Good call. Voting pattern is def. suspect .. lucky has the ip logs for sockpuppet detection no doubt. Based on the snuff vid/comment, doesn't seem like they'd be missed.

Yeah, I think MrFisk has a heavy burden of proof to meet right now.

I already invoked a * ban on DrAlcibiades, so someone else can second it and dispose of him. However the case of Mr. Fisk is a different matter. Can we have an admin verify the IP logs on these two accounts, or at least determine how far apart their votes were on Mr. Fisk's videos? If they came closely together then it's probably good enough for a ban.

Mr. Fisk joined around the same time when the whole sock puppet scare took place, so he should know full well the consequences of sock puppetry. One man's opinion.

Kronos and I just banned him. Hopefully this makes up for our votes for him.

Dr. Al has burned his return privies.

At first I assumed that DrA voted up all of Mr Fisk's videos out 'gratitude' as Fisk voted up DrA's original video first, but as ashes said he was the fist to vote up all of DrA's videos. This defiantly warrants a siftquisition.

Well, its a tad unfortunate that someone introduce themselves on the sift with snuff but judging by his commens and general behaviour, I think he was just looking for trouble..

I would have banned him too, but i was asleep....

I discarded his PQ video
it had the tags
puppies, gay, fuck videosift, stupid, wtf

Not welcome here

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

Good call - constant vigilance!

[/ Madeye moody]

Siftquisition: It works bitches.

Gone for a couple a days and y'all drop a pair of righteous bombs, that's the spirit!!!
Thanks must be offered up, to the inspiration for the siftquisition.....Jeff Hoard, professional blogger muckraker!, extraordinaire!!!!

WTF? My videos are hella dope! I've been providing solid, quality embeds since I've joined. Prove me wrong. (Don't mention that Templars vid though). So, what exactly am I defending myself against? Do tell. I'd be much obliged.

Yeah. A groupie. Right.

I'm for a ban, pending an investigation into the IP logs & vote timing. No bronze star should protect you if you cheat (i.e. use sock-puppetry) to get it.

[Edit: This comment was written in response to MrFisk's above comment, in which he claimed he "must just have a groupie," or some tripe. He has since edited his comment to remove that phrase.]

What the fuck is sock puppetry? And why the hell should I get banned? Seriously! I've been a member for a short while now (visitor, supporter, and advertisement of, for awhile), but have used this site frequently and enthusiastically. I've searched out rare, informative vids for your viewing pleasure. Review my Tits embed and lighten up. Trust me. I have more where that came from.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_sock_puppet

*sticky

I find DrAl's singular devotion to voting only for MrFisk's videos and his own to be highly suspect, to the point where I find MrFisk's professed ignorance of sock puppetry to be, quite frankly, unbelievable. I say * ban.

Now would other members come forward with their opinions, please? I'd like to have a consensus before judgment is passed. We need more people to weigh in on this.

Stickying this post at the top of Sift Talk - sticky requested by kronosposeidon.

he posted this, though

Entered into the record:

1. Jonny's original Sift Talk post about sock puppets, from April 3, 2008:

http://www.videosift.com/talk/Sock-Puppet-Voting

2. Dag's follow-up to Jonny's post, simply yet effectively titled "No More Sock Puppets", from April 10, 2008:

http://www.videosift.com/talk/No-More-Sock-Puppets

Both of those were posted well after MrFisk became a member, on Feb 20, 2008.

I think members who use sock puppets should banned. Hopefully a new policy will be developed because of this, and entered into the FAQ.

In the mean time, could we please hear from some more members?

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

Something else to enter into the docket - though only circumstantial evidence - MrFisk and DrAlciades have different IP addresses in the system.

We all know this can be manipulated by the wily IP spoofer.

MrFisk, can you say how you know DrAlcibiades - because you have not explained how you know him (and you must, since he only voted you)

The reason this is important is, everyone introduces somone to the 'sift, but most of the time they will look and vote for others, DrAlcibiades only voted for you - 3 days 26 votes. That makes him a sockpuppet. Not voting for other members videos is not cool, and will break the voting system, in short if you have some one who ONLY votes for you and no one else, its not good for videosift.

Dag, is there a way for you to determine how soon DrAlcibiades' votes for MrFisk's videos came after Mr. Fisk posted them? Because even if they have separate IP addresses, if DrAl's votes always came almost immediately after MrFisk posted his videos, such a strong correlation would be hard to dismiss.

