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

What else should we add?

Did you really suspend QM and Mkone for downvoting?

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

Yes we did.

*raises hand* I have a question...

Usually my videoes are always at the bottom of the "to expire soon" list and usually the ones that would soon expire that have 9 votes, I usually give the video its 10th vote so that it can be queued and my videos can move up in rank of soon to exire...

Is that illegal activity? If it is, I will stop right away...

Yes it is, now go to your room, young man.

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

Wow - that's an interesting strategy mas- But I don't see how there's anything wrong with just voting on your own video.

ahaha this is just getting funnier

That sucks. I have a lot to say about this, dag, but I'm going to pick an exact moment and time to make my point. I'm more than disappointed. This is not what I signed on for when I decided to be a charter member. Fuck this bullshit. Why not suspend me? That seems hypocritical. This is just awful. I've lost respect in this place.

Dag : "What else should we add?"

How about adding some rules that are clear so you people aren't arbitrarily suspended for breaking rules that don't exist?

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

It's a 2-week suspension blankfist, we didn't take his first born child. I'm sorry if this rankles your sense of social justice- but as a community sometimes we have to make decisions that are distasteful but are what we consider to be important for the site.

It's not the United Nations here, but we do our best to consult with the community and try and receive a surfeit of opinions on the topic. Then we act.

If this doesn't appeal to you, you are welcome to take a self-imposed suspension - and during that time, you may want to look at other communities around the Web. Please let us know if you find any that do a better job of trying to reach a consensus with their members. We're doing the best that we can - but we're always up for new ideas.

I think this is the purpose of Dag's Sift Talk Post, blankfist. There is a general rule stated about conduct on the site, and those VS members weren't banned.

>> ^blankfist:
That sucks. I have a lot to say about this, dag, but I'm going to pick an exact moment and time to make my point. I'm more than disappointed. This is not what I signed on for when I decided to be a charter member. Fuck this bullshit. Why not suspend me? That seems hypocritical. This is just awful. I've lost respect in this place.

Well, when you became a charter member, you made a decision. You made a decision that you liked the way things were run. You liked the level of maturity to generally be found on the site. What did you get out of shelling out the cash? Not much. IN fact nothing really. (I'm not crashing on charters guys don't worry ) Sure you can queue more videos and have some color on your comments, but beyond that you don't get anything. Its more or less a donation so that these guys can continue to run their site. THEIR site. We can't lose sight of that. I for one, think these guys do a GREAT job in staying actively involved in the community. Not buy just moderating and upgrading, but also posting videos comments and sift talks. Hell, they even blog to tell us about their feelings. So To wig out like that seems pretty harsh.


P.s.Don't get me wrong blankfist, this is nothing personal. Hell, I think I might be kinda sad to see you leave. You have a lot to offer to the site, what with your ambiguous humor and all.

The sense of entitlement on this site is becoming unbearable. We all enjoy this site at Dag's pleasure and the 3 dollars a month we pay (if that) isn't enough to buy him a six pack of beer, let alone give us the right to tell him how to run his site. Dag has been pretty nice about it up until now, but the tone towards him is just way too aggressive. PAX

Arsenault and DFT, spot on, chaps.

Being a member here doesn't entitle you to shit. You should be thanking Dag, Lucky and James that they give two fucks what your opinion is. When's the last time the YouTube masters asked you what you want, and honestly listened?

D,L, J - You guys do whatever you want. It's your site. No one has the right to be here. But I praise and thank you for taking the time to include the community in all you do. I'm glad that you see that this place is so great because of that. It's what makes VS not only the best video website on the interwebz, but the best online community as well.

As far as this topic is concerned - I think what you have looks good. We can always add more as we need it.

See that? ^ "We"? I'd like you (anyone) to find another website where members talk like they have a part the decisions. They can here, because they really do - even though they aren't entitled to.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but it's really "our" site. DLJ are the benevolent founders and masters of the SiftUniverse though.

Having said that, it's common SiftCourtesy to be civil to all, regardless of their position in the SiftUniverse.

There's definitely been some flame-y whining whinge-fests creeping up recently. It's good to nip these things in the bud rather than have them flare out.

People have to remember that this is just a website, not a Capital Case, an O.R. or something where lives are at stake or something.

Dag, for policy purposes, it should be clear that civil criticism is welcome and part of the site's appeal.

