Yes, but the admins would have to be damn careful who they appoint. Too many dicks around here that couldn't handle the power.

Isn't that what higher level members have? They have special powers for invocations.

>> ^ant:
Isn't that what higher level members have? They have special powers for invocations.


As I understand the poll, the idea is to take those away and appoint some "real" moderators, who take care of all the dirty stuff such as discard, dupeof etc.

The more I think about it, the more on the fence I am. On one side it will reduce the amount of faulty invocations, but we'd be letting go of the web 2.0 principle the site is built on, and we would indeed limit the amount of invocations would be made, because of sheer man-power limits.

The only way I'd support this is to give Dag a break from being bitched at by an apparently still-ungrateful cretin.

But ultimately no, power corrupts and the only people who have any real vested interest in Videosift are those who are already in command. It's their baby, their responsibility and they have been doing a fine job so far. And to those of you who don't like the way they run things, nobody's forcing you to be part of this community. You want to run things? Go make your own show out there on the web. See if you can run it half as long.

>> ^videosiftbannedme:
You want to run things? Go make your own show out there on the web. See if you can run it half as long.


I don't want to run anything. Maybe I should've made this clearer: I don't want to be a moderator, I'm perfectly happy as a normal user and don't make much use of any of the rights my ruby status offers me. This is not about changing leadership, that's not what moderators are for. It's about delegation. It's also about selecting suited people to have administrative powers such as discard, dupeof, ban...instead of giving them to just anybody with a high enough star point level.

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

I've always thought that we had moderators, lots of them. There are hardly any powers that Lucky and I have that high ranking members don't have. The only ones I can think of are things to do with money and some low-level server type stuff - oh and dehobble.

In the case of de-duping, we don't have a tool for that, for us or moderators- so it's a case of going behind the scenes and mucking with the DB. If we did have a tool for that (and we may eventually) it would definitely be a "moderator" tool.

I guess I'm not sure what the question means. What's the difference between a moderator and what we've got?

But I like the drama.

Worst idea ever. So bad I think we high-level users should *ban the idea maker-upper.

Since this is an issue that I, personally, hold near and dear to my heart, I feel compelled to make the following statement:

No comment.

>> ^dag:
What's the difference between a moderator and what we've got?


None, apart that moderators could be offered some functions and privileges that not every user should have. The main difference is that the people are being chosen instead of just giving rights to people based on post count. Of course I now realize that most people will not want to lose any privileges, even if they don't use them or know how to properly use them, so this poll might not really work.

Unnecessary - keep it the way it is.

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

Got it. Well, I don't think I would be any better at picking moderators than the system would be.

Because privileges ramp up based on the amount of work put into the site- by the time you are a gold star- you generally know a hell of a lot about how this place works.

If you are diamond- you're probably here more than I am.

So, I think that means our moderators are inherently qualified. Although mistakes are sometimes made- abuse of privileges is almost non-existent, which is more than can be said for some other communities with appointed moderators.>> ^campionidelmondo:
>> ^dag:
What's the difference between a moderator and what we've got?

None, apart that moderators could be offered some functions and privileges that not every user should have. The main difference is that the people are being chosen instead of just giving rights to people based on post count. Of course I now realize that most people will not want to lose any privileges, even if they don't use them or know how to properly use them, so this poll might not really work.

Goes against the entire concept of the sift.

I think the problem (if there is one) is people avoiding drama.

Bring back siftquisitions!

I spend most of my time on here doing sift cleanup. I ban self linkers and ad/spam posters, dupeof any for sure duplicates (if not, I use the discuss command to bring attention to it) and I dead posts that don't work anymore.

I only really post videos on occasion that I find interesting or intriguing... not just videos that I figure will get a huge vote on.

I like to try and keep the sift clean. If only moderators would be able to do that, then I guess I'd have to apply to be one, otherwise I would probably not visit as often as I do now.

...and why would we want the sift to be like all the other forums on the web?
...all the other forums that I avoid.
We're here because we like the way votey starpowery structure has shaped our interactions.
F*%king Revisionists!

That comment wasn't aimed at you. More for those that think they're entitled to special treatment on the Sift simply because of some ill-perceived idea that being part of a community automatically endows you with the same powers those who foot the bill have.

And while I get the point you're trying to make, I don't necessarily agree with it. I like having the ability to use my powers that I've earned. But I also am smart and do my due diligence before wielding said power. I like that the power is put in the hands of the people; the way Dag/Lucky/whomever has it set up now. It gives one reason to work for what you have, to better yourself. If you're too careless to use the power responsibly, then you should get called out on it, chastised, Siftquisitioned, or banned (*cough* looks around nervously).

More real democracy, less representative democracy.



>> ^campionidelmondo:
>> ^videosiftbannedme:
You want to run things? Go make your own show out there on the web. See if you can run it half as long.

I don't want to run anything. Maybe I should've made this clearer: I don't want to be a moderator, I'm perfectly happy as a normal user and don't make much use of any of the rights my ruby status offers me. This is not about changing leadership, that's not what moderators are for. It's about delegation. It's also about selecting suited people to have administrative powers such as discard, dupeof, ban...instead of giving them to just anybody with a high enough star point level.

^and who would be the cretin you are speaking of videosiftbanned me?? I'd like to meet this person and give him a piece of your mind.

