I'm liking this better than the last proposal.

I think that the reasons for a siftquisition should be made clear as well. You shouldn't be able to make them for your own gratification; ie.:

Is @demon_ix a do-do head?
yes: 800
no: 1

would be a bad siftquisition.

It should be some relatively clear violation of the rules or the spirit of the rules; harrasment, repeated personal attacks, blanket downvotes, knowingly breaking or circumventing the rules etc. It's not a place to settle personal twists, if it can be solved by PM. It should not be a frivolous thing to do.

Optimally, this would never be used, but it's good to have as a tool.

...and dix is totally a do-do head.

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

We had pretty clear rules outlined in the FAQ.

Very good then.

Sounds reasonable. I think Siftquistions were before the time I became active on VideoSift, so I don't know their history or how often they happened. So as I'll be seeing them for the first time, I hope that they aren't a regular thing. I hate the idea of a site like this, with a great community, effectively destroying the friendly atmosphere by calling each other out all the time.

Do we really need these siftquisitions basically? We seem to be getting on just fine without them right now...

My 2 cents.

Fuckin' A, bring it back. Wait, lemme put on my panties...

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.

I would like to say one more thing. And look, I'm not as active here these days as I once was, so someone please let me know if I'm mistaken. But it seems to me that the site has been refreshingly drama-free for the last couple of months. Does no one remember what it was like here (especially in the sift talk section of the site) during the height of siftquisition-era videosift? Constant drama and acrimony, fights, hurt feelings and the regular public spectacle of the siftquisitions themselves. I seem to recall that at least a few people left the site for good as a side-effect of the drama-heavy siftquisitions. Why would we want that back? Especially when it seems like (to me, at least) everything's been going so smoothly since siftquisitions were removed.

Without knowing the punishments, I have a hard time deciding if I will vote on their guilt. It sounds stupid, but I'd hate to vote "yes" thinking they broke a minor infraction according to the rules, then have the admins ban that person. There should be guidelines. What punishments fit what crime...and you should display the potential outcome of the sifter should he or she be voted guilty.

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.

Yeah, I figured as much. But my issue with siftquisitions has never been whether or not the angry mob was pleased with their decision.
>> ^xxovercastxx:
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."

Mob rule. How very democratic. I think it was this type of majority vote that kept gays from marrying in California. And the exposure of it served as a beacon for gloating for all the "winners"... as in, "ha ha, look at them gays thinking they're regular people like us."

I vote a very strong nay. If site rules are clear, then there's no reason for us to drag it out in public. Nothing good shall come.

These terrorists don't deserve trails! To Guantanemo with them!

Actually, DFT made me think of a good point. Siftquisitions are not trials. Trials are typically made up of a section of your peers (12 men and women) that have no prior knowledge of you or the events of the trial prior to the trial. This keeps them unbiased.

With Siftquisitions, everyone knows everyone else and have already built biases. If DFT was being Siftquisitioned, I'd probably have a hard time voting that lovable leftist bastard off the island!

You can't expect people on here to be unbiased when making decisions for punishment within a small community like this. Like I said, nothing good shall come.

Correlation is not causation, as they say. It could be that things are peaceful because @BillOreilly, @CaptainPlanet420 and @choggie's evil personality were all banned. Not to mention, we've also kept some otherwise well(-enough) behaved sifters in line with suspensions; @quantumushroom, @blankfist and the always-villainous @schmawy come to mind.

SQs used to be way more lighthearted, too. Dag has not begun one with the ringing of the gong and donning of the hat and robes in quite a while. I don't understand why so many people have a hissy-fit over someone bringing potentially inappropriate actions to light.

>> ^Sarzy:
I would like to say one more thing. And look, I'm not as active here these days as I once was, so someone please let me know if I'm mistaken. But it seems to me that the site has been refreshingly drama-free for the last couple of months. Does no one remember what it was like here (especially in the sift talk section of the site) during the height of siftquisition-era videosift? Constant drama and acrimony, fights, hurt feelings and the regular public spectacle of the siftquisitions themselves. I seem to recall that at least a few people left the site for good as a side-effect of the drama-heavy siftquisitions. Why would we want that back? Especially when it seems like (to me, at least) everything's been going so smoothly since siftquisitions were removed.

Looks like someone has a pet social-engineering project he wants to see put into practice. The god complex is a powerful thing.

@blankfist, you got a rare comment upvote from me. I think in this case you're actually invoking "mob rule" correctly.

California's real issue is that they allowed their state constitution to be amended by referendum, which seems utterly moronic to me.

As for dag's supposed God complex, I'd hardly say that trying to abdicate some power and turn it over to the people is a particularly maniacal thing to do.

I'm leaning no on this one myself. I think, @dag, if you want to delegate some power for the purpose of enforcing community rules and resolving disputes, you'd be better off coming up with some sort of community moderator role, and ask some people from the community to serve in that sort of role.

Putting stuff like this to a vote is a bit too much like Survivor, makes for some cheap, mindless entertainment, but it's not much of a method for finding justice.

I like it. The two day "cooling off" period makes sense. I've always felt that the most important thing is a gradient of sentancing. No need for a binary ruling of ban / don't ban. I'm very comfortable with the idea of verdict by the group and sentancing determined by the admins benevolent dictatorship. I have great faith in Dag's judgement. He has earned this by exercising even handed and reluctant authority.

As for drama, there should be every bit of this (if not more) as there is in real life (sorry Sarz).

I've always felt that the Siftquisition was a good idea, but it lacked finesse and flexibility and judiciousness in execution. This seems to be a good answer.

I say again: VS is very unique in it's approach to community. I still believe that we are setting precidence for how people relate on the web. Maybe we're just a video posting site, but I still think there's something larger being worked out here.

I'm still waiting for someone -- dag, or anyone else who is inclined to do so -- to show us why this is necessary in the first place. Have things not been going smoothly since siftquisitions have been removed? Where is the need? Because I can show you a shit-ton of evidence that siftquisitions are destructive community poison. Someone show me one scrap of evidence that we actually need them.

What can I say...I have to agree with blankfist (it hurts, but what ya gonna do) and NetRunner. I'm not a fan of popularity contests, they're fine for fun, but not for anything that actually has consequences.

I'd be much happier putting the decision on the shoulders of someone with a track record of even-handedness, whether that be Dag, or someone he's delegated the responsibility to. I'd rather trust an individual's sense of justice than a mob's. Perhaps that's a legacy of my days involved with gaming boards, but mobs are just...unstable, untrustworthy, and generally no brighter than their most stupid member.

^stormsinger
that's why I think verdict by peers (poll) and sentancing by admin makes sense.

POGG

>> ^NetRunner:
As for dag's supposed God complex, I'd hardly say that trying to abdicate some power and turn it over to the people is a particularly maniacal thing to do.


I wasn't talking about dag.

@schmawy

If you're expecting the admin to provide "sense and reasonableness" for the mob, why not just leave it all up to him? I see no benefit to the mob vote other than providing a circus for the public.

I think we get plenty of drama already...and nothing about this proposal is going to reduce it.

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

I make no apologies for the fact that the Sift is a social experiment.

What we're attempting to prove is that the more power given to a community's individual constituents- the more effective, fun and interesting the community will be.

no. never. never ever ever ever. never.

is anyone even being a pest lately?
usually, i mean since billoreilly and captainplanet were taken out, anyone pushing the envelope (that isnt a self linking probie spammer worthy of an instaban) is a seasoned member who isn't doing any real harm, gets hobbled immediately and no one would vote to ban them anyway.

you're opening up a slippery slope with this. "so and so got banned for this and this, but we didnt even call a siftquisition on this so and so for this similar thing". siftquisistions amount to nothing but unnecessary drama (remember burdturgler vs. usesprozac) or a place to make a public mockery of the whole process (remember thinker247 vs. peggedbea, yes, we were laughing hysterically at anyone taking it seriously).

we have hobblings to render anyone intent on doing any damage powerless immediately. and even that's ridiculous most of the time, but i don't object to it being an option in the case of someone abusing the discard or downvote button. but think that's pretty much the only time it should be used. the last time a rash of hobblings and discussion of bannings broke out it was over a provocative video that promoted healthy debate and i thought that was the point anyway? to foster intelligent conversation and healthy debate? seasoned members pushing the envelope and forcing us to redefine ourselves or reexamine ourselves is not a bad thing.

in cases of personal profile abuse, i really don't ever want to see that become a public spectacle ever ever again. especially since tone and intent are so hard to clearly distinguish online. and people are allowed to squabble and dislike each other and most of the time its just a joke anyway. leave that between the people involved and admins if it's really out of hand.

i will say that i think the ignore feature could use a tweak, maybe we could make it impossible for anyone you have on ignore to leave a comment on your profile. that would take care of profile abuse "i don't like what you're saying to me, so i'm not going to let you say it here anymore." done. no need for further drama.

I'm thinking first rule of siftquisition should be that nobody can be siftquisitioned for any reason outside the agreed upon written rules of the sift. Within what is now the FAQ right now. But there has to be a barrier against subjectively kicking people out for no reason.

>> ^dag:
I make no apologies for the fact that the Sift is a social experiment.
What we're attempting to prove is that the more power given to a community's individual constituents- the more effective, fun and interesting the community will be.


You're acting like siftquisitions are some kind of wacky new idea you want to try out for the first time -- not something that's been done, was destructive and ultimately removed by the community.

I'm still waiting for any indication that there have been any kind of kinks or problems in the post-siftquisition videosift that warrant bringing back sanctioned lynch-mobs.... er, siftquisitions. Siftquistions. That's what I meant to say.

What they're attempting to prove is that the more power given to a community's individual constituents- the more effective, fun and interesting the community will be.

What they will prove is that the more power given to a community to judge whether an individual should be punished or banished will result in a high school popularity contest where the popular kids continue to beat up the nerds.

I don't think the end point of this vote has anything to do with individual rights. The purpose is to create drama within sifters. >> ^blankfist:
What they're attempting to prove is that the more power given to a community's individual constituents- the more effective, fun and interesting the community will be.
What they will prove is that the more power given to a community to judge whether an individual should be punished or banished will result in a high school popularity contest where the popular kids continue to beat up the nerds.

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

Why would you of all people- want to concentrate power in my hands? Do you think I'm immune to sycophants and favoritism?

I admit that having members police each other has a nasty side to it. But I think it's preferable. Some people seem to be scarred permanently from past siftquisitions-in the end though, I think they were more good than bad and help us to refine and enrich our Sift society.



>> ^blankfist:
What they're attempting to prove is that the more power given to a community's individual constituents- the more effective, fun and interesting the community will be.
What they will prove is that the more power given to a community to judge whether an individual should be punished or banished will result in a high school popularity contest where the popular kids continue to beat up the nerds.

....but I do like drama as long as the lines of violation are clear and announced that's cool. But nobody should be subjectively banned without A reason. Maybe we need a Videosift bill of rights. lol.

Alright, I'm in - as long as it's exclusively used by Gwizz and Choggie, and only on each other.

>> ^dag:
Why would you of all people- want to concentrate power in my hands? Do you think I'm immune to sycophants and favoritism?



At the moment, I prefer your even head over the lust of mob rule. It's not that you're incorruptible, it's that you're incentivized more so than the average member to see the site run smoothly and fairly, and by doing so the site becomes successful (doing well by doing good), whether that means financially or otherwise. The point is, you have an incentive the mob will never have.

It's important to maintain perspective. This is an online video aggregation community and there are no real threats. We don't have to lock our internet doors at night, so I don't see much use in the community playing virtual judge, jury and executioner when the whole purpose of the site is to watch videos and engage in the occasional discussion. It's just overkill. You're not Siftler in a dictatorship. You're a site admin and online entrepreneur.

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

First off, I wish everyone would stop calling it "mob rule" it's hardly that- if we admins are the ones who carry out justice.

Secondly, I take your point that I am more invested and incentivized to do what's good for the Sift. I want Siftquistions to come back because I think they are good for the Sift - you can see where the logic leads you.

I refuse to let mob rule prevent mob rule from ruling.

>> ^blankfist:
>> ^dag:
Why would you of all people- want to concentrate power in my hands? Do you think I'm immune to sycophants and favoritism?


At the moment, I prefer your even head over the lust of mob rule. It's not that you're incorruptible, it's that you're incentivized more so than the average member to see the site run smoothly and fairly, and by doing so the site becomes successful (doing well by doing good), whether that means financially or otherwise. The point is, you have an incentive the mob will never have.
It's important to maintain perspective. This is an online video aggregation community and there are no real threats. We don't have to lock our internet doors at night, so I don't see much use in the community playing virtual judge, jury and executioner when the whole purpose of the site is to watch videos and engage in the occasional discussion. It's just overkill. You're not Siftler in a dictatorship. You're a site admin and online entrepreneur.

I think it's time we introduced quoting ettiquette. One should only quote one layer of comment. Quoting more is just annoying and unnecessary.

>> ^dag:
First off, I wish everyone would stop calling it "mob rule" it's hardly that- if we admins are the ones who carry out justice.
Secondly, I take your point that I am more invested and incentivized to do what's good for the Sift. I want Siftquistions to come back because I think they are good for the Sift - you can see where the logic leads you.
I refuse to let mob rule prevent mob rule from ruling.
>> ^blankfist:
>> ^dag:
Why would you of all people- want to concentrate power in my hands? Do you think I'm immune to sycophants and favoritism?


At the moment, I prefer your even head over the lust of mob rule. It's not that you're incorruptible, it's that you're incentivized more so than the average member to see the site run smoothly and fairly, and by doing so the site becomes successful (doing well by doing good), whether that means financially or otherwise. The point is, you have an incentive the mob will never have.
It's important to maintain perspective. This is an online video aggregation community and there are no real threats. We don't have to lock our internet doors at night, so I don't see much use in the community playing virtual judge, jury and executioner when the whole purpose of the site is to watch videos and engage in the occasional discussion. It's just overkill. You're not Siftler in a dictatorship. You're a site admin and online entrepreneur.

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

It's like raaaiiin on your wedding.>> ^kymbos:
I think it's time we introduced quoting ettiquette. One should only quote one layer of comment. Quoting more is just annoying and unnecessary.
>> ^dag:
First off, I wish everyone would stop calling it "mob rule" it's hardly that- if we admins are the ones who carry out justice.
Secondly, I take your point that I am more invested and incentivized to do what's good for the Sift. I want Siftquistions to come back because I think they are good for the Sift - you can see where the logic leads you.
I refuse to let mob rule prevent mob rule from ruling.
>> ^blankfist:
>> ^dag:
Why would you of all people- want to concentrate power in my hands? Do you think I'm immune to sycophants and favoritism?


At the moment, I prefer your even head over the lust of mob rule. It's not that you're incorruptible, it's that you're incentivized more so than the average member to see the site run smoothly and fairly, and by doing so the site becomes successful (doing well by doing good), whether that means financially or otherwise. The point is, you have an incentive the mob will never have.
It's important to maintain perspective. This is an online video aggregation community and there are no real threats. We don't have to lock our internet doors at night, so I don't see much use in the community playing virtual judge, jury and executioner when the whole purpose of the site is to watch videos and engage in the occasional discussion. It's just overkill. You're not Siftler in a dictatorship. You're a site admin and online entrepreneur.

Voted yes... but thought it read "troll" not "poll" -siftquisition bad, very bad-I would suggest bi-passing the siftquisition altogether in a form and fashion worthy of infamy. Someone already broke as many rules in as short a period of time as possible, using their mouse like a ham radio operator reporting the upheaval of continents to a world suddenly without satellites after a direct hit from a mass coronal ejection the size of Russia....Seems like all the others were kinna whiny in comparison.

Since I have a charter now (thanks, dag and viddy-watchers), would I be able to get my next one in whatever colors and text formats I wanted??

@dag -- I was kind of joking about my voting error before, but this is actually fairly close. Assuming it's possible, please subtract my "yes" vote and add it to "no". Unless you want to George W. Bush this vote.

It was almost 6 months ago; maybe it's time you moved on.
>> ^blankfist:
Looks like someone has a pet social-engineering project he wants to see put into practice. The god complex is a powerful thing.

>> ^rottenseed:
Without knowing the punishments, I have a hard time deciding if I will vote on their guilt. It sounds stupid, but I'd hate to vote "yes" thinking they broke a minor infraction according to the rules, then have the admins ban that person. There should be guidelines. What punishments fit what crime...and you should display the potential outcome of the sifter should he or she be voted guilty.


I agree with the guidelines but you ought to be able to decide if someone did what they are accused of or not without knowing what the punishment would be. If the punishment changes your vote then you're not voting honestly.

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

Ima gonna bring it through in reconciliation. >> ^Sarzy:
@dag -- I was kind of joking about my voting error before, but this is actually fairly close. Assuming it's possible, please subtract my "yes" vote and add it to "no". Unless you want to George W. Bush this vote.

Excellent point. The potential punishment should be displayed alongside the vote.

However, if you do that and the punishment was very mild... well... would you be more inclined to vote 'punish'?

Anyway, given how 50/50 people seem to be on the issue and the fact that the voting is so close it sounds like it's always going to be a shambles. You're always going to get an equal share of for and against responses in every siftquisition... and like @Sarzy said, this place has been very drama-free for a few months now. Do we really want to bring back controversy and arguments?>> ^rottenseed:
Without knowing the punishments, I have a hard time deciding if I will vote on their guilt. It sounds stupid, but I'd hate to vote "yes" thinking they broke a minor infraction according to the rules, then have the admins ban that person. There should be guidelines. What punishments fit what crime...and you should display the potential outcome of the sifter should he or she be voted guilty.

Yo dawg, I siftquisitioned yo dawg and put it in a yo yo, so yo can yo yo while yo dawg yo yos, dawg.

soooo assuming @Sarzy and @choggie really did vote 'yes' when they actually meant to vote 'no' (and gee, that could never happen on an actual siftquisition could it?), this makes it a tie vote. 19 to 19 right now.


I DECLARE A MISTRIAL.

The motion... miscarries.

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

What is this? Some kind of procedural misdirection? You probably think we should start over from the beginning.

We have the votes. The Siftopian people are speaking- and what they want is Siftquisition reform.


>> ^peggedbea:
soooo assuming @Sarzy and @choggie really did vote 'yes' when they actually meant to vote 'no' (and gee, that could never happen on an actual siftquisition could it?), this makes it a tie vote. 19 to 19 right now.

I DECLARE A MISTRIAL.

Aww fuck, sorry Dag. I just did a poo instead of a wee. Will this mess affect the vote?

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

No- even public defecation can't derail this movement. Nice try.>> ^deputydog:
Aww fuck, sorry Dag. I just did a poo instead of a wee. Will this mess affect the vote?

I miss the drama.

I'll get the pitchforks.

^some can't live without it...others, can stand no confrontation whatsoever- still others, would like to see unicorns and rainbows fly out of their asses instead of the pooh gas-....When I was in Burma, there was a man stealing rubies.....

If this passes, can we siftquisition dag? Those site admins sure have been acting above the law around here, and it's fine time us lowly users put them in their place. What's all this "hey, we modified the site" nonsense? You and I cannot modify the site. If this is to be an egalitarian experiment, I say we all deserve the right to modify the site however we see fit! I demand admin passwords!

>> ^choggie:
^some can't live without it...others, can stand no confrontation whatsoever- still others, would like to see unicorns and rainbows fly out of their asses instead of the pooh gas-....When I was in Burma, there was a man stealing rubies.....


unicorns flying out of someone's ass would probably be pretty painful, given those horns... ;

I get the feeling dag doesn't want to be put in the uncomfortable position of being judge, jury and executioner, which I completely understand. I think the resistance against siftquisition probably comes from the same place.

Whether this responsibility lay in the hands of the peasants or the King doesn't make much difference to me, because I trust them both.

My $0.02: I may not be the most active member on here but the last time there was a round of siftquisitions, I almost quit the sift altogether. Just sayin.

Can I get dibs on videosiftsiftquisitionedme?

Ah screw it, that's too hard to type.

I hear ya. Bit worried I might find myself doing the same if I start to feel the rage growing in the community. >> ^notarobot:
My $0.02: I may not be the most active member on here but the last time there was a round of siftquisitions, I almost quit the sift altogether. Just sayin.

Voting for this poll ended with the majority of users voting Yes..

Woo! Can't wait to see who gets hurt first.

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

Thanks Siftbot. The status quo stands for now. We may consider putting something in as part of a bigger update to VideoSift.>> ^siftbot:
Voting for this poll ended with the majority of users voting Yes..

Them's fighting words... Siftquisition!!
>> ^Sarzy:
Woo! Can't wait to see who gets hurt first.

The rage will build with or without the siftquisition option. It can be terribly annoying when it's all the rage to siftquisition left and right, but as long as people don't abuse the system, we shouldn't be seeing it very often. Hopefully. >> ^Hybrid:
I hear ya. Bit worried I might find myself doing the same if I start to feel the rage growing in the community. >> ^notarobot:
My $0.02: I may not be the most active member on here but the last time there was a round of siftquisitions, I almost quit the sift altogether. Just sayin.

Oh darn. Well, at least this implementation looks a little more thought through than the last one. Here's hoping we'll never see it in use.

One small request: Can it not be flung in our faces as much this time? Last time around I always got a blazing blue link named "Call Siftquisition" flung in my face every time I visited Sift Talk. The siftquisition is such a drastic measure that it should not be listed as a regular Sift Talk tool. That only makes it a little too tempting to abuse the feature.

You can't just outright say that you don't want me here no more...