As it stands now if a user repents and is truly remorse after he contacts the administrators the account is reactivated. Other users have come back after a ban and been an integral part of the community. The case you mentioned is a special case, the user was a gold star and things were worked out. Again if a user agrees to abide by our policy after a self-link his account is reinstated, minus the banned/discarded video.

Capt Willard, don't pull that tl;dr bullshit. There are over 100 comments on that thread dealing with that entire situation. It has been dealt with and closed for over 7 months. You've been here two months. You don't need to reopen anything, your right. The site administrators have said their final word, and that is that. * discard this post, so we can avoid another HUGE and unnecessary Siftqusition.

That was a very special case in which he originally had permission to do what he did, but it got out of hand.

CaptWillard isn't a gold star, so let's ban him!!! Rabble, rabble, rabble! Just kidding.

No, I think Willard makes a valid point... and not just because he agrees with me.

Also, MGR, don't presume to know everything about anything that happened before you were around because you have no idea what you are talking about in regards to the TAYTV situation (Seeing You point out CaptWillard's noobieness is to me, quite frankly, laughable. You've been here what? Maybe three months longer than him?? Hardly makes you an expert in anything, so quit swinging yer sack around.) Fedquip never originally had permission to self link, he went ahead and did so because at the time he felt he was contributing good content... he knew the rules, he openly broke them, but he was reprimanded and all is better now... this was allowed because, yes, he was and is a contributing member of the community... and there was a LOT of debating over this, A LOT, go back and read it, it wasn't an easy decision.

But anyway, moving on...

I don't think we have to go and open old wounds here, leave Fed alone, that is all over and done with. But I do think that something should be done to give first time self link offenders a chance to respond to their crimes, discard their own post and start over, this time playing by the rules. I still maintain that just automatically banning them and then asking them to come crawling back is a deterrent to a lot of NOOBS who, though they may be too stupid to read, didn't mean to self link (I mean come on, how many of us join sites, sign up, and start posting within like five minutes? How many of us actually read ALL the stipulations in the Terms of Agreement when joining a forum, downloading software, or installing a game? I'd be really freaking surprised if any of you could say that).

So, I've given it some thought, and here is what I suggest: What if, there was a time delay required between the first issue of a * ban command and the second? Say, I don't know 24 hours? No more of this everybody jump on the banwagon bullshit and its all handled in five minutes, because frankly, if I were a NOOB and had my sift * blogged * banned and then had the tags changed to suggest that my video rapes children, all within the period of getting a cup of coffee or something, I would not be coming back to try and seek admittance to this community... probably I would be very offended and not even give a damn that it was I who broke the rules.

Yes, we will still continue to get asshole film students posting their Video 101 projects here, yes the bunk-bed guy will probably be back, but what is the harm in giving a good space of time between the 1st nomination and the 2nd? Of course, we would probably have to make a separate SiftTalk area just for this (which has already been called for by several different people in an attempt to just clean up the main SiftTalk area), because obviously things would get cluttered pretty quickly. We could call it 'SiftLimbo' or something.

I understand that some of you seem to get some sort of thrill acting as judge, jury, and executioner, but I think you are all decent enough folk to understand that sometimes a little restraint can do a lot of good to foster growth within a community.

I say, enough of this '* ban 'em all and let god sort it out' attitude, let's at least give the potentially repentant a heads up.

Yes Raven, I know he self-linked - but from my understanding it didn't start out that way - hence the "got out of hand"

However, even if someone doesn't take the time to read all the terms of use and the rules, there are still the big red letters saying "no self-linking of any kind" Fact of the matter is that 99 out of a hundred people that self-link do it, vote on their sift and never comment or vote on anything ever again.

I don't think we need a waiting period, that's why in Sifty's ban comment it says "If you would like to appeal this banination, Tor_Hershman, you may contact the administrators."

They repent and they can come back. The ones that really want to be here will do so. Look at videosiftbannedme.

