I always thought Choggie was banned for his frequent harassment of Dag. Or at least that was the final straw. So I'd say the question isn't so much if we'd like to see Choggie around again, its if Dag wants to deal with that again, or at least the possibility.

Choggie may have been kind of a weirdo, and he may have essentially self-destructed, leading to his banning... but he was a good weirdo (mostly). He contributed a lot. I think it would be a shame to never allow him back. Why not let him come back under the caveat that he will be instantly and forever rebanned if he does anything destructive?

Some of the best videos on the sift came from Choggie. His contributions were always something you would not see elsewhere.

But it's okay, I guess the whole site is going towards just regurgitating video content from other sites.

Choggie is a quality sifter. The fact that he self-destructed over a year ago doesn't give anyone the right to keep banning his new accounts, this whole 'banning the person, not the account' is just stupid. Why don't you just ban videosiftbannedme then?

I've spoken to choggie a few times and I know he wants to be part of this community again. He's broken no rules with his new accounts, but 2 prominent sifters do not want him here and keep banning him. I consider these two people as friends so I'm not looking to start a war or anything.

I know choggie sees the error of his ways, so to speak. I hope he doesn't mind I post something he sent me the other day: "Dag acted as I would have in banning choggie's account. I was way out of line, and this was due primarily to my inability to have a face to face. This is the real problem with the internet, and with the written word. You simply can't expect everyone to be able to derrive meaning through the limitations of language."

Bring back choggie!

I've made my position on this pretty clear, numerous times throughout the year. This time I just vote "Yes" and leave it at that. He's my buddy.

I like Turtles.

I'm going to take a pass on the poll itself, as I don't know enough of the history of this specific case to have a position.

However, my career in the last 13 years has been heavily invested in online communities, and in my experience it's a rare person who can behave badly enough to get banned, but then change. The vast majority of people simply won't change their behavior for more than a short time. Those that do, generally don't have a long history of being problems in the first place (which is usually what is needed to get permanently banned).

I'm not saying that nobody ever changes. I can think of a few in the last 13 years...a very few. Three, to be precise, that were problems often enough to get perma-banned, then talked sweet enough to one of the powers-that-be to get the ban overturned, AND managed to stay out of trouble after that. Three. I can count several dozens who returned to their problematic ways in relatively short order.

I -do- have a strong belief that banning accounts but not users is just stupid. Accounts don't do anything at all...users do. If you want to ban accounts instead of the people that use them, then you might as well not bother with any of it...just accept that you're going to be running unmoderated, and expect things to be really, really ugly.

Turtles like me.

^The idea is that users have powers here and if we limit that power, it can be a sufficient punishment of transgressions. The difference between a new account and choggies old one, is a lot of discard, dupeof and similar powers that could be abused if something similar happened again. You don't give a convicted murderer a gun either. That's my whole point with a new account.

I, for one, would like to see choggie back, since his sifts always were diverse and interesting and since he obviously wants to be here. I do think we need to remember why he was banned in the first place though, and hope that he's learned from the experience. And if he has not, we can always rescind the pardon.

>> ^rasch187:
Choggie is a quality sifter. The fact that he self-destructed over a year ago doesn't give anyone the right to keep banning his new accounts, this whole 'banning the person, not the account' is just stupid. Why don't you just ban videosiftbannedme then?


I think I need a new name.

Because I get inexorably linked to people who cut their own throats, then want to come back and play, with nary an apology or any acknowledgment of wrongdoing for their past actions. I didn't get banned for being a douchebag and throwing a fit for being unable to set up another channel; I got banned for my inability to read guidelines on self-linking. Silly and ignorant on my part; I'll be the first to admit it. But I also played by the rules (once I learned them, that is!). Do you think Choggie can do the same? So, really, you all need to ask yourselves are you willing to put up with a tantrum again? That's what it boils down to.

Ultimately, if it comes to it, I can be a martyr for the cause. Hell, it's going to take me another 30 years to make it to 250 anyway. But if and when it's decided, can I at least get to wear a set of those shiny cufflinks to my execution? Everyone else has gotten a pair!

Bans are bans. How will one ever learn if they know that the rules can always be bent and altered in the future.

>> ^brycewi19:
Bans are bans. How will one ever learn if they know that the rules can always be bent and altered in the future.