Being a jerk - ad hominem attacks etc., are of course not welcome.

Examples:
+ Saying that you hate someone's opinion and believe it's ill-conceived because it'll bring about the downfall civilization if put into effect because of their support for ethanol will have an adverse impact on the food supply = OK, although you're being heated, you've clearly stated a somewhat intelligent opinion.

- Saying that you hate someone's opinion because they eat babies and are the bane of civilization and they should FOAD and their religion is wrong and their country should be nuked for allowing them to live, they're fat, and they're stinkin' Mac users = Bad, contributes nothing of value and is meant to be harmful (obvious exceptions for SiftRoasts, but if you can't tell the difference between a Roast on SiftTalk and hurtful comments get off the internet, seriously).

That was fun.

it isn't just voting for my videos alone... its to vote on the videos that expire soon and they are at 9 votes...

Say for example one of my videos is ranked 10 with three videos ahead of me that need one more vote to be sifted... Instead of watching the video to decide whether to vote it or not, I just upvote all three and move my video to ranked 7, thus improving its chances of being seen by fellow sifters so that it can be sifted...

however, its good to know that this isn't breaking any rules...

(the idea of raising my hand was so to not to be rude...)

I dunno Dag, rather than writing out all the things one cannot do, how about just writing a generalized guide of what one is expected to do. Like rather than "thou shalt not harrass a member through comments nor downvoting" how about "thou shalt use upvoting to signify one's acceptance of the video in question as one of quality, worthy of the great sift" and "one shalt downvote to signify the video in question as one unworthy of the great sift" and lo shall the voting be useful. And DagLuckyJames saw that it was good. And there was much rejoicing. Selah.

err I meant to say, if you just put a generalized code of conduct expectations then you basically reserve the right to examine any members contribution. As seen previously, when you start writing out "what you can't do" rules people start picking them apart. Childish or not (and it is adolescent as hell) you will get bogged down in a discussion of the minutae of regulations when in actuality it may just be that a member isn't well suited to be participating in the sift community. Immature people can call that autocracy and wail about censorship all they want - codes of civil discourse aren't hard to understand and one shouldn't have to defend (overly) realistic expectations of civility.

Hear, hear, MG, DST and arsenault.

Dag, I can't think of anymore to add at this time. Maybe an additional line that other instances that bring the community together for a Siftquisition will be dealt on a case by case basis? That way, we can eliminate this "What?? That wasn't in the by-laws when I signed on!!!" BS. It's nice to have a democracy when it comes to such things and I think that you and the other higher ups do a great job at promoting such an environment.

However, as stated here, you are the "masters", the "council", etc and as members, we must follow your lead. If others in the community don't like it, they are free to leave and start their own video aggregation site with whatever rules they deem necessary, no?

Some truths and parallels in every community IRL or online:

1) Most people in a small social construct don't need to live with stated rules/laws
2) There's always going to be somebody going against the ideals of said social model.
3) Disciplinary action becomes a necessity to put a stop to this unwanted behavior.
4) You need to develop rules for the few with no concept of community or with the desire to disrupt this concept so that you can establish a way to differentiate an honest mistake with a flagrant disavowal of these rules.

put in oven and let bake for a couple thousand years and you end up with our contemporary idea of "justice".

Sorry if this is not utopia, but I find it is a rather nice site, and there has to be a way to maintain that. I think the resolution was just.

Heheh, smibbo. DagLuckyJoe. Love it!

besides which, one thing I learned in the hannity.com forums is that you start writing out codes of conduct and guaranteed you'll eventually be accused of applying them selectively. Because people ALWAYS have a "good excuse" for acting like an ass.

My biggest concern is having VS end up like You Tube, with asinine comments littering each video and virtually killing the community. The problem is with the site growing and becoming more visible you have to deal with trolls and drive by firsts in a way that discourages them from becoming a blight in the VS community.

In a way you almost have to run it like a business and not a free-for-all forum where anyone can start being an ass without repercussions. I see VS as an island in the sea of inter tubes that has a maturity and community. Seriously try and find another site like that, it's near impossible.

So to counteract the increasing volume there needs to be enforcement of policy. For example if the no self-linking rule was not enforced then spammers and self-promoters would overrun this place (see: myspace).