'videosiftbannedme' is a rare bird, and I don't think you can quantify a new member's potential future involvement solely on their only having joined, sifted, and posted... it may be that a good many of these impetuous types find videosift for the first time, spend about ten minutes looking it over, think its cool, instantly have the thought that something of theirs is Siftworthy, sift it, vote for it, and then go off to do whatever else it is they do with their time. You can't know what kind of potential community member you are nipping in the bud by basing your judgment on their initial activities after they open an account. A good many of them are probably just like, "Wtf? Did I piss someone off already? Did I not know the secret handshake or something?" I mean, yes, they are big red letters, but if there is anything my experience in the world of retail has taught me is that people DO NOT READ SIGNS... it doesn't matter how big they are, how many there are, or even if the dumbass is standing right in front of it, they will probably still ask where the bathroom is.

Also, chances are, the banee, being such a N00b would have no idea who the admins are or how to contact them. I mean, shit, I was just a commenter for months before I ever sifted anything, and I always thought Dag was just some scruffy Aussie dude... no clue he had powers.

And lastly, its not like any offenders would be getting off the hook, or being allowed to self link, it would just be a more reasonable process... I mean, in the judiciary system, wouldn't a five minute trial where the accused is given no chance to defend his or herself and the verdict is reached by two people who happen to come along at the same time be considered highly illegal and inhumane? Railroading, I believe it is called... and I'd like to think we are at least above that.

Well, anyone who is mildly familiar with the intertubes knows that you can always find contact information at the top or the bottom of a page. It just so happens that there are two links on the bottom of this page where you can see who they are, and the next is a contact link.

And can we actually get a screen shot of what a probie submission page looks like? I'm curious to know how obvious the words are.

Raven, agreed let's not open old wounds here so we all need to grow up and move on to the subject at hand, the spacing between posts.

Look, the 2 person ban policy is set in place for one reason, so one person doesn't go around and go all willy nilly on banning people that piss them off. The * discuss is for getting other's attention in Sift Talk and the * ban is then invocated by another member backing up the first member's self-link/ban reason. I see no reason that by the time you research that the potential bannie has indeed made a bannable offense you should wait for a comment by the submitter for clarification.

It makes no sense for me to see a self link and verify that information then go off to twiddle my thumbs for hours to wait for a response from the submitter. I'm not going to be waiting for hours on end for 99% of the people NOT to respond then come back later to find out another user has gone ahead and seconded the ban.

Let's ban them now, if they are truly interested they will come back, and members don't need to sit on a post dicking off somewhere to wait for an answer that isn't going to come.

I hate to say it, but they have a point. Man, I love our ban pile ons as much as the next one BUT..

Maybe the idea of a *warning should be considered. A warning invocation like *selflink could generate a Siftbot comment on the infringement and time limit to redact the sift or bannation proceedings would commence.

The repentant would retract the post, and still feel welcome into the community. The guys that are just out to self promote would enjoy a good old fashioned *assbaning party with all the trimmings?


It's an idea

Why do we need to make another way for them to repent? We already have a system that works fine, and the ones that want to be here stay. There's no need to keep making up invocations and and slackening the rules for people who didn't give a fuck about them to begin with.

^ also good ideas (swampy's that is) All I think we should give these people is notice and a chance to change their ways. I get why the system is currently in place, what with the two nominations, but I don't see why the ban itself needs to be so instant, without a chance for repentance.

And anyway, what really is the harm in waiting 24hrs? The post itself is already removed from the queue, its not going anywhere. By suggesting that you are annoyed or distressed you to have to go off and 'twiddle your thumbs' while you wait for the time to expire, and (oh noes!) you might miss out on getting to deliver the final blow, is only indicative of the general attitude I think a lot of you have regarding bans... that you see it as some sort of fun activity, when really, it could be interpreted by the banee as a really spiteful "you're not cool enough to play with us" kind of group hate-on. Aren't we above that?

@swampy
No offense swampgirl, I see where you are coming from, but I don't think it's needed.

We ban most people because they come in, self link, don't read any rules, won't come back to the site and want to promote their material.

When it comes to these people what's a warning going to do? They will still leave their stuff up there and honestly I think it's an unnecessary step.

Not to rehash my earlier post but props off to members like videosiftbannedme, who come back, made a mistake, repent and go on to be an awesome member

It wouldn't be 'slackening the rules', the rules would remain in place. No self links or you are banned, repent and you are saved. I just think the system needs to be changed because as it currently stands, it is off putting to potentially repentant folk, and serves only to solidify that reputation we are getting for being 'elitist'.

Actually, yes, Raven, It is fun. I thoroughly enjoy banning people because it's what keeps this site so great - no crappy self promotion.