Choggie's part of the Videosift family. Family always forgives family.

choggie is the name of a banned account. Bring it back? No. Allow the person behind choggie to come back in another form? Sure, as long as he plays by the rules. If he crosses them, ban that account, as well. We ban the account, not the person.

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

>> ^Crosswords:
I always thought Choggie was banned for his frequent harassment of Dag. Or at least that was the final straw. So I'd say the question isn't so much if we'd like to see Choggie around again, its if Dag wants to deal with that again, or at least the possibility.


Definitely not banned for harassment of Dag. It was assisted suicide. Kind of like when someone on crack bursts out of a house twirling a big knife around shouting "Come on coppers- watch me start stabbing people, or do something about it".

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

To remove any ambiguity, here's a link to the comment explaining why he was banned:
http://art.videosift.com/talk/B-A-N-N-E-D-R-E-D-A-C-T-E-D#comment-539934

Little book (email) — for I won't hinder you — go on to the city (Sift) without me:

Alas for me, because your master is not allowed to go with you!

- Ovid, in exile

Remember when we got banned, together?
I think you're a quality sifter. You shed an interesting and unique perspective on a lot of ideas. Oftentimes, you're a tremendous asshole. You're Texan.
I vote we allow Choggie to return on his original account and strip of him his channels. Perhaps, allow him to choose their successors?

Allow him back with a new account if you want. Just don't be surprised when goes back to his old behavior of harassing people and breaking the rules. And he certainly will. History will be repeated, I can guarantee that.

EDIT: History has already repeated itself with choggie. He wrongfully (and repeatedly) discarded one of blankfist's videos, and nothing was done to him. Then he wrongfully discarded another video, and he was warned not to do it again. Then he wrongfully discarded another video, so he was given a two week suspension. Then he went on a downvote spree in KOMMIE's PQ and discarded this video. He went completely beyond juvenile behavior to vandalism, after being given so many chances. So he was finally banned. Yet some of you want to give him yet one more chance. Well sorry, but he ain't family to me.

If you allow him to come back, take away his ability to downvote, discard, and leave private profile messages. Those were all privileges he abused, so he doesn't deserve to have them anymore.

My only worry is that if we allow some riff-raff back in, then other riff-raff might get the same idea. *cough* BillO! *cough*

Now, I for one, value anyone's and everyone's right to speak their opinion. It helps generate debate and no one should ever be silenced. But as long as it's done constructively and with thought. It seemed to me (and others), that both of these offenders trolled half the time, cruising the Sift boulevards, looking for attention...regardless of whether it was good or bad attention. If they've matured and can be decent members of the community again, then by all means. But if they can't go a week without getting their panties in a twist, then I say keep the lock on the gate.

So if he comes back, he comes back. I don't think the simple "recognition" of choggie's presence under a new guise is enough to constitute banning the new account. He can't do any harm until he earns some star points. To think that he'd go through so much effort to harm the site is absurd. And if he does, it's a quick fix. Let the man be a part of what we have going. After all, he is a factor of how we are what we are now.

*videodrome

i liked choggie.
irreverent,thoughtful and provocative.
i missed his flame out but i did take a peek at the threads.
he challenged ideas,made people think.
he could be contrary just for the sake of being contrary.
the one thing he never was,
was boring.

Bring him back. This place has a tendency to become more and more homogeneous rather than diverse. He's always got something entertaining to say. If his powers are removed, than that's a good enough penalty in my book.

Funny enough, on "trolling", if you open any video with a conservative spin, you'll find a great many "normal" sifters become instant trolls...

Example (with a healthy bit of exageration):
Obama speech comments:
"I hate this guy"
"What a liar"
"He doesn't know what he's talking about!"
Sift response: "Get out troll!"

O'Reily monologue comments:
"I hate this guy"
"What a liar"
"He doesn't know what he's talking about!"
Sift response: "AMEN BROTHER!"

I used to be annoyed by this, but now I just think its hilarious.

I think Choggie had more than enough second chances. And I don't think this should be a majority vote. I know lots of people like him, and want him back. But obviously he hasn't pissed them off enough YET. Those who don't want him back have a reason why they think the sift is a better place without him.

I don't want him back. Sorry. He never did anything bad to me, but being married to NetRunner - Choggie caused enough problems. If there are 13 people at the moment who never want to see him back, that should be enough. If there is ONE person who doesn't want him back, that should be enough. If he's done something that makes anybody feel like that, then he shouldn't be back.

Not that I am active here at the moment, but I love my hubby, and I can sleep better if I know Choggie isn't back

^NetRunner's got you doing the man's job, eh?

It's ok for NetRunner to speak for himself. Nobody would be mad at him for giving his opinion. I know the 2 had quite the nemesis setup (however 1 sided).

Look, I just have this one question that NEEDS to be answered. If Choggie doesn't combat the evils of NetRunner, then who will?!

My cousin is a paranoid schizophrenic. The hardest thing about hanging out with him is that he's a genius, so when he's ticked off he lashes out in very unconventional and hurtful ways. Even for things I didn't do that he just wants to blame on me. Sometimes he can even be dangerous.

He's still the best damned DM of all time and I'm going to play a game at his house tomorrow.

The thing is, that if he is allowed to return we will be monitoring him and if he gets any smart ideas we do have hobble available and if it comes to it, we can always ban again and say the experiment failed.

>> ^gwiz665:
The thing is, that if he is allowed to return we will be monitoring him and if he gets any smart ideas we do have hobble available and if it comes to it, we can always ban again and say the experiment failed.


And then a couple of months after banning him again, people can start begging for his return again. And thus, the circle of life continues...

I dunno Choggie, was never involved in discussions with or about him. Reading through the thread's linked to above, I can see he was kind of an ass. He does seem interesting though. Alot of people seem to know choggie outside of vs (in rl). I can't comment on his rl behaviour, but I think he should be allowed back. Hobble him when he gets back to prevent abuses, and see if he really wants to reform.

If he fucks up again, c'est la vie - ban him for good and purge his memory from vs. If he behaves, unhobble him and move on.

VS is awesome - I can understand why everyone here wants to be here. Many of us have fucked up in the past (apologies, westy) - but we all share a common love of this site and the community. That should be enough imho.

I don't have enough personal experience to give an opinion.
I'll leave this one up to Dag.

Perhaps we can can invent a new way of hobbling called "Choggieing". The person could have full rigths except for the ability to discard, kill or re-tag.?

Who doesn't want to open the pandora's box of trolls?

I think a lot of us have rose colored glasses when looking back on choggie's history. I do, too. He was the first Sifter to reach out to me when I posted my first video. He could be funny and posted many great videos. But we're failing to remember his darker side: the choggie who begged for the ban and never manned up to an apology. Not once.

I don't fault him for being rude, crass or trolling. Everyone knows I can be all those things myself. I fault him for his wanton disdain for the site rules, for which he broke more than any Sifter's share. I fault him for his hurftulness and pettiness. I fault him for discarding many videos and also going on reckless downvoting sprees.

To those who believe he is somehow self-improved and rehabilitated by his long compulsory vacation from the Sift, I think he has you duped. His letter to rasch187 above even shows how he refuses to take responsibility for his ban, and instead blames it on failures of the "written word" and miscommunication. If you allow him back, he will most likely be good for a while, but he'll make it his mission to annoy and bait those who dislike him. He has an axe to grind and will try to make some of our lives less enjoyable.

Even as a new incognito account, he couldn't help but take a couple subtle potshots at some of us, as witnessed here and here. He's baiting. Don't be tricked by his sheep's wool.

Jeeeeex....by decreee i'm already here. i have always been here as a chunk of consciousness and an ever-flowing diatribe of fecal matter. i discard your viddys and your minds and refine them

i love you all

always have, always will.... pardon me, i need to go back into character

I would hardly call what I've done here as begging. I do think that his original ban was justified, but I don't think it should be a personal ban rather than a account ban. Why do we ban? To protect the integrity of the sift, would be my answer. We do that by stripping the powers, not by stifling comments.

I think it has been farcical that kronos and blankfist has had to be the personal punishers of choggie, but I suppose there's a lot of bad blood there.

If he cannot behave under a new guise, then I'm all for making it permanent, really permanent, but until then, I don't think his new personas have really broken any rules at all, they've just been banned because it's choggie - I don't like that.

That's it.

>> ^campionidelmondo:
>> ^gwiz665:
The thing is, that if he is allowed to return we will be monitoring him and if he gets any smart ideas we do have hobble available and if it comes to it, we can always ban again and say the experiment failed.

And then a couple of months after banning him again, people can start begging for his return again. And thus, the circle of life continues...

For the old-timers? No. For everyone. VS is not for the people who used to come here, it's for the people who come here now.

choggie is often portrayed as some sort of mad genius... like the Unabomber only less articulate and vastly more destructive.

For those who think we should resurrect choggie in any form: Why?

I concur that his video selection was interesting and unique, but there are lots of people who post interesting and unique videos. Not many people vote for them. choggie was successful because he got here early and didn't have to compete for views the way we all do now.

I disagree that he had anything interesting to say and, if he did, nobody could decipher it. Speaking in tongues does not make him a genius. If you miss choggie's "wisdom", volunteer as an aide on a schoolbus. Those kids call each other "fuckers" and talk about masturbation and circle-jerks left and right. You'll be bathing in choggiesque enlightenment for hours a day, 5 days a week.

If choggie really wants to return, let him email dag and make his case.

>> ^gwiz665:


If you agree his "original" ban was justified, then why are you arguing in favor of repealing it? Furthermore I don't understand what you're intending by contrasting "personal ban" and "account ban".

Dag banned the person, not just the account. It wouldn't make sense otherwise. His behavior (that of the person) was destructive and vindictive to the site. What good would it do any of us to ban his account and allow him back to one day do it again?

What are y'all gonna do - ban people who stir up the anger in you and them blame them for ending up with a pissed-off echo chamber called Videosift? There are already sites like that. Why go there? Choggie doesn't get to decide if you're upset today or not. If it were up to me, I'd bring back him under his old account, but that wasn't one of the choices. So, I voted to bring him back under a new account.

He obviously loves all of our little pointed heads and can't stay away. Isn't that amends enough?
I guess for some . . . no. Maybe you ought to read some of Swampgirl's post again.

And like Wilford Brimley says, "Forget your troubles, c'mon get happy!"

I don't understand why some people act like the fact that he's banned is preventing them from interacting with him. Telephone, email, IM, facebook, twitter, etc... nothing is stopping you guys from staying in touch, share video links, and so on. Why does he have to return to videosift and how is that fair to other banned people? He repeatedly broke the rules and acted in a disrespectful manner.

This should not be up for discussion imo, otherwise people are gonna be judged by their popularity and not by their behaviour. No offense, but it seems like a poor choice to me to make a poll like this.

>> ^rottenseed:
^NetRunner's got you doing the man's job, eh?
It's ok for NetRunner to speak for himself. Nobody would be mad at him for giving his opinion. I know the 2 had quite the nemesis setup (however 1 sided).
Look, I just have this one question that NEEDS to be answered. If Choggie doesn't combat the evils of NetRunner, then who will?!


First of all, I didn't even talk to NR before I came up here and posted my response. I though I'd just explain why I don't want Choggie back. Not because he was an asshole to Net, because he was an ass to lots of people! I am entitled to my OWN opinion! I happen to agree with NetRunner, and lots of others. That doesn't mean that I don't have my own opinion.

A ban is a ban. Choggie was a jerk and he had ample chances to stay here and behave. You might think NetRunner is evil, but at least he knows what lines not to cross.

If it was up to me, this place would be better without the trolls. Life is too short to let them upset you and get away with it.

Like somebody wise once said: Never argue with an idiot, they just drag you down to their level, and then beat you with experience.

I think it is alarming that people get so up in arms about me making that poll. You can always just vote no? It's a only gauge to figure out what people think.. it's not like it's binding or anything.

Furthermore, I made the poll because swampgirl never got around to it and with the newest banning, so it seemed like an opportune time to do it.

I obviously didn't experience his presence as badly as some of you did, but why are you all of a sudden being all rass-ma-tass on my ass for this poll?

Ignore is there for a reason, if you want to use it. The only thing I thought was necessary was to strip him of his powers (which we can basically do with hobble now), because he misused his powers.

