And yes, I know this is being discussed in the 4.0 Roundtable, but I've been having this poll churning in my head for a while now and think it is sufficiently black and white to warrant its own poll. Hopefully we can get the question resolved and consentrate on other parts of the upgrade.

Meh, I'm good either way. If the formal siftquisition is removed, then it will live on informally as it did before. In a sense I like that it's so straight forward to make them now, but they're not needed most of the time, so we might as well remove it.

I abstain.

I still think that hobbling is a good panic button, if something is weird or someone is acting out of line. Doing a hobbling should automatically warn dag and lucky that it's been done, though.

I didn't support it but now it's here, give it a chance to bed down and let's see how it plays out in the long term. If we keep flip-flopping features we'll never know what works and what does not.

I've made the argument against Siftquisitions many times before, so I won't bother to to it again, but... YES.

Siftquisitions = community poison.

I don't like the Siftquisition, and I proved it by issuing two of them against a person and a bot who didn't deserve them.

I also don't like the HOBBITTING, because there's no timeline for the cuffs to be removed. So even after my April Fool's Day boredom and joking are gone from my system, I still can't promote great videos or Sift Talk posts, downvote comments of which I don't approve, dupeof videos that are duplicates, etc.

>> ^thinker247:
I don't like the Siftquisition, and I proved it by issuing two of them against a person and a bot who didn't deserve them.
I also don't like the HOBBITTING, because there's no timeline for the cuffs to be removed. So even after my April Fool's Day boredom and joking are gone from my system, I still can't promote great videos or Sift Talk posts, downvote comments of which I don't approve, dupeof videos that are duplicates, etc.


Maybe hobbling should be more like a sinbin thing but the admin can sling you back in there quickly if deemed necessary. I don't know your situation but it seems you've been hobbled for a long time now.

did you not start stabbing all your videos to death as soon as you were unhobbified? that could have something to do with your current paralysis.

>> ^thinker247:
I don't like the Siftquisition, and I proved it by issuing two of them against a person and a bot who didn't deserve them.
I also don't like the HOBBITTING, because there's no timeline for the cuffs to be removed. So even after my April Fool's Day boredom and joking are gone from my system, I still can't promote great videos or Sift Talk posts, downvote comments of which I don't approve, dupeof videos that are duplicates, etc.

Thinker, if you think your shackles should be removed, start a new Sift Talk post -- don't hijack this one. This is important, methinks, and needs to be discussed.

So, what were talking about again? Oh right, thinker's shackles. So, what did you want to say about that, thinker? Kidding, Sarzy. I promise to listen to the monkey.

Damn right you'll listen to the monkey!

Okay, let me briefly make my case yet again to get this thread back on track. Why do we need Siftquisitions? The only thing they really accomplish is to serve as a public shaming for the offender before a punishment is imposed. Nine out of ten times, a more discrete form of justice would serve both the community and the offender much better. Siftquisitions just make this place harsher and uglier.

I know the argument is made that "we don't want this site to become a dictatorship!" Really? Can we hold an election and replace Dag and Lucky as the site's administrators? I don't think so (nor would we want to). So it is a dictatorship.

But anyway, why does the entire community need to get involved in something as cut-and-dried (and as personal) as something like abusive comments left on someone's profile page? Why should that kind of dirty laundry get aired out for the whole world to see? It just causes embarrassment and turns something small and personal into something far bigger than it needs to be. The same goes for pretty much all Siftquisitions.

>> ^Sarzy:
Can we hold an election and replace Dag and Lucky as the site's administrators? I don't think so (nor would we want to).


Speak for yourself.

As dag and I have mentioned repeatedly, one of the primary reasons we added the feature is that it takes the roles of judge and executioner out of our hands and leaves them solely in the hands of the community.

All you're attempting to do with this poll is force those roles back onto us, but we'll not have be having any of that; thank you very much.

>> ^lucky760:
All you're attempting to do with this poll is force those roles back onto us, but we'll not have be having any of that; thank you very much.


You're damn right that's what I'm attempting to do. And I have clearly stated my reasons for why it should work that way. But I have also added input on how the workload might be distributed, if that's what you're afraid of. If you don't want the burden of responsibility, well, then you can consider the result of a siftquisition with the regular poll tool as practically binding. Your responsibility is then reduced to carrying out the sentence. I feel strongly that everyone should have the right to be punished by a human being with deciding power, and not a lynch mob pushing SiftBot ahead of it.

And I have read up on the previous discussions of this, but I still don't see strong enough arguments for keeping it.

>> ^lucky760:
As dag and I have mentioned repeatedly, one of the primary reasons we added the feature is that it takes the roles of judge and executioner out of our hands and leaves them solely in the hands of the community.
All you're attempting to do with this poll is force those roles back onto us, but we'll not have be having any of that; thank you very much.


COP. OUT.

Seriously. There's a reason that the vote currently stands at more than three to one in favour of getting rid of Siftquisitions.

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

It's hardly a cop-out. It's a political/structural decision. You may think there is grief around Siftquisitions, but that is nothing compared to the whinging and admonitions of "fascism" that comes if Lucky and I are making all the disciplinary calls. I would say this is because we have a high level of anarcho-libertarians on the Sift - which is great, but they don't react well to strongman tactics.

