The truth comes from the swamp. Why not give choggie a new chance by not banning his new accounts?

*promote

Promoting this Poll post - promote requested by rasch187.

Lets not forget in the end, he did outright ask to be banned, he was taunting admin for a long time. Chill Winstons! I agree that you should see how he goes with a new account though, seems fair to me

New account? Well that's a little silly... No, we all know him as Choggie. Forgive Choggie! We all call him that, and any new account name..we'd still be calling him Choggie.


Yeah he was an idiot to self destruct like that. I told him so. So what? No one here can forgive?

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

I certainly didn't make fun of him. I mentioned that I liked Jambalaya - which is true. I promote cooking videos - ask Issykitty.

Also, as AC mentions, choggie's banning was of his own doing.

Lastly, and please don't take this the wrong way, since when do we need permission to post videos from YouTube? If people don't want things posted, they can disable sharing.

None taken.. I'm sure Choggie is happy to have it posted. That wasn't my point Dag.

I see that you all have created an elaborate punishment system now for offending members.

Can't you now test and see if any rehabilitation has happened? Maybe some old friends can return again Dag?

People shouldn't be allowed back on account of being popular. They either deserved to be banned or they didn't, but it should be the same for everyone.

But come on.. You guys didn't post it because of it's cooking value.. It was Choggie! That's why you posted it. please.

Camp, we've established he deserved to be banned.. But why can't members be forgiven and reinstated?

Is it worth a try? Some of us think so!

I'm all for second chances, believe me. But you don't want to give him one, because you have reason to believe that he has changed, but rather because you like him. That's not fair to all the other people who have been banned.

Dag and Lucky,

If you are going to have a poll for Siftquisitions,then after a banning term of some determined time as passed. Then give a poll for parole if the member wants back?

Fair enough?

Let the bannished member return and make a case for himself and an apology.

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

Our goal wasn't to "punish" Choggie - he was kicked out of VideoSift because he wasn't following the rules and he was hurting the members of the community. (of all people, Swampy you should know what that means)

I have no ill will to Choggie - I recognise that he's part of Sift history. I'm afraid he's also got some serious anti-social issues that may make him unable to be a part of the community.

Having said that ... raise a poll if you feel very seriously about this - we can get an idea of how the community feels about it. I'm afraid I would vote "no" though - mainly because I've experienced the admin headache, dis-harmony and anger that Choggie caused.

A clear system for in and out of this place. Not quite the personal social loving atmosphere we worked so hard for here. Love that cut and dry approach you've got there Camp.

Why do we have to have this "bit the apple" can't go back attitude? If we can't recapture the innocence and fun carefree community we had 3 years ago.. we can definitely strive to embrace the spirit of it. When did we become so pessimistic?

I don't see why he should be revived, his account was banned because he broke the rules/asked for it and that's it. If he wants to set up a new account, as I understand he has done, then let him use the site without being a twit. *That* is his route back into the Sift.

The new siftquisition process gives me pause for concern but then I've never had the hassle of running a popular website and trying to keep order. I guess we will see how it plays out.

What they said.

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

SG, how many bourbons have you had? (just asking)

I understand you Dag. I've experienced the Choggie dark side, and I forgave him for it. I'm a forgiving person though, and it's always served me well. It's your site though. You do what you want.

But take it from one of your oldest members.. a friend of yours here. The Choggie sift just tripped it for me. I've been dreading speaking my mind about the site now for a while.

Don't get me wrong. I love this place. I care about the people I've known over the last 3 years. This site has been best thing online for 3 years.

But this community has been changing in a way that's sad. You guys keep up with daily siftquisitions, and you're going to have to consider this experiment has run it's course.

Is that video actually supposed to be Choggie? I clicked through and the YT submitter is ChoggieKendall, whoever that is. If it is him then I can see why its submission by an admin might rankle.

>> ^dag:
SG, how many bourbons have you had? (just asking)


None

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

There's hardly been daily Siftquisitions - there's been a total of 1 since the new system was brought in.

We are growing though it's true. Lucky and I have reached our breaking point as admins in dealing with the kind of egregious selfish ego-centric community damage that people like Choggie and Bill'O inflict.

Our natural response is to rely on the community to help and run the site. That's been the way we've tried to model the Sift from the beginning.

Put the power to run the site in the hands of Sifters and distribute the power to as many points as possible.

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

It seems to me that you would like to cast this in the light of "admins against Choggie". This is not the case. We didn't punish Choggie - everything that happened to Choggie on VideoSift has been self-inflicted.

Choggie has never even asked to come back - or communicated any kind of regret for his actions. (although I admit I have blocked his emails because he was sending ranting hate letters laced with choice swear words and insults to myself and my wife)

So ... yeah, anyway- you can cast me as the bad ol' admin if you want - but this is not my battle.

