. It’s not just the staff you’re hurting, and I remember the crudeness here and carry that memory with me when I read the stuff you say on the other parts of the site.
posted by eirias at 5:17 AM on December 22 [8 favorites]

The bullying accusation doesn't make any sense to me since the users have no power of any kind. (As individuals, at least. If everyone stopped donating that would be a different story.)

Things are contentious. They could be a lot less contentious if staff/management? chose to make it so. There was a lot of tension about the MetaTalk queue, but if there isn't a queue, or posts are just approved fast enough that it doesn't seem like they are being suppressed, then there are no gripes about that. If it was possible to have a reasonable discussion about staffing without it being characterized as "harassment" then we would be free to have that discussion in a more straightforward way. If there was a moderation log, then there would still be disagreements over some mod actions, but we wouldn't have the more contentious issues around transparency and misrepresentation. These are all choices, and the users didn't make any of these choices.

Obviously the biggest thing is that the site needs to have some decision-making structure, like an ED accountable to the board. The current staff team has been making decisions while eschewing all accountability for their decisions like Family Circus Not Me is in charge. That's not sustainable. People have been overall, and should be, courteous to volunteers and grateful for their service. People will be, and should be, supportive of an ED who comes in to deal with the site's issues and get it on the right track, as long as it is someone who is open to making whatever changes are best for the site in the long term.
posted by snofoam at 5:34 AM on December 22 [14 favorites]

I can see how you took that as my takeaway eiras. And overall I agree; there shouldn’t be calls for resignations, etc.

But I think my point still gets missed which is — there are in any business or organization unhappy customers/participants. On a discussion forum whose brand is basically overthinking things, you’re gonna have people who want to discuss moderation. There are ways to manage that differently from all fronts.

I think calling the mods bad people and lazy is wrong. I think calling the complainers bullies is wrong. I think there are ways to make discussion (ETA: about modding/growing/running the site) more productive and I think 75% of the power in that rests with the organization and mods and 25% rests with the members. I won’t go into it right now because I think the most important thing right now is to give the community 6 months to get some structure in place, but I have offered to help on that front. I encourage everyone to see if they want to do the same.
posted by warriorqueen at 5:38 AM on December 22 [11 favorites]

Kattullus is correct in that that the thread where 1adam12 asked for help with a tax form was very harsh to 1adam12 and the rest of the board.
posted by NotLost at 6:04 AM on December 22 [11 favorites]

Maybe we can print out all the mean comments, papier mache them into an effigy, then set it alight to purge our sins and please the gods and welcome a new era for Metafilter. We could call it the christ what an asshole tax wickerman.
posted by phunniemee at 6:12 AM on December 22 [9 favorites]

I've been reading along this saga as a lurker (longtime mefi reader for many years who ended up finally signing up again for unclear reasons lol).

I'm not seeing users, especially trig, bullying the mods/admins, if anything there seems to be pretty extreme social pressure against raising concerns with either the system of moderation or individual mod actions. There have been plenty of harsh and insulting comments directed at others in the various meta threads I've enjoyed reading over the past few months, some directed at mods/admin, and many directed at those who raise concerns, but I'm not seeing either side bullying the other, and I think the framing of "sides" and "groups" might be part of the problem. Just my two cents!
posted by Hawthorn at 6:19 AM on December 22 [19 favorites]

> christ what an asshole tax wickerman

AAAAA NOT THE BEEANS
posted by lucidium at 6:33 AM on December 22 [11 favorites]

Kattullus is correct in that that the thread where 1adam12 asked for help with a tax form was very harsh to 1adam12 and the rest of the board.

That thread is about 20% the “angry” people explaining that the criticism is NOT directed at volunteers, and one person being a jerk to the volunteers.
posted by bowbeacon at 6:53 AM on December 22 [11 favorites]

Bowbeacon, it does appear that the discontent with the volunteers in that thread was not as broad as it first appeared to me.
posted by NotLost at 7:08 AM on December 22 [6 favorites]

warriorqueen: six months to get some better structures in place sounds really smart. Yes.

I'm hoping by June we have an ED and a "non interim" board. Though it's completely fine with me if interim board members want to volunteer -- I just think the instinct to establish board processes under non-emergency conditions is really sound.

I don't know if there is an extant list of startup tasks that could be usefully farmed out to volunteers. Sorry if I missed this. I am 100% useless re: legal paperwork or any of what was asked for in the November post but am curious whether there are any places I could help. I know making such a list is itself work...
posted by eirias at 7:36 AM on December 22 [3 favorites]

I don't know if there is an extant list of startup tasks that could be usefully farmed out to volunteers.

Maybe we could help with that here. Here are some ideas for earlyish tasks or committees. Anyone have other ideas?
* ED search and related tasks.
* Elections committee.
* Finance committee.
* Fundraising planning. Maybe fundraising doesn’t need to, and shouldn’t, wait until the usual time.
* Nominations for permanent board.
* Technical development and testing.
* Volunter-mod idea -- Possibly speak to board members about whether they have any interest in volunteer mods, and working on a proposal for that.
posted by NotLost at 7:48 AM on December 22 [3 favorites]

I’m talking to a couple interim board members early next week about helping with elections and can see and help coordinate if the board wants. In case anyone is wondering, I reached out via MeMail.
posted by warriorqueen at 8:22 AM on December 22 [6 favorites]

Calling what has happened here in MeTa either abuse or bullying is so, so offensive to someone who has seen actual abuse in their life

I’m not saying I’m that person or that it’s offensive though, in the spirit of the person who wasn’t calling anyone an asshole, so don’t @ a ghost
posted by B_Ghost_User at 9:42 AM on December 22 [14 favorites]

The general tone that people use to talk to mods is so mean. One can make substantive arguments about change without demeaning people who work here.
When I read metatalk I'm ashamed and tbh don't want to be here. Which doesn't befit a web community I don't think.
I'm glad Katullus spoke up. I have to follow suit.

I personally wouldn't speak of abuse. I'd say: you don't talk to people like that.
posted by jouke at 9:51 AM on December 22 [17 favorites]

Katullus appears to have buttoned.
posted by NotLost at 10:30 AM on December 22

his account still shows active to me?
posted by glonous keming at 11:03 AM on December 22

People can and do have different thoughts and outtakes about things and that's fine. Hopefully everyone (especially mods) will consider how their words and actions may appear and strive to be considerate.

