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

The same abuse you mention is no more or less likely to happen in comments here on the main VideoSift site as they are in the Wiki. Our same conduct rules apply accross the VideoSift community. If someone is conducting themselves inappropriately - all we can do remove the content and deal with the poster - as usual.

>> ^kronosposeidon:

Who decides what's "true"? The community? Does the majority always get the "truth" right? And if it isn't "true", then what recourse does a banned member have to get it fixed? If they send you an email to fix it and you do so, what's to stop someone else from coming along and changing it right back?
Also, sometimes the "truth" is going to be ugly. No member has been banned for handing out compliments or fixing wrongfully discarded videos. In other words, the truth can be "offensive". So if you post anything that someone finds "offensive", does it automatically mean it should be redacted? And what if someone posts more information about a member than that member wants known to the general public? Sure, it can be redacted, but by then the damage may already have been done.
I know that people are big part of this place. I've said that many times myself. It's out of respect for the people here, past and present, that I want tight controls on articles about members. Would you want anyone to be able to edit your Facebook page, even if you abandoned it ages ago?
I share as much as I want with people here, some members more than others. I don't want all of it or even half of it on VideoSift's wiki, along with editorials about comments and character. Not everything needs or even deserves to be documented, especially while people are still active here, or even alive. Sooner or later it's going to be abused. And magically erasing material won't erase the damage that's been done.
>> ^dag:
I don't see any need to be restrictive on this. If members consider a person to be someone of historical significance to the community - why not have some information? As long as it's true, and not offensive or denigrating to the person.
Primarily, we want to document everything we can about the community - the people are a big part of it.

>> ^kronosposeidon:
Alright, well I guess you're going to allow pages about members. I still don't think it's a good idea, but so be it. However I think it's a bad idea to let anyone edit a page about another member, especially one who is no longer here. You're going to write articles about long lost members? What if they don't like it, especially the banned members? Are they just supposed to suck it up, regardless of potential misrepresentations, outright lies, or other libels? Do you think banned members are really going to get a fair shake in their articles? I can see edit wars on the horizon.
And who gets an article and who doesn't? Is EVERY member, past and present, entitled to an article? In that case, the bulk of the Wiki would be like Facebook. Hurray.
The dupeof feature had to be modified because some members were using it incorrectly. The discard feature had to be modified because it had been abused. The membership voted to abolish Siftquisitions because of abuses. That's why I'm bringing this stuff up now. I'd rather have features tightly defined now, rather than take a wait-and-see approach. The best problem is one that never happens.
>> ^dag:
Sure, though it would be best to use your user page, thusly:
http://wiki.videosift.com/index.php/User:Dag
I'd be happy to write a a little article on the legend of Snake. There are so many great characters lost in the sands of Sift history. Karaidl, MINK, [ahem] Choggie ...
>> ^rottenseed:
Question: Can I make an entry about the great rottenseed?
Also, can you guys make an entry about the long-lost snakeplissken? His is still a story that has never been told.

Who decides what's "true"? The community? Does the majority always get the "truth" right? And if it isn't "true", then what recourse does a banned member have to get it fixed? If they send you an email to fix it and you do so, what's to stop someone else from coming along and changing it right back?

Also, sometimes the "truth" is going to be ugly. No member has been banned for handing out compliments or fixing wrongfully discarded videos. In other words, the truth can be "offensive". So if you post anything that someone finds "offensive", does it automatically mean it should be redacted? And what if someone posts more information about a member than that member wants known to the general public? Sure, it can be redacted, but by then the damage may already have been done.

I know that people are big part of this place. I've said that many times myself. It's out of respect for the people here, past and present, that I want tight controls on articles about members. Would you want anyone to be able to edit your Facebook page, even if you abandoned it ages ago?

I share as much as I want with people here, some members more than others. I don't want all of it or even half of it on VideoSift's wiki, along with editorials about comments and character. Not everything needs or even deserves to be documented, especially while people are still active here, or even alive. Sooner or later it's going to be abused. And magically erasing material won't erase the damage that's been done.
>> ^dag:

I don't see any need to be restrictive on this. If members consider a person to be someone of historical significance to the community - why not have some information? As long as it's true, and not offensive or denigrating to the person.
Primarily, we want to document everything we can about the community - the people are a big part of it.

>> ^kronosposeidon:
Alright, well I guess you're going to allow pages about members. I still don't think it's a good idea, but so be it. However I think it's a bad idea to let anyone edit a page about another member, especially one who is no longer here. You're going to write articles about long lost members? What if they don't like it, especially the banned members? Are they just supposed to suck it up, regardless of potential misrepresentations, outright lies, or other libels? Do you think banned members are really going to get a fair shake in their articles? I can see edit wars on the horizon.
And who gets an article and who doesn't? Is EVERY member, past and present, entitled to an article? In that case, the bulk of the Wiki would be like Facebook. Hurray.
The dupeof feature had to be modified because some members were using it incorrectly. The discard feature had to be modified because it had been abused. The membership voted to abolish Siftquisitions because of abuses. That's why I'm bringing this stuff up now. I'd rather have features tightly defined now, rather than take a wait-and-see approach. The best problem is one that never happens.
>> ^dag:
Sure, though it would be best to use your user page, thusly:
http://wiki.videosift.com/index.php/User:Dag
I'd be happy to write a a little article on the legend of Snake. There are so many great characters lost in the sands of Sift history. Karaidl, MINK, [ahem] Choggie ...
>> ^rottenseed:
Question: Can I make an entry about the great rottenseed?
Also, can you guys make an entry about the long-lost snakeplissken? His is still a story that has never been told.

