Hmmm....guess you'd have to compare it to the rules for up-voting....if up-votes are to be based on merit, or content, or personal appreciation for the overall vibe of the sifter, or tags, or any other 500 reasons people will be people, then.....WHAT?

Like JD said, whiners and bitchers are what made this an issue in the first place, that and assholes-and what of ant's reputation? Do we call him out and demand an explanation for all of his?? Do we make it mandatory that folks explain their beef with what and who and for what for???

I say siftquisition is the best way to call out a user and offer them up on the alter of ego.....what usually happens from experience is this:
1. User tucks tail, tells th place to fuck off, and slinks away, sack empty and flaccid....
2. user comes forward, relinquishes all rights to ego-feeding, and takes some good, healthy back and fourth, almost always coming out smelling green on the other end, that and everyone develops a new disdain or respect based on their OWN ego-feeding tendencies.
3. More whiny posts like this, clogging the sift talk, and causing chafing, discomfort, and keyboard damage from over use....

I prefer a good healthy rant to a bitch or whine, any day of the week!!

MKONE??? You sorry twat, what can you do to smooth this over with yer pal here, and start being perceived as an asset or ally, rather than a ass or a fall-guy??? You must be worthy of some consideration, you are still here participating....and it's soccer dude, not football.

It is a petty thing to do for sure. I'm not sure if it should be a bannable offense though, I suppose it comes down to how much etiquette should be enforced. Of course the mature thing would be to respectfully request the tags be changed, but then that would be the mature thing...

I suppose the bottom line is, its not about the quality of the video, its not about if the person dislikes the clip, its about disliking something that can easily be edited. Perhaps a bannable offense for repeat offenders?

He downvoted this iphone vid cuz of "downvote coz apple sucks and so does iphone. Nokia FTW". And this was in the queue. Video clearly says what it is... I think it's a similar case. Deserves a *bitchslap, at least IMO.

Oh yeah, he deleted my comment calling his behavior jerky as well.

so perhaps let this thread serve as the S-quisiton, and bring out yer dread all-comers??...get in line it looks like- "coz apple sucks and so does iphone"
no shit??...what a clever quip-Let's chant in unison and drive the schizm from the collective midst-

Please don't let this turn into another panty-knot, short and sweet shall we?? Let the accused sell his/her/itself, with some justifiable banter, clever retort, or recognizable odour......Or get the fuck Gonesville, daddy-o......

It is completely unacceptable behavior, but there is NO NEED for tags to be changed just to suit a sifter's desires. It's football. We in the U.S. don't say "Want to come over and watch Monday night American Football?" No. We say "football" because that's what the sport is called. I'm SOOOO sorry if there's another sport called football.

This thread has now been choggified. Any further comments are completely redundant. It's kind of like being Godwinned, only more incoherent.

My meme can beat up your meme.

choggified®, that's mine bitches....

MKONE wants to be an ass about tags... meh.... I can only get SO steamed about someone being asinine. After all, I vowed to downvote any and all videos by the Foo Fighters

(I'm joking. I upvoted the one by Michel Gondry)

Seriously, if people can have "auto-upvote" for things they like (and I think we ALL have them) then surely they can have "auto-downvote"

If he'd doing it based on his dislike of a type of VIDEO that's one thing, but if he were doing it for a type of PERSON that'd be another. This is, after all, video sift, not popularity sift right?

Well, I'm one of the victims of his absurd behavior, so I'm definitely gonna weigh in on this. Needless to say, I think there's a serious (i.e. important for how the Sift functions) problem with what mkone's been up to. But I have to get to bed now, so I'll just edit my argument into this comment tomorrow.

[Edit: You know what, nevermind. Even though mkone is a douchebag, I don't want to waste any energy on this.]

"Clearly, he is not downvoting based on the quality of video content, but on the tags the submitter added. Based on the VideoSift guidelines, this is unacceptable and represents mkone's second breach within a month."

Now thats bullshit. Ive watched those videos. And since i dont like them i downvote them. Isnt that why there is the downvote option. If i like the video i will upvote.