I know some people here have friends who vote for their videos almost always, but do they do it almost immediately after their buddies post their videos, every time? I doubt it. So if we could have the times when the votes were placed and the times when the videos in question were posted it might help us better determine guilt or innocence.

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

Good point. On this post:
http://www.videosift.com/admin/video/Woman-Loses-Head-in-Suicide-Bombing-Graphic

Their votes break down like this:
DrAlcibiades 2008-05-28 13:32:11
MrFisk 2008-05-28 13:32:41

But on this one:
http://www.videosift.com/admin/video/Rare-Shooting-During-Filming-of-the-Muppets
It's like this:
DrAlcibiades 2008-05-31 19:07:21
MrFisk 2008-05-31 19:12:01

>> ^MrFisk:
WTF? My videos are hella dope! I've been providing solid, quality embeds since I've joined. Prove me wrong. (Don't mention that Templars vid though). So, what exactly am I defending myself against? Do tell. I'd be much obliged.


the question is whether or not DrA is or was your sock puppet...

Ok. There are definite instances where MG and I have sifted a video, and sent the link off for the other one of us to go watch. Have I upvoted every one of MGs videos? No. Has he Upvoted every single one of mine? No. so we don't always vote for everything we see from each other, but sometime, my vote comes before im done watching the video. If i know its a 3 minute clip from Indiana Jones, Its going to get upvoted, as I have seen that movie (all of them) shit tons of times.

Now, with that in mind, DrA and Fisk might have done the same thing, i.e. upvote for already knowing content. Now, if that is that case then they need to seek out new friends in other crowds. I hardley think that is the case here though. Seems like a Sock Puppet to me. Dag, if we could get 1 or 2 more video time stamps like ^that one, then I think we have a pretty open and shut case.

>> ^dag:
Good point. On this post:
http://www.videosift.com/admin/video/Woman-Loses-Head-in-Suici
de-Bombing-Graphic
Their votes break down like this:
DrAlcibiades 2008-05-28 13:32:11
MrFisk 2008-05-28 13:32:41
But on this one:
http://www.videosift.com/admin/video/Rare-Shooting-During-Film
ing-of-the-Muppets
It's like this:
DrAlcibiades 2008-05-31 19:07:21
MrFisk 2008-05-31 19:12:01


Okay, so one vote is only 30 seconds after the other, and the other is only 4 minutes and 40 seconds after the other. Both are pretty damn close, in my book. Too close to be coincidence, if you ask me. What say the rest of you?

To summarize, here is the evidence:

1. DrAlcibiades only joined on 5/28/08, yet made a beeline straight for MrFisk's videos and voted for them all.
2. DrAlcibiades has ONLY voted for MrFisk's videos and his own, and NO ONE ELSE'S.
3. When MrFisk posted new videos after DrAlcibiades joined, DrAlcibiades was right there to upvote them, one only 30 seconds after posting, and the other in less than 5 minutes after posting.
4. Sock puppetry was clearly and openly discussed TWICE since MrFisk joined, so I find it extremely difficult for anyone to claim ignorance of sock puppetry prohibition.

I say the evidence is strong enough for a conviction, and I ask that MrFisk be banned. We need to put our foot down about sockpuppetry. The FAQ also needs to be updated. A clear explanation of what sock puppetry is and that it's grounds for a permanent ban needs to added.

So what do the rest of you say? Clearly ashes2flames has spoken, and so have I. That's two votes for conviction and banination. The rest of you are also in the jury. Please cast your vote.

If all videos were upvoted within 1 minute I would call for a ban, but as it stands now I vote no. The circumstances are suspicious, but they are not for an outright ban.

Give him some time to prove that it is a coincidence or more likely a friend of his with similar tastes. Remember they may both have seen the videos on the original host and uploaded/upvoted quickly thereafter.

No ban vote from me.

^Thanks for your vote.

It's now at 2 for, and 1 against.

More votes, please.

I find it entirely possible that MrFisk was not aware of the discussion about sock puppetry. Of his sparse comments, none of them except the ones in this thread were posted to Sift Talk, so it is likely that he rarely spends time here.

I didn't start visiting Sift Talk until I was a gold star, even missing the congratulatory post about me. So, MrFisk may not have ever seen anything about sock puppetry on this site, or on the Internet.