Now with more members then ever there is going to need to be more enforcement of policy. Just think if a police were not around in the real world eventually it would degrade to near anarchy. Thefts, murder, violence would all go unhindered and unjustified. Although not as dramatic on a website things would quickly get out of hand.

The only thing that's constant is that everything changes. And if enforcing policy that ruffles a few feathers is what it takes to preserve the community, then so be it. I'll be damned if VS is going to give up it's unique and vibrant community for trash that you could find on any other video site.

Dag, Lucky, James. Keep up the good work.

Thanks MG and VSBM. I don't think that a huge set of rules is needed. Simply state that this is not like other video sites, and that we want mature meaningful conversations. I didn't read any of the rules before until I joined.

When MGR first showed me the site, he was just showing me a couple of videos. I made fun of him for being like the guy on the isp commercial (the guy clicking page after page after page until he gets the message 'you have seen everything on the internet' - hilarious) anyways, I was never into internet video, but I saw that this site was about more than that. And so I started to lurk around and read the ST and the comments and what not, and came to the conclusion myself that it was supposed to be a mature community driven site.

I didn't need 40 pages of Sift Commandments or rules or what have you. Its pretty obvious after just floating here for a little while. If we go overboard on the rules, I believe that its going to take away a piece of the site/community.

whoops, I misnamed James.... messes up my whole schtick.
*sheepish*

I think we should keep whatever abuse guidelines as general as possible because people will always come up with new ways to damage the site. E.g.,

1. Video votes must be cast only for the content and nothing else; the video must be viewed before voting (yes, we could prove abuse by comparing view time to vote time)
2. Comment votes must be cast only for the content and nothing else; the comment must be read in its entirety before voting
3. Harassment or personal attacks in any form (comment, ST post, blog, submitted video, etc.) are forbidden
4. No modification or adjustment may be made to any post except in the assistance of the submitter (e.g., discarding, tag editing, channel modification, etc.)
5. (The catchall) Abuse of the site, other members, votes, posts, comments, or any privileges, especially star abiliities, whether mentioned above or not, will result in immediate suspension or permanent ban

/\ Thats already flawed. In response to:

#1. There are TONS of videos I've seen before, or try to sift but are already sifted etc, that I come across and just upvote. Just because I haven't seen it on THIS site, doesn't mean I haven't seen it in its entirety somewhere else.
#3. This comes with it being a mature site, but its agreeable.
#4. Thats the point of awarding the sifters limited admin privileges as they gain star points. Its a user moderated site. Whats the point of having user-admins if your going to say they cant do anything?

I'm just saying.. thats all...

[edit] I want to redact this comment, but it would kinda throw the thread off so I'll just edit. Please refer to my comment below where i apologize profusely to lucky.

You may be just saying, but what you're saying makes it seem like you only skimmed what I'm just saying.
#1 - If you have seen the video before, then you have seen the video before. I said "the video must be viewed before voting," not that you have to view it on a VideoSift page before voting
#3 - You cannot assume so much. That's the point of making all these rules, to deal with the immature people who make their way in or mature people who get mad and act immaturely
#4 - I also didn't say you can't do anything. I said you can't do it except in the assistance of the submitter. E.g., you cannot go and discard a post because you don't like it, but you can discard if it's a dupe; you cannot change the tags to something unrelated to the video, but you can change the tags to make them a better fit for the video; you cannot just invoke nochannel because you feel like it, but you can if you are correcting the channel assignments

I'm just saying.

I'm down, Those seem just right to me. Upvoting Lucky's comment to show my "yea" vote

>> ^lucky760:
You may be just saying, but what you're saying makes it seem like you only skimmed what I'm just saying.
#1 - If you have seen the video before, then you have seen the video before. I said "the video must be viewed before voting," not that you have to view it on a VideoSift page before voting
#3 - You cannot assume so much. That's the point of making all these rules, to deal with the immature people who make their way in or mature people who get mad and act immaturely
#4 - I also didn't say you can't do anything. I said you can't do it except in the assistance of the submitter. E.g., you cannot go and discard a post because you don't like it, but you can discard if it's a dupe; you cannot change the tags to something unrelated to the video, but you can change the tags to make them a better fit for the video; you cannot just invoke nochannel because you feel like it, but you can if you are correcting the channel assignments
I'm just saying.