Run along, Choggie. Let the adults talk. You can get your attention from someone else.
Or why don't you go cut your own throat again?

>> ^choggie:
^and who would be the cretin you are speaking of videosiftbanned me?? I'd like to meet this person and give him a piece of your mind.

^Looks like this thread might need some moderators!

Doesn't seem necessary, IMO.

Regardless, I am for removing the ability to discard other people's videos (kill is more than enough. discard should be something the video owner can do) and for revamping dupeof to require at least a second invocation, sort of like how the ban invocation works, but even without that I feel the system works fine the way it is.

>> ^demon_ix:
Doesn't seem necessary, IMO.
Regardless, I am for removing the ability to discard other people's videos (kill is more than enough. discard should be something the video owner can do) and for revamping dupeof to require at least a second invocation, sort of like how the ban invocation works, but even without that I feel the system works fine the way it is.


Discard does have its place when we have spam/selflinks. Although, we could just have that happen automatically; when 2x users have invoked ban successfully, the post is discarded by siftbot.

I am perfectly happy with my worker-collective here on the internet, and this concept of "moderators" seems to me a plot to plant filthy capitalist seeds of destruction. Long live Dagskij and Lenin760!

>> ^Fusionaut:
^Looks like this thread might need some moderators!


I came over here to upvote this comment as it had me laughing just seeing it in the newest appreciated comments column. I wasn't even expecting it to be -this- thread.

Not sure about the idea of moderators, though I've always wondered (and I've brought this up a few times) why anyone needs the power to discard someone else's video. The only use I can think for it is to discard a self-linking video of a banned member, but that could easily be handled by just Dag and Lucky. That's definitely one power that I think generally causes more headaches than anything else, but aside from that I think the current system works reasonably well.

Ok so I take it people are not so hot about this idea, fair enough. It would however be good to find a solution to the squabbles between users that surround dupeofs and the like. There's currently a discussion going on that's pretty much leading nowhere. This would be something where a clear ruling has to be made, otherwise we just have users giving their opinions, but nothing to provide closure for the parties involved. Moderators would be one way to deal with this, though apparently not a popular one.

there are people behind the avatars. squabbles are inherent. you cant write a program to remove that.

>> ^peggedbea:
there are people behind the avatars. squabbles are inherent. you cant write a program to remove that.


Moderators are not programs.

Non sequitor: I agree with bringing back the siftquisitions if only to finally rid ourselves of Zifnab, that bastard.

>> ^burdturgler:
Goes against the entire concept of the sift.
I think the problem (if there is one) is people avoiding drama.
Bring back siftquisitions!

>> ^peggedbea:
there are people behind the avatars. squabbles are inherent. you cant write a program to remove that.


Well... there IS SkyNet...

I also thought the central concept behind videosift was that its denizens self-moderated the site.

I have seen no squabbles or events that have fundamentally threatened the sift.

I'm not clear on what problem is being proposed to be solved. Is it about banned members being unbanned, or dupeof's?

moderators are for pussies.
it's like having that uncle you barely know have to watch over you while your parents are away.
you dont agree with him.
dont recognize his authority.
but he is the one holding the big stick.
in the end it just means BORING.
a community that cares about that community is a self-correcting organism.
the people on the sift who participate CARE about the sift.
so any shenanigans is usually short lived.
install moderators and you rip the heart out of what makes this place pretty damn special.
i like my video experience with a dash of conflict and a pinch of drama thank-you-very-much.

i am not too concerned about power plays or over-reach.
it would be the stagnant gray dullness that would bother me.
people are interesting.
moderators are not.
so...
hell no.

>> ^Sarzy:
Not sure about the idea of moderators, though I've always wondered (and I've brought this up a few times) why anyone needs the power to discard someone else's video. The only use I can think for it is to discard a self-linking video of a banned member, but that could easily be handled by just Dag and Lucky. That's definitely one power that I think generally causes more headaches than anything else, but aside from that I think the current system works reasonably well.


I was wondering this for a minute when I recalled that it was needed in the time before *dupeof. In those days, Gold Star members would just discard a duplicate video. It would also be used for videos that violate the posting guidelines, but for that we now have the ban and discuss invocations. Methinks in the current siftmmunity discard could probably be reserved only for a post's submitter.

If you change discard, could you leave it so that after a ban the video could still be discarded?
I get the rationale of leaving banned posts up for a bit, but often it's just free spam advertising to do so.
(ie if the title of the video is VISIT SPAMSITE.COM)

I thought Campiondelmondo was one of the boss men, given his trustful old man picture and serious tone.

As such, I believe this precludes me from serious contribution to this thread.

I can state my opinion on this matter, coming from many years of experience in running an active community with ~1 million members. In the case of our public forums, we couldn't not handle the traffic without our volunteer moderators. We do not take applicants to be moderators. Our opinion is that if you are asking to be a moderator, you should never become one. We recruit from the member based on civility and contribution and a certain X-factor.

I do not believe that VideoSift needs moderators and the very nature and design of the system does not lend itself to rampant abuse. Sure, there may be the odd happening here and there, but I have never once felt that the system itself needs changing.

FUCK!....I'm not an adult!!

Voting for this poll ended with the majority of users voting No.