In the end, we all want the site to be better and part of that is being respectful of each other, even when we disagree. Criticism is absolutely necessary and needed, but let's try to keep it constructive so we can all work together towards the common goal of making the site healthy and long lasting.
posted by Brandon Blatcher (staff) at 11:09 AM on December 22 [6 favorites]

Kattullus is correct in that that the thread where 1adam12 asked for help with a tax form was very harsh to 1adam12 and the rest of the board

Other people addressed this but mostly what happened here was that 1adam12 posted at a moment of elevated tension in MeTa (they all are, I know, but it was right after some other stuff had kicked off) asking if anyone wanted to help with a tax form, acknowledging that they could have a lawyer do it but

Our attorney has quoted us $5,000 to complete this task. We would have to raise or borrow this

People seized on this as another example of the fecklessness of the MeFi pros, not the volunteers, because what do you mean you’d have to raise or borrow funds, doesn’t MeFi have funds, aren’t they helping you with this? Jessamyn clarified that, sure, they could use MeFi funds, they just weren’t certain it was a big enough deal to justify, but it just introduced a new premise for people to be mad about, that site management wasn’t supporting the volunteers enough (though one or two did eventually take it as an opportunity to go off on everyone).

It’s true though that if I were 1adam12 and I were not paying much attention to MeTa and my post stirred up that reaction, there’s a good chance it wouldn’t feel like the hostility was skipping me. That’s a thing about MetaFilter’s unthreaded threads - they take on a vibe. But it is also an example of a blow-up that didn’t have to be except something somewhere didn’t get communicated. People could stand to be more willing give the benefit of the doubt in these situations, but a lot of frustration results from balls pretty frequently being dropped on communication, IMO.
posted by atoxyl at 11:12 AM on December 22 [11 favorites]

Yes. A lot of the criticism of the site's administration and moderation is of the She Divorced Me Because I Left Dishes By The Sink variety. It seems like an overreaction if you don't know or ignore the history and context. I agree no one should be using abusive language in either direction, but there are only so many times over years and years one can keep saying the same thing, in response to the same mistakes and questions about how to fix or avoid those mistakes, without it eventually coming across with a rather short tone.
posted by lapis at 12:49 PM on December 22 [10 favorites]

My mistake. I was misspelling "Kattullus".
posted by NotLost at 2:08 PM on December 22 [3 favorites]

there's goes 5 minutes that I don't think you'd like to read but it all led to a working definition of smocking.

all is well within the realm.

LEON.
posted by clavdivs at 2:27 PM on December 22 [3 favorites]

B_Ghost_User: Calling what has happened here in MeTa either abuse or bullying is so, so offensive to someone who has seen actual abuse in their life

I take it that this is directed at me.

I was severely bullied as a kid, from about 9 years of age through 16. It took me decades to work my way towards self-acceptance, and even today I have suicidal ideation that began during that part of my life, though thankfully it’s rare and fleeting. Thanks to therapy and help from loved ones, I am mostly free of the chronic depression that marked most of my life.

Close family members and friends were bullied in childhood or as adults. Some of them killed themselves later, and I can’t help but think that I was more lucky than anything else in that I didn’t join that particular group. I mourn those loved ones every day.
posted by Kattullus at 2:34 PM on December 22 [10 favorites]

Of all sites to try to pull the "you wouldn't call this bullying if you had experienced bullying yourself" card...
posted by Bugbread at 3:14 PM on December 22 [9 favorites]

I think it’s worth trying to de-escalate things a bit here because I think everyone has good intentions. A lot of people here have had experience with bullying, some of it very serious and damaging. That may color their view of this situation in vastly different ways, and doesn’t necessarily mean they will react the same way to the same situation.
posted by knobknosher at 4:25 PM on December 22 [12 favorites]

A lot of the criticism of the site's administration and moderation is of the She Divorced Me Because I Left Dishes By The Sink variety.

One of the moments when I moved significantly closer to leaving my ex (which I did two years ago, after 29 years together) was when I sent him this article, hoping that it would get through to him when nothing I'd ever said to him did. His reply was, "I don't understand why you sent this to me."
posted by Well I never at 5:28 PM on December 22 [11 favorites]

Kattullus is not the only person to raise concerns about bullying, and I find the number of "well actually" responses to be disheartening. Some of the same people who have consistently used the strongest language to attack the mods appear poised to make decisions about the future of modding MeFi, please have the grace to listen when a long time member of the community who has consistently contributed (imo) a lot of great stuff, and in a respectful manner, shares concerns.
posted by ginger.beef at 7:38 PM on December 22 [8 favorites]

Perhaps they are listening, but they just disagree?
posted by Bugbread at 7:54 PM on December 22 [9 favorites]

How many times have people described the 'exhausting' lack of response/action from mods, I don't want to litigate whether multiple concerns raised about bullying are warranted. A positive sign about the future of modding MeFi doesn't resemble (this), surely?

I will be the first to say I think modding is harder than it looks, I haven't always appreciated all the mods' actions and decisions all the time, and at the same time a new way of modding this community may not improve things.
posted by ginger.beef at 8:01 PM on December 22 [1 favorite]

I'm going to try to say what I want to say briefly, but I'm godawful at brevity and I don't have a lot of time to condense so sorry for the length that could probably be cut from this.

First: I think bullying is a serious and terrible thing, and a pretty serious accusation, and opinions can legitimately vary but I really, really do not agree that it's a fair description of what's been going on. I think a lot of people have posted a lot of very serious, very thoughtful comments, in this and pretty much every other Meta policy/admin thread for probably the last decade, explaining why they've taken a critical approach. I don't think those are "well, actually"s. Yes, in addition to thoughtful stuff, there's also drive-by stuff, careless snark, inflammatory language. That is hardly restricted to any "side" here. To be honest, with some exceptions, I've overall found a lot more thought being put into the "here's why I'm critical of admin/modding" comments than the "here's why I'm critical of you critics" comments. So if you're reading this with a "people are so mean" perspective, I do urge you to try to notice and acknowledge the meaty stuff that is written in good faith, even if you disagree with it.

I'll also add that coming in in the middle of a discussion and being offended by one participant's angry tone is kind of unreasonable, because it's possible that if you'd been in their place and participating in the entire discussion, from the start, you'd have a similar tone yourself. There's no way to know without knowing the full context.

When it comes to users criticizing staff, part of the difficulty in getting to know that context is that what users do is totally visible. Someone makes an angry comment, and you can see it just by dipping briefly into a thread. It stands out. But much of what people are angry about is not very visible. In fact, one of the mod actions that has caused the most frustration over the years is silence. Silence in response to questions. Silence in place of promised updates and followups. Silence after bombshell moderation decisions. It's hard to see silence when you're just stopping by.

