Seriously .. didn't we just do this?
There were 38 votes cast in the last poll. This was an option. Only 7 voted for it.
"No but raise the powerpoint cost of a *quality to 2 (7 votes)"
Are we just going to keep polling the same things over and over?

I'd really like some details on exactly what each of these invocations does.
How long does each one last? What are the differences between how they affect sifted versus unsifted videos and what pages they affect and how they affect rankings etc. Don't get me wrong, it's just strange to me that you made this poll. You know more than anyone else what these invocations do, do you think *quality should cost more? Please explain.

I think 2 power points is too steep a cost, so no.

If quality is getting more votes for vids than promote, which is what it seems to be doing, then I think that it should be raised to two. Then people will only quality things that they really feel are deserving

Lucky?

Who the hell made you boss?

I mean...it's like you and, oh, somebody from Australia are going to run the joint.

Choggie!

You and Choggie telling us what points we can spend and which we can't.

Is it any coincidence that we had...yes Haitie...and yes Chilie...what next?

I ask you: what next?

Which earth will you quack with you demonic devices?

I agree with burdturgler that it would be nice to understand the technical implications of the quality and promote invocations.

Hey, I was higher than taxes when I came up with that suggestion-
For me, it's a "quality" definition issue. Seems to me, more sift-talk posts get quality invocations than do videos-Promotes are also a personal preference, based on the value/quality to the person handing out points-i.e., personal preference.

Here in the FAQ sheet it states-"Please do not down vote a video because you dislike the Sifter who submitted it; this is entirely unacceptable. Instead, vote solely based on the quality of video content."

I have seen sift folks hand out a shit load of "quality" invocations because they LIKE the sifter-I have also seen good content not receive votes because they DISLIKE the sifter.

What of the videos that are repeatedly promoted because people dig em, or for the effect it has in the thread, etc.?? This kind of activity keeps the place dynamic and interesting, innit?? Kinna makes the original submitter get a warm feeling inside, huh?? Awwwwwww!


*drifting off-topic>>>> When I down vote most of the news bites I see, it's not because I dislike the sifter-I dislike their contributions to the place, as well as the banter that follows, because I maintain that network news is poisonous disinformation and diversion. Period. Also hate most videos of farting or self-mutilation.

(I do like the cat fart video now since I figured out how to do something better and faster in future... don't like the submitter because his grungyness refuses to do anything but ignore, which is fine, keep up the good work, and stick to your principles!>Love your politics by the way, moving closer to all-out anarchy, which we don't welcome but are capable of dealing with)

So, in not-voting for a video because of who sifted it, is not a user simply "down-voting" it and the user? I have always maintained as well, that the lop-sided down-to-up number of votes overall is a problem. When a down vote shows up on someone's post (be honest with yourselves) it is often taken as a personal attack, or confused with some animosity or personal grudge, or in ant's case, misconstrued as some non-linear freakout!! It's simply a thumbs down for whatever reason or a thumbs up for who gives a rat's ass-want more status or points, post more viddies!!

I share the gnawing idea that something should be done to further codify these 2 invocations only because they are too similar in effect and sentiment, cost the same price(do they??), and perform similar functions. Maybe hand out more points and/or more often, rewards for deadpool fixes-and add a means of obtaining power points for cleaning up the dead/removed/copyright etc. videos-1 point for 25 "dead" invocations??...and make it retroactive considering I didded about 1000 Olberman vids last week??!! WOOOOOF!

*unquality

Yup. Check out westygate (you may have missed it).>> ^choggie:
I have seen sift folks hand out a shit load of "quality" invocations because they LIKE the sifter-I have also seen good content not receive votes because they DISLIKE the sifter.

Just thought I would also draw attention to my comment in the other thread...

"I'd prefer to leave it how it is. BUT, if it does have to be changed, you could require a quality invocation to be seconded by another (suitably qualified) member (like the dupe function), at the cost of a power point each. That spreads the burden around, and is more likely to ensure only real quality items are qualitied."

I thought it was rather ingenious.

>> ^Throbbin:
Just thought I would also draw attention to my comment in the other thread...
"I'd prefer to leave it how it is. BUT, if it does have to be changed, you could require a quality invocation to be seconded by another (suitably qualified) member (like the dupe function), at the cost of a power point each. That spreads the burden around, and is more likely to ensure only real quality items are qualitied."
I thought it was rather ingenious.


Great idea-sounds good here as well! A bit of team work always makes for better fellowship-

Infuse an *abomination option.

I still like turtles.

Third option: *quality should be eliminated for videos as it only gives the sift-grownups more control over the video tide which ought to ebb and flow just fine on its own.

4th option: let's just abide by the poll, which so far says "No, everything is just fine the way it is".

Hi there.


On topic: Yes, but also impose a cooldown period of 3 months or so for a *quality.

Voting for this poll ended with the majority of users voting No, everything is just fine the way it is.