04/26/24
September 14, 2009
On Kim Clijsters, Marriage and Childbirth: The asswhip I'm getting on the front page gives me a good opportunity to make a point. There are a lot more people with strong opinions on front-page links than there are people who post front-page links.
posted by rcade to editorial policy at 04:58 PM - 22 comments
/charges poster with a no-point penalty
posted by yerfatma at 05:08 PM on September 14, 2009
Damn you people are fast.
I thought about posting this in the discussion, but I was afraid of derailing the scintillating talk we're having about Kim Clijsters.
(Aside to Drood: I am kidding.)
I post a lot of front page posts, and I try to go beyond a simple one-link post that relates the basic facts of a news story. I dig up extra links, look for telling or odd quotes, and occasionally try new things to amuse myself or others.1
Though I don't mind in any way, shape or form receiving feedback on my links -- even hurty comments from big stupidheads -- I must now say something that could piss some people off.
Critical feedback is a lot more persuasive coming from somebody who makes his2 own front-page posts. If you leave it up to me, I have sarcasmed and I will sarcasm again.
1. Mostly for my own amusement. As a child I spent hours alone in my room amusing myself.
2. I say "his" here because men are superior.
posted by rcade at 05:13 PM on September 14, 2009
rcade, as the first one to question the intention of your comment, I'll be the first one here to praise the consistency, quantity, and quality of your FPPs (and your ongoing interaction inside the threads).
I admitted that I missed the sarcasm. Oops. I do, however, think that my critique was fair (and definitely not intended as a personal attack). At your urging, I will strive to do my part to improve my own FPP to comment ratio.
But it is the best thing about SpoFi ... this is a "thinkin' man's1" sports forum. The fact that we debate this stuff (sexism, racism, economics, etc. through to the the quality of an FPP and the quality of posts in general) makes the stops I make here each day worthwhile.
Peace
1 Yes, I caught the sarcasm this time around.
posted by Spitztengle at 06:12 PM on September 14, 2009
I'm impressed at how far the thread has gone with barely any mention of Clijsters' achievement. At least it gave Drood an opportunity to swear.
posted by Mr Bismarck at 07:45 PM on September 14, 2009
Yeah, if you're not posting, then shut the fuck up. Makes sense to me.
I never post. I'm terrible. But I don't complain about 'em. *Sticks nose in air. Skips away.*
posted by WeedyMcSmokey at 09:10 PM on September 14, 2009
I don't mind mixing it up. Someone was just telling me I've mellowed.
posted by rcade at 09:19 PM on September 14, 2009
I would post all the time but that fucker rcade keeps scooping me.
posted by Hugh Janus at 01:41 AM on September 15, 2009
I don't post either. Too much work to look up all that info and report back. Plus I am a dumbfuck when it comes to making links work. Guess I'm more of an observer and snarker than an actual human being.
But I thin rcade is usually more than generous and patient with people who disagree. And like many web-site honchos, he can get heavy handed with the beat-downs. But I consider it his sandbox and he hasn't told me to leave. Even if he does like the Rangers.
posted by THX-1138 at 01:34 PM on September 15, 2009
Critical feedback is a lot more persuasive coming from somebody who makes his own front-page posts.
Why? I've heard Brendan Behan on theater critics, but I don't see why it's true for group blogs. Why can't someone who cares enough to comment care enough to want to be a curator even if they don't post? When last I looked (c. 2007), MetaFilter seemed evenly split on the issue, but requiring people to post to have a voice means one of two things: 1. No discussion 2. A zillion posts
At the risk of being that guy in a programming discussion, the "have to post to criticize" model doesn't seem like it would scale.
posted by yerfatma at 02:33 PM on September 15, 2009
I've heard from some SportsFilter users that although the front page is open, they won't post because this can be a tough crowd and they don't want to run afoul of it.
I have no problem with people who only want to comment. But if you aren't making front-page posts and you're applying MetaTalk-tough scrutiny to the posts that are there, who's going to post?
I will, because I decided recently to put up 1-3 posts a day to put some meat on these bones. But the goal of this site was to become this. For whatever reason, the compulsion to contribute isn't as strong here, and it's gotten weaker over the past two years.
posted by rcade at 02:50 PM on September 15, 2009
I appreciate where you're coming from, but I think your regular posting probably hurts as much as it helps as it reduces the number of topics someone else could post, especially the more mainstream stories.
the compulsion to contribute isn't as strong here
I don't think that's necessarily true. It could also be that MetaFilter users can post any damn thing they find whereas this site requires it at least be tangentially-related to sports. Just reduces the scope of available posts. I think the huddle posts will help to engender a greater sense of community (as long as they don't break down into tedious in-joking).
Looking at the front page, there's a pretty long string of solid posts. I don't see any real clunkers on there right now.
posted by yerfatma at 04:13 PM on September 15, 2009
I don't see any real clunkers on there right now.
Only cuz I haven't posted in a while...
rcade, just keep doing what you're doing. Rarely does anyone take offense to your ham-handed attempts at comedy, and when they do, it's one, maybe two people. Now if there's a crowd with torches and pitchforks on your doorstep, then you might wanna rein it in a bit...
posted by MeatSaber at 11:46 PM on September 15, 2009
I appreciate where you're coming from, but I think your regular posting probably hurts as much as it helps as it reduces the number of topics someone else could post, especially the more mainstream stories.
True enough, but I tried sitting on my hands for a long time and not bogarting the web site. I think I prefer to hog the bong with the increased lung capacity of Michael Phelps.
posted by rcade at 10:50 AM on September 16, 2009
How does this work? I've made two FPPs in the last two days - do I get a coupon to call you a bad name?
posted by Mr Bismarck at 11:35 AM on September 16, 2009
Two posts gives you the right to a dismissive sneer. Four a snarky comment, and eight a blistering denunciation. Reach 10 and you can suggest my mother was undiscriminating in her choice of anonymous sex partners.
posted by rcade at 12:19 PM on September 16, 2009
Is this retroactive? If so, I'm gonna save mine up for a blistering anti-rcade screed so foul it will make G.G. Allin spin in his grave. Release date TBD, but I'm considering making it a gift to the community on SpoFi's 10th birthday.
posted by Ufez Jones at 12:28 PM on September 16, 2009
"Ufez Jones has posted 274 links"
That one's going to take the paint off the walls.
posted by Mr Bismarck at 12:55 PM on September 16, 2009
so foul it will make G.G. Allin spin in his grave
Let me know a couple of days in advance so I can put him back.
New Hampshire Necrophiliacs represent!
posted by yerfatma at 03:39 PM on September 16, 2009
My god, how we love the Native American mascot discussion around here.
posted by NoMich at 07:38 PM on September 16, 2009
Ufez, I'd like to thank you for getting this stuck in my head.
posted by yerfatma at 05:32 PM on September 17, 2009
That's alright. You managed to get Code Blue stuck in mine. (warning: audio nsfw)
posted by Ufez Jones at 07:30 PM on September 17, 2009
That's just your opinion, man.