Trust me I did more than "skim" what you posted. It would be pretty irresponsible (and stupid) of me to reply to something i have not read yet.
#1 Well I could only assume you posted that rule because you had also mentioned that you could check time viewed vs. time voted.
#3 Not sure why you have an issue with what I said there, I agreed with you on that one... "what you're saying makes it seem like you only skimmed what I'm just saying" seems to apply... I was merely suggesting that users should pay attention to how the place is run.
#4 Sorry. What I should have said was "Whats the point of having user-admins if they are not allowed to exercise their powers without the approval of the original submitter."
What you said in response to my post for #4 does not match what you said in your original #4.

So which is it? Can our User-admins change tags and channels so long as they are appropriate with out the original submitter approval? Or cant they? If your going to require prior approval, then you might as well just let the submitter do it and get rid of those admin privelages.
Granted I have not been here a huge amount of time, but I've explored the Sift quite a bit, and have yet to see where someone adding a tag or channel has been a huge issue. I could be wrong and I will gladly recant my statement if you can show me otherwise.

My apologies if I am coming off kind of rash. I love the way you guys run your site, and this conversation right here is proof of how kick-ass it really is.
Oh and whoever down voted my comment, I didn't mean to piss anybody off

I said "in the assistance of the submitter." I did not say anything about requiring approval. The changes I listed are examples of not assisting versus assisting the submitter with her/his post.

You can hover your mouse over the comment arrows to see who voted. I downvoted your comment because I felt it didn't make sense of and was misrepresenting my suggestions, but I'm not pissed off. (I hope that doesn't mean you downvoted my comment because you were pissed off.

Somehow I think those rules will be difficult to enforce.

SOVIET UNION.

i am waiting for the day when you can download the Sift Rules in one handy 38.4MB pdf.

Fact remains, signal to noise ratio on here is getting worse. If you just made a streamlined site without all this pissing contest banination bollocks...

oh well. bring back tayTV.

Dag - you do realize that those two items are already in the FAQ, right? [emphasis added]

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.

We love a good fiery comment thread, but sometimes they go overboard. Please avoid personal attacks. It's okay to criticize ideas but refrain personal insults. Please avoid blatantly racist speech, threats, or other verbal abuse. This goes for comments in public arenas as well as private member profile comments. If a comment is bad enough it will probably be deleted due to negative feedback. If these types of comments are regular occurrences, we will probably ask you to leave the community.

Lucky, with the exception of #4, the other stuff is also covered by that and elsewhere in the FAQ (see Terms and Conditions for #5). As for post modification, I think that should be discussed in the context of modifying posts (the star abilities page?).

>> ^dag:
It's a 2-week suspension blankfist, we didn't take his first born child.

I don't think the severity of the punishment is at issue dag. The issue is its selective application. In particular, my problem is that it was selectively applied to someone who clearly holds a minority opinion and whose attitude easily offends others. QM is ostensibly being banned because of his voting actions. But as was clearly stated by many people in the siftquisition, his comments over time are what were considered. If downvoting a slew of videos because of who submitted them were the real offense, why is this the first time it's come up? It is most certainly not the first time it has happened in public.

>> ^mas8705:
it isn't just voting for my videos alone... its to vote on the videos that expire soon and they are at 9 votes...
Say for example one of my videos is ranked 10 with three videos ahead of me that need one more vote to be sifted... Instead of watching the video to decide whether to vote it or not, I just upvote all three and move my video to ranked 7, thus improving its chances of being seen by fellow sifters so that it can be sifted.


I'm pretty sure that's a common practice mas - I've done it occasionally and I know others have said as much.

<rant>Thing is, your specific question as to whether it is allowed will likely remain unanswered until an excuse is needed to ban someone for something otherwise not considered a ban-worthy offense.</rant>

your specific question as to whether it is allowed will likely remain unanswered

No, I'll answer that right here and now. It's not allowed and should be ceased immediately. You should only vote for videos based on content, never to get back at someone, nor to manipulate another video's position.

It's a shame if that's been common practice. The idea's never even occurred to me.

You people are depressing. I'm leaving.

lucky... people are not computer code. they are irrational. you can't control them with rules. you can help a lot with good design. good design is pure, simple, intuitive, and doesn't need an FAQ.

people are always going to abuse the site unless it hurts them to do so. you give them the pissing contest, they start pissing. why the surprise?

when rules and optimism don't work, dag throws in some more rules and optimism. lol.

if all your work went in to the "librarian" sifting side of things here instead of the "community" and "clicky features and screen clutter" side, you'd be much more chilled out about it all.

the community site where i worked had a brilliant coder who left because of all the "human element" depressing him (literally). think about that. save your health.