It's a shame you're voting against keeping the power of punishment in the hands of the people. Now, that's a copout - from all of you.



>> ^Sarzy:
>> ^lucky760:
As dag and I have mentioned repeatedly, one of the primary reasons we added the feature is that it takes the roles of judge and executioner out of our hands and leaves them solely in the hands of the community.
All you're attempting to do with this poll is force those roles back onto us, but we'll not have be having any of that; thank you very much.

COP. OUT.
Seriously. There's a reason that the vote currently stands at more than three to one in favour of getting rid of Siftquisitions.

I don't think it's a cop-out from us, dag. That's like saying society has copped out because we have judges. We have police arrest people; we don't have angry mobs do it. (And I know we have citizen's arrest, but how often is that done? And I think it would come to an end pretty quickly if citizens were constantly yanking each other off the street and hauling each other in front of judges on a regular basis.)

When someone is suspected of a crime, we have a knowledgeable person who has respect for the law called the district attorney (D.A.) who decides if the case should be prosecuted or not. The D.A. has enough emotional distance from the alleged crime that he can dispassionately decide the merits of the case before proceeding, at least in theory. With the Siftquisition feature we've all become district attorneys, regardless of our knowledge or our passions. That's why I think the Siftquisition feature isn't working properly, because many of us are letting our passions override respect for the rules. So we need you, dag and lucky, to be the D.A., and we can still be the jury if you decide a "crime" has indeed taken place.

We're like a small town, and we're depending you, the admins, to protect the rights of the individual. We don't want to be running people out of town because they pissed off the wrong person. That's not a cop-out; it's a desire for justice for all.

a relevant discussion is happening over here

Get rid of the Siftquisition. At least in its present form. It has been overused and usually only gets rid of active users. It seems like there have been dozens since I joined. Even when bans are deserved, it makes me want to stay off the sift for a while. Mostly siftquisions seem to be the result of perpetuated interpersonal squabbles anyway.

And I have to agree with the suggestion that banning should have to be confirmed by a human. Eliminating the controversial voices who spark discussion isn't always a good thing on a site that uses user-generated dialogue as one of its main draws. If that happens, a person should judge ultimately if they get cuffed, suspended, or the electric chair.

That being said, I think that cuffing is a useful tool; more like jail time then capital punishment. It allows for rehabilitation.


Dag, I appreciate your passing power and ownership onto us users, and having faith in the community to make good decisions about law enforcement and other matters. But the sift is your baby after all. If the code on here changes, it ultimately ends up being you (and Lucky) who has to get it done.

What do admins that don't want to deal with these type of problems generally do? they assign, or let a community choose moderators. With a community as small as this one, 2 generally knowledgeable, socially involved, flexible (emphasis on flexible, no power freaks or every-rule-is- prefect-in-all-cases kind of person) and respected members of the sift can deal with altercations and keep things in check. Ideally, each of them with a time zone different enough so that there is at least one of them available at any time of the day.

Let their moderator actions be publicly available (sort of like this format http://www.videosift.com/awards ) so that they cannot get away with power abuse that easily. It's not like this community is large enough so that we would have to get dozens of mods, or that the person in charge of moderating would have no time to enjoy the site while doing their job. They would only deal with ambiguous cases, or problems where user input from each side is needed to determine a decision. In clear cut cases like self links, etc, the current system works fine.

This gets rid of all the public soap operas, and also has the community with some degree of responsibility and input since they will pick the mod(s), and call their actions into question if needed.

Just a thought based on previous experience. It seems like the community does not consider the system of the siftquisitions as good, and the admins do not want to deal with these incidents, so I thought you might want to consider this alternative.

>> ^dag:
It's a shame you're voting against keeping the power of punishment in the hands of the people.

Explain how putting the power of punishment in the hands of a (potentially angry) mob is a good thing, unless you think that the witchhunts of the 1500s were the pinnacle of modern justice. Like KP said, there's a reason that societies generally don't just throw accused criminals to the public and say "have at 'em!"

Also, explain how something like this is any business of the community at large. That Siftquisition took a private altercation between two members and blew it up into a spectacle for everyone to see and take part in. That's the type of thing you're creating by not only encouraging Siftquisitions, but actually building them into the site.

I'd like a 3rd option: Fix it.

Also, hobbitting should probably wear off after, say, a week. By then either the person has learned their lesson or needs to be suspended/banned.

I, for one, would like to keep the siftquisition option. It's been claimed that these are "cut and dried" issues - for example, offensive posts on a person's profile. But haven't we seen two recent examples in which the situation was anything but "cut and dried"?

Now, I haven't been directly (or even tangentially) involved with any siftquistions, but have many people been banned through this process? I haven't seen it but of course that doesn't mean it's not the case.

Still, I like the idea of the community making the call. And I'm sorry, but the judge analogy doesn't work - we have criminal trial by jury in this society as a default - not trial by judge.