Personally I have no contact with choggie and I have no real interest in it either. When this matter is resolved, whichever outcome, I will not bring this up again, unless he does break rules again and should be ousted. I'm not arguing FOR him, I'm arguing from the rules of the sift. Bringing attention to problematic issues should not be stigmatized, or have you such short memories?

>> ^blankfist:
>> ^gwiz665:

If you agree his "original" ban was justified, then why are you arguing in favor of repealing it? Furthermore I don't understand what you're intending by contrasting "personal ban" and "account ban".
Dag banned the person, not just the account. It wouldn't make sense otherwise. His behavior (that of the person) was destructive and vindictive to the site. What good would it do any of us to ban his account and allow him back to one day do it again?


Because banning the person was the wrong thing to do. He should have banned the choggie account and let him start over, until he broke the rules on the new one.

I'm not arguing for giving him his old account back, I'm arguing that he should be allowed to make a new account if he wants and have a chance to behave on that. If he can't then another ban can be in order. And if this happens a number of times, then, finally, a ban on his person would be in order.

He got capital punishment for a lot of speeding tickets and reckless driving - I think that's wrong.

>> ^xxovercastxx:
For the old-timers? No. For everyone. VS is not for the people who used to come here, it's for the people who come here now.
choggie is often portrayed as some sort of mad genius... like the Unabomber only less articulate and vastly more destructive.
For those who think we should resurrect choggie in any form: Why?
I concur that his video selection was interesting and unique, but there are lots of people who post interesting and unique videos. Not many people vote for them. choggie was successful because he got here early and didn't have to compete for views the way we all do now.
I disagree that he had anything interesting to say and, if he did, nobody could decipher it. Speaking in tongues does not make him a genius. If you miss choggie's "wisdom", volunteer as an aide on a schoolbus. Those kids call each other "fuckers" and talk about masturbation and circle-jerks left and right. You'll be bathing in choggiesque enlightenment for hours a day, 5 days a week.
If choggie really wants to return, let him email dag and make his case.


You are of course correct that this poll is for everyone, my quip was merely reflecting on that fact that no one who's been here for less than a year know anything of him, other than old comments.

As far as I know, choggie did return for a while on the user Sallyjune, which to my understanding dag knew about and left alone, because he behaved (I may be mistaken, so please correct me if this is wrong). This is essentially a unwritten pardon, but this account was instabanned by blankfist when he found out it was choggie behind the veil. (For the record, I didn't know it was him until after the ban and after the comment I made on the profile.) That was probably the first time the seed of this poll started for me.

I get an uncomfortable feeling when people (especially you, freedom-loving blankfist) go around banning accounts that have not broken any rules. If the user had made any threats or personal attacks or whatever, there would be a reason, but I don't think that the way it works now is a good one. We should only ban for "gross violations" of the sift guidelines, otherwise it should be up to admins to do it.

I think I wall-of-text'ed myself to death.

I have a question for admin on this one, also...for those who don't wish to interact w/ choggie, does the "ignore" feature apply to everything from that person, including PM's? It should if it doesn't, then nobody would theoretically have a problem with him being allowed back w/ what ammounts to a permanent hobbling.

>> ^gwiz665:
Because banning the person was the wrong thing to do. He should have banned the choggie account and let him start over, until he broke the rules on the new one.


When you create GwizSift, you can implement whatever ineffectual, arbitrary ban policies you wish. The site owners of VideoSift, however, decided a ban goes beyond the account... it goes to the IP and therefore by extension it goes to the person. Them's the breaks, kid.


>> ^gwiz665:
I get an uncomfortable feeling when people (especially you, freedom-loving blankfist) go around banning accounts that have not broken any rules.


Go back and look at why choggie was banned again... for breaking the rules. You don't think repeat offenses of discarding other people's videos and going on a downvote spree is a violation of the rules?

Banning just his account is pointless. It wasn't some ethereal account name that was a major site nuisance. It was the guy behind choggie and sallyjune and Phonecium and every other shadow account he's created. To permanently ban an account is to permanently ban the person, otherwise rules are pointless and arbitrary.

what's wrong with downvoting videos?

Meh, so be it. I still think it was the wrong choice to do so.

>> ^blankfist:
>> ^gwiz665:
Because banning the person was the wrong thing to do. He should have banned the choggie account and let him start over, until he broke the rules on the new one.

