What is meta? ×
Meta Stack Exchange is where users like you discuss bugs, features, and support issues that affect the software powering all 133 Stack Exchange communities.

Searching Meta for "meta meta" gives me the impression I am supposed to discuss Meta on Meta.

I'm having difficulties starting discussions on Meta.

They have a high tendency of being:

This prevents me from discussing Meta on Meta.

Where should I discuss Meta?

share|improve this question

closed as not constructive by Mark Trapp, Yi Jiang, Wesley Murch, jonsca, slugster Mar 9 '12 at 10:54

As it currently stands, this question is not a good fit for our Q&A format. We expect answers to be supported by facts, references, or expertise, but this question will likely solicit debate, arguments, polling, or extended discussion. If you feel that this question can be improved and possibly reopened, visit the help center for guidance.If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

11  
Discussing Meta on Meta is fine. However in every discussion you need to be prepared that your arguments will not be well received and also allow for the possibility that you are completely wrong. Changing the discussion medium won't necessarily mean that people will start agreeing with you... –  Yannis Mar 9 '12 at 6:25
11  
The answer is not "the meta meta chat room". Any valuable discussion should not been buried in chat. Please stop this little project of promoting your just-created chat room. Otherwise, prepare for downvotes for posting a wrong answer. –  balpha Mar 9 '12 at 6:29
7  
At the going rate, we'll have to build an infinite number of places to discuss what we don't like about the n - 1 place. –  Anthony Pegram Mar 9 '12 at 6:33
    
@balpha Promoting my little chat room? It's a last resort to an ongoing discussion over the past week. Several users pointed out chat might be a better medium to discuss this, I listened. Please read through all my past posts if you want to start understanding how it got to this point. –  Steven Jeuris Mar 9 '12 at 6:38
    
"discussions should not be buried in chat" Agreed, I also argue that. However, bringing that forward as an argument to be able to have discussions on Meta doesn't weigh up to "Meta works". –  Steven Jeuris Mar 9 '12 at 6:41
    
@StevenJeuris You missed a word there: "Any valuable discussion should not been buried in chat". I wouldn't mind for every other discussion to be buried in chat... –  Yannis Mar 9 '12 at 6:58
    
@YannisRizos: Then that would be a reason for you to up vote my answer, "We bother Meta less: we can more fully discuss ideas prior to releasing them on Meta." –  Steven Jeuris Mar 9 '12 at 7:06
    
@StevenJeuris I considered upvoting for that sentence alone. However you'll need to be a little bit clearer that you propose chat as an alternative for questions that aren't valuable enough for Meta, for me to upvote. –  Yannis Mar 9 '12 at 7:11
6  
The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. –  user149432 Mar 9 '12 at 7:13
    
@YannisRizos I'm done trying to be clear here on meta. Clear is subjective. Any post against meta is usually considered not clear by default. "My conclusion from personal experience is it's best to only bring forward those discussions that at least have a fighting chance" was an earlier statement in that answer. If you feel you can improve it, I feel you've got the gest of where I'm going with this, I'll gladly see it. –  Steven Jeuris Mar 9 '12 at 7:13
    
@MarkTrapp A characteristic of somebody who isn't listening to arguments brought forward in a discussion is somebody who isn't able to distinguish between different arguments brought forward. –  Steven Jeuris Mar 9 '12 at 7:16
5  
@StevenJeuris A characteristic of somebody who isn't a masochist (or a troll) is having the self-awareness to cut their losses and realize maybe the place where they keep getting rejected isn't worth their time. –  user149432 Mar 9 '12 at 7:18
1  
Ah, finally, someone said the t-word... –  Yannis Mar 9 '12 at 7:20
    
@MarkTrapp Now that I can agree on. Hence, the chat suggestion. –  Steven Jeuris Mar 9 '12 at 7:21
4  
possible duplicate of What about meta-meta Stack Overflow? –  Yi Jiang Mar 9 '12 at 7:33

2 Answers 2

Searching Meta for "meta meta" gives me the impression I am supposed to discuss Meta on Meta.