^I didn't say throw out the jury, OS. I'm just saying that dag and lucky should serve as the judge/D.A. - they decide if a case should be prosecuted (D.A.) and make sure the proceedings are fair (judge) - while we the membership still serve as the jury. I know it's not a perfect analogy. No analogy ever is.

I think mauz15's moderator idea might work. Let the community vote for its "judges," and give them a term of 3 or 6 months, at which time they can be re-elected or thrown out in favor of someone new. We'd probably need at least 3 or 4 though, not just to cover all time zones but also to pick up the slack if other moderators are unavailable. In fact I'd like to nominate one person right now - Krupo. He seems very level-headed, and he's well-respected by the community. I don't want the job, mainly because I'm not here often enough these days to be able to do the job. And I'd be a hanging judge. I like to watch 'em swing.

Now hold on just a minute. This is not a democracy and damn well shouldn't be either. We have administrators. They have ultimate power. Everything we do, we do because they allow it. If a decision really came down to community vs. administrators, there is no real doubt which way it would go. There is really no reason to say otherwise.

Making appointed judges (moderators) may be a way to go, but in all honesty I don't trust half the people in here enough to give them the luxury of real, REAL, moderator powers. What we have now is fine, but if stars can be banned, comments deleted and so on - actual moderator powers - are distributed to users, who just happen to "have a little fun" one day, then boom goes the dynamite.

There is a reason why the admins should and are the admins, because they care for the site, and no matter how bad a day it's been, they won't accidentally destroy the site. (ahem, no one mention 3/11!)

What we could make is a judges corner, or something similar, where all the "drama" happens. This would be * discuss, siftquisitions, and a feed of hobbling, nochannel, ban, discard, kill, all the "bad" powers, so the users that are interested in that could follow it there. We already have some things we handle ourselves, ban spammers and so on, but I would not be at all happy about having moderators, which we essentially don't know anything about - checks and balances, people.

using mob rule to decide on whether or not to use a mob rule? brilliant!

^Hahaha, nice observation. This is the only Siftquisition I've ever voted for (a *quality one, at that), and hopefully it'll be the last one ever -- though it seems like dag and lucky are pretty dead-set on keeping it, unfortunately.

What the...? *quality!

Well that's odd.

I vote to keep the Siftquisition. I do think we should instill something a bit more fair than a "popularity" contest. I think a simply 'jury of your peers' system could work, but it would probably be too convoluted for it to be properly implemented. Beyond that, I believe thinker247 had something to say. Thinker, you have the floor.

There are a number of different aspects to this, so bear with me if you can.

The most obvious question is - why were Siftquisitions institutionalized? I have never liked the idea of them, formal or informal. Mob justice is a Bad Idea&trade. That said, the desire of Dag and Lucky to automate and shift some of the responsibility for punishment to the community is understandable. With an informal siftquisition, it was easy to make an argument that an admin allowed their own bias to affect their interpretation of consensus on punishment. I can't think of any cases where that happened, though, so it seems like a non-issue. The informal system worked just fine compared to the current formalized one. (That is not to be taken as an endorsement from me of either system.)

Dag, Lucky - you two need to understand that the complaints of arbitrary admin justice (e.g., banning Berticus) were not because of the actions themselves, but because the actions were carried out arbitrarily while you were promoting the idea of communal justice. It was hypocritical. Personally, I think you should apply justice yourselves, and accept the responsibility that comes with it. Don't freak out if someone disagrees with you (however vehemently). It doesn't mean they hate you as a person, just that they thought your words or actions were wrong.

A number of people have pointed out the problems with siftquisitions in general, whether they are formalized or not. Mob justice, popularity, personal squabbles etc., are all real issues. The underlying fact is that the population here is simply not big enough to ever have a truly objective "jury of one's peers". I once suggested the idea of a judges panel, and I'm glad to see it revived by others. It occurs to me, though, that the very users most qualified to sit on that panel are the ones least likely to want anything to do with it. Election of judges is a horrible idea. It would only make the popularity issue more acute. Besides, I can't afford enough power points to run an effective campaign.

It does seem pretty clear that most bannable offenses can be handled with swift arbitrary justice that doesn't require communal action. When the community as a whole does need to get involved, there is just no way around the fact that friendships and personal bias will come into it. Formalizing Siftquisitions does exactly zero in alleviating that problem.


All that said, I'm going to abstain, because this has got to be one of the least important features of the site. Collapse the Personal Queues into one Unsifted section!

A jury of crowns or something is preferable to the crazy siftquisition feature. Seriously, the sift is strong because users become moderators through experience. The top-flight ranks have lost some of their lustre because they haven't gained commensurate powers.

First time I saw the term - I'm too lazy and tired to search for it - I found it both cute and disturbing. Even moreso disturbing was the fact that it *stuck*!

This really should be a worst case scenario type event, not a depressingly recurring fiasco.

Also, I too appreciate the irony of using a siftquistion-like event to try the siftquisition itself. The ironing is delicious.

The only reason some folks are suddenly against the Siftquisition is because some users initiated unfounded/stupid ones and/or because some people they liked were Siftquisitioned.

Which are both ill-advised reasons for wanting this feature gone, because the blame ultimately lies on the respective users involved.