Swampgirl, I love you for posting this and the sift does need people like you here, I haven't been around much recently but I'm glad to see you're still a regular.

I always liked choggie, we got along. He and Fedquip got into it a few times including when I first joined but although he was always high maintenance for the admins I'd guess he always recognized the line when told it was there. Something changed though, he went from being a hell raiser who asked questions and challenged people to just angry, I wasn't here when he got banned and I'm glad I missed it since I kind of liked him but from browsing sift talk after it looked like he was given one chance after another and pretty much dared them to do it.

If he asked to have his account reinstated and showed or at least claimed that whatever was going on in his life at the time was over then I'd think we should consider it. But without him even asking and with no sign that he'd be any less angry than the day he left? I don't know about that one. I really don't care between him getting his old account or starting a new one, all I'd want to know is will he contribute to the sift or to the tension? He'd have to answer that one.

we should have something like reverse siftquisition, where we take the stray sheep back in to the flock after they repent for whatever sins... I want him back. anyone else?

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

Just post a poll.

I know I'm not exactly a Sift veteran, and from what I've seen reading up on old discussions (which, believe me, I've been doing a lot) I'd certainly agree that it was WAY easier to tolerate choggie a couple years back, but to be honest, for me?- he was never, not once, "entertaining" or "thought provoking" (and I did usually read his rants... up to a point; probably until I realized I'd read all of his common "talking points" over again for the third time). Frankly, I'm at a loss as to why he'd have this many 'supporters' (which is why I decided to voice my more 'mainstream' opinion, I guess). For me, he was usually a nuisance, at times a pure troll.

Plus, as far as I'm concerned, flaming an admin's e-mail with hate mail ought to result in a permban, end of story. Dag being the über-nice guy he is shouldn't give anyone the right to be an obnoxious jerk and get away with it.

On what other site would getting banned get reversed after a set amount of time because you might have changed. Your internet "friends" acted in a way that was destructive to other people using this site. The End. Game Over.

This is a site about posting videos, it's not a fucking summer camp where the counselors should help us resolve our naughty behavior.

Why people still bring him up as some kind of redneck lord and savior to internet ranting is beyond me. Grow the fuck up. You don't own this site, Dag and Lucky do. The community all pretty much agreed he was a pain in the ass. Also I seriously doubt you would want him back after he downvoted YOUR entire video queue like he did to me and a few other vocal members.

If you really want to continue the conversation of what the fuck ever with him, then PM him on youtube and ask where he trolls now so you can be a member of THAT community.

Communities change, new people show up, and old people leave. Such is life on the internet. It's just for some reason when they leave this one they want to make a big scene.

calm down kommie, swampgirl's allowed to voice her opinion.

>> ^deputydog:
calm down kommie, swampgirl's allowed to voice her opinion.


And so am I. How am I not calm, my comment had commas and everything!

In addition to the fine points above, Choggie's created more than one account since his banning, and he's fairly consistently continued to be an ass with all of them.

It really is a bit strange to post videos of ex members who left on not so endearing terms. If he can abstain from downvote sprees he should come back, if he wants to.

His account is banned. There is a reason it was banned, it must not be unbanned.

If he wants to start over fresh with a new user, he should be allowed to, as long as he follows the rules and guidelines that make up the site.

His child-like attitude does not deserve any position of power.

>> ^K0MMIE:
This is a site about posting videos, it's not a fucking summer camp where the counselors should help us resolve our naughty behavior.

I couldn't have put it better myself, K0MMIE. You are absolutely right - this place is first and foremost about posting and watching excellent videos. And there are very few sifters I can name that posted more outstanding videos than choggie. That the two of you had a personal grievance with each other should not be any of our concern. Neither dag nor Lucky are camp counselors ready to make you feel better when somebody punched you. What they can do is give you medical attention when needed (e.g., deleting abusive downvotes). But I don't really care if you had a personal problem with him. Or if anyone else did. He (and any number of others) pissed me off directly and personally at times, but I did not ask you or anyone else to intervene. Because, like you said, this isn't summer camp.

I know that I rub a lot of folks the wrong way. I'm arrogant, occasionally loud-mouthed, and even self-righteous at times. But I've played by the rules, even while trying to change them or at least ensure they are applied consistently. So what makes me different? I haven't contributed nearly as many quality videos as choggie. Why is my presence tolerated when his is not? I'm sure I've poked some folks in the eye just as nastily as he has, only, like the naughty school kid that doesn't get caught, I've done it in a way that doesn't violate certain rules. Is that really the distinction we want to make? And is it a distinction that has ever been consistent at VideoSift?

