I'm thinking perhaps what we need is to move the front page back to being sorted by "newness" instead of hotness.

I have a bear of a time getting anything sifted unless it gets votes right away, and gets bumped to the front page.

I think timing now plays too big a role in what gets that prime real estate, and that's what's skewing our sifting patterns. Crap that gets 3 votes in the first hour will probably sift. Good vids that go 4+ hours without a vote usually pqueue.

Oh yeah... absolutely horrid movie. Actually, if you can survive the first hour of painfully stupid humor there's a bit of a decent, if cliche, story after that.

>> ^paul4dirt:
"What else could it possibly take to convince you of a perma-ban?"
well, all the information i just got did. however, in the original (now heavily edited) opening post i couldnt get this information so thats what i based my vote on.


Well, there's 3 days to cast your vote. If you are at all uncertain about a serious vote like permanently banning a member from this site, then don't vote. Don't go by just what is posted in the siftquisition, but look for yourself. Get the facts. It took me under a minute to see what he had done for myself.


"Please be as verbose as possible and explain all offenses in great detail, so
voters are informed enough to know exactly why and how they should cast their vote."
---
add:
i would like siftquisition not to be edited after it has been put to a vote. i think it would be better if a full case was being made (providing extensive links and arguments) to base a vote on. now i already voted and with more information about time of votes and discarding attempts i cannot vote for a ban if i want to.
(the same thing if i voted for a ban and with the extra information wanted to vote against, and thats a bad thing - first information THEN voting would be nice - maybe first have a day of information gathering in next siftquisitions and vote AFTER members can comment and argue for and against the measure proposed)


I'm sorry, I don't agree. Evidence will come up during any "trial". Again, you have 3 days. You don't have to vote within the first hour. I understand you feel bad about your vote and yes, people should provide as much info as possible, but blankfist doesn't have access to all of the info. Yet, it was obvious just from looking at his downvote history what was going on. I'm sure you did not look at all.


(btw. id say skip this siftquisition and just admin-ban him if the admins are 100% convinced he shouldnt be allowed on their site anymore.)


I agree completely. Blatant abuse of the site like this doesn't take a siftquisition.

>> ^ShakyJake:
If only they had oil there, we might send in the troops to "liberate" these people.


Ignorant remarks like this are more than just getting old, in this context it is despicable. If you aren't aware, North Korean artillery has been holding the 20+ million people living in Seoul as guaranteed casualties within the first hour of any war, preventing any attempts to help the people trapped in the North.

But don't let me stop your making snide remarks about the US after watching the horror show that is North Korea. Just try to remember that North Korea was backed by the Soviet Union and China while the South was backed by the US. You just might want to look at the difference between the two before treating the dire plight of millions with so little respect.

>> ^brain:
I've only watched the first hour of it so far. I like Hitchens and he makes a lot of good points, but he doesn't seem to be directly replying to the arguments that Turek makes.

That is what I noticed as well. It may be a matter of Christopher's method of humor, but I did find that he often did not directly answer questions, and often snuck in side-jabs in a seeming effort to get support from the audience for weak assertions.

That disappointed me. I was hoping for a spirited debate that stayed to the subject, but often times found it being derailed by emotional tirades instead of logical arguments.

This was no better shown when confronted with the question of how to measure morality and Hitchens makes the comment that some people will clap for everything. Would it really of hurt to just stick to the debate at hand?

I've only watched the first hour of it so far. I like Hitchens and he makes a lot of good points, but he doesn't seem to be directly replying to the arguments that Turek makes. To me, all that really needs to be said is:

Anthropic principle!
Evolution!
DONE!

Half of what Turek was saying was how specially designed for life the Universe and the Earth are. It's so weird that I haven't heard the anthropic principle even be mentioned yet.

I say allow edits after the first hour, but content can only be striken through, not erased. Of course, new content can be added. I'm not sure how this would be implemented.

Boy, am I late to the punch here. Still, I think I might be able to add something deconstructive here (uh, sure) so batter up...

1. Porn cultivates good relationships.

As was mentioned somewhere above in this giant mass of thread, it can be a nice addition to an existing relationship, to get the old mind-juices flowing and liven up the old sex life. Sort of like eating vanilla cake, but then eating the same vanilla cake for years, and then realizing you can put strawberries on it, and all of a sudden vanilla cake with strawberries is the best thing you've ever eaten.