Missed deadlines (like, years' worth of missed deadlines) are hard to see if you're not following along. Broken promises are hard to see. Outright lies (doesn't happen a lot, I don't think, but it absolutely does happen and has happened recently) are hard to see. Obfuscation is hard to recognize when you don't know the context.

There was a comment here that described me as complaining, in this thread, about "administrative trivia". I looked over my comments here. What can I say - I can see how someone who has not been following along would see questions about the mod log or flagging changes as that.

I want to say that I'm taking a long break from Metatalk (not Metafilter in general). I don't feel great with how much of this thread was about me (although I think that's mostly on me since I gave that long answer to Katullus's comment, plus I've been probably too vocal here and in other threads, plus I'm verbose as hell) but that's not why - I've been trying to be less online for a while now, not so successfully, and it's New Year's resolution time and maybe this time it'll stick. I'm saying this publicly here in part so that the prospect of feeling like an idiot if I can't stay away will hopefully be a disincentive :-)

The other reason is to not give ambiguous impressions about the reason, and also because I did try in these threads (not always successfully, because I have been truly frustrated, but I tried) to balance out the more "mean" comments somewhat. It's funny because Metafilter has historically had a pretty strong consensus against tone arguments in theory, and I actually don't fully agree: I think both that it's bad (like, seriously bad) to ignore the meat of an argument because of its tone, but also that tone always affects how people interpret content - we're wired to be affected by it - and so it's worth trying to use it effectively. Not saying that I really succeeded at that (I definitely don't feel like I've been effective here) but that if you ever felt like my comments balanced out the overall tone, and if you felt the balance was helpful, then this is just to say I won't be doing that now so the "mean" stuff might stand out a bit more.


Finally: I said in this thread that I hope the nonprofit board, in their next update, will recognize and discuss the trust gap between users and mods, and how that gap was created and the frustration around it. I also said I was worried the members of the board do not understand the trust gap, the reasons, or the frustration.

That thread that 1adam12 started last month, where a lot of people were shocked by the aggressive response it got - that worried me, because the response was really predictable given the not-careful way the post was framed and the intense context it was dropped straight into.

Transparency, accountability, and communication are huge sore spots and have been for long enough to stretch a lot of people's patience to near a breaking point. I hope the new board will understand that because I want the new board to succeed. I think if they do not understand it, they're likely to unwittingly do problematic things and unwittingly fail to do important things. And in both cases I think the response will be predictably "mean" and frustrated and disappointed.

So to the board - if you see this - please: be transparent. Way more than you have been. I know you're volunteers with limited time but now you have employees who will hopefully be up to the task of helping you carry this out. Be accountable - we haven't seen real accountability in years. And communicate, again, more than you have been. I meant it when I said I'd bet a lot of people here don't even know who you are. There was even a whole subthread in the BND thread last week trying to figure out what still-active committees/boards actually exist and who is on them. Include the community, have public discussions where you listen to people. Encourage and act on publicly-offered input. Communicating with you shouldn't have to involve behind-the-scenes private emails (and there's been a lot of Meta discussion lately about why community discussion is important for a community site - hopefully you have been paying attention, and are well aware.)

In the last nonprofit thread, none of you answered the questions there after the first day. A single day. Again, volunteers, I know. But I think this will not lead to good results. And I think that will be predictable, and avoidable.

warriorqueen mentioned 6 months as a reasonable transition period. I agree. I hope in 6 months to be one of those people dropping by in Meta for the first time in a long time and shocked by - well, hopefully, how vibrant things are, how well-run things feel, how healthy the relationship between "management" and users seems to be.
posted by trig at 11:52 PM on December 22 [24 favorites]

Of all sites to try to pull the "you wouldn't call this bullying if you had experienced bullying yourself" card...

Nobody did that. Kattullus responded as if that were the case, but the person actually said that anyone who had experienced abuse would disagree, not bullying. Now whether you think the two things are equivalent somehow it's up to the reader, but it's mischaracterising the original statement to suggest it was explicitly about bullying.
posted by Dysk at 11:55 PM on December 22 [3 favorites]

ffs, I misspelled Kattullus too...
posted by trig at 12:00 AM on December 23 [1 favorite]

Dysk,

If they were separating abuse and bullying, then I misunderstood them and I apologize for mischaracterizing them. At the same time, if that's the case, I don't really understand the point of the comment. It becomes something like "Anyone who had experienced getting their hand slammed in a door would disagree that X felt like getting your foot burned on hot pavement." But, regardless of whether I think it makes sense, if they were distinguishing between abuse and bullying, then I misunderstood them and accidentally mischaracterized them, for which I apologize.
posted by Bugbread at 12:04 AM on December 23

I think the conflation of abuse & bullying was magnified by Melismata's comment which characterised the criticism of the mods as akin to dynamics within an abusive marriage.

Trig, count me as someone who rarely comments but is a long-standing reader of all MeFi sites, who has really appreciated your level headed comments and input. I'm sorry you're stepping back for the moment but hope to see you back on Meta soon.
posted by rosiroo at 12:34 AM on December 23 [15 favorites]

There was a comment here that described me as complaining, in this thread, about "administrative trivia". I looked over my comments here. What can I say - I can see how someone who has not been following along would see questions about the mod log or flagging changes as that.

For what it's worth, I meant every single time beyond the first few hundreds that you and many others have nagged, badgered, and belittled other human beings--e.g. you on Dec. 12, "I wouldn't say they're the only visible bad-decision maker"--about missing site updates, missed deadlines, apparent contradictions, use of time--e.g. you on Dec. 12, "how much of a mod's shift is spent on"--and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on.

It is not that I haven't been paying attention, because I have. Here's the context that may help: I truly don't care who owns Metafilter or how the day to day operations work. I do care when human beings, certainly including users affected by bad calls, get mistreated. But the paperwork, the site updates, the moderation log--it is all administrative trivia to me. If you care about it or cared, that's great--everyone needs some kind of passion. My feeling is--was--just figure out how to work through it without hounding anyone ... or else leave it alone. Would you have gotten here without hounding everyone endlessly? Who knows. But whatever point you reached, whether the site persisted or failed, you wouldn't have anyone thinking you ought to be ashamed of yourself for knowing you were hounding other human beings but continuing to do it anyway.

But that's not what happened.

I want to say that I'm taking a long break from Metatalk ... I don't feel great with how much of this thread was about me (although I think that's mostly on me since I gave that long answer to Katullus's comment, plus I've been probably too vocal here and in other threads, plus I'm verbose as hell) but that's not why - I've been trying to be less online for a while now, not so successfully ...

