Should We Bring back the Siftquisition?

  (19 votes)
  (23 votes)

A total of 42 votes have been cast on this poll.

The Siftquisition was a process wherein a member could "call out" another member for perceived violations of rules, etiquette etc on the Sift. Potential actions to be carried out against the accused were listed as votable choices, like a poll. People could vote on the outcome (if any) which would be carried out by the administrators (Dag and Lucky) at the end of the Siftquisition period.
campionidelmondo says...

Siftquisions don't work. They're bad, real bad.

Imagine a court where the jury doesn't have to listen to anything, doesn't even have to be present at the trial. They just make their vote at the end no matter what information they have or on what grounds they make their descision. Instead of picking a jury, we just let everybody in who wants to participate. As the result people will be judged by anything ranging from the quality of their videos to the tone of their comments, but a fair trial will be a mere illusion. I can't believe you're even cosidering bringing back this foul ordeal.

xxovercastxx says...

CDM's second paragraph is pretty accurate, but nothing says the SQ has to be done that way. SQs can work, but they need to be done quite a bit differently. I would propose a long brainstorming session before any reimplementation. This vote will almost certainly fail. I think a specific proposal should be put forth for vote instead of just the vague question.

A few thoughts off the top of my head:
- Voting on the SQ should not be allowed until adequate discussion of the case has occurred.
- An admin should decide what the punishment is. The Siftership should only decide guilt or innocence.

enoch says...

a public evisceration?
that already seems to happen.
i have posted my feelings on this.
the sift is an organic community and one which self regulates itself by people who care about the sift.
while i have never participated in a siftquisition i have seen the final results.
not only were those results damaging but permanent.
so i say no.
siftquisitions serve no other purpose that can't already be taken care of by people communicating.

choggie says...

I simply hope this question is not being raised by the admins because of my actions(if it is then for fucking christ's sake, would someone simply admit that the motivation resides in that place that does not want to make ANYONE mad??...some people would kill their own children to avoid confrontation)

....I will down-vote what I would not like to be here on the sift, and those who will, vote them up-It IS about points and the status included with for some, and I am certain, that many here feel like any dissent whatsoever is a personal attack or a slap in the face. Sorry. Butch up and grow a fucking pair, life is not here to cater to you-Some of you spam a great deal of crappy content because you have a personal hard-on for the mundane and banal, or are otherwise inclined towards the uni-dimensional....gonna down-vote that shit with a velvet hammer!!

This site is not here to cater to anyone, but the whole...and to her creators, who may do as they will with the user's accounts.

Let us take this opportunity, to dispel the idea, that it was solely for want of another channel, that choggie bailed emulatorily-wrong, We had issue with a few folks and their attitudes, including dag...and was unwilling to or unable to make the bitch known and understood, through the written word...Whose failing??? Miner-niner. Working on it-may take 79864 lifetimes....get some popcorn and loosen yer belts.

Bring baaaaack the siftquisitions-loved em!....Sparked this place right the fuck up for some, gave the Junior-G-men something to feel important about, and yours hooey personally took part in several-though with a view to ultimate forgiveness, because after all-it takes all kinds to stir the shit, and some love to push envelopes in all that they do.

I wish to be the first to be Siftquisitioned, should the process be welcomed back with open arms.
This time-a one-sided conversation/cross-examination where the defendant is kept bound and gagged, will not be fucking tolerated, nor should it ever have been-neither should the rantings and emotions of a few rabid hooligans, flavour the arguments with such verbiage, as to overly influence the rest of the users to agree to such extreme measures, simply to shut them the fuck up from their childish strains....myself included...*rant *whine *pissing and moaning

Bout the only thing I can't tolerate are males being assholes to females. Otherwise, may I call you a fuckwad, fuckwad??

Ornthoron says...

On a more serious note, I stand by my position from back when I moved to abandon it. I require two things before I can support a reinstatement:
1. Change the name. 'Siftbunal' or something might work.
2. It needs more checks and balances, along xxovercastxx's thoughts. The free-for-all mob rule is a horrible basis for a judicial system.

schmawy says...

There was one time I tried to Siftquisition one of our nicest members, Issykitty. Nobody was having it, but it brought important issues to light, and those issues were addressed. There are so many checks and safeties in our community. We have the ability to handle issues case by case. We have members who have been unbanned, permanently banned, those who commiteed Sifticice, were reincarnated, temporarily banned, members who asked to be banned and instead scrambled their passwords because they could find no dignified way to leave. Rule number 9 from the Rules Of the Internet states: "There are no real rules about moderation — enjoy your ban".

The Sift has always had it's fair share of sweet, sweet chaos. I don't think I'm the only one who likes it that way. I'm all for making the calls as we go, fair or unfair this is the internet. Rules are fine but the last thing I personally want is Law. There should be room for finesse and nuance and forgiveness and swift justice.

And a benevolent dictator you trust and believe in. Call me a kiss-ass, but we wouldn't be here without *quality, if sometimes reluctant leadership.

Send this Article to a Friend

Separate multiple emails with a comma (,); limit 5 recipients

Your email has been sent successfully!

Manage this Video in Your Playlists

Beggar's Canyon