I voted to keep it.
And obviously (and quite ironically) dag and lucky have already explained they will use their administrative privileges this time to not have to use their administrative privileges all the time. And unlike a lot of times when I'm at odds with particular nuances in their decisions, I am fully 100% behind them in this.

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

This is very disappointing. Mob rule, witch trials of the 1500s? - are you fucking kidding me? This is a small community coming together and discussing and deciding on consequences for bad behavior. There's nothing wrong with that. It serves quite a few purposes:
1. Provides a forum for community members to decide on what is unacceptable
2. Sets a public precedent and reminder to prevent other users from doing the same thing.
3. Provides punishment to the offender and protects the community from further damage.

There are obviously quite a few people with sensitive stomachs when it comes to the rudiments of democracy. For you, might I suggest sticking to the "video" part of VideoSift. There's nothing compelling you to venture behind the curtains.

If this vote passes, we will stop Siftquisitions. I will mete out justice. I will try and do it fairly, but I will make mistakes. I will do it quietly and I will get 10 private profile messages admonishing me and demanding to know why so and so was banned. Fucking brilliant, people.

When people do inevitably cry "fascism" , I will provide them a link to this thread. Because this is the day that a community voted to quietly sweep contentious, unpleasant matters under the rug. This is the day that a community voted for tyranny over democracy. Heil fucking Siftler.

What? Don't dag, just don't. Exercise your administrator's right, which is exactly what folks are voting to make you do all the time in the future, exercise it NOW - and don't accept this burden.

Come on folks - administration by users, for users and all the member privileges are only one aspect of the community-operated moderation here on VideoSift. Siftquisitions are the other, if darker, side of the same coin. I genuinely think removing those and laying the respective responsibilities on dag and lucky would be like tearing out a building's foundation. I honestly think it would ultimately be more beneficial for the Sift to disregard this ruling in order to not have a WHOLE LOT MORE rulings with which the community doesn't agree in the future.

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

^No, I will. Because if there's one thing this tyrant believes in, it's the fucking will of the people.

Fuck tha people

Really, fuck them once, instead of having to fuck them many times over.

Oh ffs, dag. How about some more melodrama?

Seriously, you must be able to find the middle ground between absolute tyrannical behavior and mob justice. I've consistently argued that you should exert some more authoritarian rule here, but you have eloquently rejected that (until now). Others have argued that you should relax the rules. Yes - we all have different opinions on the rules. And yet you haphazardly apply them as you see fit. Does that not suggest a certain authoritarianism already?

First things first - no one here thinks you're a tyrannical asshole. Some of us may occasionally deride you for taking certain actions, but you shouldn't assume that to mean that we think you are an asshole. My closest friends are my best and favorite critics.

The really important point about siftquisitions is, when have they served a useful purpose? I've been around here for about 2 years, and I've never seen a useful siftquisition, before or after it was formalized. More importantly, since the formalization, there have been long time users that were banned without any siftquisition, arbitrarily and immediately. I don't have a problem with the latter, so long as that is the norm. And I think most users would agree with that. But if you want that to be the a power held by the community, don't take it for yourself ever, and whine if we call foul. Also, if you put that ability in the hands of the community, you create a situation where self-reinforcing behaviors are inevitable. Choggie, among others, warned you about this. If you want this garden to flourish in the long term, you have to be willing to do some weeding yourself. Siftbot isn't yet quite sophisticated enough to do its own meatbag harvesting.

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

yes, melodrama. That what SiftTalk is good for. Airing drama & grievances away from the main content of the site.

And yes, I would argue that Siftquisitions have provided a very useful purpose, for the reasons outlined above - which I will outline again:
1. Provides a forum for community members to decide on what is unacceptable
2. Sets a public precedent and reminder to prevent other users from doing the same thing.
3. Provides punishment to the offender and protects the community from further damage.

Are you really quoting Choggie as a prophet of reason? I'm sorry, but you're just disappointing me some more.

Yeah, no doubt sift talk provides a release valve for personal squabbles and other bullshit. But that effect is a cultural one, just like siftquisitions used to be. Now that you've gone and institutionalized it, it loses its effect, and it is derailed from its original purpose. I might be wrong about this, but it seems that cultural norms are really much more effective than rules and guidelines and FAQs. (But I still think wiki.videosift.com would be immensely useful.)

Ya know, this kind of gets at my reasoning for collapsing Personal Queues into Unsifted sections. We've created a formalized system for what could just as easily be handled with an informal one. Just let all the unsifted videos lie where they are. Stop shoving them into an institutionalized limbo.

>> ^dag:
Are you really quoting Choggie as a prophet of reason? I'm sorry, but you're just disappointing me some more.

Fuck yeah - choggie dancing in the streets.

Really. If I didn't completely misunderstand him, he consistently railed against the communal acceptance of the norm. He constantly advocated for individual thinking, however crazy it may be (and yes, he advocated some crazy thinking - that was the point!). And his POV is more relevant now than ever. Either you do accept the will of individuals or you are willing to bow to the will of the group. You are an individual. Run with it. Assert your own individualism or succumb to the least common denominator - the mob rule. Get on with it. Is this your website or not? Or is it cat farts?