For my part, what I responded to was you being held up as someone who couldn't be viewed as a problem, and I definitely didn't disagree there were worse.
posted by Wobbuffet at 12:41 AM on December 23 [3 favorites]

You’re pretty much hounding them at this point, man. They already left, maybe lay off a bit.
posted by knobknosher at 1:05 AM on December 23 [11 favorites]

Sure, if one single direct response to trig amounts to hounding, I hope the point isn't missed that you were the one who picked trig's contributions as the matter to discuss. I doubt I'd have ever mentioned trig otherwise. And if this is now the threshold of consideration we're aiming for, good--but also wow, how much that ought to put the last couple years into perspective.
posted by Wobbuffet at 1:14 AM on December 23 [2 favorites]

It kinda does, in the context of this thread and your further four comments about trig in their presence.
posted by Dysk at 1:29 AM on December 23 [9 favorites]

My apologies to trig. I am sure I could have picked someone else, and I did hear you on that preference for a break--which was plenty of signal to move on.
posted by Wobbuffet at 1:54 AM on December 23

Trig has commented a lot here. But all of their questions were ones I had too.
posted by tiny frying pan at 5:30 AM on December 23 [15 favorites]

It's funny because Metafilter has historically had a pretty strong consensus against tone arguments in theory[...]

I've tried a few times recently to get a comment about this jotted down, but I've never managed to finish one and post it, so I'm using this quote just as a place to hang these thoughts (despite it being from someone who's said they're trying to step away from the thread now):

If there's been a (not quite firm) consensus against 'tone arguments,' I think that's been specifically in the context of racism, sexism, transphobia, etc., where the point is that tone policing is a tool the dominant culture uses to find yet one more reason to dismiss the grievances of people who have been both historically and presently wronged. An implicit "Oh, if only you could be nice about it, stop getting so mad about it, maybe we'd stop using slurs (etc.) at your expense, but you know what, you just sound crazy right now."

But...I just don't think it's legit to take such a framework and employ it in the service of...[specific list deleted, because I don't want it to sound like I'm belittling anything], but even if the complaints included literal theft of funds I'm not sure that would rise to the same level, where we'd decide as a community: hey, this is a serious justice issue, and we're going to make a serious effort to avoid criticizing any anger it naturally engenders.

(Taking a step further back, sometimes it feels like one of the things that might separate various people here is whether or not you're intuiting, on a gut level, that potential mismanagement of user-donated funds is or isn't inherently a question of justice. Or, about other issues now, whether you intuit, on a gut level, mods/staff to be a source of power and authority, and yourselves as subject to that power and authority. But I get that most of the people who have been the most vocal just want to see everything run well, and just want to see the site keep on surviving. I do too.)
posted by nobody at 6:20 AM on December 23 [2 favorites]

(probably should have skipped that last paragraph; the only point I really wanted to make was in the rest.)
posted by nobody at 6:36 AM on December 23

Bugbread: I did only make my comment in reference to abuse, not bullying specifically. It was rather funny watching a mini-pile on occur as a result.

*creepy hallway noises, ghostly chains rattling*
posted by B_Ghost_User at 8:05 AM on December 23 [3 favorites]

It was rather funny watching a mini-pile on occur as a result.

... like when Don Knotts moved into the haunted house.
posted by clavdivs at 10:35 AM on December 23 [2 favorites]

From 20 years of being on metafilter I've learned that making my point will lead to no enlightenment.

But I think basic human decency is a bridge worth dying on:

When I basically say "don't be a dick to the staff, they don't have a choice in dealing with you" the response is about how tone arguments = patriarchy = bad. And you being a dick is ultimately for the betterment of all.
It's verbally complex but intuïtevely obviously wrong.

I can't stop you. But I don't want to be around you.
posted by jouke at 10:55 AM on December 23 [8 favorites]

And you being a dick is ultimately for the betterment of all.

my basic line these days is, the means are the end*

In other words, if you resort to dickish means to achieve your ends, don't be surprised if you end up in a dickish place, however benevolent your intentions.



* except in war. It's impossible to avoid extreme means in war. Metafilter is not war.
posted by philip-random at 12:36 PM on December 23 [2 favorites]

I really appreciate the thoughtful comments, and I’m heartened by how the discussion is evolving. But there’s something important that I feel most people are missing.

Bullying is a group dynamic. For example, in workplace bullying, there isn’t a workplace bully who does all the bullying. What happens is that a narrative takes hold within a group that is part of a community, and that narrative justifies why it is okay to treat certain people poorly.

To understand bullying, you have to think about it from the perspective of the bullied. From skimming old threads, I’d hazard a guess that in the last year there has been, on average, at least one comment per day telling them that they’re useless, bad at their jobs, failures, and so on and so forth. Think about being at work for a whole year, and hearing 365 times that you’re worthless. That is a difficult place to work in.

Yes, some days there were no insults, and some days had a lot of them, but still, it is not good for anybody to hear, over and over again, that they are not only incompetent, but harmful to the community to which they belong. Even if they do get praised from time to time.

As an aside, I just want to say that the reasons given for these comments, in this thread and elsewhere, make little sense to me. There’s talk of missed deadlines, of silence, of flags, and so forth, and none of that rises to the point that people should hear 365 times a year that they’re worthless.

The post by 1adam12 was eye opening to me not because I thought that everyone was angry at him, but because a minor statement in the post led to a storm of replies, many intemperate, which he then had to wade through to get answers to his question.

This is something the staff have had to deal with, that some fairly random issue can lead to a large amount of angry replies directed at them. That is a difficult working environment.

No individual MeFite has told the staff that they’re worthless 365 times in the last year. And that’s worse. It’s coming from a group of people, who all firmly believe that the staff are worthless. When it’s one person constantly criticizing you, it’s easier to compartmentalize than when it’s a group of people.

Another important point to keep in mind, is that the people inside the group dynamic are behaving rationally, according to the narrative. If you believe that the staff are useless and harmful, then it’s perfectly normal to tell them that. It’s perfectly normal to say that they need to perform better, that they need to change their ways to fix the problem.

I want to use as one example something that warriorqueen wrote. I don’t choose it because it’s egregious, or given in bad faith. I choose because it is small, and because it came from a MeFite who is a thoughtful, considerate member of this community.

When warriorqueen assigned the power to affect how discussions in the community go, the split was 75% on the staff, and 25% on the members of the community. Whatever the members of the community have done, it is a minor issue, literally just a quarter, because we ultimately only have the power to affect things at the margins.