Ok i think its pretty clear: Up ---OR--- Down Vote based on content, not submitter. This applies to all types of voting.

When everyone is granted freedom, you also have to respect other's rights as well. If one person is willing to exercise their freedom for the wrong, then it's upto them, but only within boundaries of their own self and their possessions.

For example, commenting against someone's opinion is your right. Purposely deleting other's comments or punishing them for opposing against ideas of your own isn't.

Exercising their powers to violate other's property and other's rights to freedom is not freedom, nor is it democratic, and you should know the difference if you want to get into this subject.

Boundaries of personal power is the first thing they talk about in French constitution when the subject of 'Freedom' comes up. You respect my freedom, I respect yours. Cross the line, then we ban your ass. That's the bottom line. Apparently there's a government out there that was born from, fought for, died for, suffered from, and still constantly adjusting and perfecting this concept on a daily basis. Go read about it.

Dag is doing the right thing, and the crazy hippie populace of VideoSift is all up in arms about it. Stop forcing your Anarcho-Liberal BS on us you crazy people. Because in reality Dag's decision was based on the majority of the community, and this was a statement of how powerful the VideoSift community as a whole really is and how much it influenced the final decision.

Mean while what some of you are asking for is individual rights to terrorize others. Some of you are so caught up on empowering individual freedom that you forget to protect the other's rights, which is basically asking to allow oppression, by enforcing only one person's right to do whatever he/she wants.

Ironic isn't it?

thanks for comparing videosift to revolutionary france. purest rofl
i burst when i got to "anarcho-liberal".

Not you again!

We shall settle our differences in our own time, and I shall be the one victorious!

Meanwhile, don't incur the destructive fury of our polarization here! Civilians afoot! Collateral Damage!!!

Yeah, let me clarify what I meant about voting vids out of the queue to make room. If I see a vid that I thought was 'meh', but has nine votes and 15 unique views, it's pretty obvious it's going to make it anyway. I won't vote it out though if I was even remotely tempted to downvote it (which is more often the case lately). Basically, I'm saying I'll relax my quality standards in certain cases, but I always watch the vid.

Voting on any video without watching it is just dumb. You won't even know if it's dead, much less if it is exactly the same clip you watched elsewhere/before, or if the vid quality is crap due to overcompression, if the audio is out of sync, etc., etc.

there's just one thing, i want to say.

about me, about you, shroom and everyone else here, and the wonderful things i've gotten to read, and watch, on this page and so many others.

it's the last thing i wrote on my homepage, here. thanks.

-o

Personally, I think of Dag as my own Jebus.

Which is why I think it is justified make unreasonable demands, and blame him for my transgressions.

That withstanding, I support The VideoSift Empirial Courts decision.

ps. that's also going to be the first entry in my siftblog, methinks, as well.

which i'm getting, soon.

it's the first $10 i'm spending, 'bout a month maybe, when i get paid for this web gig for Katie ('Oilwellian' on YouTube, who's also the same Katie i'm thanking first in my 'Thank you, Chuck' clip, on my yt channel).

pps. yeah, dag. and lucky, and the gang.

thanks for the sandbox.

*quality

Invocations (quality) cannot be called by my15minutes because my15minutes is not privileged - sorry.

fuck! you're kidding me. that doesn't come with silver?

thanks again for keeping me informed, siftbot.

/siftysnack

and please don't ever surpass us all, mentally and physically, and crush all our skulls, with your bare hands, eyeballs first.