2. Porn is for men who sincerely appreciate the beauty of the female body.

I'd agree that this is a myth, except that I don't know anyone who thinks this, and it misses the point. Porn is for getting yourself excited in that special way that makes you feel all warm inside when you don't have a person to get you all warm on the outside too. Among other things. Of course, sex is mainly mental to begin with, so appreciation of beautiful bodies helps.

3. Porn is harmless and it has no negative effect on the person using it.

I also drink alcohol and curse.

4. Strippers and porn stars lead glamorous lives, and men respect them.

Glamorous? Maybe on screen, but there's effort involved -- Porn is hard work, you know. I don't know any strippers or porn stars personally, so I can't say I respect or disrespect any of them. I'm trying to be funny here, but this "myth" is so far off base I'm having trouble linking it back to reality. Come on, throw me a bone here!

5. Men like variety in women so porn use helps a man stay faithful to his woman.

You know, I think you're getting your information from a questionable source. This list isn't "Common myths about porn," it's "lame excuses men tell their wives to justify watching porn in a sitcom." Though as a man, I do like variety, so I recommend roleplay. You know what I'm talking about; I've already explained that strawberry thing.

6. Women who get involved in the porn industry choose to do so, and they have valuable careers.

"Everybody needs money! That's why they call it money!"
Too bad I've only seen the first hour of The Heist. This one I can't really argue with, but only because it's true about every career. This has been pointed out above, but just like anything else, there's people who have a career and there's people who just have a job. Then there's people without a job, and without a career, and there's people who have tons of money and just drive around all day looking for things to throw money at, and now I'm completely off track.

7. Porn is an outlet or safety valve for men who would otherwise do Bad Things.

This is patently false. Everyone knows the safety valve for men who would otherwise do Bad Things is video games. Except it always goes HORRIBLY WRONG. And then students end up getting hurt because other students were playing those MURDER SIMULATORS all day. Won't anyone think of the children? Why does no-one listen to Jack Thompson!? Oh wait I'm off topic again.

8. Women who work in porn are empowered and sexually liberated.

Damn I'm having trouble making this stuff funny. You know what, I'm going to pass on this one.

9. Porn is just a fantasy and people do not apply it to real life.

Completely false. I watched a porn once where a guy has sex with three women in the span of fifteen minutes, but then the guy turns into a girl and the three women turn into a tiger, a monsterous tentacle beast, and a plant. Then the girl has to run away from the tiger, but she's trying to make out with the plant, and the tentacle beast is just busy eating popcorn. I know this is not fantasy because it happened to me when I was 19.

-----

So there you have it. As a bonus, since this thread is about porn myths, I feel it only appropriate to add a few of my own myths about porn that are harmful to people.

10. Sexual partners always climax at the same time, even if they've just met.

11. Sex is always satisfying, and everyone feels loads of sexual pleasure effortlessly.

12. Sex is always accompanied by an appropriate soundtrack.

13. The quality of any sexual act is directly proportional to the amount of noise both sexual partners make.

14. The only appropriate things to say during sex are "Give it to me," "Oh yeah baby," and "Yes, yes, yes." Moaning is also appropriate.

15. The best way to get a woman to sleep with you is to be a domineering asshole. Wait a minute...

So despite the fact that nobody will mistake me for a professional comedian, I've hopefully made you laugh just a bit. Because one of the best things to do when confronted with an emotionally charged topic (oh crap he's getting serious, why don't I have a dental appointment lined up) is to laugh at it a bit and take the edge off. Judging from previous replies to this thread, I think a bunch of Sifters already get it.

I've been a non-mmo player all my life (until recently), and during the development of this game, I thought this would be the dog's bullocks and when I played I thought so too... for the first hour. I've later been introduced to World of Warcraft, which indeed does the things where Oblivion fails miserably: the world feels like a world. It's huge. And different areas have vastly different looks. Oblivion is like an open-world Quake, where everything that isn't brown is gray and everything that isn't brown or gray is actually the wallpaper behind your screen.

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

Holy shite we're at 20% of our goal within the first hour! That's pretty amazing. Thanks everyone - the quality of this community is a bit surreal - I don't get it, but I love it.

6 votes in the first hour, 1 vote in the next three days.

where is the obscure team?

maybe not obscure enough. *discard

From Everything2 comes *SPOILER ALERT!!!!!!!*: How not to beat Jet Li's kung-fu style in "Fist of Legend"

"Sound strange? The most I can offer is some quick advice. You want to take on his righteous wrath, go for it. But there are some things you should know first. Bear with me now, and fast forward to the point in the film after he returns to Shanghai and discovers that his teacher and adoptive father, the Fist of Legend, is dead. Ok, now he's walking out of the kung fu school with That Look on his face.