That said, any responsible person should realize the dishonesty of having sock puppets. But since there is no clear, definitive policy about having them in the FAQ, I say that we give MrFisk a chance to explain his sins before banning him. I am ready to expel him from the site if there is a certain lack of repentance.

^I'll take that as a temporary abstention for now.

Still 2 for, 1 against.

Has anyone traced the IPs may have been using to any particular ISP? Are they belonging to different ISPs but perhaps both serve the same geographical area in a particular nation?

Might add to the cirumstantial evidence file...

If everyone is sure about these two. Let them both go.

>> ^choggie:
Gone for a couple a days and y'all drop a pair of righteous bombs, that's the spirit!!!
Thanks must be offered up, to the inspiration for the siftquisition.....Jeff Hoard, professional blogger muckraker!, extraordinaire!!!!


How the hell did I get brought into this? and I'm no longer a professional blogger.... I used to be one (May 07-March 08) with AOL, had a great time, made some scratch, bashed some neocons etc... But I have since moved on.

/PM me to pre-order my biopic

What's not important is when Fisk voted on The Dr. What is important is when the Dr. Voted on Mr. Fisk.

Can we get some timestamps for when Fisk posted his queued videos to when the Dr. Voted on them?

Feddy....you were the first siftquisition, lighten up bud??...Free-association is how you roll sometimes, eh??? My mind works in a similar fashion, we juxtapose brother, take another bong load....


Ok, the self-appointed arbiter has taken the reigns, good on him-I say the shitfucks die in a pool of their own commingled bodily fluids, but hey, that would not be fair. My votes' ban, if they(he, she, it) can't come up with a better defense.....than simply, "Yo man...but....and then...and but I..."

Come on fellas', come clean or deliver closing arguments, and we'll make more rules we can fuck the next posers with, thanks for the primmer, bob's yer fucking babysitter!!!

Place choggie's preliminary torch on the hut, in the ban column.
-edit -Fed?? How did you get dragged into this??....Yer whining about having gone through scrutiny of the same, every time you are able, when you whipped out yer pecker, that's why too....

^Almost a year on the sift and I still have no clue what you're saying most of the time.

But I'm pretty sure that translates to: "Ban him if he can't defend himself better."

^I've got to more or less agree with gwiz. I think the crucial part in all this is the time between posting and upvoting. If these are consistently within a few minutes of each other (maybe with one or two exceptions) it would suggest Drwhatever had joined the sift almost specifically to upvote MrFisk's videos, and that MrFisk was informing Drwhatever, for the purposes of getting the vote.

Even all that wouldn't be so bad if DrAlcibiades actually had a record of voting on videos other than his own and MrFisk's. So I suppose the question is was MrFisk and active participant in all of this (using a sock puppet, or more or less using someone else as a sock puppet), or was he simply ignorant his friend was engaging in the sort of activity that circumvents the whole point of the voting system.

At the moment I've not seen enough evidence to suggest MrFisk was an active participant, so I'll not vote for a ban.

On another note, if you're going to have a friend join and you're both going to vote for each other's video's (Which seems a reasonable thing) strongly encourage them to actually vote for other videos. The whole point of video sift is for the community as a whole to sift the videos not for small cliques to only vote for each other.

Yes, for the cheap seats, jarhead!!!

good point Crosswords....
"Welcome home Mr. Doctor Asshole Twins....welcome home!"

I'm strongly in favor of banning this guy. I knew about sock-puppetry and how it would undermine a place like this from day 1.

If he's not a retard, then he knew what was going on, and those vote times are a bit too close to be coincidence. Let's not go out of our way to be credulous here, folks.

My Siftquisition was about self promotion, not sock puppetry, big diff Chogs. And my comment was "light" (note the joke attached at the end, I wasn't trying to be confrontational, but I do feel a need to respond when you bring up my name in bannination threads)

Plus, I survived the Siftquisition and turned out alright... I think...perhaps...could be argued I guess...

I agree Fisk will have to provide a better explanation here, perhaps the Dr is simply a friend of Fisks who only visits to see Fisks videos. But I dunno, we'll have to see.

no argument fed, you came out smelling like a rose in winter, bro-
and friends???....they are like breaths you take, * quality is when they become much more, allies are hard to come by-These(this) sniveler had better pay some respect-maybe he's still at the Burger King, cleaning the fryer-

(hate-speech)for the avatar, (ad hom) for his absence thus far, and (racist jabs) at his mother...(the reason for the poor guy's existence)

If it helps, I'd like to share the perspective of the newbie on this. I've been lucky at my beginning here (mostly out of sheer laziness), to not have actually posted my own vids or commit sock-puppetry, and I have guided others quite clearly who I have introduced to this site not to. And I would be one to blame them if they subsequently tried, considering themselves wily enough to think they can get away with it. And the community, myself included, would decide if peace be upon them if they consider doing it again after they get caught.

