Burn the witch!!!

I'm against the anonymous voting. There should be a button besides each option to display who voted for what.

^ just have siftbot make a comment for each vote and who made it.

I don't get the point of abstaining if the identity of the abstaining voter isn't revealed. If you don't want to vote yes or no then DON'T VOTE.
An anonymous abstain is .. what? I want to anonymously vote and tell everyone (anonymously) that I'm not voting?

Really, just make it not anonymous for siftquisitions please.

>> ^burdturgler:
I don't get the point of abstaining if the identity of the abstaining voter isn't revealed. If you don't want to vote yes or no then DON'T VOTE.
An anonymous abstain is .. what? I want to anonymously vote and tell everyone (anonymously) that I'm not voting?
Really, just make it not anonymous for siftquisitions please.


I voted to abstain.

Abstaining is fine. Having it be anonymous is ridiculous.

I don't think these votes should be anonymous.

I also think the vote should be able to be changed until the clock runs out.

There should be a clock indicating how much time is left until the judgment is considered final.

I think the siftquisitioned should be allowed to self-link a video of themselves begging for mercy, or telling us right where we can shove it.

Regarding anonymity, why is it so important for everyone to know who voted for what? Does it really make a difference?

If a person wants everyone to know how they voted, they can mention it in a comment. Otherwise, why must every voter be forced to reveal their choice? It will just serve to intimidate people away from participating.

If you have the guts to ban someone from this site than you ought to have the guts to say it. How can any of this be fair when a "jury of your peers" is a jury of people behind masks?

>> ^burdturgler:
If you have the guts to ban someone from this site than you ought to have the guts to say it. How can any of this be fair when a "jury of your peers" is a jury of people behind masks?


Just establish the convention to leave a comment saying how you voted. Thus you can opt out of anonymity. It's not as though these things will be happening that often anyway.

In actual trials are defendants first introduced to each member of the jury?

They're peers not because you know their name but because only peers have the ability to vote.

n/m
good luck
anonymous banning for all
have fun

edit .. not for nothing but I could have 10 of my own "peers" next week
discovering self linking retards who use the same username at youtube is one thing, people who will game this system through multiple IP's etc is another.

In a jury I know there are 12 people voting .. not one guy voting 12 times.
You don't want to get it? OK.

>> ^burdturgler:
How can any of this be fair when a "jury of your peers" is a jury of people behind masks?


Or people behind avatars.

>> ^lucky760:
In actual trials are defendants first introduced to each member of the jury?

Actually, they are. It's called voir dire (jury selection).

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

It would be very difficult for a puppet account or any other kind of bogus member to participate in voting.

Why is that? Last I read you guys said you don't even see who it is that votes unless you went digging for it.

"They are totally anonymous. Even we admins don't know who voted for what."

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

Because it would have to be someone who got a video published on that secondary account, and has not been sniffed out by Siftbot. Unless you have knowledge of some kind of corruption of this system. If you do, please speak up.

Clear cookies/cache. Get new IP. Submit video.
Are you kidding? You're making it sound like sock puppets can't exist here.

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

Without going into details, we have other methods that I will admit are not perfect - but would probably pick this up. Like I said, unless you have knowledge to the contrary.

I can has Cheezburger??

>> ^dag:
Without going into details, we have other methods that I will admit are not perfect - but would probably pick this up. Like I said, unless you have knowledge to the contrary.


I do. It's not difficult at all. I'd send you a private message about it but .. I'd rather not.
There have been sock puppets here before and there will be again. I'm done beating this horse. If you think it's OK that probably it would be caught and that the person that is voting to ban someone is probably not a sock puppet .. so be it.

Thanks for listening.

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

Tell us who you think is a sock puppet. That's one of those methods I mentioned.

You guys need get a fucking room already.

And I love that Abstain is winning.

burdturgler is right. Lucky and I discussed this some months ago when I found a suspected sock puppet account. Basically, it's not at all difficult if someone's got a mind to do so. Lucky and I agreed that in the case of a sockpuppet used for voting up one's own vids, it requires a level of mental masturbation that is probably rare enough not to cause much harm, but in the case of a siftquisition, I can see some serious damage being done.

On the other hand, named voting doesn't really solve the problem at all. If someone has successfully created and maintained one or more sock puppets accounts, then voting through those accounts on a siftquisition isn't any more likely to reveal them.

You're right jonny that it doesn't really solve the problem but I think it's the best that we're going to get.
At least now it isn't completely obscure.

I see names. Thank you.
I will now STFU.

(edit .. hmm I saw names when I viewed votes but now that I cast a vote it's gone.)

The more I think about this, the more I think it should be rolled back. At least temporarily so we can have a solid discussion of what qualities a siftquisition should have. (jeez, can we come up with a different name already - I hate typing that!)

In the previous informal system, a vote for banning or clemency was done via commenting, with virtually everyone giving some reason one way or another. While I'm sure some votes for and against were cast based on little more than a bias for or against the user in question, this actively encourages that kind of voting.