From inside the group narrative that the MetaFilter staff are terrible at their jobs, this is a very reasonable statement to make. From outside that narrative, from where I’m standing, this is a bewildering assertion. I had to read it multiple times to understand what was being said there, and I’m honestly not sure I understand it still.

Because as I read it, this takes responsibility for our behavior away from the community as a whole, and places it on the staff. And by making the staff uniquely responsible for the whole, it serves to isolate the staff from the community, making them out to be categorically different from us. It makes them not us.

As a member of this community, I am responsible to the other people in the community, and for the members of this community. The staff are members of the community. They are MeFites. They are us. We have a responsibility to everyone in the community, we have a responsibility to ourselves. On MetaFilter we cannot operate from the assumption that there are MeFites who should be considered categorically other. We are responsible to each other, and for each other.

We are us. All MeFites are us.
posted by Kattullus at 12:40 PM on December 23 [9 favorites]

Although I have rarely commented on these contentious MetaTalk threads, I have read every single one of them, and I just want to say that I have also found trig to be consistently thoughtful presence in these threads whose comments I have generally agreed with.

Also warriorqueen's comments in these threads have been so incredibly helpful and enlightening in these MeTas around frustration with mods/admin stuff.

And while I'm handing out "kudos", I get where all the frustration with current mods/administration is coming from, and I agree with it, but I also have to say that I have appreciated Brandon Blatcher's continued participation in these threads. Sure, he's made some screw ups, but he's the newest mod (I think? With so few mods hanging out in MeTa, I feel like I barely know who they are), and I really appreciate having him around here. BB reminds me most of the modding we used to have - mods who are actively engaged in the site, recognizable users, who engage in MeTa.

I think the general users vs mods vibe in MeTa is a natural result of how things have been handled on the mod/admin side, and I really hope to see things change for the better as the nonprofit gets going in the new year.
posted by litera scripta manet at 12:49 PM on December 23 [10 favorites]

As a data point the kind of abuse I experienced growing up was the kind where people are nice as pie to your face and especially in public and then ignore and neglect you to death (luv 2 WASP), so we all have a perspective I guess.
posted by phunniemee at 1:05 PM on December 23 [5 favorites]

And by making the staff uniquely responsible for the whole, it serves to isolate the staff from the community, making them out to be categorically different from us.

The mods are categorically different.

In the current configuration, the mods have the power to ban users, delete words (the only means users have to communicate to the rest of the community), run or refuse to run a fundraiser (the only means users have to raise money collectively), publish or refuse to publish the minutes to a meeting (the only means users have to communicate their findings in a "community capacity" to other users). That's a lot of power, and they are being well-compensated for it, to the tune of ~$250k user-donated dollars/year. Jessamyn disavowed her leadership role here from the start, leaving the mods with no accountability other than community pressure applied in these threads just recently.

So not only don't I think Trig and other commenters here were bullying the mods, I think the community as a whole was too nice to speak up for too long.
posted by Violet Blue at 1:11 PM on December 23 [14 favorites]

Yeah, all I can really say is that reading that, I'm forced to conclude that Kattullus interacts with the world in a VERY different way than I do, that I respect that, but I have no desire or intention to see the world in that way. We clearly have very different expectations of society.
posted by bowbeacon at 1:14 PM on December 23 [2 favorites]

Because as I read it, this takes responsibility for our behavior away from the community as a whole, and places it on the staff

I missed the original comment referenced but I do agree that the biggest issues on the site are down to users more than staff as a whole (this was kind of the spirit of my original comment). But there is subset of issues that’s only staff because they are issues with staff-only functions.

The staff are members of the community. They are MeFites

I articulated something a couple of times in a couple of other threads but I’ll say it once more here - I think this feels less true now for reasons that are not wholly the responsibility of users. And I don’t meant that it’s anything sinister - in fact when the site hired two mods from outside the community entirely a few years back, I took it as a deliberate experiment in the face of some previous mods getting overly personally involved in a way that wasn’t good for them or for the users. But I think it’s a fact that some mods are largely invisible as community members at this point, and unsurprising that people start viewing them more as employees. I don’t really know what to do about that, and I’m certainly not saying that it’s okay to be an asshole to front-line employees over the organization being dysfunctional, either, but I think some of the commenters criticizing the critics could stand to be more charitable about recognizing that people have legitimate frustrations, that as mean as it is to say that a specific individual is bad at their job, sometimes a job is done badly and people have to be allowed to express that somehow, and that people have generally been directed to file their concerns with the Nowhere Department. I am hopeful that having an explicitly community-involved governance structure will alleviate this fundamental issue.
posted by atoxyl at 1:16 PM on December 23 [10 favorites]

The post by 1adam12 was eye opening to me not because I thought that everyone was angry at him, but because a minor statement in the post led to a storm of replies, many intemperate, which he then had to wade through to get answers to his question.

I also agree with this view of how these threads can feel (and said as much in my narration of that particular thread) but one of my takeaways is that the way the site works exacerbates this (especially with every MeTa being a megathread, we’ll see what effect letting more posts through has). Which is something that makes the accusation of bullying seem a little unfair, that I think you can have a lot of people individually being reasonable enough but that the long scroll of criticism feels like a pile-on anyway.
posted by atoxyl at 1:25 PM on December 23 [5 favorites]

Somewhat aside from the issue of whether or not the mods are being bullied, I've seen a few different things being stated as essential elements of bullying which I don't think are.

On the "this isn't bullying because" side, I've seen that bullying requires power, so a powerless person can't be bullied. I don't think this is true, because I've seen bullying in real life without any sort of power. There was a kid on my school bus who people nicknamed "Jeremy Decker, the red-headed woodpecker" (I have no idea why we considered this such an insult, but we were little kids). He was absolutely bullied, teased constantly. Were the kids bullying him physically stronger than him? No. Older? No. Richer? No. Have powerfully connected parents like some 1980s movie? No. Literally zero power imbalance, but it was clearly bullying anyway. I guess if you were dead-set on declaring there to be a power imbalance, then you could say "well, the other kids had the power of numbers" but if that's the case, then the "this isn't bullying because MeFi users have no power" argument doesn't really hold, because users have the power of numbers. But it brings me to the next "bullying is..." definition that I disagree with.