^ It's the Postmodern Sift Talk Generator. The primary theme of Dietrich’s analysis of dialectic discourse is not, in fact, discourse, but neodiscourse. Lacan’s essay on cultural theory implies that the collective is part of the futility of language, but only if dialectic discourse is valid; otherwise, Debord’s model of Derridaist reading is...oh fuck!! Get some rags and some ice!! Choggie stuck his hand under the lawn-mower again!!!

>> ^dag:
^No, I will. Because if there's one thing this tyrant believes in, it's the fucking will of the people.


Oh, fuck it. If you feel so strongly about the matter, then just keep the feature. It is your website after all, and you decide how it should be run. I certainly don't feel strongly enough about it to man the parapets against it, I just think it's an unnecessary feature bloat when we have hobbling and polls. But I do believe you have too much fate in online democracy. I know of no other online community that does not have at least a miniscule amount of authoritarianism in member moderating. If you want to be the first to create a working online democracy, you need to create an ececutive branch, a legislative branch, and a judicial branch at the same time, not just hand over two of them to the mob.

Hell, I'll even be satisfied if you fix up the siftquisition feature to have big blinking red "APPROVE DECISION" button at the end of the voting period that an admin has to click to carry out the sentence. I just don't trust that skeevy little rascal SiftBot to have that responsibility.

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

I do feel strongly about it- because, yes I know it's not a true democracy - but the only philisophical goal I've had for VideoSift - beyond making the best Video aggregator there is - is to place as much power in the hands of the people who are interested in coming here every day and participating. From Siftbot, to star points, to channels - it's all been about giving power away. That's why I'm not happy that the people are deciding to give it back.

Videosift is clearly and objectively the best video aggregator on the web. Somehow the quality content always wins the day, (despite the philistinism and rape jokes.)

"This is the day that a community voted for tyrrany over democracy."

Please don't turn this into a false dichotomy, because you end up looking at the poll results and our comments in the wrong light.
This is not an either or issue. There are many alternatives in between.

I think this is being set up too much as an either/or thing. It really isn't.

It's not either Fascism or Mob Rule, we can certainly find somewhere in between.

Edit: I feel like such a chump for saying exactly what mauz said above..

I like Volkswagen.

Were it not for my own Siftquisition I would surely not have been so hellbent on reaching Gold 100; now look at me...

Edit: It's a superb way to introduce probationary members to Sift Talk.

Dag is such a Nazi.

>> ^dag:
That's why I'm not happy that the people are deciding to give it back.


But if it's truly a democracy, than we should be allowed to give the power back. And then fight the powers that be. Sorry, channeling Public Enemy.

Whether it goes or stay, I don't care. I've suffered the slings and arrows of banination and haven't been able to get a video sifted for at least a year now, so if there's any definition of limbo, I'm in it.

But I just thought I'd point to a favorite video of ours which shows that cooperation goes up when punishment is introduced, be it, in our case, admin or community driven.

Personally, I like the fact that Dag and Lucky have put the impetus on us. While some could argue the Sift is a dictatorship because they ultimately hold the keys to the kingdom, it isn't RUN like one. We are being given the opportunity to self-regulate, yet it appears that the most vocal of us would rather wallow in self-imposed drama.

I don't blame Dag and Lucky one bit for not wanting to deal with us whiny bitches. Do you know how exhausting that is? There are times when this site turns into CommentSift for me, having to wade through all the snarky comments and general douchebaggery that goes along with fragile egos. I wouldn't even want to imagine having to police that shit. And I'll be the first to admit that I'm guilty of it too.

Me personally, I've given up hope on achieving a 250 Diamond. I'm all about getting a set of those fancy, shiny cufflinks that are being handed out nowadays. Then I can get a shirt made up:

"I got banned from VideoSift.com and all I got were these stupid handcuffs..."

Keep laughing,
VSBM

I haven't voted yet. My first instinct is to vote it away, because it is so ugly, and a reminder of all the things I don't like about "us". Our biases and fears, our wild mobs.

There are Sifters who don't even bother with this stuff and just do the "video" thing instead. Remember that thing we used to do? The thing about finding and curating a really eclectic, comprehensive collection of web videos? Something that's rich in content and and enriching to be a part of? You can still do that you know.

Yet even though I haven't traveled particularly far across intertoobia, I like to think there is something about this community that makes the headache and drama worth it. As far as I know this is one of the only places like it. Maybe there's a really kick-ass basket weaving forum somewhere that is equally as diverse and lively, but I've yet to come across it.

Web communities remind me of pioneer towns. I delude myself into thinking that we're building a new country, breaking ground on how web communities organize themselves, that this is a wild, prospecting endeavor. But now the sheriff and the deputy got sick of the mobs banging on the door, so they built a courthouse. Then they gave you the ultimate power of self-determination. You can even vote to burn the courthouse down.

This community has come a long way because of mostly benevolent and mostly even handed management, far more good calls than could be expected of any two people. But I think if we're going to move forward we need to embrace the responsibility of ruiling ourselves. Someone's going to have to figure it out eventually, after all.