Dr. Alcibiades's been banned. Mr. Fisk has a history of questionable actions and ties to Dr. Alcibiades. I say let's grant Mr. Fisk the opportunity to show some good contributions on VS, knowing full well several/many are watching closely with their finger on the banination button.

Point is. There's no evidence that isn't circumstantial proves, without a doubt, the guilt of mrfisk and "potential" dr.anus. Our eyes will be upon you both (or just the one). Anything fishy, you're done son(s). If it was a case of sock puppetry, but he wises up and flies straight with the knowledge that we don't f*ck around, I think he should be able to continue to contribute.

ie, let this be a lesson, guilty or not. My vote is for them to remain members.

also, I think with the increase in volume of members we should raise the ban immunity to gold star. It's easier to slip through the cracks these days

^ start a new sifttalk post? I can see many (including me, silver star) having much to say on that (+ this example - Mr. Fisk is still a rookie Bronze).
Edit: I see now that Bronze members are immune from banning. Well then, I think it may be worthwhile to consider silver and above being immune. but yes, this should be a separate Sift Talk post. I concur with myself.

Anyway - maybe the rules on Sock Puppetry and Self-Linking can be clearer at + after sign-up?
And maybe the Bronze star Rookies (and below) can get a 'tip of the day' box that sits below the donate box - that is just a picture of the SiftBot with it's glasses peering down revealing a communist eye that follows them? (I suppose user VideoSiftBannedMe could make the image...)

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

My vote is no banning as there is no smoking gun- but lets put him on the Department of HomeSift Security, potential rendition list - and watch future actions.

What about timestamps of Fisk's queued to Dr's vote? Wouldn't those be smoking guns?

No, matching IPs would be. They could've just been online at the same time communicating by MSN (and thus possibly two different people).

However I have used my friend's computer before and I showed him some stuff on Videosfit and logged in after him - which would be hard to disprove as SockPuppetry (same IP, same computer, different accounts) if our actions were questionable and warranting as much attention as this SiftQuisition.

Speaking only as an American, we don't need proof that is "beyond doubt", just "beyond reasonable doubt." We don't need smoking guns for convictions in a court of law, and yes, people have been convicted based on circumstantial evidence. Is there a lawyer in the house? They will back up that last statement.

Here's the thing: If two "friends", such as DrAl and MrFisk are upvoting each other (from two different IP addresses, mind you), would this happen only minutes or even seconds apart? Here is that scenario, if you buy into it:

(MrFisk and DrAlcibiades both are logged into Google chat)
-DrAl: Hey Fisk, you ready to post that video?
-Fisk: You bet buddy. I just posted it, in fact.
-DrAl: Cool, I'm on it. There, I just upvoted it.
-Fisk: Great. This makes up for the ridiculously long 4 minutes and 40 seconds you took to upvote my last video.

I'm not a conspiracy theorist, but DrAl was here for only three 3 days, and in that time he only voted for ONE user outside of himself, and then we have time stamps that are too close together to be regarded as coincidence. And for the life of me, I can't see anyone else here having a friend who would slavishly sit at their computer just to upvote a friend's video the second it was posted. And then MrFisk acts like he never heard of sock puppetry!? Unless his first day on the internet was also his first day here, that simply strains the limit of credibility.

I believe in giving the benefit of the doubt when there is reasonable doubt to begin with, but do you really believe there is "reasonable" doubt in this case?

^ This is exactly right.

Again, I'm for a ban if we can see timestamps of several videos.

I'll keep this stickied until tomorrow evening. I'll do another vote tally then. At that time I'll present that tally to dag and lucky. Ultimately it is their decision, as only they can ban starred members. Regardless of what the admins decide to do, I will respect the will of the majority and say no more of it if MrFisk is allowed to stay.

Hmmm...Tofumar has upvoted Kronos' post.
And Korons has upvoted Tofumar's post there.
And within a few minutes of each other.