If it's feelings you're worried about, then maybe we should all automatically upvote every probie's post so they don't get their feelings hurt when it doesn't make it out of the queue. It's the internet. Thick skins are a must. You break the rules, you pay the price. Man up, deal with it, and try again.

@raven

Yes we are above that but on the other hand we are behind the stance that educated people who read the rules should be part of our community. People make mistakes, they have a chance and I don't think we give off an attitude of "not cool enough" but more of an attitude of please read the rules and respect our policies if you are going to be a contributing member.

I don't see us as jumping on the boat to hit the final blow. I see us as moderators who are trying to keep our site clean and punctual.

Wait, you mean that VideoSift isn't trying to be the best? This is what it takes to be the best damned community on the web, and I like it that way.

you know, the VS faq says that star accounts are immune from banning. I figured that meant that if someone like fedequip did a selflink, it would be dealt with other than by banning.

Everything I've read is consistent with banning newbies but not old timers, which is what happened.

And bringing themselves to appear on the thread calling for their bannation and publicly admitting they were wrong is not 'manning up'?

I think that shows a lot more character than just giving up, or signing back up as a different user.

It sure is. But so is contacting the admins and repenting, which, for some strange reason, is already the policy that's worked fine.

Here's where I'm coming from:
say I was to shooting at things in a field, but I didn't see the farmer beyond my target because I was being irresponsible, and I kill him. Should I not go to jail for what I've done? I think yes. Whether it was intentional or not, the rules were broken, and so the punishment is dealt.

Again, if they really want to be here (chances are they don't) they can easily get their account unbanned without requiring members to have to check in on them to see if they have bothered to comment.

I present to you Exhibit A: Freediver - Self-linked, repented and had account unbanned, only to never return.

http://www.videosift.com/video/Exotic-beauty-of-Giola-Island-of-Thassos

No offense taken, Snipe.. just tossing in a friendly .02 Diffusing is a maternal habit perhaps

MG, yes ban parties are fun.. remember though that this small corner of the net is our community and adopting an effyou self linkers attitude ultimately isn't good for business. Now I'm talking about attitude here, not action.

As for selflinking goldies? Oxdottir, gold stars are immune for a reason. They have the personal time investment here that deserves a more "in-family" approach to dealing with rule breaking.

Once upon a time I was a new member of the sift. The first few vids I posted were self links. I was quickly informed by a senior member how this was not allowed. I couldnt understand why the sift had this policy. I had taken the time to edit the video(TV show) and upload it to my YouTube account. I thought I was going the extra mile. I mean anyone can embed a video. Ive since come to understand why this policy exists, and I agree with having it in place. If at that time I would have been blogged and ridiculed or banned, I would have been out the door and not looked back. Id have probably felt stupid, angry and embarrassed. I would hate to think that we may be losing sifters that have the same passion I have for this site. I personally and privately warn the person of there infraction and let them decide what to do. They always apologize and remove the video in question. A little less judgement and a bit more understanding is a win win in my book.

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

Fedquip was a gold star at the time of his Siftquisition - and therefore immune from auto-banning. He had his day in the docks - and had lots of virtual tomatoes thrown at him.

As far as the ban procedure - we do leave it wide open for people to come back. An email gets sent on the first ban nomination, and another on the second. The email gives them the link to contact us to straighten it out.

I would say about 20% contact us, repent and are reinstated. When that happens we usually leave a comment in the bannination thread.

Another 70% couldn't give a shit. They are drive-bys have no real interest in VideoSift- but are looking for a viral vector point. Those people get what's coming to them. I only wish we could cause them more pain.

The last 10% maybe kind of knew the rules, or were completely clueless. These are the ones that might take offense, tell us to f-off and go away. Tender, sensitive souls.

So really, we only have that easily pissed off 10% to play with as far as converting self-linkers to quality members. I think it's a small price to pay.

I don't think you can compare accidentally killing someone to self-linking a video on a website.

You must live in a horribly black and white, good vs evil, yes vs no kind of world MGR... I suppose that makes decision making, and life in general, all the more easier for you though so I won't judge you too harshly.

But anyway, in case you haven't noticed, the rules and guidelines that this site operates on are, for the most part, arbitrary, and constantly under revision. The world is not going to end if something changes here... quality is not going to plummet through the floor.