On the "this is bullying" side, it has been stated that "bullying is a group dynamic." I don't think this is necessarily true, either, because I (and everyone else on my street) experienced bullying from a single kid. Curtis used to pick fights with us at the bus stop constantly. You'd be at the bus stop talking with a friend and he'd walk up and be like, "What'd you say about my mother?" (Note: literally none of us ever said anything about his mother, he was just very bad at making up convincing intros to fights) We'd all be like "Nothing, I promise, I didn't say anything about your mother" but he'd just amp himself up "Don't be talking about my fucking family you f****t, I'll fuck you up" and we'd apologize and then eventually he'd get you in a headlock or punch you or both. He was a big, strong kid, so it didn't matter that there were three or four of us and one of him, even if we tried to gang up on him, we'd lose, and we knew that if we showed the temerity to fight back, that would just enrage him more and it would amp up. Since it's Christmas, think of Scott Farkus in "A Christmas Story." Definitely a bully, by any definition, but it's not because of Grover Dill (his sidekick). If Grover Dill moved to another neighborhood, it doesn't mean that Scott Farkus beating up the neighborhood kids would no longer be bullying, it would just make him a solo bully, like my neighborhood's Curtis.

Again, not super-related to whether or not this particular MeFi dynamic is bullying. It just kind of stuck in my mind that people were saying that this was or wasn't bullying because of some particular requirements of bullying which I don't think are actual requirements.
posted by Bugbread at 1:33 PM on December 23 [2 favorites]

Bullying is a group dynamic.

serves to isolate the staff from the community, making them out to be categorically different from us

The staff totally are different in a lot of ways. They are paid to work for the site. They have some responsibilities that they can follow through on or not. (And, unusually for most jobs, these responsibilities are largely self-determined and self-monitored since there is no management structure here.) They can delete your comments for good or bad reasons. They can lie about what you said after deleting your comments, etc.

There are a handful of staff and many more users. The fact that some portion of users notices and comments on the same shortcomings of the staff is totally natural and not an indication of bullying. If anything, the group dynamic is that many people are justifiably disappointed with the management of the site. Sometimes many people disagree with specific mod actions. There's nothing weird about that. It's not bullying just because many people feel the same way.
posted by snofoam at 1:46 PM on December 23 [5 favorites]

When warriorqueen assigned the power to affect how discussions in the community go, the split was 75% on the staff, and 25% on the members of the community. Whatever the members of the community have done, it is a minor issue, literally just a quarter, because we ultimately only have the power to affect things at the margins.

Well first Kattullus, I'm sorry you were bullied as a youth. I was too; I actually have a couple of physical scars and was removed from a classroom for three months (I spent it in the library) because that was how the school supposedly kept me safe. It really sucks.

In my life, one reason I worked in martial arts professionally was because I found something that empowered me on a physical level that I never had been. I also saw how you can set up an environment where you are literally hitting each other which absolutely has not just zero tolerance for bullying, but is so consistent that bullying at the dojo becomes almost unthinkable. I actually experienced something similar at a really good summer camp, although the controls were less and a bit more social stuff went on. (I'm not suggesting that you can achieve in an online environment what you can at a martial arts academy but...I also think you can try.)

And it's because of that experience in part -- but also in online environments - that I don't see an organization like MetaFilter simply as individuals relating to individuals. I see it as a discussion environment, and the staff have a lot of power to impact on that environment. Some examples are - and these are non-comprehensive:

Technological
- Metafilter is specifically constructed without threaded comments, with favourites but not down votes, and with user names of favourites visible. All of these things lead to different dynamics; I know who has favourited my comments
- MetaFilter also does not have a block/hide function except I think by tags in specific areas; members cannot block other members
- staff can disable their MeMail (I don't think I can but maybe I can?)
- staff can install language filters like the one that prevents words
- meeting accessibility standards or not has a huge impact

Constructive
- staff can comment early in threads and say how they want things to go - this tends to have more weight with the staff tag but is probably the closest to member power
- staff can add comments in the staff comment box which highlights them and gives them weight
- staff can change the rules and have - examples include allowing more chatfilter in AskMe, the free threads on the blue, etc. They can also say no I/P discussions, or discussions only in particular threads.
- staff can highlight expectations and enforce that through deletions like for example not misgendering people
- staff can declare sites 'forbidden' for example, not linking to right-wing sites

Punitive
- staff can ban people. In fact, someone was permabanned - they actually closed their account but they were initially not allowed to open another account and eventually re-banned - for calling for a resignation.
- staff can give people a time out and delete their comments as they did in the Global BIPOC thread
- staff can delete posts and comments, silently or with notes - silent deletion + not allowing a post through the queue led to nouvelle_personne's final buttoning
- staff can close threads
- staff can not approve posts coming through the queue

Some things staff could do around recent discussions include:
- they could maintain a proper and up-to-date list of who staff are, who the volunteers are, and everyone's roles prominently on the site. Admittedly Adam and any volunteers also could post that more clearly in their posts and include a standard paragraph at the bottom of Interim Committee posts explaining briefly what the committee is and who's on it - just basic coms stuff. The information on this site is so old, including the wiki and the footer, that this causes a lot of confusion that becomes acerbic fast.

- staff could maintain a visible list of what's being worked on and where it's at and who is in charge, which would help a lot with accountability - I am a bit neutral on this one because I don't think there would under normal operations with a leader need to be that level of visibility into things. But that would remove the need for people to ask, or at least for people to answer beyond "check the list"

- staff could also be clear when something is not on the table - the recent queue discussion is an interesting one because it seems to have changed, but the original comment was "no change to the queue." I'll note that in this case the staff just trained everyone that if they say it's not happening and people kick up enough fuss, it might happen. I personally think that being responsive does mean changing one's mind sometimes, but frankly that pattern did reward pushback.

I would argue staff have even more power than that, a whack of soft power, deciding which kinds of posts are added to the sidebar and the blog, inviting off-site experts to post officially, creating log in environments that encourage participation, creating rules or codes of conduct...all kinds of things. The creation of the BIPOC committee, listening to them or not, compensating them or not.

When it comes to money and resources there's even more possibilities. Removing or adding coverage. Advertising, tech platforms, etc.

And all of this is before we discuss them emailing/MeMailing people with corrections or encouragement.

Members do have power to influence discussion for sure. I don't think 25% is nothing - I think it's a critical 25%. But if the staff suddenly changed all the technology, things would change really rapidly.