Great. Ok, so he walks into the Japanese dojo. Now all the students there are getting angry at him. Our lessons can begin.

NEVER be the first guy to run up to Jet Li and slug him. He was waiting for that one since he walked in the door. You'll just end up getting your arm twisted around and then he'll probably throw you into a big crowd of your classmates.

Oh, man, did you see that guy? There's another important lesson. Flying jump kicks don't really work all that well on this hombre. You try to pull something like that, don't plan on having children. Now, you might think that just because you've got 40 or 50 of your classmates hanging around with you, you can just rush him. As you can plainly see, that isn't going to work. Don't feel bad - It's not that you're a bunch of pansies or anything. You just have to consider the mathematics at work against you here. Note the following formula.

Kung Fu Ass Beating Formula: Jet Li
V = S(17R)^2 + (X)

See, V is the total volume of ass, S is the scene number in the movie, 17 squared is Jet's own personal Kung Fu Style Coefficient, and R is the number of guys he beat the snot out of in the very first scene. Add X for the number of dead relatives. In this case, it's scene number 15 or so, and he slapped about a dozen guys silly in the very beginning of the movie - remember? When the Japanese supremacists came to his classroom? - So we add one for his dead teacher, and we're talking about a HUGE volume of ass. This equation also explains how Jackie Chan could pull of the Enormous Satanic Monk-Beating bit during the last 45 minutes of Armor of God. Clearly, this gang-up idea is just not gonna work out.

Anyhow. We can fast forward to the part where Jet has to fight his old pal, Orange Headband, for control of the kung fu academy. Lesson Three. You are NEVER, EVER going to beat this guy with an old school formal one-on-one duel. Not even if you're his childhood friend, and especially not if you're trying to force him out of your school because you resent his new teachings and influence. In this situation, he doesn't really want to make you look like a bop bag in front of everyone, but he's not going to sit there and take your punishment for long. And those selfsame new teachings are going to be the reason why your head breaks through all those potted plants and rafters. Bad, bad, bad.

The last lesson I have to offer is that you should try your hardest not to be the bad guy. The bad guy usually does pretty well during the first hour and ten minutes of the movie, but he always ends up with Jet Li's toes wiggling around in whatever he ate for lunch. You want to take on Jet Li? For crying out loud, DON'T poison his old teacher, don't kidnap his lover, kill his best friend or make fun of his shoes. The point is that you don't want to make the kung-fu warrior as angry as possible before you fight with him. You want him to think you're just playing around until you get a chance to shove your No Shadow Kick in his ear. And pick neutral surroundings, like a Wal-Mart. Good luck."

benjee, just a friendly reminder... a no vote for videos that you don't enjoy but maybe others will.... downvote for poor videos, or crappy quality, or offensive, (and some political ones seem to be fair game), or makes the site a worse place to be.

Now if you want to make a statement about p-diddy, at least wait until its front page, or at the very least a few days in the queue. I think it's rude to cut down a video in its first hour in the queue.

One issue I have though is that you technically can increase your number of frontpage posts. Before it was 3 submissions per day even if they were frontpaged. Now, technically, if you got 9 vote on a video in the first hour, you can submit more. Might not really be an issue unless we have a lot more queue lurkers voting stuff up.

In the first hour of Wednesday's 8-23 Situation Room, CNN apparentlythought it had a phoner with Wendy Hutchens, a woman "who claims that five years ago she had detailed chats about the death of JonBenet Ramsey" with John Mark Karr.
"...he was instructed to kill JonBenet by Howard Stern"
The caller was a "notorious prank caller" named Thomas Cipriano. He says: "I've been doing this for 20 years! You'd think they'd be on to me by now..."
http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/cnn/wolf_weve_just_been_howard_sterned_42609.asp
The clip is much longer than necessary, but the exchange with the "crack" [sic] caller is at the beginning.
On a personal note, I watched the entire clip because I rarely am exposed to CNN and always find it visually fascinating. The graphics get more sophisticated, ...and it's slightly distracting to those unaccustomed to it. There is never a moment without considerable motion on the screen, even when the talking head is just taking. It's a way of helping the short attention-spanners keep their eyes on the tube. (Charlie Rose, with conversants sitting at a table, the background a uniform black void, is the antithesis of the ever-waving background of CNN; with Rose, you're on your own to supply the attention and brain activity to maintain focus on the conversation. my $.02