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

I don't see any need to be restrictive on this. If members consider a person to be someone of historical significance to the community - why not have some information? As long as it's true, and not offensive or denigrating to the person.

Primarily, we want to document everything we can about the community - the people are a big part of it.


>> ^kronosposeidon:

Alright, well I guess you're going to allow pages about members. I still don't think it's a good idea, but so be it. However I think it's a bad idea to let anyone edit a page about another member, especially one who is no longer here. You're going to write articles about long lost members? What if they don't like it, especially the banned members? Are they just supposed to suck it up, regardless of potential misrepresentations, outright lies, or other libels? Do you think banned members are really going to get a fair shake in their articles? I can see edit wars on the horizon.
And who gets an article and who doesn't? Is EVERY member, past and present, entitled to an article? In that case, the bulk of the Wiki would be like Facebook. Hurray.
The dupeof feature had to be modified because some members were using it incorrectly. The discard feature had to be modified because it had been abused. The membership voted to abolish Siftquisitions because of abuses. That's why I'm bringing this stuff up now. I'd rather have features tightly defined now, rather than take a wait-and-see approach. The best problem is one that never happens.
>> ^dag:
Sure, though it would be best to use your user page, thusly:
http://wiki.videosift.com/index.php/User:Dag
I'd be happy to write a a little article on the legend of Snake. There are so many great characters lost in the sands of Sift history. Karaidl, MINK, [ahem] Choggie ...
>> ^rottenseed:
Question: Can I make an entry about the great rottenseed?
Also, can you guys make an entry about the long-lost snakeplissken? His is still a story that has never been told.

Alright, well I guess you're going to allow pages about members. I still don't think it's a good idea, but so be it. However I think it's a bad idea to let anyone edit a page about another member, especially one who is no longer here. You're going to write articles about long lost members? What if they don't like it, especially the banned members? Are they just supposed to suck it up, regardless of potential misrepresentations, outright lies, or other libels? Do you think banned members are really going to get a fair shake in their articles? I can see edit wars on the horizon.

And who gets an article and who doesn't? Is EVERY member, past and present, entitled to an article? In that case, the bulk of the Wiki would be like Facebook. Hurray.

The *dupeof feature had to be modified because some members were using it incorrectly. The * discard feature had to be modified because it had been abused. The membership voted to abolish Siftquisitions because of abuses. That's why I'm bringing this stuff up now. I'd rather have features tightly defined now, rather than take a wait-and-see approach. The best problem is one that never happens.
>> ^dag:

Sure, though it would be best to use your user page, thusly:
http://wiki.videosift.com/index.php/User:Dag
I'd be happy to write a a little article on the legend of Snake. There are so many great characters lost in the sands of Sift history. Karaidl, MINK, [ahem] Choggie ...
>> ^rottenseed:
Question: Can I make an entry about the great rottenseed?
Also, can you guys make an entry about the long-lost snakeplissken? His is still a story that has never been told.

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

Sure, though it would be best to use your user page, thusly:
http://wiki.videosift.com/index.php/User:Dag

I'd be happy to write a a little article on the legend of Snake. There are so many great characters lost in the sands of Sift history. Karaidl, MINK, [ahem] Choggie ...

>> ^rottenseed:

Question: Can I make an entry about the great rottenseed?
Also, can you guys make an entry about the long-lost snakeplissken? His is still a story that has never been told.

>> ^MINK:

why people get caught up on the ridiculous "gay" theory i will never know.


Because... it's gay?

Man up NOOBS! This ain't yo mama's Roast!

Some content is NSFW!

Roast I: choggie

Roast II: MycroftHolmz

Roast III: karaidl

Roast IV: MINK

Roast V: dotdude

Roast VI: thesnipe

Roast VII: Doc_M

Roast VIII: Zifnab

Roast IX: Obsidianfire

Roast X: rasch187

Roast XI: blankfist

Roast XII: NeuralNoise

Roast XIII: kulpims

mink was a dude?

Its been fixed! somebody declare notdead? I am powerless.

The end bit sells it for me.

Somehow I smell a conspiracy theory shenanigans behind minks statement.

That is all.

T-shirts with farts on them, heh. I share many of MINK's grievances, I just tried to be a little more tolerant about it. I failed.

If mink was intelligent and/or witty, he hid it pretty well. He just liked to mix big words with his immature insults. He liked to fight with people, not argue or debate. I don't remember him ever making his case on any subject, but if he did, it was rare. He mostly stuck to ad hominem and straw men when he disagreed with someone.

He requested to be banned several times, as I remember, but he was not obliged. After threatening a downvote spree, I think he ended up scrambling his password so that he couldn't come back. Why such an intelligent, mature person couldn't muster the self-control to not visit the site (he was obviously too good for us, anyway) is beyond me.

http://videosift.com/search?q=&t=c&u=mink&o=lovotes&vmin=&vmax=&sh=&l=&n=&b=&submit=Search

I don't know me and MINK got along pretty well. I think he had relevant points all the time and everyone was too sensitive.

i remember MINK from TayTV.
we used to have glorious arguments!
smart,witty and he laughed at my jokes..what was NOT to like about him?
you could not be thin skinned around him thats for sure, but he was by no means stupid.

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

That's the old MINK I remember.>> ^kulpims:

hey, dag. talked to mink today via facebook, told him how much you miss him and shit he says he's going to law school (go figure) and that "you can tell him from me that tshirts with fart jokes on them are EXACTLY what i was warning about"

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

But when you call me a retard - I don't really feel it - you know?>> ^blankfist:

You don't need that troll, dag; you've got me.