The game takes over 24 hours if you're micromanaging everything properly... how do you schedule a 48+ hour multiplayer game?

The idea is to give people enough time to understand the issue before voting. Lots of people would vote the minute they saw the SQ and then new testimony would surface and people would say "Oh, I would have voted the other way if I knew that."
>> ^Sarzy:
Seriously though, the 48 hour addition sounds terrible. Yeah, let's stretch out siftquisitions so that there's even more drama than before. That's a great idea. Make sure every single person wandering by has a chance to throw a stone or two.

Shit, I'm a moron and accidentally clicked yes. One of those votes doesn't count!

Seriously though, the 48 hour addition sounds terrible. Yeah, let's stretch out siftquisitions so that there's even more drama than before. That's a great idea. Make sure every single person wandering by has a chance to throw a stone or two.

Interesting, but hitting a pole headfirst at 90mph and not dying instantly would be a miracle. JFK "died" at the hospital, though I'll bet his perception and life functions ended about the time his skull landed in his wife's lap. I was only trying to clear up a common misconception. Thanks for the extra knowledge.

In reply to this comment by Payback:
just a quick rebuttal fyi, in BC, Doctors, Registered Nurses, Registered Psychiatric Nurses and Licenced Practical nurses can pronounce death, although there is no legal reason to do so. The only legal demand of the process is that a death certification be made within 48 hours. It would be negligent imho if there wasn't at least a nurse present. I believe it is an IOC requirement.

just a quick rebuttal fyi, in BC, Doctors, Registered Nurses, Registered Psychiatric Nurses and Licenced Practical nurses can pronounce death, although there is no legal reason to do so. The only legal demand of the process is that a death certification be made within 48 hours. It would be negligent imho if there wasn't at least a nurse present. I believe it is an IOC requirement.

In reply to this comment by rgroom1:
just a quick fyi, only a medical doctor can pronounce someone as dead. The only time that anyone else can is if there is positively no chance of survival. He probably died on impact with that pillar, but he can't be pronounced dead until a doctor sees him.

In reply to this comment by Payback:
He didn't die during the video, only due to injuries which occured.

This is playing all over the news, we will not be stopping anything by killing it.

It's amazing how many hospitals refuse to even try a vaginal birth after c-section.

And it's amazing how many c-sections are performed just to prevent litigation! They wanted to stop me from birthing vaginally three times and c-section me, but I refused, vociferously. They even tried to prevent me from moving to a different position. They want you on your back with your legs in the air. It's so backwards and against nature. My son was presenting face up in the preliminary stages, but he was born face down and normal. No c-section needed. But boy did they try to frighten me into agreeing to it. They had a parade of doctors and nurses trying to scare the crap out of me so I did what they wanted, so it would be easier for them, so I would have my baby "before the nurses changed their shift." WTF?

As a woman, giving birth, you are perhaps more vulnerable and scared than you've ever been in your life and they really try to take advantage of that and press you into doing things that you don't need. Like c-sections, epidurals, breaking your water prematurely, pitocin to induce contractions, not eating for 48 hours, etc etc etc. It's ridiculous. They only do these things to prevent lawsuits.

And look what happens when you do exactly what they want. Oh no, the scarring from your c-section could cause your uterus to rupture if you got pregnant again! Gah.. It really gets my fucking goat. I feel for this woman. I feel for all women who are subjected to having a natural process turned into a medical "emergency".

Wow, I said more than I had intended. TL;DR, eh?

The whole is more than the sum of its parts. - Aristotle
Considering the three scenes in question, and assuming they are not fake, this should be taken into consideration when deliberating discards. Does 5% of a video eliminate the value of the rest?

The reason I was infuriated is because when I came home from work I discovered my video discarded by, what appeared to be, a two-man jury. (I'm sorry I called you a cheerleader dirtpaul, we're cool. Burdturgler, we're cool but I'm not regretting calling you a motherfucking cocksucker in the least bit, whatsoever. I understand and appreciate your passion concerning VideoSift, please respect others' as well.)

I propose a moratorium on discard powers until we mandate a 48-hour discuss prior to discard. It would allow the majority of the community to weigh in, as well as, allowing the original submitter to defend him or herself. I think it's abusive ability of power to discuss and discard, back-to-back, with minimal time and argument.