When you create GwizSift, you can implement whatever ineffectual, arbitrary ban policies you wish. The site owners of VideoSift, however, decided a ban goes beyond the account... it goes to the IP and therefore by extension it goes to the person. Them's the breaks, kid.

>> ^gwiz665:
I get an uncomfortable feeling when people (especially you, freedom-loving blankfist) go around banning accounts that have not broken any rules.

Go back and look at why choggie was banned again... for breaking the rules. You don't think repeat offenses of discarding other people's videos and going on a downvote spree is a violation of the rules?
Banning just his account is pointless. It wasn't some ethereal account name that was a major site nuisance. It was the guy behind choggie and sallyjune and Phonecium and every other shadow account he's created. To permanently ban an account is to permanently ban the person, otherwise rules are pointless and arbitrary.

I voted to allow him back. If anyone cares why (I'm not sure why they would, I wouldn't) I can explain in more detail, but for now I'll just say it's been a year and he did contribute before he blew up. I don't want the angry choggie who was banned back, but the guy I knew a year before that was ok and I could deal with him. If the angry one came back instead it's not a big trick to ban him again, plenty of you can do it at need. I don't see a real reason not to give it a chance and see what he has to say for himself, which one shows up.

I kind of liked the guy, but I like all kinds of odd people such as Blankfist and others as well, no accounting for taste I guess. Make me smile and I'm easy I'll leave it at that for now.

>> ^blankfist:
>> ^gwiz665:
Because banning the person was the wrong thing to do. He should have banned the choggie account and let him start over, until he broke the rules on the new one.

When you create GwizSift, you can implement whatever ineffectual, arbitrary ban policies you wish. The site owners of VideoSift, however, decided a ban goes beyond the account... it goes to the IP and therefore by extension it goes to the person. Them's the breaks, kid.


This has not been the policy with anyone else. Dag banned choggies account, but he didn't follow up on all the other users - that was users such as yourself and kp. My whole point in this poll is to act in the spirit of this comment by dag.

And I'll say this, GwizSift would have more blackjack and hookers... in fact, forget the blackjack!

>> ^xxovercastxx:
choggie is often portrayed as some sort of mad genius... like the Unabomber only less articulate and vastly more destructive.

Talk about hyperbole.

I am wholly opposed to offering choggie clemency of any sort. He made it clear that he was utterly unconcerned with adhering to the unwritten rules of civil interaction with human beings, and made it clear that he felt that even the written rules of the site should not constrain his behavior.

choggie is only interested in standing in judgment of others, and tormenting people. There are vast quantities of people who left this site, never to return because of things he said and did.

Bringing him back would be a tragic mistake. I guarantee it would result in an eventual re-ban after much new, avoidable, pain and anguish is wrought by this fucking sociopath.

I cast the first vote for Never. I'd cast a thousand more if I could.

People who enjoyed choggie's lack of civility are free to subject themselves to it outside of Videosift. No one is stopping you.

I want to make this abundantly clear - whatever the outcome of this poll, this is only an indicator. Whatever the result, it should not necessarily be done "because it's been in a poll".

I don't want to cause bad blood between myself and any of you other fine sifters because I made this poll, so to dag and lucky, do please only use this as data for your consideration instead of merely caving in to majority. If choggie himself comes and asks to be reinstated, or allowed to be here under a new guise, then you can take this into account. It seems that he's caused a lot of damage and if he hasn't I think he ought to apologize to you for it before he's allowed to stay.

>> ^Farhad2000
Talk about hyperbole.


OK, hyperbole is the act of taking a statement and exaggerating it to a ridiculous degree. Stuff like: "I'm so hungry I could eat a horse." Or, ""Saskatchewan is so flat, you can see your dog run away for 3 days!" Or, "I could time your hundred-yard-dash with a sundial."

Hyperbole has been defined as, "deliberate exaggeration of a person, thing, quality, event to emphasize a point external to the object of exaggeration; intentional exaggeration for rhetorical effect."

Brian Regan speaks well of the epitome of hyperbole and I believe it is worth seeking out.