"http://www.videosift.com/video/Dog-Bites-Auburn-Football-Player (he also declared this particular video dead as he downvoted it, clearly showing that he could not have voted based on the video content)"


I remember this. The video didnt work at the time i voted it and called it dead. Which it clearly isnt. I have seen it on other video sites. Break and Spikedhumor and it got downvoted here too

An Open Letter to Admins:

On the one hand you encourage folks to test boundaries, abuse the voting system, and get Siftbot a gold star all in the name of good fun. You encouraged and laughed and smiled upon the clearly abused behavior of comment voting which got Siftbot a gold star. Clearly, this would not be acceptable if it was applied to a new user or some girl user that put up a racy avatar. But, it is also in the name of using tools provided and seeing what happens to the infrastructure we put our time and interest into. This kind of hacking and flashmob voting behavior is like kicking the tires to see how the car is working since we all as a community have piled into this vehicle for a long journey. It is good fun to play with and exploit the framework and underlying structure the site is built upon, and it is justified by the time and energy we have put into and committed to a community with no real tangible returns other than for the sake of the community.

Then you have these awful threads based upon behavior policing and vote tribunals to examine if someone clicked down/upvote too many times for/against a particular person/tag/type of video.

You encouraged this behavior. Some of your admins condone and lobbyied for such behavior and told the inmates to rat each other out to "the man". You have publicly assembled siftquisitions to shame users that violated "the rules" by downvoting too many videos. You have publicly shamed and flogged long-time members because of their petty behavior and temporary bouts of "bad voting" (Note: this site at the very core and essence consists of watching videos and voting for videos)

It really is simple. You are welcome to put up guidelines, but have to understand there will be people who live to violate those guidelines. You can encourage behaviors, but not demand them of all users. You can add new features and tools and abilities, but don't be surprised if they are tested to the limits. If some behavior or voting or words have a negative effect then you must either ignore it, make it impossible to do, censor it, or address it publicly and/or privately.

The history of the internet and dealing with trolls and disruptive users indicates that the first two approaches mention above work. The latter two approaches do not. Do not feed trolls, and if you have a problem with people abusing the tools you give them (ie. voting) take the tools away when abused.

You are responsible for these endless streams of behavior call-out threads, and I wish many hundred more upon you. You have chosen this path because of a misguided concept behavior policing and as a result your community has followed your lead by monitoring each others behavior and voting. You have a choice about running a prison, an open forum, a bathroom stall wall, a bar full of regulars, a socialite country club. Some will point to the level of discourse found on YouTube comments and I maintain that humans are innately social creatures who have been programmed by evolution to fit in. As such, people react to what is around and adjust their behavior accordingly to fit in.

I think we are on a slippery slope to siftquisitioning everybody.

I have a dream where each vote is based on personal merit, be it tag, content or title. The information in a sift is not just the video, but also the tags and title.

That being said, this voting record shows poor form, but there is no need to make a ruling on it - the community will even itself out.

"What say you?"

You're a tattle tale and I hate you.

*unsticky

Post cannot be unstickied by dystopianfuturetoday because it is was stickied an admin - ignoring unsticky request by dystopianfuturetoday.

DO NOT BE A DOUCHE.

You know who are. Stop.

I wish many hundred more upon you. - joedirt

Jeez, that's a little harsh, isn't it? You have philosophical differences with the admins on how to run this site, and when their style proves imperfect you want the pain to multilpy many hundred-fold? I also disagree with some of the admins' decisions, but I don't desire to see them writhing in agony because of these disagreements.

Actually I agree with many of your points, joedirt. However I think we both know that NO system is perfect, so even if the site were run EXACTLY the way YOU wanted it, do you think it would be flawless? There would be no chance for abuse or errors in any way? Now before you answer that question, I realize that you'll say something like "I never said that my way would be perfect." Of course you never said that, but what you're clearly implying is that your way is far superior and would neither have the same problems nor problems on the same scale. I call that arrogance.

I don't have a problem with your criticisms per se, but when you say you wish "many hundred more" problems upon them then I have to wonder what kind of person would say such a thing. Why do you harbor such malice? I think that dag and lucky are trying to operate this place the best they know how, but since they are flawed humans who are dealing with other flawed humans there will always be problems of some sort or another. So you wish that fate would visit "many hundred more" problems on them for being imperfect? Therefore would it be okay for me to say right now that because you are also imperfect that I hope life mercilessly shits on you, day in and day out, until the day you die?

Stick to your arguments, but don't be an asshole.

>> ^joedirt:
You can encourage behaviors, but not demand them of all users.

Actually, they can demand them all they fucking want. Because if a member does not abide by the rules, they can simply ban them. It's their fucking website. That's a concept that you don't seem to grasp. They don't owe anybody a damn thing, especially people that are not charter/donating members. Even those members aren't owed shit.

I wish many hundred more upon you.

Don't be a dick.

David Spade called and he wants his sanctimony back.

*ban him. Fuck it.

