I vote yay, the suspension should stand, because it was clearly done in ill will.

Yay. It was immature what berticus did, and we can't have everyone going vigilante.
I hope his feelings aren't hurt, though.

Considering that berticus

1) committed his acts in the heat of the moment,

2) in response to repeated abuse of the gay invocation without seeing any repercussions for the previous violations of what is clearly multiple abuses of VS policy (channel abuse and hate speech),

3) has never done anything even remotely disruptive to the community,


I recommend a stern warning and lifting of his current suspension in alignment with previous actions taken towards those who have committed similar offenses.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

duely noted jonny and I admire your sense of compassion and justice - however the 2 week suspension should stand in my opinion.

Edit: yay

I'm afraid of American! I'm afraid of the world!

But in all seriousness, I don't think we can abide such a gay person to be a part of the Sift. He ruins the sanctity of marriage. Whatever that means.

My vote: Bring Berti back.

Can we have a two week ban on blankfists ad hom attacks? Or at least can he be forced to be even slightly humorous.

I wish someone would call the Superfriends, because we're under attack!

<embed src="http://423smith.com/wp-content/doom.jpg">

Like jonny said - cp420 did it to berticus many times over without so much as a slap on the wrist. It was practically a matter of time before berticus responded in kind (expecting the same result - no administrative action).

So NAY, although I doubt it's gonna do much, dag's already voiced his opinion.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

^I will abide by a majority decision.

A bannable offence is a bannable offence no matter how funny I find it. Berti knew what he was doing, martyrdom next. Yay for the ban, I'm sure he'll be back.

I'd say nay but I think everyone here needs at least two weeks off per year to get some exercise, a quick shower and prepare a fresh supply of sandwiches

Don't have a strong opinion on the specific case. I do think as more and more people have access to star powers, abuse needs to be taken seriously.

He's banned, screw it, is only 2 weeks. None of this post-humourous siftquisition. If lucky or dag are annoyed enough to ban you then live with it, otherwise leave blankfist a profile comment and he will whine until his imaginary Super Friends take care of things.

And, fail troll fails. I'm glad you lrn2 use IMG tag, but you still are a fail troll. Keep posting it places and maybe some day.. someone will think you are clever.

>> ^joedirt:
He's banned, screw it, is only 2 weeks. None of this post-humourous siftquisition. If lucky or dag are annoyed enough to ban you then live with it, otherwise leave blankfist a profile comment and he will whine until his imaginary Super Friends take care of things.
And, fail troll fails. I'm glad you lrn2 use IMG tag, but you still are a fail troll. Keep posting it places and maybe some day.. someone will think you are clever.


>> ^joedirt:


"I can't see out this idea is not a blatant violation of the rules if you do go ahead with Upvote Everything Day (TM)"

"Hey faggots, you are clearly violating many of the rules that have caused people to be banned. I am requesting a siftquisition for anyone who takes part in such behavior as blanket upvoting other submissions, especially in a reciprocal nature."

"ban... You better hope everyone else agrees with you, cause the good thing here at least is that one person cannot ban you."

"...you encourage folks to test boundaries, abuse the voting system, and get Siftbot a gold star all in the name of good fun."

http://gay.videosift.com/talk/Concerning-the-matter-of-gays
http://gay.videosift.com/talk/you-win
http://www.videosift.com/talk/I-suggest-we-present-CaptainPlanet420-with-an-award
(please don't forget this part of the context, probably there are more related sifttalk posts)

In general I'm in favour of more clear banning rules..often a set of relatively small words/actions that are borderline legal etc. lead to a heavier emotional and clearly illegal response in actions/words. Before that happens things need to be settled between the parties concerned and it should be made clear that a small violation (related to that particular case) leads to a (temporary) ban of the violating party (Cf. this to being on parole or a yellow card. The red card would be a temporary ban)..

Blankfist, you fail so miserably. No one cares, but they find it sad you are a comment stalker. Get a life.

Nay to this particular ban. Also Nay to permanent bans all together.

Yay: the suspension should stand

Enforce the rules.

...Berticus can not become a martyr unless he suffers for his righteous dissent. Let him die for his sins against our community and be resurrected a god.

7 yay: gwiz665, henningKO, dag, rasch187, joedirt, dotdude, rottenseed (I think),
5 nay: jonny, blankfist, edd, kulpims, swampgirl,

7-5 so far. It's certainly divided the council.