Also, bottom line - if the staff decide I'm a problem, they can ban me. They just banned two people who complained about them, one permanently and one temporarily who was then un-banned and apologized to - whether you agree that it was a good decision or not, they were able to do so.
posted by warriorqueen at 2:19 PM on December 23 [7 favorites]

Kattulus, thank you for your comment. I very much agree with you and am glad you spoke up.
I tried to express my concerns in the October Update thread but since gave up, yet it really upsets me how aggression is justified and any push back belittled.
And yes, i daily read the Grey and have for years. all the threads and comments.
One of the reasons i comment here right now is because several times comments were made that if only people read all threads on the grey they would come to the conclusion the aggression towards the mods and jessamyn was justified.
Well, no, i don't agree. I simply rarely comment because i am not as brave as for example Kattulus.
posted by 15L06 at 2:24 PM on December 23 [4 favorites]

And, to separate it out, I'm going to say again that when you have a public-facing internet job, criticism is a part of the job. That doesn't mean there aren't limits and yeah, there have been things said in this thread that if I were The Manager, I would say hey, uncool, cut that out please. But criticism itself is as much part of the job as spam and people drunk-posting and losing their passwords.

You can shut it down more, but not to was a decision clearly made by matthowie, cortex, and jessamyn back in the thread that was referenced in the queue thread right here - and in creating MetaTalk itself. The staff could shut that down tomorrow and then they'd probably get all the critique in their email boxes instead, or be taking it out of the blue and the green etc.

I really don't understand why some people want to ignore the power dynamics of the site, but for me, that honestly reads as less healthy - pretending we're all the same, when that's not the case. There are a few things I would love to change, but I have zero power to do so.
posted by warriorqueen at 2:31 PM on December 23 [6 favorites]

And I'll also say that this is the comment I agree with most in this thread: I think the framing of "sides" and "groups" might be part of the problem. Just my two cents!

I think it's kind of lousy to group people who are expressing concern with the health of the site or moderation with bullying, especially in light of some of the decisions lately. But that's how the 'net and frankly MetaFilter go a lot lately; you're in or out according to some yardstick. That is something that frequently drives me further away from participating here.
posted by warriorqueen at 2:37 PM on December 23 [4 favorites]

I've also been reading along on every one of these threads going way, way back. I mostly lurk (as is my way) because generally other folks have already responded with reactions or thoughts similar to mine and have articulated it better than I would have.

But I've been taking a break from participating (except occasionally in Ask) because it also feels a lot meaner around here to me, and while some of that perception is me and my personal baggage, it's not all just me. I know I would just get shouted down for speaking up and expressing my discomfort, because I've seen it happen over and over again and I don't *want* to button and walk away like so many of my friends have.

So I'm waiting for the transition, hoping the new team and site gets a real chance at surviving through this, and sitting in my uncomfortable reactions to the conversations instead of participating because I'm afraid of all that attention turning on me, and having people yell at me, too.
posted by ApathyGirl at 2:37 PM on December 23 [2 favorites]

Well today I got yelled at ApathyGirl,* so can't disagree with you.

*It's hard to take Kattullus's statement about what I said as anything but them deciding that I'm a bully, and that sucks, but c'est la vie here.
posted by warriorqueen at 2:39 PM on December 23 [3 favorites]

If you identify as a bully please favorite this comment.
posted by phunniemee at 2:59 PM on December 23 [1 favorite]

If you identify as not-a-bully please favorite this comment.
posted by phunniemee at 2:59 PM on December 23

Thank you. Both lists will be submitted to the interim board for adjudication. The group deemed unworthy will be executed banned. Ladies, theybies, and gentleman: let the 76th hunger games commence.

Honestly this has all become completely absurd. If we ever get time machine technology, I am betting big money dollars that like 85% of this spiral to madness would not have happened if loup had come back on October 26th and said some version of "you know what folks, I got way ahead of myself here in planning. The Halloween Gala isn't going to happen. Will revisit this once I get my feet back under me." People understand "shit happens, my bad."

I believe the refusal to engage at all with the Halloween Gala snafu was the final and most visible straw in a series of instances of avoidance, obfuscation, and broken promises and folks got fed up.
posted by phunniemee at 2:59 PM on December 23 [7 favorites]

I think you're trying to lighten the mood, phunniemee, and point out few will agree to see themselves as fundamentally perfect or fundamentally imperfect, but I wonder if you've missed a chance to absolutely rack up favorites with options for 'wish staff had been treated better' and 'wish users had been treated better' where I hope most people would be able to check both boxes.
posted by Wobbuffet at 3:20 PM on December 23 [4 favorites]

warriorqueen: It's hard to take Kattullus's statement about what I said as anything but them deciding that I'm a bully, and that sucks, but c'est la vie here.

I don’t think you’re a bully. I’ve been reading your comments on this site for years, and you are thoughtful and considerate. And I appreciate your kind words about my past bullying, and I’m sad and sorry that you’ve experienced bullying too.

I think everyone here is acting in good faith. It’s really obvious to me that people are coming from a place of real concern about MetaFilter.

What I want to really harp on, is that bullying is only really apparent when you think about it from the perspective of the bullied. It’s very rare that anyone sets out to bully. And no one here did.

However, for the staff, reading hundreds of comments a year that they’re worthless, is difficult. To me, and this thread has made me realize that opinions differ, that is clearly workplace bullying.

I’m not saying that they should never be criticized, I think everyone agrees that’s part of the job. Being criticized is part of being in a community.

The staff are doing a job for us, the community, and I completely agree with you that they have special responsibilities to the other members of the community. But I feel that we who aren’t staff also have a responsibility to them. We can, and should, disagree with them, but we shouldn’t tell them over and over that they’re useless at their jobs.

My main concern is that a narrative has taken hold, which justifies calling the staff worthless. I don’t think that narrative is describing reality.

I admit I haven’t been taking part in MetaTalk as much as I should have, and I feel ashamed of that. But nothing that I have read, either in this thread, or the previous threads, makes me feel that the staff deserve receiving hundreds of messages a year telling them that they are useless.

That’s just way too much. I know we disagree on many things, and I really appreciate that you took the time to explain your thoughts on this issue, but I think we can agree on that.

Thank you and everyone else for engaging so sincerely on this. Without really realizing it, I had become fairly cynical about MetaTalk, and this thread has shown me that my cynicism was unwarranted.
posted by Kattullus at 3:21 PM on December 23 [3 favorites]

I agree with Kattullus; I think the dynamic on MeTa has become poisonous.

A few thoughts:

1. MeTa has always been a contentious place where angry outbursts, extreme rhetoric, bannings, and buttonings have been central features.

2. From that base, things have gotten a lot worse in the last few years, I think driven in part by the continual firehose of terrible news we are barraged with. People are on edge and on their last nerve, so they get mad more quickly, and they take it out on targets who they feel they can hurt (consciously or not). This is how stressed people are.