For the record, some of the videos I pride myself on the most are the ones with the fewest upvotes. Do what you will with this video; I've said my part.

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

Ah, yes - I think it's one per 24 hours - to avoid banning sprees.

In reply to this comment by kronosposeidon:
FYI, I can now see the instaban icons again. Is there some sort of intentional delay you set up between instabans, like 48 hours? I banned this spammer a little over 48 hours ago, so that's what makes me think that.

In reply to this comment by dag:
Oh, whoops. I think that was my fault. I realised after I posted it that I wanted to make it private- but must have clicked the "delete comment" button instead.

In reply to this comment by kronosposeidon:
There's something goofy going on, because through my email I got your response:

"Not sure- though I did hear that BF banned him."

But it doesn't appear under my profile when I click the email link. And obviously I'm logged in, so I should be able to read it even if you marked it 'private.' Hmm.

FYI, I can now see the instaban icons again. Is there some sort of intentional delay you set up between instabans, like 48 hours? I banned this spammer a little over 48 hours ago, so that's what makes me think that.

In reply to this comment by dag:
Oh, whoops. I think that was my fault. I realised after I posted it that I wanted to make it private- but must have clicked the "delete comment" button instead.

In reply to this comment by kronosposeidon:
There's something goofy going on, because through my email I got your response:

"Not sure- though I did hear that BF banned him."

But it doesn't appear under my profile when I click the email link. And obviously I'm logged in, so I should be able to read it even if you marked it 'private.' Hmm.

I'm enjoying this brief interlude where liberal talky-heads honestly support the US military.

48 hours doesn't quite make up for the past 8 years, though, does it?

Obama's bowing to royalty and America-bashing Euro Tour negates one correct (and obvious) decision.

Since Slowbama is now failing to follow-up with carpet-bombing of the Somalian coastline, I predict the scum will strike back and kill at least one American at sea in the next 6 months.

^I thought about limiting PQ size too, rasch. However once your PQ reaches its limit, then what happens after that? Do all videos that don't receive 10 votes in 48 hours get discarded, or does your oldest PQ video get "bumped" out, i.e., discarded, or what? You would still end up losing some videos that you might really like.

[edit] I'd like to think my proposed system will force us to queue what we consider the best videos that reflect our varied interests. We all have our own personal favorites, and many of us also have submitted videos that we could live without. I hope my proposed plan would force us to think harder about what we put in our queue, and then hopefully that will improve overall quality. It's just a hypothesis, which I admit isn't flawless.

I don't think raising the escape limit is the right decision, there's so much that doesn't get seen already - if it was to be raised, I think it should be done dynamically (maybe as a fractional percent of the total number of votes cast in the past 48 hours, calculated in 24 hour increments?).

The trick of the system is always going to be determining the average number of "good" sifts vs the number of "bad" sifts and creating a cutoff that eliminates as many of the bad sifts as possible while not effecting the good sifts.

The main problem inherent in the system (even with a predetermined escape limit) is that there will always be videos that fall outside of the average (both good and bad).

I think the best solution (as others have mentioned) is to use those downvotes - they exist for a reason.

>> ^EDD:
promote
edit - yeah, I guess I kind of wasted a power point by doing that, since you'd just placed it into Beggars'. Ah well, logic wasn't strong with me at the moment


very few people look into the beggar's canyon. By promoting it you gave it another 48 hours in the queue (I think), which is much better.

Thanks for the promote!

The *deading just to earn yourself a power point award is one reason. Another is that there may be many choices of video host sources available, so the submitter is reserved the right to select the embed they'd prefer.

If you'd like to adjust sift policy from 48 hours down to 24 from dead to deadpool, start a poll.

I'm thinking 72 hours is just too darned long. It's been quite a while and SQ and poll are sitting there so damned stale... Must we really wait another 28 hours? Anyone think 48 hours would be reasonably sufficient?

>> ^xxovercastxx:
oh yeah... I also don't see the banner that I assume should be on the front page, notifying all that a SQ is in progress.

You only see it if you've yet to cast a vote.