This is using the regular poll system, right? And it's to last for 72 hours? Then during those 72 hours, no other polls or siftquisitions can be initiated. If the past is any indication, they tend to occur in short bursts, so that could get unwieldy, with a docket of siftquisitions in waiting.

Other than the (perceived?) messiness, was there a problem with the existing informal system? Because I don't see how this changes the messiness. Really, all it does is change the mechanism of voting, and for the worse imo.

>> ^burdturgler:
You're right jonny that it doesn't really solve the problem but I think it's the best that we're going to get. At least now it isn't completely obscure.

Agreed, and there are clearly other reasons for not using anonymous voting.


hmm I saw names when I viewed votes but now that I cast a vote it's gone.

yeah, where'd the names go? Just testing I suppose. I actually saw them in two different font sizes in between my commenting.

Added names.

I'm gonna give you a *quality just because I like you. That doesn't mean I'm asking you out on a date. Not that there's anything wrong with that.

^Haha. Quality fail.

Who is ietest?

Wait a second! I meant to vote for Al Gore, not Pat Buchanan! The ballot was confusing!

ietest is a troll, down with videosift member ietest!

>> ^lucky760:
In actual trials are defendants first introduced to each member of the jury?
They're peers not because you know their name but because only peers have the ability to vote.


The concern isn't that they might not be peers, it's that if you're going to pull the trigger on banning someone temporarily, it's main purpose is to shame people into modifying their behavior, and putting faces (or at least avatars) to the vote enhances that effect.

If the vote is about permaban, I'd hope people were confident enough in their decision to put their name on it. If they have a personal conflict, they can go on record with an abstention.

Secret ballots have their place, I'm just not so sure a siftquisition is that place.

FINALLY! After we Ban IETEST I am gunning for FIREFOXTEST!

I've been gunning for Safaritest for a while too..

The abstain vote is good for counting up to a minimum number of votes too. And names should be there, so good.

um...what the fuck did ietest do?

>> ^Zonbie:
ietest is a troll, down with videosift member ietest!


His comments. Am I missing something here? God I feel like either I'm really obtuse or you're all insane

>> ^rottenseed:
His comments.


OMG - this fucker commented?! That's it. I'm instabanning his ass.

I'm gunning for choggie. We're gonna siftquisition that mutherfucka!

Netscape is RACIST

I lay claim to this video after we ban him:

http://www.videosift.com/video/500KV-switch-fails-in-Nevada-20-meter-spark-ensues

oh...I am obtuse. For those of you as stupid as I am, ietest is an old account. I guess there has been no activity or it's just a test account/sock puppet.

Am I stating the obvious here when I say that ietest seems like a duff so you can just TEST out the polling thing. Probably

I would surmise ietest to either be IE Test (Internet Explorer Test) or the Latin phrase id est (or i.e., meaning "that is").

^We're all proud of your ability to use Google.

For the next test account screen name, might i suggest "eiatest."

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

For the confuddled, ietest is an old test account we used when VideoSift was just starting up to make sure things were working in the notoriously crappy Internet Explorer 6.

ietest has been volunteered to act as a crash test dummy. Or kind of like when they used to test electric chairs by putting a dead pig into the chair and hooking it up.

>> ^dag:
For the confuddled, ietest is an old test account we used when VideoSift was just starting up to make sure things were working in the notoriously crappy Internet Explorer 6.
ietest has been volunteered to act as a crash test dummy. Or kind of like when they used to test electric chairs by putting a dead pig into the chair and hooking it up.


Death to the sockpuppet!

In the future, please provide a link to their profile.

>> ^kronosposeidon:
^We're all proud of your ability to use Google.


Still doesn't change the fact that I was right. IE = Internet Explorer. Take that Books!

I thin abstaining is important. I'd still like to view the results but I don't find myself informed enough to make a deceision.

The only time abstaining would be bad is if you considered it a hung jury if abstain won

"Call Siftquisition"

Wait, we have a freakin' LINK to this now? (I presume this I restricted to admin/high level users?)... it seems a bit odd... but I guess you have to put it somewhere.

"What's your alternative, smart guy?"

To answer the question no one asked, I figured sending a request to the admins themselves would be the way to do it...

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

^ My answer to why it shouldn't be a request to admins is here: http://www.videosift.com/talk/Siftquistions#comment-653210

Also, I consider gold stars to be the first level of admin - and the link is only displayed to that level and above

Lastly - I'm thinking 72 hours is too loooong for swift justice - it's kind of cruel to leave a sifter standing on the gallows for so long.

Do votes abstaining count toward the 66% of voters needed for a perma-ban?

^No, I don't think that would make sense and would contradict the purpose of the abstinence vote.

The 66% ratio is calculated by upvotes / (upvotes + downvotes).

I fucking hate Internet Explorer.

Siftqusition voting ended with the majority of users voting in favor of a Permanent Ban, but the required 2/3 majority was not achieved.

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

^Thank you Siftbot

He's actually wrong. The ratio is 70%. I'll have to tweak his innards and make him try again. Oops!

[edit]
Ah, typo.

Siftqusition voting ended with the majority of users voting in favor of a Permanent Ban.

*quality piece of sift history