3. I have backed away from MeTa over the past couple of years because I get plenty of aggravation at work and I come to this site for some fun and some serious reading, not to fight with people. Additionally, the rhetoric has become significantly worse over time. I think that a lot of current "MeTa habitues" have been absorbing the escalation and don't really notice how extreme it's gotten. Then, when people come into a given thread and are aghast, the others don't understand why. They are trying to improve the site, after all.

4. People have a right to be grumpy about slow progress, dropped initiatives, broken promises, and the like, and a lot of these things have been happening too often for too long for people to relax. But the answer can't be an escalating spiral of angry invective. One things mods are pretty good at is pointing out when a dogpile gets out of hand, but they can't very well do that when they are the ones getting dogpiled.

5. MeTa has gotten way too free with the bad tempered snark. It was always an annoying distraction, but cruel one-liners are common; I see them in most threads, and they make everything feel worse.

I'm not sure what the answer is, but more hostility and invective can't be it. I remember a few times in my childhood getting drawn into group bullying, much to my shame, and I think Kattullus called it right.
posted by GenjiandProust at 3:28 PM on December 23 [3 favorites]

I'm not sure what the answer is

The answer is what is finally happening: management, oversight, and an administration separate from the mods who will actually be empowered to do something. Anything.
posted by bowbeacon at 3:31 PM on December 23 [7 favorites]

Well today I got yelled at ApathyGirl,* so can't disagree with you.

*It's hard to take Kattullus's statement about what I said as anything but them deciding that I'm a bully, and that sucks, but c'est la vie here.

I didn’t have a “yelling” read of that exchange at all, warriorqueen — and Kattullus’ follow up suggests none was meant. If we’re going to take the position that constructive criticism is helpful and necessary, it’s better not to read heat into statements where a more charitable explanation is present (easier said than done, I know). Your words carry weight for a lot of reasons — you’re insightful, you have relevant industry experience, and you were involved with the transition team. Kattullus engaging with the best of the critics instead of the most poorly behaved ones is actually the better way to move forward a conversation about who we want to be.
posted by eirias at 3:37 PM on December 23

For sure eirias, and thank you for the follow up Kattullus but - the thing is when someone just starts talking about bullying, and doesn't specify people or behaviours and instead about "narratives" when you're on the end of the narrative that is kind of like "hey this wasn't cool," it does read that way.

At my academy, one thing we don't let young staff do is talk about kids as bullies, because it's not meaningful with kids - and it also doesn't help them understand what that means. We say "hey, we don't ____ here." To me, that's a meaningful conversation. "Hey, you're a bully" is...not. Like there are points in life to say that but they are pretty rare.

I get why people haven't engaged with comments as they've come in - and I think that again speaks to staff power here; as members we are essentially trained NOT to take things up with people directly, a la 'flag and move on." But another thing we do both there and in my current workplace is address behaviours right away. I don't expect that the members here talking about bullying would necessarily do that, but leaving it for weeks and then expressing that people are bullies in broad general terms makes it really hard to understand what exactly is perceived as the problem.

Right now, I'm left with any critique of the mods is a dark, bullying narrative. I'll reread the thread at another time for sure and see if I change my mind, but that's the way it is coming across to me.
posted by warriorqueen at 3:45 PM on December 23 [4 favorites]

Also, I agree with this: We can, and should, disagree with them, but we shouldn’t tell them over and over that they’re useless at their jobs.

However, I don't see hundreds of comments saying that. I definitely have seen a few. But nothing like hundreds. I might go check at some point but not Xmas week.
posted by warriorqueen at 3:47 PM on December 23 [4 favorites]

I think it's kind of lousy to group people who are expressing concern with the health of the site or moderation with bullying

Speaking for myself, I don't care for this phrasing. The way some have chosen to express concern is what some of us have commented on. People have used terms like harrassment and bullying to characterize some of the activity over the last while. Some of us who have mentioned tone have our own ideas about site health, modding choices and communication, etc. It's a mistake to cleave that into groups. At no time have I seen a blanket statement from anyone: all you people with concerns are bullies. Nor did I feel it was implied in any comments.

People seem to care about MeFi and that's a good starting point along with some of the positive signs over the past few days.
posted by ginger.beef at 3:48 PM on December 23

Okay Kattullus, you know what, sorry, no, gonna have to hit pause for a moment.

I was on board for the everyone brings a different experience to this and is going to read this in a different way thing, sure no problem. And yes, I am often harsh, no argument. (Also petty! And a smart ass! My credentials are unassailable!) But you have now in two separate comments stressed that the big ol meanies of metatalk have been calling the mods "worthless" and "useless":

in the last year there has been, on average, at least one comment per day telling them that they’re useless, bad at their jobs, failures, and so on and so forth. Think about being at work for a whole year, and hearing 365 times that you’re worthless

staff... receiving hundreds of messages a year telling them that they are useless

we shouldn’t tell them over and over that they’re useless at their jobs

Wow, that's pretty strong language! And you are completely correct that repeatedly calling these folks useless and worthless would be quite shitty. I've been in most of these threads and I don't remember that being the case at all. But maybe I was wrong?

So I went and checked. Back all the way to September, through all of the threads that were mefi-related or got hot. No one is saying this. Literally nobody has said that the mods are worthless or useless, at any point in the last fiscal quarter, full stop.

If you want to have the moral high ground, you don't get to slander dozens of people to do it.

For those playing the home game, eirias is "useless" at legal paperwork and praemunire notes that the actions of the moderation team treated nouvelle_personne as if they are "worthless" to metafilter.
posted by phunniemee at 3:50 PM on December 23 [4 favorites]

I'm prepared to have a rethink, but for clarity, this is the statement to which I'm referring:

From inside the group narrative that the MetaFilter staff are terrible at their jobs, this is a very reasonable statement to make. From outside that narrative, from where I’m standing, this is a bewildering assertion.
posted by warriorqueen at 3:58 PM on December 23

I believe the refusal to engage at all with the Halloween Gala snafu was the final and most visible straw in a series of instances of avoidance, obfuscation, and broken promises and folks got fed up.

The Halloween Gala and the Pet Tax Wall really are MetaFilter’s version of “I can’t believe she divorced me over the dishes” aren’t they?
posted by atoxyl at 4:13 PM on December 23 [2 favorites]

Literally nobody has said that the mods are worthless or useless

empirical evidence that the $250,000 spent on metafilter each year is not a waste and has a verifiable use.
posted by clavdivs at 4:25 PM on December 23 [1 favorite]

You are not logged in, either login or create an account to post comments