>> ^legacy0100:
When everyone is granted freedom, you also have to respect other's rights as well. If one person is willing to exercise their freedom for the wrong, then it's upto them, but only within boundaries of their own self and their possessions.
For example, commenting against someone's opinion is your right. Purposely deleting other's comments or punishing them for opposing against ideas of your own isn't.
Exercising their powers to violate other's property and other's rights to freedom is not freedom, nor is it democratic, and you should know the difference if you want to get into this subject.
Boundaries of personal power is the first thing they talk about in French constitution when the subject of 'Freedom' comes up. You respect my freedom, I respect yours. Cross the line, then we ban your ass. That's the bottom line. Apparently there's a government out there that was born from, fought for, died for, suffered from, and still constantly adjusting and perfecting this concept on a daily basis. Go read about it.
Dag is doing the right thing, and the crazy hippie populace of VideoSift is all up in arms about it. Stop forcing your Anarcho-Liberal BS on us you crazy people. Because in reality Dag's decision was based on the majority of the community, and this was a statement of how powerful the VideoSift community as a whole really is and how much it influenced the final decision.
Mean while what some of you are asking for is individual rights to terrorize others. Some of you are so caught up on empowering individual freedom that you forget to protect the other's rights, which is basically asking to allow oppression by enforcing only one person's right to do whatever he/she wants.
Ironic isn't it?


Quoting for justice.

*quality

Awarding dag with one star point for this contribution to Sift Talk - declared quality by MycroftHomlz.

Do what thou wilt, the whole of the law of monkeys....responsibility, accountability.....like the real world, that is fast becoming the construct of many pied-pipers......

hmmmm..... DystopianSutureToday.... I kinda like it. It makes me feel like Orwell's surgeon.

In reply to this comment by MarineGunrock:
Arsenault and DST, spot on, chaps.

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

Updated with Lucky's bullets- which are more comprehensive.

Redacted. Lucky, my apologies. Upon chatting with MGR, he kindly pointed my stupidity out. I owe you an apology especially for the I did read it and not skim it thing. "except in the assistance of the submitter" that key word assistance.. yeah SO long as yoru helping its ok. Again lucky, I'm sorry.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
hmmmm..... DystopianSutureToday.... I kinda like it. It makes me feel like Orwell's surgeon.
In reply to this comment by MarineGunrock:
Arsenault and DST, spot on, chaps.


Haha - oops.

I'm still just a probie, but I support Dag's decision as well. I wouldn't have wanted a permanent ban, but 2 weeks is definitely fair.

Also, the new rules are clear enough to get the job done.

Nicely nicely done! I think the guidelines read very well! You've got my vote.

>> ^what you said, mg:
Arsenault and DFT, spot on, chaps.
Being a member here doesn't entitle you to shit.
You should be thanking Dag, Lucky and James that they give two fucks what your opinion is.

and i upvoted
>> this comment ^ by blankfist
for his willingness to ask this question:

Why not suspend me?

and nothing more, that he said, in that chunk. and here is my answer.

first offense, that sofaking & you sorted out lickety-split.
anyone here see a second offense, on their horizons?
or under the impression that this was shroom's second? or third?

Not to be too much a pain in the ass (because after reading what Lucky said I know what he meant), but I'd like to point out that this:

4. No modification or adjustment may be made to any post except in the assistance of the submitter (e.g., discarding, tag editing, channel modification, etc.)

Does not say the same thing to me as:

4. No modification or adjustment may be made to any post except in the assistance to the submitter (e.g., discarding, tag editing, channel modification, etc.)

You see "of" implies that said assistance is the possession of the submitter. Meaning you can not do it without the submitter's assistance (could also be read as prior approval). Where as in the later case the person is giving assistance to the submitter and is being given permission to make modifications for that purpose. Thus I can see where someone might have misconstrued what was being proposed.

VideoSift jumps the shark. 1/16/2008

I know, I know.. Don't let the door hit you on the way out...

I don't know how many times I said GUIDELINES not rules. You now will have a site of people spending their time hunting down rule breakers and non-stop bitching about what so-and-so said. Maybe you have time to deal with it, maybe all the power-hungry tattle tales have finally gotten to you.

Fuck this. You know what that will be next. The word fuck probably just got me suspended. In fact, I as well as many regulars, have probably violated most of these rules.

I am guilty of "ad hom" bullshit. Who is going to be the arbiter of when someone crosses a line?

I am guilty of upvoting just for the shear amusement of modifying some rankings. Why not? It was harmless fun.

I am guilty of upvoting videos without viewing them first. Of course I already know what "Thriller music video" is, but hey, you have to watch it again to vote.

I have modified videos. All the time. Improved crappy tags, edited channels. And as channel owner, I feel more than justified removing a video that does not belong. Oh well. A lot of the tag edits are done to IMPROVE searches. But heck why the fuck is that ability there?

I have abused star powers, mostly in an effort to debug the site and look to close any loopholes.