As much I rail against the arbitrariness of VideoSift justice, I'm not so blind that I can't see the reason for it. We're all human and react differently from day to day. What I'm asking everyone to do is to take a step back, detach yourself from the personal emotions you have invested here, and consider swampgirl's proposal from a neutral position, if not from her own POV.

Dag - I can't imagine having the weight of this community on your shoulders. I understand your desire to spread that power out to as many points as possible. But you have to remember - you created this, and it is your responsibility so long as you want it to be your site. I don't think swampgirl is trying to frame this as dag v. choggie. I believe she is asking you to use that demonstrable wisdom in setting yet another new precedent (which we seem to do on a weekly basis). I am somewhat disturbed by the revelation of direct personal emails in which he not only insulted you, but persephone as well. That crosses a line for me that is hard to forgive. So I understand your position. But again, that doesn't really have anything to do with the site itself. It's a personal issue between you and him.

There is an argument to be made about whether or not he is capable of acting with any responsibility in this kind of community. Are the contributions he makes worth the disruption he causes? My only answer to that is to look at the sift as a whole. There are a lot of members who contribute far less than he ever did, but occasionally cause just as much grief. Again the only difference is the violation of a particular arbitrary rule and how such violations are being handled that month.

It's also worth pointing out that the grief he caused was often in the purpose of trying to open others' minds. Getting smacked with a bamboo staff is sometimes necessary, however unpleasant. The problem with choggie is that when the recipient of such a smack doesn't get it, he just keeps hitting them harder. Admittedly, it's not terribly effective.

Ultimately, I think his contributions far outweigh his disruptions. AFAIK, he has never done any irreparable harm to the site (though he may have caused some to certain users). His contributions, on the other hand, are irreplaceable.

Dag come on... I am not going to painstakingly backtrack the sifttalk posts. You are kidding yourself if you haven't noticed the rise in bannings.

I'm getting this wounded vibe here. Don't do that. If Choggie has taken it further than just what he did here, then you have your reasons. If he's been so horrible to you guys personally, then why post and comment his on his video content like he's a long lost friend?

I created this post as a counter thought to all the bannhammering parties to-be and to rethink the ones in the past.

There should be a way for banned members to come back on "parole" to redeem themselves. Choggie is the perfect example here.

Now I'm sticking my neck out for him and any other asshat that's self immolated in the name of art, and if they screw it up. I'd be the first to kick their butts out but good.

I just like the idea of giving people who want it a second chance.

"Bad ol' admin" .... Dag damnit! I have never once thought of you and Lucky that way. I'm just disagreeing with you, that's all.

Choggie aside, this "just a poll" comment isn't very helpful either.

Can't we rethink some ideas here? We used only have to only ban self-linkers, now how many contributing sifters have self destructed? This is a bad symptom.



(Choggie was more than his ad homs. He posted some of the best sifts here imo. I was furious with him when he did what he did last year. I'd like to see him redeem himself)

>> ^doogle:
I am very reluctant to weigh in here,
had I not had the support and understanding of the admins here on VideoSift, I would have left VideoSift because of Choggie.
I avoid him here, and have always chosen not to partake in discussions.
Those who know me here would know it's not something I like to do. And I don't like it. And the sentiment is common with others as well.
Choggie may be the village idiot beloved by experienced site-goers (those posting here and all those reading this), but as you guys don't know how he harassed me (with private profile messages, downvoted all my videos, got someone else to as well, and threatened further repurcussions), I worry we can't know the extent of his damage to others, and possibility of continued damage.
He damages the Sift.
It's intolerable and inexcusable.
He knew it before, and he knew it then, yet he continued and even after permanent banning continued to continue.
He had his chances. And then some.

Personally, if I don't like someone I don't engage them, at all. If someone engages a person who pisses them off, that is their responsibility. Dag doesn't need to put up with personal attacks, and I doubt he takes them seriously.
Speaking in kindergarten terms here, it is a whole other matter entirely when the schoolyard bully is in someone's face and demanding that they hit first, or else he/she will keep pestering everyone in the schoolyard beyond ignorable behavior. That's when the first available person who is capable should physically remove the bully. He jumps the fence during recess and keeps harrasing? Remove him again. When the school suspension (in metaphorical terms here, his two week ban) is over, no one in the real world would hesitate to kick him out again if he starts up again.
But then what if said bully then spends every day outside the fence watching and making comments to anyone who will listen? Were I a school counselor, I would have to ask myself "Does he have nothing better to do and just likes causing a raucus, or is he genuinely wanting back into school to continue his invested time & efforts?".
At such a point I would think that the question would really be whether any person with authority would be willing to take on the "project" of having him back, being as that person would ultimately be dealing with any messes created in the process.
I have made a point of letting "choggie" know that I like him, I believe he is an essentially good person...but that like it or not, every interaction in this world is political and people have a threshold of tolerance that is up to them. It is not a person's god-given right to be however they want to be and expect unconditional acceptance.
If he has crossed Dag or Lucky's threshold of tolerance, then that's that. Just because a couple of us in the schoolyard miss and like him doesn't give us the right to demand that the principal must willingly take on the burden.