That is correct.

I'm having difficulties starting discussions on Meta.

They have a high tendency of being:

That's because people disagree with your suggestions and/or think they're unconstructive. In other words, your attempt(s) to initiate discussion are working exactly as intended. The proposals are being discussed and subsequently rejected by members of the community.

Just because you disagree with community opinion does not mean that you've chosen the wrong forum in which to initiate the discussion. I don't think any of your questions have been closed as off-topic. That would be the indication that you've chosen the incorrect site on which to post your question(s).

Perhaps the real problem is that so far, you've been trying to tell the Meta community that the established system simply doesn't work and needs to be radically reformed. Paradoxically, you're trying to do that within the very system that you claim is broken. Logically, both cannot be true simultaneously. If the system really is broken, you're not going to be able to use it to successfully effect change. If you can successfully effect change, then the system is not broken and does not need to be radically reinvented as you suggest.

Beyond that pesky little logical paradox, it is probably true that questions critical of the entire system are not likely to be well received. But that's not something limited to a Q&A site on the Internet. Attempting to resist the system from within the system is an admirable strategy, but it rarely goes over very well. You might be interested in the advice contained in the answers to this question: How do I participate in Meta and not die trying?

share|improve this answer
    
I totally can't take this answer seriously, coming from a guy who wrote the following about closing a Meta discussion: "There's a perfectly good reason, it's even given in the close description: "this question will likely solicit opinion, debate, arguments, polling, or extended discussion." –  Steven Jeuris Mar 9 '12 at 6:49
    
I totally don't understand how those two opinions are contradictory. Nicol's argument there skips over the adjectival modifier extended that precedes "discussion" in the quoted explanation. Alternatively, you could strike discussion entirely from the list of possible problems: all of the rest are still true with regards to that question. I thought that "question" was unconstructive. So did 4 other members of the community. I alluded to as much in the first paragraph here. –  Cody Gray Mar 9 '12 at 6:52
5  
I have a hard time believing your second-last paragraph isn't a joke. –  Jeremy Banks Mar 9 '12 at 6:52
7  
@CodyGray: Appreciate the edit note, sorry about that. I'll post a new question on meta where we can discuss my erroneous edit, your reaction to it, and another one about how useful that post is. And then another one about how discussion of the first two might effect the community. –  Wesley Murch Mar 9 '12 at 7:50
    
@Madmartigan Care to link me to it? E.g. in the Meta Meta chat room. Otherwise I might miss it when it get down voted drastically. –  Steven Jeuris Mar 9 '12 at 10:30

You are right pointing out discussing on Meta is generally not well received.

While some people agree Meta has it's issues, the general consensus is it's good enough. This is also used as the main argument of many against discussing this. The problem is there is no way to counter this argument.

My conclusion from personal experience is it's best to only bring forward those discussions that at least have a fighting chance, otherwise you will only get frustrated in seeing them being closed.

However! We are lucky Stack Exchange has provided us with an alternative, chat! I created the Meta Meta chatroom as a place for us meta meta people to go ahead discussing Meta.

It has a few advantages:

  • They can't close it.
  • There is a lower signal to noise ratio.
  • We bother Meta less: we can more fully discuss ideas prior to releasing them on Meta.
share|improve this answer
7  
Notwithstanding the discussions in the comments on the question, regarding your bullet points: 1) Chat rooms can be frozen, which is analog to closing a question. 2) is very true, but I fail to see how a lower SNR is benefitial. 3) Is true, and already happens; feel free to create rooms for discussing prior to posting on Meta, or drop into the Tavern. –  balpha Mar 9 '12 at 9:16
1  
Thank you for the relevant feedback! –  Steven Jeuris Mar 9 '12 at 9:22
    
@balpha Actually, consider adding that as an answer instead. If this works out for me, and I don't see any problems with it, you made your point, and it answers my support question as easy as 'Tavern on the Meta'. Thank you. –  Steven Jeuris Mar 9 '12 at 10:43

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .