I am just curious as to what the sift communities feelings are in regards to "Personal Attacks."

Just speaking with experience (I once moderated a small Hockey Forum) The key to community growth is to present a healthy and accepting environment(Try Encouraging the Rangers and Islanders fans to debate hockey and not each other)

Science, Sports, Religion, Politics, the Wild West.. the sift has the infrastructure to grow these collectives. As an outsider looking in, you can see the collectives could potentially be 40 healthy specialized communities growing around short video clips.

It really is up to the base community in regards to how big the sift wants to grow. Brian and Co. have been doing their best to tweak the software to make the sift more enjoyable for its members, but ultimately it's the strength of the community that determines it's growth.

The base community that we see and here everyday are quite tolerant with each other, but some of the random comment threads on the sift are chalk full of threadjacked debates that begin with personal attacks rather then informed discussions. Generally speaking this is the type of talk that hurts a communities growth the most.

If you enjoy this type of dialogue, don't see it as a problem, and don't wish for anything to change, my apologies. Just tweak this bud and I will go away. My thoughts are this youthful playground banter and razzing may be healthy interaction amoungst good friends. However Sift comment threads are extensions of the video being presented, and you would hope that they contain rational dialogue to attract members that some collectives wish to attract.

Now as far as I know this website is moderated by the sifters who have contributed the most. If these users have the power to ban somebody, it would be nice if these users also set the most positive example when commenting throughout the sift. I dont want to suggest another reason to siftquisition somebody, perhaps if we started warning people who are be fueling hateful discussion.

It's unfortunate when a video from the sift reaches a mass audience the first comment includes the submitter being smeared and harassed. When you personally attack someone on the sift, your not only potentially infuriating the guy on the other side of the keyboard, your certainly steering away lots of potential new sifters.

When the new sift comes out it will include "commentary voting." It might not be a good idea for us to promote etiquette when using this feature.

Here is my Suggestion:

- "Applaud Quality" - When you appreciate the comment and it's addition to the discussion.

- "Mark Inappropriate" - Messages that are inflammatory, extreme, divisive, incoherent, or otherwise inappropriate, like trolling and threadjacking.

- No Vote. If you simply don't agree with a users comment, simply don't vote either way.

So I present this discussion to you, and look forward to any responses.

Just my $1.25