>> ^campionidelmondo:
I'm all for second chances, believe me. But you don't want to give him one, because you have reason to believe that he has changed, but rather because you like him. That's not fair to all the other people who have been banned.


On the contrary, I want parole across the board. Second chances for all.

You are right though, in spite of headaches he's given some of us, I like Choggie. Other than personal attacks (which is wrong Choggie if you read this) he was the most talented personality on this site.

Hah, there's a lot of foot stamping going on here. Seems to me that people have their own thoughts on what should and shouldn't happen to Choggie so why put it all on one person when this is after all a community. We can't have it both ways.

So yeah I think the best idea is a poll and then it's all out there as a democracy and we can stop going back and forth over and over, all the while pointing fingers and getting personal.

Should we also un-ban the spammers so they can have another chance to be a viable member of the community? What do you think they would do with that opportunity. For someone who just went on a destructive spree, what would they do with a second chance?

This idea is just going to cause a bunch of headaches that will not bring any worth to this community/site.

Let's not forget that most people got several warnings before being outright banned. (Except for the dirty spammers.)

Well maybe I've said enough then. For the record I'm not attacking you guys.

I do disagree with Admins posting banned member's material and having fun with an ex-member that supposed to have been "hurting the sift". That is hypocritical.

And yes, I used it as a platform for allowing banned members such as Choggie to redeem themselves.

If you do post a poll, be sure to make the options Yes, No and HELL NO.

I'm not saying he wasn't, because I probably just don't know, but I'm curious - how & why do you consider him talented?

>> ^swampgirl:
Other than personal attacks (which is wrong Choggie if you read this) he was the most talented personality on this site.

>> ^K0MMIE:
Should we also un-ban the spammers so they can have another chance to be a viable member of the community? What do you think they would do with that opportunity. For someone who just went on a destructive spree, what would they do with a second chance?
This idea is just going to cause a bunch of headaches that will not bring any worth to this community/site.
Let's not forget that most people got several warnings before being outright banned. (Except for the dirty spammers.)


Let's ask Videosiftbannedme? The dirty selflinker turned out alright didn't he?

Why would he come back? He blew up because he didn't like where the community was going and it was beyond his control. To be a bit hyperbolic, he felt like he had lost something he loved. But rules are rules and they're ok to break as long as you're keeping the "spirit" of their intent. Unless this site changes the way he wants it to, getting choggie reinstated is just going to bring back an angry soul.

I say if he really wants to come back he creates another username, posts a sifttalk looking for forgiveness for breaking the rules. If he really wants to succeed, he should apologize to those he's pissed off, too.

You don't need to coddle him anymore, SG, your baby boy is a grown man who can handle things on his own.

Honestly, I don't think this should be left up to members. Inmates running the asylum only appeals to the inmates and the warden who can't maintain control.

>> ^rottenseed:

You don't need to coddle him anymore, SG, your baby boy is a grown man who can handle things on his own.


I love it when you call me Mommy.

For the record, the reason I posted his video is not because I was making fun of or exploiting him. I wasn't skulking around the YouTubes looking for some way to make fun of choggie. He sent a mass email informing me and many others, including sifters, about his video. I watched it and chuckled, and since most regular users still remember him, thought everyone else would enjoy it, so I posted it like I'm sure choggie was hoping someone would.

If the community wants him back, they can say so with a poll. The reason for the new poll and siftquisition features is expressly so that decisions about the site and other members can be in all your hands. We will try to always abide by the results of polls, but we don't want to be the dictators that ban or un-ban people at will. No more of this "You made a bad decision, asshole admin. You're ruining the site!" From now on it's just "All of you made a bad decision, community."

In short, it's not our job to decide if choggie "deserves" a second chance. That's the community's decision because it's primarily all of you who have to deal with him. And if he returns and misbehaves again, it'll be your decision again to decide if he should be banned again. And then the cycle begins again.

That's the most reasonable statement I've heard yet. Thanks Lucky. Fair enough.

If a person does have a poll made for him/her, could the accused have their account temp opened so they make make a statement/apology?

I think it's heart warming how you make the case for a fellow (ex-) sifter, believing in his good qualities, swampgirl. However, I don't think you should bet it all on Choggie actually sincerely apologizing to people. I mean I hope he does and everybody hugs and what not, but what are the chances of that actually happening? Has he made any attempt to agologize for what he did?