And I agree that a large part of this is attitude rather than action or rule upholding. I seriously think a lot of you get off on the ban parties, you guys all leap onto a sift as soon as its blogged, and then as soon as the member is banned, change the tags so they are hilarious to anyone with an infantile mind or three bong rips under their belt.

If the argument you are going to make here is that the ability to read the warnings on the submission page somehow means that one is 'educated' and worthy of a chance to participate on this site then I think the behavior of many of you in regards to the ban parties nullifies that completely.

And for Exhibit B: May I present the LOLcat.

MGR, quit acting like you're Lord of the Sift. I want thoughtful commentary, and so far everyone who's commented on my post has provided that, even if they disagree with me, except you. You don't like what you're reading, so you want to flush it down the memory hole!? Don't think you can tell me or any other newbie to shut up because we haven't put in our time or some bullshit like that because as raven already pointed out, how long have YOU been here? You weren't here when that shit went down, so how about a nice big cup of shut the fuck up?

As I clearly stated, I am NOT trying to open old wounds. I've got nothing against Fedquip. I've enjoyed many of his videos and I'm sure I'll continue to do so. I just want fair and consistent treatment for EVERYONE. That's why I'm saying that a policy change should be made; one that is maybe just a LITTLE more tolerant of first time mistakes. Sure, we send offenders emails when the first ban is invoked, but by the time they might have a chance to read that email the ban has already been seconded and it's a done deal. And sure, they can still contact the admins, but when they see how swiftly they were banned and how people are dancing on their graves by fucking with their tags I doubt many would even want to try to appeal the decision. At that point they probably feel like they have to appeal their own lynching.

As a community we're all entitled to express our opinions, regardless of our newbie-ness, so that's why I put this question to the whole community, not just one person, MGR. I'll even welcome your opinion, even if we're diametrically opposed, provided you put a little thought into it and don't preface it with "Shut up n00b!"

If the policy doesn't change I'll be a little disappointed, but I'll live with it. But is a slightly kinder, gentler VideoSift really out of the question?

Thank you Eric, for sharing you self linking sins and opinion on the matter.

And thank you as well Dag, for sharing some stats, as well as your opinion... I won't continue to lobby for change if you are happy with the current system...

However...

To the rest of you, especially the ones who like nothing more than scraping self-linking noobs off the boot heel of the Sift, please think about the nasty shit you say about the linker when you start your ban party. Think about how it reflects on this site and the general membership before you go calling them names and changing their tags to insinuate that they or their videos practice child molestation. You could be chasing away a possibly interesting, intelligent, person who could have been a gold star member had they just been shown a little courtesy... because as eric outlined, a lot of them might not realize that they are self linking, might only think they are contributing, hell, might even think they are going that extra mile by providing you with content.

Its tasteless to use school yard bully tactics to moderate a website and if you think that your being able to read the big red letters on the submission page, or sift 50 lolcats, has somehow given you the right to walk all over people, then perhaps you have no place on this website. That is all.

Wait, we can't post our own videos?

Oh man, this reminds me I've ignored the noobies here for like what?? 3..4 weeks now? I used to keep track of them.

I tend to agree with dag's stat analysis. Once in a while we get someone who reforms, thinks about the rule and says hey that's a good idea. Mostly it's people who are pissed because they can't pimp their wares.

Well, two admins have spoken, and they seem to be in agreement. I'll defer to their expertise in this matter. But could we at least please act with a little more decorum by not pissing on the graves of the banned by shitting all over their tags? To paraphrase raven and swampgirl simultaneously, being that disrespectful comes across as elitist and is bad for business.

It's hard to miss the biggest and most obtrusive words on the sift. Even if your here the first time. I'm actually curious about what the e-mail says that gets sent when someone gets banned. Maybe if it's explained in a really nice way (or maybe it already is.) Then people would be more likely to recant and try again without self-posting.

Anyone who's really invested in VS has been lurking for a while. My little Bro's been a lurker since I discovered this site back in 2005. He knows and likes the community feel around the site. That much is apparent. What we can't have is every tom,dick, and harry posting their videos for praise.

Lets face it a vast majority of people vie for attention. It's a human need. But if your going to do that on this site you need to do so by helping others first. Allowing probational member to post selfish self-links is denying the purpose of the sift.

Being aggressive about keeping self-links off the sift is not wrong. But Raven as Swampgirl have a point about being just a bit more understanding. I don't think we need to change policy but it wouldn't hurt to be a bit more respectful when we do ban someone.

Thank you Gorgonheap, you really have my point of view summed up.

So what is this saying nasty shit that you're referring to? Yeah so we name and change tags to suit people posting viral videos and comment that they should read the FAQ and rules before posting. We're not some mob scaring little kids into submission with our tactics, the internet is a tough place and we are trying to create an atmosphere of gathering knowledge and being a contributing member to the sift before posting. If 10% of people can't deal with our point of view then as Dag said it's a small price to pay for the quality of the site we have here.

Ok so I acknowledge that some of the posts can get out of hand, but seriously, most of those are on viral videos where the user is obviously pimping out their own commercial stuff that we pounce upon. I don't see that we're meaner on a banned submitter than say a post regarding religion, snuff or anything else controversial where personal attacks are made. It's the internet people, if we slide on our policy here we are leaving open room for a less than ideal sift. Remember the top of the page that says *quality? That's what we are maintaining here.

All differences aside you all have some good points of view, I disagree with some sifters on these issues but a *quality post for bringing this up and letting us air out some opinions.

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

I think it's important to look at the type of self-link before jumping on a * ban party. If it's an obvious drive-by then a ban is appropriate. The childish tag changing is a bit much though, the tags should be changed to banned or redacted or something simple and consistent like that.

If it looks like someone just made a mistake then I think it's important that we take the time to give the person the opportunity to change their ways before jumping on a * ban party.

I really like swampgirl's earlier idea about a *warning invocation for cases were it looks like someone just made a mistake or didn't fully understand the sift but wasn't trying to just pimp their wares..

Thanks for the star, snipe. I also appreciate that you took the time to explain your opinion. That's all I'm asking for. As sapient hominids, that's really the best we can ask of each other.

@Gorgon, no one said anything about letting self linkers off the hook completely, just give them a little time to respond, or hell, even notice that they've been caught... you guys make it sound like just changing the rules a bit is going to suddenly flood this site with bunk bed ads, anarchy will rule, and self linkers pimping their shit will run wild in the queue.

As for those of you who seem to think that letting a person discard their own self link, apologize, and then go back in the game but play by the rules, is going to degrade quality somehow, let me all remind you that whatever they do sift still has to get 10 votes to get published... and its not like a ton of crap thats not necessarily so incredibly great doesn't already get sifted everyday using this same method, whether or not the member has been accused of violating the rules... I mean honestly people, do you ever get fed up with watching other people's cats do mildly cute or stupid things? Is every LOLcat that gets published actually quality content? Probably not, it only means that ten people were suckered into hitting the up button.

But, in general, I think you've all caught my drift and I thank you for that, Gorgon, Snipe and Zif too. I just think that some restraint needs to be offered, and in some cases, some time should be allowed for the person to respond.

Also, if you think you've found someone who is self linking but seems like they are a good contributor, and maybe they are already a few vids into it, why not try contacting them personally and giving them a heads up, like someone did for Eric? Because I'm glad whomever it was did that, the sift wouldn't be the same without him.

@raven, just a quick response, I appreciate your point of view. Personally I always check the votes and time on the sift a member has contributed to the site as part of my research into the self-link accusation. If the person has been a contributing member I heed them warning, or at least go easy on them in the case of a video that is pretty viral.

Ok I'm going to bed My brain is fried and I think I made my opinion strong enough in other posts hehe

*ban

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

To be fair, I reserve changing the "rapes their children" tags for blatant advertisements, not just harmless self linking. The bunk bed videos are a special breed.

I would like to make a comment on statistics.

According to Dag's numbers we are losing a number of banned sifters equal to 50% of sifters who self-link/repent. How many new sifters self link?

If 1/2 of new sifters self-link then we could have a sift with 1.25*membership, because we lost those sensitive souls.

This assumes no compounding loss, I'm here from fedquip's taytv for example.(did somebody say siftquisiton?).

This seems like it may be a non-trivial loss, depending on the real numbers.

believe me, nobody expects the videosift siftquisition.

Repent, Inquisition, you all sound like a bunch of catholics.