Also, for those who wish to be in the know:

http://www.videojug.com/webvideo/how-to-pronounce-hyperbole-in-english

he's coming back in 2012

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

Sorry, no cop-outs Gwiz. We've made it clear that we'll take the results of polls seriously. I'll make the decision (as your democratically appointed dictator) but I'll certainly take this into consideration as "the will of the community".

If there's one achievement I'd like for this site- it would be a collective recognition among the community that your actions count for something here. This isn't fucking Digg where you get the feeling you are pissing into the wind.

Along with that collective recognition- I would hope that someday soon you personally, Gwiz would recognise that the things you do on here effect real human beings in the community and outside of it.

>> ^gwiz665:
I want to make this abundantly clear - whatever the outcome of this poll, this is only an indicator. Whatever the result, it should not necessarily be done "because it's been in a poll".
I don't want to cause bad blood between myself and any of you other fine sifters because I made this poll, so to dag and lucky, do please only use this as data for your consideration instead of merely caving in to majority. If choggie himself comes and asks to be reinstated, or allowed to be here under a new guise, then you can take this into account. It seems that he's caused a lot of damage and if he hasn't I think he ought to apologize to you for it before he's allowed to stay.

His name's an anagram for: Ice Hogg

...and well, if THAT doesn't scare you...

It's amusing that so much energy is put into this topic when all choggie would have to do is 1) Move, or access VS from a different location and 2) Get a new membership. For all we know, he may have done that the day after he was banned, and could be at least a gold by now.

For the record, gwiz, dag banneed one of choggie's sock puppets:

http://www.videosift.com/member/14151

So if dag banned him on sight 9.5 months ago, then why shouldn't we do the same? Dag's actions clearly indicated that choggie is persona non grata here, so that's why I was justified in instabanning on other occasions. So don't editorialize about blankfist and me being his "personal punishers." He was banned for repeatedly breaking the rules, and blankfist and I were following up on that decision.

I didn't editorialize about your motives, did I? Have a little fucking respect already.

Everything has an effect, whether people take them too seriously is another issue. It seems to me that you are still hounding me for something I did not do and for one stupid comment. I don't appreciate that. Of anyone, you ought to be the one to rise above it as an admin, but that's your deal.

It is unfair to blame me personally if people have a terrible past with choggie - I don't want people like netrunner and kronos to hate ME if he comes back - I'm only one vote, the 38 others carry as much responsibility for that.

If you, dag, are going to cop out and enforce this, even if the scores are relatively even, then I would just *discard if I could that on my own poll and keep my nose out of this whole fertid mess.

In fact, anyone with the power to do so, has my blessing - then you can make your own poll at some point and I can ignore it.



>> ^dag:
Sorry, no cop-outs Gwiz. We've made it clear that we'll take the results of polls seriously. I'll make the decision (as your democratically appointed dictator) but I'll certainly take this into consideration as "the will of the community".
If there's one achievement I'd like for this site- it would be a collective recognition among the community that your actions count for something here. This isn't fucking Digg where you get the feeling you are pissing into the wind.
Along with that collective recognition- I would hope that someday soon you personally, Gwiz would recognise that the things you do on here effect real human beings in the community and outside of it.
>> ^gwiz665:
I want to make this abundantly clear - whatever the outcome of this poll, this is only an indicator. Whatever the result, it should not necessarily be done "because it's been in a poll".
I don't want to cause bad blood between myself and any of you other fine sifters because I made this poll, so to dag and lucky, do please only use this as data for your consideration instead of merely caving in to majority. If choggie himself comes and asks to be reinstated, or allowed to be here under a new guise, then you can take this into account. It seems that he's caused a lot of damage and if he hasn't I think he ought to apologize to you for it before he's allowed to stay.




Fair enough, kp. I apologize for reading too much into your actions.

>> ^kronosposeidon:
For the record, gwiz, dag banneed one of choggie's sock puppets:
http://www.videosift.com/member/14151
So if dag banned him on sight 9.5. months ago, then why shouldn't we do the same? Dag's actions clearly indicated that choggie is persona non grata here, so that's why I was justified in instabanning on other occasions. So don't editorialize about blankfist and me being his "personal punishers." He was banned for repeatedly breaking the rules, and blankfist and I were following up on that decision.
I didn't editorialize about your motives, did I? Have a little fuckking respect already.

Discarding this post - discard requested by original submitter gwiz665.