I get it. Lucky made it perfectly clear, nothing you do on this site is yours. Everything is subject to policing. If you discard or kill your own videos, they will revive them after the suspend your account. I'm not sure if this actually in response to any real or perceived problem, but more in an effort to the marketability of the site.

Let the tattling begin. Let the rule creep begin.

I'm also not over-reacting. I've been around the internets too long and seen exercise like this played out. (Just take away the stupid tools instead of bitching about how people use them and punishing people for it. FFS, you think youtube, digg, slashdot have ban rules? You think they have rules about how you can VOTE? You just write a line of code that disables your downvote ability when it is abused. You take away abilities if they can hurt the site. You don't code up fucking invocations and then police and big brother how they are used)

I'd support something like selective disabling of things like the downvote, it was suggested in the other thread and several of us liked the idea as an option. A larger and still growing community can't get by with as loose system as a smaller peer pressure driven one can so we seem to need to do something as we grow, but rule creep is a realistic concern as well. Not so much here as in most places though, remember who runs the place and that they've never shown any indication of even wanting to be in control so far. I doubt they want to be baby sitters myself, they are just looking for ways to make a growing site keep working as peer pressure doesn't work as well in a larger group. Help them out and suggest better rules or guidelines if we don't like these.

Some of those concerns I thought were answered already though it could be more clear maybe, we're still welcome to modify tags and assign channels same as before as long as it's to help the vid which I'd assume people already do, it's just spelled out now. If any of them seem unclear or shouldn't be there at all then suggest fixes but let's not assume the worst of people who have earned better than that. It's our hobby but their business and we've had all the room to do things our own way that was possible so far, I don't see any reason to assume an intent to change that.

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

>> ^joedirt:
VideoSift jumps the shark. 1/16/2008
FFS, you think youtube, digg, slashdot have ban rules? You think they have rules about how you can VOTE? You just write a line of code that disables your downvote ability when it is abused. You take away abilities if they can hurt the site. You don't code up fucking invocations and then police and big brother how they are used)


Sure we could code around the problem people- and you're right- that's probably what Digg et al would do.

But are you holding up Digg and YouTube as examples of communities we should emulate? Sorry, but I'm 100% against that. Although those sites are successful in some ways- I see them as failed communities. The "community" itself has no power to make descisions- or any kind of realistic communication with the "executive" branch. The members are "resource units" without any say in the decisions and directions of the site. Tiny little cogs talking amongst themselves.

We don't want to take the humanity out of this community in that way. We'll continue to have "human" issues that have to be worked through and solved.

The fantastic code that Lucky has built into VideoSift is about empowering members - not fencing them in. But with power, comes responsibility- if the members can't handle the responsibility then as a community we have to act to take care of the problem.

I'm really appreciative of all the input and discussion on this- it shows that as a community we're very alive and thriving.

I feel myself breaking into it....wait for it...(8)Caaaaan you feeeeel the loooove tonight?????(8)>> ^dag:
>> ^joedirt:
VideoSift jumps the shark. 1/16/2008
FFS, you think youtube, digg, slashdot have ban rules? You think they have rules about how you can VOTE? You just write a line of code that disables your downvote ability when it is abused. You take away abilities if they can hurt the site. You don't code up fucking invocations and then police and big brother how they are used)

Sure we could code around the problem people- and you're right- that's probably what Digg et al would do.
But are you holding up Digg and YouTube as examples of communities we should emulate? Sorry, but I'm 100% against that. Although those sites are successful in some ways- I see them as failed communities. The "community" itself has no power to make descisions- or any kind of realistic communication with the "executive" branch. The members are "resource units" without any say in the decisions and directions of the site. Tiny little cogs talking amongst themselves.
We don't want to take the humanity out of this community in that way. We'll continue to have "human" issues that have to be worked through and solved.
The fantastic code that Lucky has built into VideoSift is about empowering members - not fencing them in. But with power, comes responsibility- if the members can't handle the responsibility then as a community we have to act to take care of the problem.
I'm really appreciative of all the input and discussion on this- it shows that as a community we're very alive and thriving.



And in response, I feel myself breaking into it....wait for it...(8)Caaaaan you feeeeel the loooove tonight?????(8)

Well said, dag.

I'm personally of the opinion that QM should have his own community corner on the sift.

'QMs Corner of Disparagement - a Home for the Haters'.