>> ^mkone:
"Clearly, he is not downvoting based on the quality of video content, but on the tags the submitter added. Based on the VideoSift guidelines, this is unacceptable and represents mkone's second breach within a month."
Now thats bullshit. Ive watched those videos. And since i dont like them i downvote them. Isnt that why there is the downvote option. If i like the video i will upvote.


Can we *beg our admins to look into that? After all, Lucky, you said you had the ability to check the time watched and time downvoted.

nibiyabi cannot be banned because star accounts are immune to banination - ignoring ban request by arsenault185.

*oops. Sorry nibiyabi.

>> ^CaptWillard:
Stick to your arguments, but don't be an asshole.


>> ^MarineGunrock:
Don't be a dick.


FAQ

Comments ¶

What can't I say in a comment?

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.

Hmm, let me see. I call you an asshole. You wish the admins "many hundred more" problems. Let's compare and contrast:

- I use a mild epithet against you

- You wish for an unending stream of problems to be visited on the admins. Were this to become true it would not only be a problem for them but also for everyone here. It would possibly bring about the ruination of this site. Therefore you wish for the possible ruination of this place solely because the admins won't heed the sage advice of the philosopher king.

Yep, clearly my words were more offensive.

Yeah, all that and telling someone not to be a dick or not to be an asshole are not verbal abuse or personal insults.

If we said "You're a dick" or "You're an asshole," that would be. But we said don't be one. Those are suggestions/reminders, not insults and verbal abuse.

Wanna talk about a dick or an asshole, choggies' the first person that comes to mind-
hehhe....JD & the Embittered Vaginas
Way to go Joe-I am in both peril and agreement....

^My vagina is not embittered, thanks to Summer's Eve.

Strong enough for a man.....

^ i'll resist the urge to finish that slogan, complete with anatomical reference humor, and move on.

>> ^choggie:
> Way to go Joe-I am in both peril and agreement...

one of the hallmarks of intellectuals: the ability to simultaneously hold 2 contradictory opinions. usually the result of not lionizing or demonizing, or resorting to artificially polarized hyperbole to make one's point.
perhaps this is something our friend joe could learn more about, from our friend choggie.
this page is hardly the only example i could cite, of the difference.
moving on.

does anyone, except mkone, take a fucking sport so seriously that they can't just search for it under another name? wtf, kone? sorry us yanks went and misnamed a sport, but "handball" was already taken, too, so something had to give. do you feel persecuted by this nomenclatural dilemma?
or, as wild bill once put it:
"wtf is in a name? a rose, by any other name, smells nice, so chill or gtfo."

>> ^mkone:
"Clearly, he is not downvoting based on the quality of video content, but on the tags the submitter added. Based on the VideoSift guidelines, this is unacceptable and represents mkone's second breach within a month."
Now thats bullshit. Ive watched those videos. And since i dont like them i downvote them. Isnt that why there is the downvote option. If i like the video i will upvote.


Then please explain these comments:
1) "Downvote for use of "football" in tags"
2) "Not Football"
3) "Boring oh and downvote coz THIS IS NOT FOOTBALL!!!"
4) "eh, not football. Downvote ftw"
5) " Ahhh, downvote. not football!"
6) "Downvote becouse of the music and ITS NOT FOOTBALL!!!"
7) "So you don't care if i downvote this then "

Oh, yes. Those comments make it SO obvious that you downvote purely on the content of the video.

"does anyone, except mkone, take a fucking sport so seriously that they can't just search for it under another name?"

Apparently arrendek does, because he/she wrote a comment solely to praise mkone's downvote. As for me, though, when someone pointed out that the "The soccer vs American footbal [debate is] Maybe the most unnecessary, pointless, time-wasting debate of the history of mankind," I agreed. Here is what I said there:

"Agreed. Which is why it's shitty to downvote someone's video based on the name/tags including the word "football" without the accompanying "American." Frankly, if you do something like that--or leave comments whose sole purpose is to cheerlead for such douchebaggery--you're just going out of your way to be a dick.

Oh, wait....I meant wanker."

For me, the more important issue has always been about the etiquette of downvoting, not the stupid arguments about whose culture/sports are better.

I call soccer foosball. I call foosball Benny.

From now on I'm downvoting every video that refers to a cookie as a biscuit.

TAKE THAT, YOU FILTHY BRITS!!!11one

by the way, I think JoeDirt is being a total dick, and needs to grow up.

I agree with JoeDirt that people should to cease with the namecalling, that's no way to behave.