>> ^Eklek:
In general I'm in favour of more clear banning rules..often a set of relatively small words/actions that are borderline legal etc. lead to a heavier emotional and clearly illegal response in actions/words. Before that happens things need to be settled between the parties concerned and it should be made clear that a small violation (related to that particular case) leads to a (temporary) ban of the violating party (Cf. this to being on parole or a yellow card. The red card would be a temporary ban)..


If anchorman taught me anything, and it did, then it's that things can escalate really fast. We need to be careful not to just ban left and right if two parties get each other riled up into a frenzy. However, this was not just a crime of passion. It was very deliberate, as berticus' own comment indicated. Therefore I don't think he should get a wag of the finger, but rather a slap on the wrist. The rules were knowingly broken several times (or several places in one spree). And he acted out of spite towards a single user. I think the 2 week suspension is warranted.

I don't expect to see any of this from him again, since it was clearly directed at another user who is not here anymore, but that is not a good reason to be lenient. "I won't kill my mother-in-law twice" won't get you out of jail.

In theory I'm for at much clearer ruleset too, but in practice I think it will invite certain users to "play the system" and ride out a yellow card, and get another yellow card afterwards, such the the user could calculate when he could make a minor infraction again - it's a bad solution to keep the cards hanging forever, but it's also a bad solution to let them be removed over time. This is why I think the fact that our rules are open to a bit of interpretation is in order, because we are a reasonable community (and have reasonable admins), we can decide when a user is deliberately breaking the system, like cp420 was, and when we should be lenient (like the schamwy incident should have been). If we make the rules too precise, then we invite way to many rules lawyers, who will want to impose the rules over the will of the community and admins, and this is a bad thing™. We must have some wiggle room, because we are dealing with people, not machines.

I like berticus, and I wish he hadn't sought revenge against CP420 in the way he did, but I certainly can't blame him. However, if this ban means ALL future offenses of the same nature will be punished the same way, then I'm for it. But if we let someone else get by with it in the future, even once, then I say 'nay.'

Of course none of us knows for certain what the future holds, so for now I'll go on record with a 'yay yea' vote. However, in the future if someone else escapes punishment for the same offense - deliberately mis-assigning channels to either videos or Sift Talk posts (accidental mis-assignment can always be forgiven) - I'll be pissed.

And if someone repeatedly breaks the rules, I have no problem with a permanent ban. When they do that they're showing contempt for us anyway, so fuck 'em. In other words I support all the permanent bans that have taken place so far.

Berti lost the battle, but won the war, and I have the feeling those were his intentions. What's the opposite of a Phyrric victory? Schmawic victory?

Yay... but well worth it.

Nay, CP got a warning, so should berti...

Yay.

He was deliberately breaking the rules knowing the possible consequences. It's true CP got warnings when maybe he should have gotten suspensions right away, but I don't agree that berticus should walk free because of it. Faults of the past doesn't change the rules.

And I will be pissed along with KP if such incidents are not enforced later on.

I'm undecided, on the one hand I think it's lame that berti got stung when cp didn't straight away, on the other hand if the two week suspension had of happened to cp when he first started acting like a dick, maybe he wouldn't have pissed so many people off for so long. I'd say berti has laid out the foundation for all future dealings with this kind of crap, if he's gonna be the first then good for him, what a great reason to go!

At least people give enough of a shit about him to want him back. Have a good sabbatical berti, see ya soon!

And a *quality for bringing it up gwizzy

Awarding gwiz665 with one star point for this contribution to Sift Talk - declared quality by alien_concept.

Nay.

First offense. Peaceful protest. Acting in self-defense. Temporary insanity. The devil made him do it. Taxation without representation. Taking the mickey. Cuffing his carrot. Shaking hands with the canoe driver.

Nay.

I abstain, but the spelling nazi in me demands that I point out it's "yea".

"Yay" is when you're having fun.

^Maybe that's how you Canadians do it, i.e., wrong.

>> ^gwiz665:
>> ^Eklek:
In general I'm in favour of more clear banning rules..often a set of relatively small words/actions that are borderline legal etc. lead to a heavier emotional and clearly illegal response in actions/words. Before that happens things need to be settled between the parties concerned and it should be made clear that a small violation (related to that particular case) leads to a (temporary) ban of the violating party (Cf. this to being on parole or a yellow card. The red card would be a temporary ban)..

If anchorman taught me anything, and it did, then it's that things can escalate really fast. We need to be careful not to just ban left and right if two parties get each other riled up into a frenzy. However, this was not just a crime of passion. It was very deliberate, as berticus' own comment indicated. Therefore I don't think he should get a wag of the finger, but rather a slap on the wrist. The rules were knowingly broken several times (or several places in one spree). And he acted out of spite towards a single user. I think the 2 week suspension is warranted.
I don't expect to see any of this from him again, since it was clearly directed at another user who is not here anymore, but that is not a good reason to be lenient. "I won't kill my mother-in-law twice" won't get you out of jail.
In theory I'm for at much clearer ruleset too, but in practice I think it will invite certain users to "play the system" and ride out a yellow card, and get another yellow card afterwards, such the the user could calculate when he could make a minor infraction again - it's a bad solution to keep the cards hanging forever, but it's also a bad solution to let them be removed over time. This is why I think the fact that our rules are open to a bit of interpretation is in order, because we are a reasonable community (and have reasonable admins), we can decide when a user is deliberately breaking the system, like cp420 was, and when we should be lenient (like the schamwy incident should have been). If we make the rules too precise, then we invite way to many rules lawyers, who will want to impose the rules over the will of the community and admins, and this is a bad thing™. We must have some wiggle room, because we are dealing with people, not machines.


Thanks for your reply:)
As I mentioned this particular incident had a clear history, for all of us to see (sifttalk, comments)..it indeed escalated quickly but what happened can not be called surprising..

I think a sort of yellow card indication would generally make users more careful, they know if they do not play by the rules they will be (temporarily) banned and other users know he user has not played by the rules...like in sports the yellow card is for a certain period of time and what concerns a yellow card offense would be considered case-by-case by the community (jury)/admins.
One could also add a section in the user profile where offenses are documented (just like they do with sports people or e.g. at ebay (customer satisfaction rating)).
I think a little bit more complexity/rules will improve user behaviour..free speech/behaviour has a certain limit.

>> ^gwiz665:
7 yay: gwiz665, henningKO, dag, rasch187, joedirt, dotdude, rottenseed (I think),
5 nay: jonny, blankfist, edd, kulpims, swampgirl,
7-5 so far. It's certainly divided the council.

I didn't read that this was majority decision. Let's all be honest, fuck CP420, I'm glad berticus did it. He knows what he did went against the rules. Will punishing him make him think twice next time? Since what he did was, in my opinion, an understandable reaction to bigotry, I say no more thought should have been put into it.

Good for berticus, we should be so lucky as to have him return after begging for forgiveness.

I RULE CLEMENCY!

I say yay, only because I'm a follow the rules kind of guy. If you start bending them for one, you need to bend them for all. And that's how we get drama.

Don't do the crime if you can't do the time.

^ Exactly, yay

* gay... kidding... heh-heh... [wipes sweat from brow, backs out of room]

He should stay banished until his time is up.

There should be no exceptions to the rules. If there are, then the rules are fiat.

The rules before may have been fiat, but now they should not.

Now should there be a an Appellate writ, make that clear. That banishment can be appealed by upstanding members.

Anyone else notice the irony that arguments for both consistency and inconsistency have been used to justify this? just sayin'.

Sort of related?

http://www.answers.com/topic/crime-of-passion

I vote "Yay, [sic]" because if slapping inappropriate channels on posts is a suspendable offense, it should be one regardless of whether we like the offender or not, and whether we agree with the offender's intentions or not.

If we really banned CP420 for being an insufficiently entertaining troll, then we should unban berticus and volumptuous, and anyone else who was suspended for turnabout on CP420 or lampooning the decision to ban berticus.

Are we a Sift of laws, not men, or a Sift of men and not laws?

I don't fucking care either way, so long as we're permanently short a troll, and only without the voices of some constructive, but rambunctious, members for a mere two weeks.

I do think we need to view the Sift more like a "nerds only" country club, and not like it's a nation -- people don't have the right to be here, we just offer the privilege to those who want it, and gladly ban people who rip up the course, or fling feces at the nice people enjoying the cat fart videos.

Those who think that will lead to a unanimity of discourse, forget that -- I think we love the people who disagree with us and can make a good argument -- it's the mindless jerks we can do without.

Besides, it's not like it's a death sentence for them to have to find somewhere else to spew their verbal diarrhea.

Or, as dystopianfuturetoday put it:

First, they came for the homophobic trolls, but I did not speak out, for I was not a homophobic troll.