Just a couple of points.

For the last time, it IS Choggie in the video.

Two: " . . . he was the most talented personality on this site."

Agreed.

Ok, admins say it's up to us. Who's gonna start the poll? If we do this, I assert that the poll should be open for a week or so...not everyone logs in and checks siftalk within the same 24 hours.
and I agree w/ swampy...if we are polling about someone, they should be able to voice how they feel about that.

[raises hand]

I was making fun of him.

WHat about Sift castration? (sorry, can't think of a better term) Choggie comes back as Choggie but his comments are limited to 200 characters and he can't do anything else.

*ban

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

*spank

While thinking about the new siftquisition system, I thought it might be a good idea to have something in between suspension and ban. Maybe "demote", whereby the accused are simply stripped of their stars and/or otherwise handicapped?

BillO wouldn't have been a threat to anyone if he was reduced to a probie. No discard, no downvote... he'd have to become productive again first before he was able to be disruptive.

And since we normally work our way up to a ban with at least 1 suspension beforehand, why not require a suspension before banning even becomes an option? First SQ results in a suspension, second in a demotion, third in a ban, rather than letting the jury select the punishment? Again, I'm concerned with mob-mentality in the new system. Feels like it's only a matter of time before an unpopular user is banned for a minor offense out of spite.

As for choggie, I don't miss him. I never saw any value in his incoherent talented comments. No matter the topic, his comment boiled down to claiming that his eyes were opened and the rest of us were blind, usually by way of some childish masturbation metaphor.

Most of his videos seemed to be dredged rather than sifted.

Then he became an asshole to boot. I wouldn't stop him from returning, but I'm not anxious for it either.

When you cure someone of cancer, is it sane to wish the cancer back?

I agree with Swampy that these bawwww babies have taken over the asylum.

In Dag's defense, the Choggie thing was his own doing. He was bitching and upset about getting a new channel and threw a temper tantrum and wouldn't rest until he did enough damage to get banned. It was the case of suicide by admin. So if someone is going to try and destroy content, then too bad for them.

^blankfist you are the biggest example of cancer and yeah it takes on to know one.

^It "takes on to know one"? Is that a new phrase from your new book: "A Narcissist's Guide to Dirtbaglish"?

By the way, running a site and moderation by poll is an awful idea and will eventually lead to mass exodus.

I'm sorry you don't realize this.

You will turn the site into warring factions and popularity contests and anything unpopular will be exterminated. Also it encourages cliques and groupthink.

Siftquistions are supposed to be a rare exception or when it isn't clear what to do. You are absolving yourselves of taking actions when it is clear and making public and popular the idea of public floggings. Just by having a poll you give people the notion that they are in control and get to decide what happens. It will spill over into all sorts of behaviors, like complaining about someone that downvotes three of your videos, etc. Or banning people over offensive comments, or even bullying people to see if they will get banned.

The only way to stop the behavior like BillO is to take appropriate action and shield the community from such behavior. Instead you are rewarding such behavior with more attention and more publicity. You obviously do not understand the concept of trolls or internet tough guys. You have empowered all the drama llamas and that will be a longterm mistake.

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

^thanks for being the harbinger of doom, but I disagree. For some reason, the less sure someone is of their opinions, the more likely I am to seriously consider them.

>> ^swampgirl:
That's the most reasonable statement I've heard yet. Thanks Lucky. Fair enough.
If a person does have a poll made for him/her, could the accused have their account temp opened so they make make a statement/apology?


Swampy, I agree 100% with your statements. But as much as I can claim to understand Choggie, I'm afraid this concept of rehabilitation is irrelevant. Choggie made up his mind that Dag was somewhatever bad guy in his scattered thoughts and it was all over. I doubt he would want to have his account reinstated, because at the very least he sticks to his principles. He got all butthurt over a new Choggie-brand channel (which was a bad idea anyways) and made up all this bullshit in his brain about Dag, so I doubt that just melts away.. But maybe some mushrooms have damaged those memories.

I'm really quite fascinated by how strongly you feel about this swampgirl... really. Videosift, for me, is a place to come and watch good videos, but moreso, is a place to have interesting discussions about said videos. On places like YouTube this is impossible due to the high ratio of complete dicks there.

On Videosift you can't be abusive and hate filled towards each other (at least not too often), and so conversation remains pretty civil. I like that, I want it to remain like that, and really the best way to do that is to ban people who go against this.

The people who are banned are generally not banned JUST for saying bad things anyway, you tend to get temp bans for that if you keep doing it and a "Don't do that again please" approach here, which is great. People like Choggie and BillO get banned because they go too far and start abusing their star powers and hurting other people's experience of the site by arbitrarily voting down or discarding videos/posts.

After watching Choggie's cooking video I went to the youtube account and watched a few more of his videos and realised he is the sort of person I would never want to have anything at all to do with in real life and feel pity for... why? Because he really seems to be the sort of person who feels like he doesn't have the power, wealth or respect he thinks he deserves and so has to show other ways that he is 'better' than other people.

That, and I don't trust anyone who wears camo gear on a regular basis who isn't actually in the armed forces at the time of wearing it.

As others have said, if he wanted to rejoin there's nothing stopping him creating a new account, starting from scratch and playing nicely. I really don't see what possible point there is in letting banned users get their accounts back, they did pretty damn stupid things to get banned, if they want back in that badly they can start again, that's the price you pay for being an enormous dick to people.

Well I won't speak for Choggie, JD. Let ones in his position come speak for themselves. What would he do given the chance? Well we'd just have to see.

Of course dealing with problem members is necessary, but the fallout from these Siftquition pile ons hurts the Sift too.

Give the banned member a parole hearing after a few months banning. (if they ask) The idea of a member redeeming themselves one day takes some of the sourness out of banning these knuckleheads.

Spoco, I guess I just want the old days back. :::waxing nostalgic:::

>> ^swampgirl:
Let's ask Videosiftbannedme? The dirty selflinker turned out alright didn't he?


I don't if I turned out "alright" per se. The jury is still out on that one.

As for the topic, no, I don't agree with "un-banning" him, even if agreed on via a poll. While true I got banned for being ignorant and not reading the rules regarding self-linking, my ban was due to my own mistake. I didn't repeatedly tell the admin to fuck off, throw a hissy fit because I couldn't have another channel, and basically piss off half the Sift with my rambunctiousness. I understand your position and how you feel about it being hypocritical, SG. But by posting Choggie's videos (and even making fun of them, if an admin did so), they aren't being hypocritical. Being hypocritical would be doing exactly what you postulated earlier: "un-banning" Choggie. (I know you've since changed your position, of which I now support). If Choggie wants to be part of the community again, then let him prove his worth by creating a new account, and following the rules like the rest of the boys and girls here. (No condescension inferred; I just like using different verbiage).

If Choggie wants to post his new fangled Cajun-cookin' show on YouTube, then you have to expect someone from here to post it...admins included.

And hey, if we are on the path to un-ban-ination, can I get my old account reinstated? j/k

(Oh, and I love it when you talk dirty, Swampy. "Dirty self-linker" I'll be playing with my Joydick tonight with that one... )

*update: Actually, strike my comment regarding "even if agreed to via a poll." This is a democracy after all. If the majority wins, then so be it. But I think he should have some sort of account restriction forcing the use of good grammar and punctuation.

I agree with you on a parole board. I also have no doubt Lucky or Dag would post a SiftTalk to vote on whether to unban someone if they ever tried to contact to ask for forgiveness and lesson learned, etc.

But I don't think Choggie would ever request it and it makes no sense to unban someone if they don't ask for it.

I also think someone like BillO might say they are sorry and get unbanned and then abuse powers again. Unbanned members should stay as probies with only the ability to comment, post and * their own videos.

I also think Siftquisitions should add an option to take away star powers. Maybe that should be the "warning"

>> ^videosiftbannedme:
Being hypocritical would be doing exactly what you postulated earlier: "un-banning" Choggie. (I know you've since changed your position, of which I now support). If Choggie wants to be part of the community again, then let him prove his worth by creating a new account,


I totally disagree with anyone that says it's alright to create a new account. It should be clear that if you are banned, you are banned even your sock accounts. No one should have two accounts. It should never be encouraged or even suggested. There should be zero tolerance for people that get one sock acct banned but keep their main account.

There were good and bad Choggie times, Swampgirl knows that better than anybody. Towards the end there I couldn't abide by many of Chog's actions. JD is right, it was a tantrum and a Sifticide (although the videodrome channel would have been cool).

Genie's out of the bottle now folks. Dag and Lucky have spent years keeping this place nice for us, being the ultimate stewards of community by determining what "hurts the Sift". Daddy's gone away, now. We can do anything we want. Even resurrect one terror of an account. I'll vote on that!

Good thing Mom's around.

I disagree. WE MUST FIGHT!

>> ^joedirt:
By the way, running a site and moderation by poll is an awful idea and will eventually lead to mass exodus.
I'm sorry you don't realize this.
You will turn the site into warring factions and popularity contests and anything unpopular will be exterminated. Also it encourages cliques and groupthink.
Siftquistions are supposed to be a rare exception or when it isn't clear what to do. You are absolving yourselves of taking actions when it is clear and making public and popular the idea of public floggings. Just by having a poll you give people the notion that they are in control and get to decide what happens. It will spill over into all sorts of behaviors, like complaining about someone that downvotes three of your videos, etc. Or banning people over offensive comments, or even bullying people to see if they will get banned.
The only way to stop the behavior like BillO is to take appropriate action and shield the community from such behavior. Instead you are rewarding such behavior with more attention and more publicity. You obviously do not understand the concept of trolls or internet tough guys. You have empowered all the drama llamas and that will be a longterm mistake.