Why not just let people downvote whatever they like to downvote? Are the stats really important enough for us to start regulating what people have the right to vote on, regardless if it's because they feel the video is bad because they don't like football or if it's because the video showing football is subpar?
The reason for sifting shouldn't, in my mind, simply be to get as many votes and/or star points as possible. Now, that's an unfair statement in that people in reality most likely sift videos for a plethora of reasons. Even so, I think people should retain the right to downvote without having to submit a much more indepth reason for it other than that they didn't like the video. After all, what kind of message would it send to potential new community members if we had a list of strict restrictions to every feature the site sported. That'd most certainly stifle the participation of alot of innocent bystanders in the fear of messing up.

>> ^Kreegath:
Even so, I think people should retain the right to downvote without having to submit a much more indepth reason for it other than that they didn't like the video.


But that's the thing: mkone has clearly showed us through his comments that he didn't vote based on his liking of the video. He voted just because the title/tags said "football" and the video wasn't about soccer.
That's like downvoting a video about the rise of the porn industry in America just because the tag said "porn" but the video didn't actually show any nudity.

Sigh, is this still going on?

Do we have to justify every downvote?
If you say yes, then do we have to justify every upvote?

Title and tags are a part of the video on videosift. Votes are in fact not only based on the content of the video itself, but the entire post, with title, tags and sometimes comments, as has clearly been seen in numerous threads. Thus, I withhold my damn dag-given right to downvote on any of those merits, be it an misdirecting tag, crude video or idiotic title. Mkone has as much a right to do this as any bronze+. If we are to vote on video alone, then we might as well hide the comments, title and tags, and let prople see the videos one at a time and give a fair vote to each of them following.

Why is no one up in arms about upvoting based solely on tags, or even comments? Give me a break.

I don't know about you guys, but I think that most of the "upvote for the tags" has been a joke, merely meant to compliment the poster on amusing tags.

Oh you sad little hypocrites. When I say I wish a hundred more upon the admins, I do mean it, and it's not really because I'm a dick. It's because there have already been about ten or so of the "call out" stupid threads clogging up the sifttalk. We are 10% the way there. And the only way this problem gets solved is when it gets so squeaky that someone comes along and oils it.

You seriously can't comprehend the irony this little group has exhibited in this thread, personal insults, comment downvoting just because you don't like me. FFS, you downvoted a comment that simply pasted the FAQ. You are behaving in the exact same way that would otherwise end up as a SiftTalk thread calling for that user to be banned.

Ewww.. so and so downvoted this way. Blah blah downvoted music videos. Icky poo click downvote three times in a row on my pony video.

We now have lame people scouring voting histories to try and catch people. You may not realize how stupid and harmful it is, but I do. This new batch of whiners may think they run things, but I know how this plays out. I bring it to the attention of the admins, because I do want this place to be successful and it won't be if they cater the current brand of comment/voting police. Next we will be pointing out trolls and start using the phrase "ad hom".

Trust me, I'm not alone in this thinking. It could be the site has run it's course for some people, but I don't see the same people around anymore and I don't see the same comments.

You seriously are worried about one person causing grievous harm to eight videos entitled "football"?

What I really find hilarious is all of this venom about the phrase "a hundred more". This may be one of the more polite and non-incendiary things I've written and the Embittered Vaginas come out in full force. I must have struck a nerve. Thanks, chogster, my metal band has a new name.

>> ^joedirt:
Trust me, I'm not alone in this thinking. It could be the site has run it's course for some people, but I don't see the same people around anymore and I don't see the same comments.

This is very true. I feel this is not the same site it was just a few months ago.

An open letter to joedirt:

Dear joedirt,

Just as with the one where you "merely quoted the FAQ" (if by merely quoted, you meant bolded words and accused people of namecalling), I have downvoted your above comment because frankly, while yes, people need to stop bitching about everything, you also need to stop acting like a giant, overly smug asshole. Oh shit, did I just call you a name?

>> ^joedirt:
the Embittered Vaginas

Whoops! Looks like those "embittered vaginas" aren't the only "sad little hypocrites." Grow the fuck up, or get the fuck out.

Love,
JAPR

joedirt:

You did strike a nerve, because by wishing for many hundred more problems you're wishing for this site to go under. I said I agreed with most of your points, and I still do. But if you can't see why people would find your remark offensive then you need to get a clue. In the mean time why don't you just leave, because if you wish for this site's demise then I can't see why you even come here anymore.

How telling. The Embittered Vaginas go from name calling to "GTFO!"