Oh look, I could. Huh, that must've been changed. Goodie. Then you can have your own poll now, and I can stay out of it. Have fun.

*promote. Once you've started it...

edit: what a pussy move

Only published, queued, or discarded videos, published Sift Talk posts, and published blog posts may be promoted - ignoring promote request by rasch187.

wow.

rasch, as usual, fuck you. I tried to do this poll civilized, but there are too many people that are too heavily invested and I don't want to be in the middle of this shit. This was my own post, I'm allowed to discard that. If you want that this should be polled again, make your own damn post. I'm staying out of it.

This goes to show that it is frowned upon to show initiative around here.

I am distancing myself from this whole mess, because I don't want to be the spearhead for certain users' agenda.

Voting for this poll ended with the majority of users voting gwiz665 to be starting something. Just kidding, believe in Jesus.

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

"I'm Distancing myself from this whole mess" he says as the barn he set alight slowly turns to embers.

>> ^gwiz665:
rasch, as usual, fuck you. I tried to do this poll civilized, but there are too many people that are too heavily invested and I don't want to be in the middle of this shit. This was my own post, I'm allowed to discard that. If you want that this should be polled again, make your own damn post. I'm staying out of it.
This goes to show that it is frowned upon to show initiative around here.
I am distancing myself from this whole mess, because I don't want to be the spearhead for certain users' agenda.

I thought you were bigger than that, dag. I didn't start this fire, I just illuminated it. I have no vested interest in this issue other than what I feel are injustices. If you people want to continue this particular fight, you can do so without me.

You juvenile posts as siftbot are not appreciated either. Grow up.

edit: my metaphors obviously leaves a lot to be desired. The embers of this fire were there already and they have been here since choggie was banned. Swampgirl tried to get people to look at it in her post and I tried to show it to people in this poll. That was all I tried to do here. If you feel the need to absolutely follow the direction of the majority in this stupid poll, then I don't want any part in it, which is why I discarded it.

If people feel strongly about this issue, and obviously there are many who do, they can make their own post and forward their own agenda. I don't want to be a part of it anymore if we can't be civil, and it's obvious that we can't.

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

You illuminated the fire? That's a fantastic metaphor. Please don't assume that I am Siftbot - she doesn't like that.

^ SHE?!?!?!?
Cool.

Well then I can say that siftbot is a self-righteous bitch, who shouldn't make trolling comments. You hear that siftbot? Don't be a dick!

Metaphors, schmetaphors - don't blame me for the crack in the hull, I merely showed it to people. The fact that everyone else want to make this about me is their damn problem. I want nothing more to do with this.

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

^You seem very quick to shirk responsibility when the shit starts to fly. It's always other people misunderstanding your intentions isn't it?

Smells like the bitter retreat of shame in here.

Well, it is now, that's for sure. It was your post that forced my hand. I don't want the responsibility of having "forced" choggie back in thrust upon me, I wanted to know what people thought about it.

39 in favor... now what say you Dag?

^ actually, *42* people wouldn't mind if he were allowed back. Otherwise they woulda voted "no". 42 is a great number, it's the answer to life, the universe, and everything...including whether choggie comes back to life or not.

Awesome. It's been at least a fortnight since some weird shit went down around here.

I keep seeing dag in here lurking. He's oddly preoccupied with this place... oh wait, if I'm in here to notice he's always in here, then what does that say about me?

The sift royalty have already spoken. Don't mess with the almighty opinion of the king & queen. They run this, you are just a working class lowlife around here, hanging out in pubs with other people who have a sense of humor and don't take life as seriously.
Dag has to abide by the edicts from those who know better, and riff raff are never welcome.

Now go back to posting more cat videos and the same old shit.

I know little of the issue, and I guess the decision's been made by now anyway. I'd still like to say this: Rigid rules are for large societies. I'd like to think the Sift is still small and flexible enough to consider issues on a case-by-case basis.

let me quote a philosopher: "this is retarded".

I'm all for second chances. 5th chances, not so much.

>> ^dag:
^You seem very quick to shirk responsibility when the shit starts to fly. It's always other people misunderstanding your intentions isn't it?


Flings poo. You're a bastard. I don't like being forced by bastards. Play nice or don't play.

Last!