A bit of MFO History

Old_Joe

The current outbreak of controversy is hardly the first time that MFO posters have been so upset, and the common denominator of these eruptions has frequently been the actions, comments, demands, and criticisms of... yes, Ted.

A bit of history: Originally, there was just a "Discussions" section, and you can imagine trying to plow through hundreds of redundant and largely unread "link posts" in order to find something of value. This resulted in an ongoing chorus of complaints from many MFO members. To be fair, there was also a minority of members who indicated that they valued these link posts.

In an attempt to clear some of the clutter and debris without actual censorship "The Bullpen", and "The OT Bullpen" were created. Conceptually, these two sections were evidently inspired by a grade "B" horror movie: the land of the buried but undead link posts.

Unfortunately even this was not enough. Again like a horror movie, no matter how fast Ted's readerless links were buried, he unleashed a new flood to overwhelm the site. Finally, after yet another burst of complaints, the separate sections "Comments" and "Comments +" were a major redesign made specifically to provide some isolation from Ted's link posts.

The methodology was this: if a post, any post, did not receive at least one comment from someone, it remained in the "Comments" section until buried in one of the Bullpens. If a post did receive a comment, it graduated into the "Comments +" section. This actually has worked pretty well: the complaints regarding the excessive link posts have greatly diminished.

Take a look sometime at "The Bullpen": thousands upon thousands of Ted's link posts live on, ignored and isolated.

David Snowball recently indicated that he wasn't about to invest significant additional time in yet another redesign of this site, nor was he inclined towards, or, given the time constraints, even capable of, moderating. Noting the above history, you can easily see why.

Ted, always one to believe that he is exempt from the rules, recently tried a ruse to evade the relative isolation of the "Comments" section: he posted a comment to his own original post. This comment consisted of just one word: "Bump". By this slimy act he artificially "bumped" his post into the unearned "Comments +" section. When called on this, he angrily responded that he would do this any time he wanted to.

@LewisBraham recently made the following observation:
" I remain against an active moderator with power to edit or delete posts. I doubt even Solomon could govern any modern discussion board wisely. It’s when the discourse becomes ad hominem that is a problem and I think people should just complain when it does as they already have been. I also think finance and economics impinge upon politics by their nature. So such discussions should be allowed provided they don’t turn into ad hominem attacks."

I agree with his comment, and this is why I was so irritated at the recent unwarranted suppression of the "Borderline Treason" post. That post met every test of Lewis' comment, yet was deleted, I believe, because of the complaints of one individual: Ted.

As a matter of record, I was not one of those who frequently complained about Ted's link posts, because I felt that some of them actually had value, and after all, there were some members who valued them. For those who may feel that my current criticism of Ted is unwarranted, I submit that he has been the cause of so much aggravation here at MFO that his current churlishness is simply more than need be reasonably tolerated.

larryB

I don't have a sense of the history of this place and I will ignore the politics of the linkster. I just know what I see. The links stink. Most are virtually ignored. Few stimulate a discussion which is the reason this board exists. The multitude of links discourages someone from starting a discussion. The links are visual pollution which drive folks away at worst. Perhaps if
the linkster moderated himself it would be an improvement. Start a discussion,,,include a link if it makes a point.

hank

One more piece of the jig-saw puzzle Old Joe has reconstructed. I believe one “reform” David initiated at the time was that all links put up must be accompanied by a narrative written by the poster summarizing the article, explaining its relevance, or similar in vein. But instead, @Ted largely circumvented the rule by simply cutting & pasting verbatim from the source being linked. FWIW

rforno

At the risk of defending the hypocritical he who must not be named, I don't see that as a bad thing. I and others do that elsewhere -- post the link and the lead paragraph or two to give folks the gist of the article, which is totally fine and fair-use. Maybe a short personal comment, too. I'm ok with that -- it's FAR better than just throwing single links into new posts sans any context.

hank said:

On more piece of the jig-saw puzzle Old Joe has reconstructed. I believe one “reform” David initiated at the time was that all links put up must be accompanied by a narrative written by the poster summarizing the article, explaining its relevance, or similar in vein. But instead, @Ted largely circumvented the rule by simply cutting & pasting verbatim from the source being linked. FWIW

hank

rforno said:

At the risk of defending the hypocritical he who must not be named, I don't see that as a bad thing. I and others do that elsewhere -- post the link and the lead paragraph or two to give folks the gist of the article, which is totally fine and fair-use. Maybe a short personal comment, too. I'm ok with that -- it's FAR better than just throwing single links into new posts sans any context.

hank said:

On more piece of the jig-saw puzzle Old Joe has reconstructed. I believe one “reform” David initiated at the time was that all links put up must be accompanied by a narrative written by the poster summarizing the article, explaining its relevance, or similar in vein. But instead, @Ted largely circumvented the rule by simply cutting & pasting verbatim from the source being linked. FWIW

Fair enough. I also clip & paste sometimes (and have posted some pretty awful links over the years). However, I think the original intent of that rule was to insure that someone posting a link has first read the article, reflected upon the essential content, evaluated it and considered why the story is worthy of further discussion. With dozens of links tossed out daily, where’s the selectivity? And if / when said poster is questioned about some “hyped” investment in one of the articles he’ll respond (if at all) that he doesn’t invest in the asset. If it turns out to be a really atrocious piece, he’ll say “I’m only the messenger.”

So we’re often left with links for the sake of links - reflecting no specific opinion or commitment to the content by the poster. In a sense - “empty links” devoid of any personal ownership.

Old_Joe

@hank- well said... can't add much to that.

AndyJ

The linkster, of course, doesn't use quotes around his clips, and always follows them with "Regards ...," so anyone new to said poster's proclivities would assume at first glance, knowing how the written language works, that they are his words. Someone missed 7th/8th grade English class, apparently.

And no, ostensibly claming someone else's words as his own is not entirely a trivial matter.