I prefer the Macintosh operating system over Windows.

I think the douchebag levels in this thread is exceeding the standard safety limits.

With the rise in new members, comes a natural rise in siftquisitions. Some people may be too limited to realize this, but that's what the grown-ups are here for.

I can certainly sympathize with swampgirl's position, but again, he was banned for a reason. He was continually pestering the admins and fucking up the sift. If he were to be accepted back, it should be as a new member - a new account. I have no problems with that. His ranks stricken and his powers removed. He can start over like videosiftbannedme.

It would be a very poor decision to let him back in again on the choggie account.

>> ^videosiftbannedme:
This is a democracy after all. If the majority wins, then so be it.


It is not a democracy, never was. This is a dictatorship, with the illusion of a democracy. We can vote, but if dag or lucky ultimately say, "nah, we're not gonna go with that" then that is that. And I do hope that this account is not activated again in spite of what any poll says. We have been given the privileges of democratic votes and siftquisitions, but they are not unlimited. We could never ban dag, for instance, if some of the crazies thought of that.

I can appreciate choggs eclectic and unique vid posts and even some of his better articulated comments. But I wouldn't want him back here more for the endless stream of harassing personal profile messages he inundated me with and his general douchebaggery towards others on VS and pissing on the spirit of this place. The man has no tact nor class in my opinion. He asked for the ban, he got the ban. goodbye and good ridance. hopefully he'll use his vast knowledge and insight to grow from the experience.

I'm Lenny, this is Carl and Homer. I'm Lenny.

>> ^joedirt:
I totally disagree with anyone that says it's alright to create a new account. It should be clear that if you are banned, you are banned even your sock accounts. No one should have two accounts. It should never be encouraged or even suggested. There should be zero tolerance for people that get one sock acct banned but keep their main account.


Oh come on. How in the hell do you ever propose enforcing people never opening another account? Utter madness.

Someone gets banned, they can start a new account from scratch, newbies have bugger all abilities, so to get their power back they have to play nicely... therefore, no problems.

If they somehow make a pest of themselves again via opening a gazillion accounts or so then you can get into IP banning or the like, but come on, suggesting that people may never open an account again is ridiculous.

People having 'sock' accounts which they use to vote their other account up is another story entirely and should get both accounts banned if it's proved to be occurring... but opening one account after you forget your old account, want to start afresh with a new name, are banned etc. should not be a problem for anyone.

Swampgirl, I think you're a good person for sticking up for choggie being teased when he's not permitted to respond.

However, if you think that didn't invigorate him, and likely make him tumescent with joy, I'm not sure how well you really knew him.

As for bringing him back, well, that would just give us another chance to ban him, democratic-like this time.

I'm not sure why we should bother, there's plenty of senseless drama to be found elsewhere.

WOO Internets politics.

i don't think people should be band unless thay are totally braking a site but in the end ud get Bord of braking a website Anny way. in some respects its nice to know that you could brake a website and not get band because u know if u broke it it wud just be piotnless because anny one could brake it and you wont get anything from it so u wouldn't brake it Anny way.

i haven't had problems with anyone on this website relay i mean i don't really care about self linking ore people getting crappy stuff up ore whatever.
but then im not paying for hosting ore making money ( although i don't know how profitable this site is if at all ) so i guess its for whoever put the site up to decide but then again thay might want the community to decide.

Maby best thing to do would be for everyone to face roll there keyboard and see what happens ?


swampgirl smells of SWAMP !!!!!!!!

Hypocrites... the whole lot of ya! ALL OF US !! EVAN ME how am i a hypocrite (like when using napalm you have to be carfull because you can esealy torch innocent savilaoins.


volumptuous (i know what you were doing but i shall rebut you just to show you who is boss:P )

fine you may like macks over windows but i submit to you that a experienced windows user can achive Manny more goals faster than a mac user. and for me speed and the more numerous software on windows trumps the arguable benefits of the design of a mac. i have used and loved macs in the past and i think for a specific group of people and specific tasks thay are really good but as an all round system i think windows xp is better for me and people that use a computer for everything ,

although now in my opinoin apple wins out with specific devices i find like say the I phone ore a laptop. and i definatly think you would more likely want to rest your penis on an apple (ore you vaginafoo) than you would a average PC, its like if you went to a avrage brothel you might find like the hottest girl ever but thats rare at least with a mack its like a garentied play boy (play girl) exsperance.