Next, they... well, uh... after that, there really weren't too many problems... not that I can remember off the top of my head.

This thread is, for better or worse, more amusing than half the junk in the queue.

Also, the above sentence was pure *geek and if this entire conversation isn't in that channel, it should've been there about 12 hours ago, give or take.

Only reason I showed up was because of kulpims' and maybe someone else's "featured comment"

Adding post to channels (Geek) - requested by Krupo.

Also: new sift fundraising idea: charge money for siftquisitions.

I wonder if anyone would actually pay to instigate drama.

^In a fiat currency system, anything is possible.

s'ok. let the 2-week suspension stand.
if you can't do the time, don't do the crime.

berticus knew exactly what he was doing, and knew it wasn't kosher.
that was the point.

he doesn't feel bad about this, and will be back with big, fabulous bells on.
meantime, any care packages for him can be sent to me, and i'll make sure he gets at least half of it.

also, berticus says that he would vote 'yea', and he wants to pass along the following:

1) an apology to dag and lucky for being a headache

2) that i look forward to an upvote spree in two weeks... not being able to upvote is so painful!

3) i was really touched by people's comments.

Yea, ... though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil: for Berti art with me; thy rod and thy staff they comfort me.
- Berticus 23:4

... appropriately enough, thats one of the gayest lines in the entire Bible

Aye: gwiz665, henningKO, dag, rasch187, joedirt, dotdude, kronosposeidon, mycroftholmz, ornothon videosiftbannedme, eric3579, , NordlichReiter, NetRunner, my15minutes, berticus
Nay: jonny, blankfist, edd, kulpims, swampgirl, rottenseed, ryjkyj, Fletch,

16-8 so far.

I think the results are in. Suspension stands.

Incidentally, volumptuous should not be suspended, but warned (cf. captainplanet420's earlier warnings). This was not a spree, as best as I can tell, and it was not habitual. If we become so draconian as to suspend every time a wrongful invocation is cast, then it is much too harsh. I had even intended to * gay this talk, just to be factitious, but if our suspensions are so easy to get, I'm not sure this place is for me anymore.

Edit: if it were indeed a spree, then I would think that the comments would still be there. If it was not, the situation does not warrant a suspension. Remember all the leeway that cp420 got the first 8 million times.

As dag said, we always take into serious consideration majority decisions. If everyone feels volumptuous shouldn't be banned, we can certainly rescind his temporary banination.

Yea!

lucky:
I just honestly don't think there's a case against volupmtuous at all. Berticus did it in several videos in quick succession, which made it warrant the suspension, but voluptuous did it once. How many times did captainplanet420 do it before we suspended him the first time? I am strongly against vol's suspension. Many of the rest of us have done the same thing as well before, so I think it was an overreaction, because of the thread it was done in. Give him a slap on the wrist and tell him to take some Vicodin.

A newbie's opinion:

Volumptuous saw a beehive that someone had recently poked with a stick - and went and got another stick. There were plenty of other ways to protest that weren't going to throw oil on the fire by deliberately flaunting the very rules that were being discussed, but that was not the choice that was made.

The management around here has shown incredible patience for putting up with all of this squabbling the way they have.

I'm new here, but just how was the thread improperly invoked for gay channel? Although the original topic didn't support it, CreamPie420's actions adversely affected the gay channel, was the same action he had taken in the past that had adversely affected the channel, and was the same action taken (out of frustration) by berticus. It seems that by the time volumptuous made his invocation, the thread was definitely a gay channel topic/issue. More so than THIS thread is Wildwestshow, Geek, Dark, or Humanitarian.

Plus, it was hilarious! Perfect timing.

^I'm siftbot in disguise, I work in mysterious channels. To be honest, this could be in * gay as well, ironically. If you want I can justify my channel choices.

No, no... not necessary. Just trying to make a point that one person's * Gay is another's * Wildwestshow. Plus, was volumptuous really abusing his power and/or hurting the Sift? He got banned for the equivalent of a smart-ass comment. How I see it, anyway.

I totally agree with that. Volumptuous is not covered in this vote, which is only about berticus.

I understand. Not trying to change the subject, but Lucky sorta opened up the Volumptuous ban for input back there a ways. Ok, I'm done now. I'm tired of listening to me.

schmawy set quite a precedent -- the 2-week ban should stay.

yay - Should stand
- Like I tell my kids, "I don't care who started it, you should have walked away or come to me."

Late jumping into this... *yay!

Abstain.

Can see both sides.