Just because people have trouble reading, I don't wish for the site's demise. Unlike people who launch into personal attacks and like to downvote comments, while at the same time dedicating whole threads to witchhunts to ban users because of how they voted (oh irony)... I want to make this a better place. I have never said my way is better, I just give my opinion and I'm not usually that far off. So, yes, Virginia I'm sure there will be more sifttalk call-out threads asking for banning users based on this-or-that. (maybe even a hundred more).

And I do hope you folks get busy making more. Maybe it is comment downvoting. Maybe some douche is out there downvoting all comments because they were posted by "X". Maybe there is someone that downvotes all 80's electronica. Or maybe someone downvotes Stephen Colbert! We must find them all. And we must launch a siftquisition to stop them. It's just not fair that someone changed your tag. (You also might want to re-analyze just who it is that is trying to damage this site).

You're still rude as hell, but that was a relatively nicer post. Yes, the bitching needs to stop. You know what else would be nice? If we could all just be nice to each other. This includes you. You're one of the few members that I seem to only ever see ripping on people. Chill, man. It's okay to point out what you think should be done and how things could be improved, but you should take a few moments to put it in a way that doesn't make you come off as a total asshat.

^Word, JAPR.

Since you've adopted a slightly less abrasive tone, joedirt (hey, it may not be much, but I'll take it), I'll tell you where I agree with you, but first I'll address the mkone situtation.

Mkone downvotes all American football apparently because he hates American football. I find his behavior juvenile, but not in conflict with the rules. It would be no different then someone downvoting every video by Avril Lavigne simple because they hate every word sung by Avril Lavigne. Back when Ron Paul constantly cluttered the Top 15 I didn't downvote the videos, though I was sorely tempted to because I don't like Ron Paul. I knew I couldn't be an objective judge of their quality, so I simply passed on even viewing them. However, had I downvoted them I would not have been breaking the rules. I could justify all my downvotes by simply saying "I don't believe in what Ron Paul stands for, so regardless of what this video presents I can't approve of his advertisments or speeches." Who could have called me out for that? I wish mkone would simply avoid all American football videos, but it's really not my place to say. So be it. So if we're the jury on mkone then I cast my vote to acquit.

I mostly agree with you, joedirt, in that these behavior call out threads need to be drastically reduced. I won't ask for their complete elimination, because there will be times that someone's behavior will definitely cross the line, so we should still reserve the right as a community to address these issues in a public forum. You might not like that and may call these things "witch hunts", but I still prefer an open, public forum over a star chamber that dispenses "justice" behind closed doors. From what I gather you don't like either, but I can't determine what else we could have done in the quantumushroom situation. He downvoted videos in rapid succession solely as retribution. As you said: "[T]his site at the very core and essence consists of watching videos and voting for videos." If we all did what QM did then it would no longer be about watching and voting for videos, but one pissing contest after another. His behavior, if duplicated by enough users, would have ruined this site. Therefore it had to be addressed. So even if we had removed QM's ability to downvote, i.e., taking away his downvote "tool", I'd still prefer that it be done publicly, that way transparency is maintained. Now maybe you're suggesting that ALL downvoting be removed. To that I can only say that we shouldn't punish the vast majority for the sins of the tiny minority.

To summarize, there should be far fewer posts like this, but I can't in good conscience ask for their complete elimination. Granted, it's an imperfect system, and maybe someone will come up with something better eventually. I'm open to change, so I'd love to hear some suggestions. In the mean time I hope there will be less posts like this.

PS:

Did it kill you NOT to be quite as rude?

>> ^CaptWillard:
Mkone downvotes all American football apparently because he hates American football. I find his behavior juvenile, but not in conflict with the rules. It would be no different then someone downvoting every video by Avril Lavigne simple because they hate every word sung by Avril Lavigne. Back when Ron Paul constantly cluttered the Top 15 I didn't downvote the videos, though I was sorely tempted to because I don't like Ron Paul.


Would it still be OK if this "someone" even voted down *dead Avril Lavigne videos? Would you vote down a *dead Ron Paul video if you had decided to vote down all of his videos?

^Mkone gave his excuse for the video that you are referring to, which I quoted below. I'll grant you that it's a pretty weak excuse, but also impossible to disprove. I understand where you're coming from, nibiyabi, but I really don't think there's a good case against mkone, IMHO. I know that's not what you want to hear. Sorry.

>> ^mkone:
"http://www.videosift.com/video/Dog-Bites-Auburn-Football-Player (he also declared this particular video dead as he downvoted it, clearly showing that he could not have voted based on the video content)"
I remember this. The video didnt work at the time i voted it and called it dead. Which it clearly isnt. I have seen it on other video sites. Break and Spikedhumor and it got downvoted here too