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

Well said Westy, Well said.


(except for the Windows boosterism)

This thread makes me feel like crap now. What is it day three?

Before we're done with this conversation though I'd like to say a few things.

Dag and Lucky I called you hypocrites. Thanks for not taking that statement serious enough to get pissed w/ me. I used a good hook to get your attention to rethink Choggie's position since you still have a smidgen of affection for him. (You must since you enjoyed his cooking vid) You have your reasons and the community seems to have a majority on it.

But still, repentant members should be able to return provisionally....however that works out. If you've turned it over to the community then we should be able to review a member later for parole.

I've been logging on about twice a week now for the past couple of months regularly. There IS either a siftquisiton going on, or some guys are fighting about to need one. It's gotten to the point to where you've washed your hands of it.

Just don't completely back out of it and hand too much over to the masses. The dominant personalities will take us in a negative direction without wiser heads keeping us on vision.

Ad homs.. yeah Choggie was king of them. But there are many many lesser tree markers around here that get a free pass just because they kiss just enough rear to get by. Don't they "hurt the sift" with their daily passive aggressive dive-bys?

Someone give me a week's vacation and God powers on this site, I LOVE to take some of you (Blankfist you listening) to the barn and give you attitude adjustments

Anyone know how to make a poll? I don't or I would have whipped it up already.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Choggie, if you read this. I tried. I still get mad at you sometimes that you pissed away your place here damnit. If you want to come back, then you need your hat in your hand my friend.
For my standing up for you, I'd appreciate a letter I can post either way. If you don't want to come back, then fine. I'll ask for a poll to go along w/ your letter.

This will create the precedent for parol board for banned members that some of us have asked for.
---------------------------------------------------------------------

Enough drama right?

Westy, thanks for spelling my name right.

I have to say that Choggie's videos are perhaps the ones I've enjoyed most on the whole sift (and the site is still about videos, isn't it?), but a ban should be a ban no matter what. If you think it's too final, then you should rather work on ways for a member to get more warnings before a final ban. Stripping away star powers for offending members could also be an option. But it should not be a possibility for existing users to bring a banned member back from the dead just because they are missed. If someone wants back, they can contact the admins themselves and ask for a second chance, and the admins can confer with the community about it if they so choose. Necromancy like you are suggesting will only lead to favouritism and cliques, IMHO.

Now, Swampgirl, I understand the reason for this initative was the apparent hypocrisy of an admin posting a video and supposedly making fun of an old member. But as Lucky explains, it seems that Choggie himself is perfectly happy with his videos being sifted, without necessarily wanting to return as a member. I think it was a funny video, and would have upvoted it wether it was Choggie or not. The identity of the poster is then irrelevant, be it an admin or a regular member. Besides, any embeddable video on the net is fair game to post on VideoSift as far as I am concerned, regardless of the uploader's history.

Long story short: I believe the whole premise of this nightmarishly long debate has been rendered moot, and I don't understand why it is still an issue.






^And Linux users own you all. Bow to the power of xterm and open source!

i beg your pardon Linux pah , only for running servers and ultra specific tasks give it another 8 years and i shall probably revise my Linux position.

don't all apple products build of Linux kurnal any way. oh nopix is reli good and nice though

>> ^swampgirl:
I've been logging on about twice a week now for the past couple of months regularly. There IS either a siftquisiton going on, or some guys are fighting about to need one. It's gotten to the point to where you've washed your hands of it.
Just don't completely back out of it and hand too much over to the masses. The dominant personalities will take us in a negative direction without wiser heads keeping us on vision.
<


Perhaps someone needs to conduct a review of what's been happening but I'm logging in daily and I'm not seeing a rash of siftquisitions. The most notable bans were the permanment banishments of Bill O and CP420. These were two of the least interesting contributors to the site. And they would often try to stir things up with a post to sift talk which inevitably got replies and further skirmishes. That was entirely on them.
The other (temp) bans were related to inappropriate invocations which some did to point out "inconsistencies". Hence, I think, the introduction of tools to spread the admin load onto the community who presumably will then have no one to whine to but themselves when they don't see the result they desire.

All in all, I don't think the discord was ever that bad, not even recently and I have misgivings about the newly instituted process which could go wrong in a number of ways - but I have been wrong before so here's to hoping it all turns out right.

i say we just split the Sift into Cerebrarians and Lolcateers and fire RPGs at each other. that's the way most other utopian egalitarian dreams have ended.

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

I'll be on the lolcateer side, please.

^you are so proud of that response you actually typed it into a computer? fucking retard.

i'd manufacture RPGs and sell them to both sides.

^Ugh.