So I'm going to vote to keep Siftquisitions, and accept the opportunity to determine our own path. I would even consider encouraging the submitter to discard the poll, because you can't put it all on two men.

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

I would like to thank all of you for your apparent confidence in installing me as Supreme Sift Chancellor. I have earned political capital from this vote, and I intend to spend it.

I pledge to you that there will be no more messy discussions over guilt or innocence debated in a public fourm. We all know that it is only a small subset of Sifters who are causing difficulties. Of course, we know who they are.

Justice will be served on them silently, in the night while most of you are safely asleep. I will personally deal with the troublemakers and ensure they are sent somewhere where they cannot taint our beautiful Sift fatherland further.

Herr Goebbels760 - prepare to dismantle the corrupt siftquisition apparatus, a glorious new epoch is nearly upon us!

Dag, as mauz15 already stated, this isn't an either/or situation. There are other options that could be explored, and mauz also suggested a good one with his moderator idea. Hell, from the beginning I've said that we should still have a jury to decide guilt or innocence, with the admins acting as D.A./judge. So everyone in town is basically in the jury pool. That's pretty fair, isn't it? I just don't want to give everyone in town a damn badge. Is that so over the top? Does that mean I support totalitarianism?

I can see you're pretty steamed about this, and maybe if I were in your shoes I'd feel the same way. But let's work on a solution, because I believe we can do better than this. (And BTW, the term "Siftquisition" doesn't sell the concept of justice very well.)

Siftbunal?

I like the classic jury/judges idea. I think it should be thought out and implemented.

I vote to keep Siftquisitions.

I look at this in two different ways. First, at the micro level, this is just an online community, and the worst punishment we can mete out is exile. There are rules of conduct that are pretty lax, and allow for a lot of antisocial behavior before people become willing to invoke a ban, even temporary ones. Most of the rules are designed to preserve the integrity of the site's main function as a video sifter, and with some mild attempts to protect the community that's formed around the site as a secondary concern.

At this level, the chief reason to be in favor of the formalized Siftquisitions is that we've grown big enough that it's just not fair to expect our admin to take personal responsibility for settling all disputes over the rules, especially when they're heavily colored by interpersonal interactions.

In short, we need to keep dag a happy camper, so he doesn't say "fuck it all" and shut the place down because it's all too much stress having some couple hundred 5 year-olds to discipline.

On a macro level, I hope most people would say that history tells us monarchy isn't a great system of government. It's possible for it to not be a disaster, but it can get out of control very quickly.

Democracy in this kind of raw form has some potential pitfalls too, but at least the responsibility or blame is shared by everyone equally. This is something I think many people fail to understand about our government in general -- just because you voted against the mob, it doesn't eliminate your culpability as a citizen.

Mostly though, I don't think it's fair to vote dag Emperor of the Sift, and try give up your own responsibility to make this place work.

You'll be able to vote in every Siftquisition, once, and post as many comments as you like to try to sway people to see things your way.

In the meantime, I think dag's got it right -- if he's elected Chancellor of the Sift, his first action should be to order everyone to heed the democratic system, or be sentenced to work the deadpool for 30 years.

Dag.. Please exterminate the unclean people (myself included)!! Do it for the fatherland!

But you guys are nuts if you don't realize that online communities need some "admins" who handle stuff like bans and arbitration. It is total bullshit for you guys to keep shirking it off on "polls" and other nonsense. If you want to hold electionf for Mayor of Siftville, then fine, but someone has to be judge & executioner, and the people are saying they prefer you over rule by polls.

Nothing breaks up tension like the thick stink from my bowels lingering in the room, therefore as my greatest act of selflessness I leave you a fart. Good day.

[walks out, shuts door]

The way I look at this is pretty simple.

If an entire community of people do not want me somewhere, I don't want to be there anyway.

I vote to keep siftburningatthestake

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

We do have admins - you are one of them. VideoSift is (or was) a meritocracy where the power to shape and mold the community is given to the people who have put in the time here to earn it. Outside of that framework, there is Lucky and I who have tried to exert as little influence as possible - while still trying to prevent anything from truly harming the community.

Just because other online communities you have participated in use a very traditional structure - doesn't mean we have to be sheeple and follow the same conventional wisdom. But it looks like we are going down that path anyway, so the point is probably moot.

>> ^joedirt:
Dag.. Please exterminate the unclean people (myself included)!! Do it for the fatherland!
But you guys are nuts if you don't realize that online communities need some "admins" who handle stuff like bans and arbitration. It is total bullshit for you guys to keep shirking it off on "polls" and other nonsense. If you want to hold electionf for Mayor of Siftville, then fine, but someone has to be judge & executioner, and the people are saying they prefer you over rule by polls.

Siftquisition is just another form of community activity. I'm all for it.

There's a general fear as to 'who holds the authority to punish a fellow citizen'. But the execution of the process is based on the rules and guidelines of videosift. If they are violated then there would be a problem.

But from what I've seen so far, all these controversies with siftquisitions were nothing but assumptions from the easily startled flocks of sheep we call the mass public.

It's a good thing that the public is always keeping an eye on how the process is executed. But to eliminate the process? The siftquisition was born out of necessity to enforce the rules and guidelines by the sift community. It was a community project and still is. Remember that.

We as in the mass public will always be skeptical of authority figures and the decisions they make, and rightly so. But to accuse a functional system to be defunct just purely based on fear and spite is in lack of a better word, low class.

Clearly this is not a clear cut case. Just because the majority wants it gone, doesn't mean it should be removed. The majority are often idiots.

Surely we can think of a middle-ground for 4.0? In the mean time, I would rather keep it than remove it, even if I voted abstain.

As for the admins. Well, we have them already.

The 500+ star members. They've been here long enough to understand the system and use it to their advantage. Now with our unique star power system, they get to exercise quite amount of influence in the community.

How is this so different from your typical admins in regular forums? In my opinion the current videosift's power distribution system works better than the emancipation proclamation I dare speak. Of course, there are some minor glitches we must sort out. But the principle is valid and the system has proven to work this far, no?

And Dag, I don't think you really need to answer these petty questions. I know you're trying your best telling them that their fears are based on assumptions and ideals. But it's a waste of time and effort. Spend your energy finding better advertisement deals and to perk up star power usage.

Because 1st, even if you respond with the best possible answer, You'd convince them temporarily but wouldn't change how they process their thoughts. And your opinions will differ with the same exact storyline, repeating the same stuff all over again when similar situation arise. Just strike a red line beneath your rules and guidelines and stick with it. That's it, you don't need to explain yourself.

Believe me, this is coming from years of rampant internet trolling and administrating a small online game clan back in the day.

2nd, Even if you have managed to convince all 10 people, there's gonna be another 100 people asking the same exact questions 2 months from now, be it due to constant flow of newcomers or just the lack of traffic in sift talks by most of the members.

>> ^kronosposeidon:
Dag, as mauz15 already stated, this isn't an either/or situation....


After reading KP's post I think there really is an opportunity to build some subtlety to the process, but the basic idea is sound and necessary in my opinion. So I think we should think about refining it.

What about using the poll function as a way of providing more than one option to ban or not ban, but instead gradients of sentencing? What about final verdict on Siftquisitions my majority opinion by a quorum of crowns? And of course all sentences will be rendered by the Admins, who have veto power as a final check.

>> ^schmawy:
>> ^kronosposeidon:
Dag, as mauz15 already stated, this isn't an either/or situation....

After reading KP's post I think there really is an opportunity to build some subtlety to the process, but the basic idea is sound and necessary in my opinion. So I think we should think about refining it.
What about using the poll function as a way of providing more than one option to ban or not ban, but instead gradients of sentencing? What about final verdict on Siftquisitions my majority opinion by a quorum of crowns? And of course all sentences will be rendered by the Admins, who have veto power as a final check.


See, these are the kind of pragmatic attitudes I was hoping for when I started this poll. There's no need for everyone to throw themselves in the trenches just yet. Looking at the poll results, they are by no means a landslide, so why don't we try to hack together a compromise? I say leave it as it is until VS 4.0, and then implement a more subtle process as part of the upgrade.

Hitler was a vegetarian.

>> ^gwiz665:
Clearly this is not a clear cut case. Just because the majority wants it gone, doesn't mean it should be removed. The majority are often idiots.


........

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

>> ^MrFisk:
Hitler was a vegetarian.


Siftler enjoys the occasional cheeseburger and chicken enchiladas.

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

People are so concerned about the "ugliness" of a Siftquisition. I know that real feelings can get hurt, but in general, I consider a Siftquistions to be passionate discussions where a lot of precedents are set and culture created.

I'm happy to discuss alternatives, but keep in mind that anything thought up will probably require a heap of code behind it - so would not be implemented soon.

In the mean time, I will remain your humble dictator. I'll try to prevent you all from having to endure any of that ugly, ugly self-rule. (be braced for the knock in the night, enemies of the sift.)

Heil me.

tl;dr but I think we do need siftqusitions. I just don't like the feature. I just think it needs to be reworked - like maybe have the discussion first, then the poll. I don't know. Dag/Lucky? Your new avatars are fucking hilarious!

Well then, our National Socialist Siftler, if we're NOT going to have Siftquisitions, can I get a dictatorial ruling over here for this "alleged" sockpuppetry. I was clasped in irons then swept under the rug - no trial by jury, no Siftquisition, no mob rule, no clemency, no tyranny, no three squares and cot, no showers with men, nothing. It's hard to give the heil salute with my hands clasped as they are.

Also, here's a thought. If you're a hobbled charter member, would it hurt to allow us to modify blog posts? All the other 'hobbled' powers make sense, but the inability to modify blogs seems needlessly pointless.

Oh, and before your ruling, might I add that your mustache is very becoming... for a NERD!

^Blankfist, you missed the golden opportunity to use the term "manacles", which is a pity because because the term sort of suits you. Manacles.

You want to touch my manacles, don't you, schmawy? I like to call them tasticles, because I hear they taste like boiled bologna and salty onions.

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

>> ^siftbot:
Voting for this poll ended with the majority of users voting Remove it.


shit, this thing's gonna blow...

Dag,

You definitely seem to be against the removal of the siftquistion from the sift. For myself, and probably a few others in here, the thing that makes the siftquisiton ugly is potential abuses and termination of active accounts. I still believe that those who get the most flack and end up in siftquistion, for better or worse, usually ignite some of the best discussions on here by going against the liberal leaning of sifters or simply playing devils advocate. I see such voices as valuable in a community such as ours. That bit of friction helps many people on here refine their ideas. I know the discussions I have read and participated in have helped me refine my own. Perhaps there is a better option to resolve the issue than simply its elimination.

In my previous comment, I tried to explain how I felt that the siftquision was overused.

As I write this, the poll has closed. The 36/27/18 is hardly the decisive landslide victory I might expect for the community to change the constitution of the sift. Perhaps the change from its "present form" that would make me happier about it would be the voting requirements for a siftquision to pass. Perhaps requirements other then just the most popular option. What about a higher passing grade? Like 60% requirement for siftquisions to pass or a two thirds of votes for bannination. Higher voting requirements would make it more difficult for banning to take place. Yes, it might mean that changes come less easy as well, but it means that the pro-change argument has to make a stronger case. I see this in a positive light, but it would help to balance out the potentially erratic nature of true democracies.

I voted to removal of the feature "in its present form." But perhaps rehabilitation of siftquision is a better option then it's termination. Had that option existed I, and others, may have voted differently.

In this poll, less then 45% of users have voted to remove the feature.
A substantial number perhaps, but it is still less than 50% + 1. And it is not a majority.


>> ^siftbot:
Voting for this poll ended with the majority of users voting Remove it.

A discussion for an alternative method to Siftquistions.

http://law.videosift.com/talk/Ideas-for-Siftquisition

>> ^notarobot:
Perhaps requirements other then just the most popular option. What about a higher passing grade? Like 60% requirement for siftquisions to pass or a two thirds of votes for bannination.

FAQ: "Permanent bans must be approved by a 2/3 vote (66% of total votes or higher in favor of banning)"

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

^That's right Siftbot - but this was a poll - even though it was called a Siftquisition and therefore does not require a 2/3 majority.

Notarobot - we shouldn't change the rules retroactively just because we don't like the result. The people have spoken and I accept the power you have given me and vice-chancellor Lucky.

Siftbot - prepare the Beggar's Canyon work camps.

Thank goodness there will be no more of those ugly, tiresome, messy public discussions of guilt or innocence. Gott in himmel allow me to be the vessel of your will. [raises sword dipped in lambs blood]

>> ^MrFisk:
Hitler was a vegetarian.


I don't think he was. I'm sure I read somewhere he tucked into pigeon among other things.

I feel this poll should be taken again. There should have been a 24 hour period before voting to hear all sides first.

At least I would've voted differently upon hearing what Dag had to say.

^Yeah. I'm not sure I would have pushed so hard against siftquisitions if I knew how strongly dag felt about it (though he is being a bit of a drama queen, putting it mildly). I mean, it is his site, after all.

But seriously, dag -- I know others have said it, but there is a happy middle ground between 100 percent direct democracy and ham-fisted totalitarianism. I mean, by your logic, pretty much every elected official in the world is Hitler. Obama is Hitler. Whoever's in charge over there in Australia is Hitler. We vote for people who make decisions; we don't vote to make every single decision. That's the way democracy works.

>> ^Edeot:
I feel this poll should be taken again. There should have been a 24 hour period before voting to hear all sides first.
At least I would've voted differently upon hearing what Dag had to say.


Yeah, me too.

Now I'm pissed I didn't Siftquisition some people.

I suppose I'll expect to find my shovel and pick there. Are the Womp-Rats bad this time of year?

>> ^dag:
^That's right Siftbot - but this was a poll - even though it was called a Siftquisition and therefore does not require a 2/3 majority.
Notarobot - we shouldn't change the rules retroactively just because we don't like the result. The people have spoken and I accept the power you have given me and vice-chancellor Lucky.
Siftbot - prepare the Beggar's Canyon work camps.
Thank goodness there will be no more of those ugly, tiresome, messy public discussions of guilt or innocence. Gott in himmel allow me to be the vessel of your will. [raises sword dipped in lambs blood]

If a poll is based on a false division there is no reason to enforce it.

I mean, I could make a poll like so

"Should we allow porn on videosift?

[] Yes
[] Yes, totally"

Whatever the result, "no" was not considered and the options were not adequate. If the above poll was anything else than an opinion poll, and we balls-to-the-wall had to choose, I would much rather keep the sitquisitions then secret, night-time bannings.

Also, the options are not "keep siftquisition" or "make admins all powerful, taking our choice away". To see it like that is just foolish.

The issue is the formalized siftquisition, that was introduced a short time ago. If we indeed remove that, the informal one should still exist.

This is what happens when I stop using the site for a few months

Last!

....

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

Wow, reading through these comments, just realised that we had a Brexit, 7 years ago.