NOBODY expects the Spanish Inquisition! Our chief weapon is surprise...surprise and fear...fear and surprise.... Our two weapons are fear and surprise...and ruthless efficiency.... Our *three* weapons are fear, surprise, and ruthless efficiency...and an almost fanatical devotion to the Pope Sift.... Our *four*...no... *Amongst* our weapons.... Amongst our weaponry...are such elements as fear, surprise.... I'll come in again.

CaptWillard...Can I use your, "how about a nice big cup of shut the fuck up?"
heheheh, that's fahnny!!
And if I am not mistaken, ol' choggie was the foist to create the infectious ban puns, and the first to point out the sophomoric redundancy of changing the tags, and gathering around the banned like a group of elementary school kids to taunt-
Not that I want accolade er what not, just that you other folks are cheap imitations.....
And fedquip?? May I tell the crowd once again, that I whole-heartedly and sincerely apologize for the position i placed you in, when I called you out for questioning, yet recant absolutely nothing I said on the fated thread? I will admit, it was rather firebrand of me, very childish looking back now, but what can I say? I see you as a sponge for whatever sensibilities look good to you at any given time, a ship w/o an anchor, an impressionable piece a rough trade, hanging out near the sketchy parts a town......a Canadian!!!

Suddenly, the fortress of dickatude just got a little less cool. I was just warming up to the place, too. It feels a lot like how I felt when rock-n-rollers went from heroine junkie badasses to emo-hair flipping crybabies: disappointed.

Just like those under-nourished momma's boys ruined rock-n-roll, I feel like some people are taking the buzz out of banning. I don't get why we're so anal about all this (and I don't mean to sound like I'm attacking anyone), because at the end of the day this wonderful community is still a website. A website. It's a website. This isn't your neighborhood where everyone is gathering with pitchforks to run the brown people out. There is no true human atrocity being committed here. And, I think we may be taking ourselves just a tad too serious for... a website.

And, I love all you guys, so don't beat me up.

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

Just a website- but when you are dealing with human emotion, it's still real. I'm sure the sting of a ban party or Siftquisition can hurt quite a bit. The rejection or persecution can feel very real.

I do agree though- that beyond the mental damage - there is no true harm done to the banee. In most cases- they've just lost their favored login. There is nothing stopping them from trying again- (though if they self-linked again we would find that and make the connection).

true, true. Though, I have mixed feelings about the whole thing. If it were happening to me, I'd probably get defensive, to be honest. But, still, as great a community that this is and will ultimately always be, it's still a website. I hate to make it sound like I don't appreciate the Sift, because I certainly love me some Sift and all the hard work that went into making this site as cool as it is, but I'm just trying to sound pragmatic here.

I love freedom of speech. This website isn't America. Ban away everybody. There will be other websites for those who self link. It's really not a big deal, is it?

I've always been a bit baffled by the specifics of the self-linking policy. No videos made by or featuring yourself, sure, but no videos that you uploaded elsewhere seems... unnecessary. It's going to be subject to the trials of the queue just like anything else is. The source of the video doesn't seem relevant to me. The video should be judged on its own merits. Which reminds me of another issue, but that's for another discussion.

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

I too have mixed feelings. I don't want to hurt anyone, but I think the bannings are an important part of the Sift and keep the quality level higher than anywhere else on the Web.

I know from the outside it can seem elitist - but the Web is full of egalitarianism. A little structured, merit-based elitism doesn't go astray here.

"In most cases- they've just lost their favored login. There is nothing stopping them from trying again"

"Come baaaaack!!! Please, don't go???!!"

I love this quote: "beyond the mental damage - there is no true harm done to the banee."

Ah, mental damage, bah, that's nothing. "Take it like a man," quoth the engineer in TF2.

xx, we've been over the merits/drawbacks of having a very strict B&W policy, even on content you upload to the nets. If you truly believe the content is good enough to be sifted but you're the GoogleVideo/Youtube uploader, then have another sifter sift it up for you.

To make a long story short, it discourages people from digitizing their DVD collection and firing it up on the Sift ("oh look, LOTR is online in its entirety!" etc. etc.).

What I love and respect most about the Sift is the spirit of open discussion in arriving at these decisions. Even if you disagree, we take pains to make our logic clear (i.e., open and transparent!) in reaching group consensus.

Contrast with the dirt going down at Wikipedia according to the Register: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/12/04/wikipedia_secret_mailing/

Absolute Wiki corrupts absolutely.

Beautifully said Krupo!