Haha, I'm just a fan of cynical irony. Just pokin' yas in the ribs there

^For more stupidityirony check out MrFisks recent upvotes. It'd be nice to hear a real explanation (beyond all my videos are awesome), but I doubt that's going to happen. So I guess count me in for bannation in the likely event that doesn't materialize.

^ Wow. Just wow.

^Holy cats! Do you think MrFisk is trying to curry Tofumar's favor?
.
.
.
.
Naaaah!

EDIT: To be crystal clear, I don't think Tofumar has anything to do with MrFisk, in case my sarcasm was somehow misconstrued. In a charged litigious atmosphere as this, I believe it's important that my words are not misinterpreted in any way, shape, or form.

jeez Louise, go to bed!!!...let the bozos' show and then we can ream em proper!!!....or welcome them baaaack, to the glorious fold!

"Review my Tits embed and lighten up"

Heh, pretty much the same thing DrA would say when his videos were questioned.

Wow. He even got choggies. So, all you have to do is scare him, and he upvotes your library. Hey Mr. Fisk, you suck and I'm going to * ban you.

Yeah - I don't like the direction he's going with his votes anymore. Whether he's voting in support of people (or against). He's not supporting the sifting of videos.

I support the ban.

I vote against banning. That behavior could be innocent. For instance, I was reading the sift for quite a long time before suddenly one video tipped me over the edge and I had to join so I could vote. I immediately went to many of the videos I loved before and voted for them, and I did it by following poster threads. For instance, I liked arvana's submissions and went through his entire queue. At that point I had never even talked to arvana, I live in a different country, and ... well, I sure wasn't his sock puppet. Similarly, until recently, I lived with one sifter, and was related to others who visited me and who I usually only badgered into sifting actively when they were visiting. Let's not be hasty in terms of interpretation.

Mr. Fisk has seen the uproar now. He's submitted some good stuff. He voted yes on some awful stuff, but most of us have. I'm sure if he is connected to something shady in the future, the siftectives will s[n]if[t/f] it out.

I say leave the guy in peace and hope that if he's real, he sticks around. We don't need to be so touchy as to chase new blood off.

For me, I want to say no ban. DrA got banned for definately being an asshole. MrFisk, should consider this diligence from the community on the matter of sockpuppetry.

But I still want to know how MrFisk knew DrA.

The bottomline line is if you think having your friends vote ALWAYS for your videos is fine, then you should be in politics, breaking the system and declaring ignornace is not enough.

MrFisk, no ban as long as no sock puppetry. but you should properly state you did not know DrA. or if he was a friend, to say so. People here are wondering if you were in cahoots.

ban immunity does not mean you can act like an ass - it just means the community cannot ban you without admin

oh and when you sign up or donate the rules (for which breaking can earn a ban) should be bold and plain English.
There should be something to explicitly tell noobies NOT to vote for one person and one person alone.

*stops typing*

You guys are hella dopes. Burden of proof? Beyond reasonable doubt? WTF chumps!?

Tell me how someone can upvote a video within 30 seconds of posting, and this isn't any video in the queue, this is one person only upvoting one specific video. You would have to be in the same room. Even with IM I don't believe someone could send you a link and you could be at your computer, read the IM, click the link, then upvote in 30 seconds. Sure it *is* possible, but it is also possible OJ didn't cut a woman's neck straight through to the spine.

It is either a sock puppet or a roommate. Dag, is the IP geographically close? Listed as a proxy? A TOR exit server?

>> MrFisk Profile Page:
Clearly I have not sock puppetted. Check my vids, I have done no wrong. Some jackass upvotes me and I catch flak? Lame. You have his/her address. Contact them. In the meantime, upvote my dope-ass vids. As long as I am a member I shall contribute. Worthily.


MrFisk is saying he does not know who DrA is.

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

Both IPs are from different major US ISPs - and look distinct and legitimate. I vote thumbs up.

how many times does the vote appear minutes after initial post?

I think a wait-and-see approach is best here.

Darwin always cops out with the "let nature take its course" defense.

Well, I've said my piece already, but I'll say it one more time (and for the last time):

It is overwhelmingly likely that MrFisk and the notorious Doctor are the same person. Given that they both have a similar structure to their names (formal prefixes much?), given the voting record shows upvotes on the same videos within mere seconds of each other, given their tendency to defend their videos in very similar ways (pointed out by Farhad above), and especially given the vile things DrAlcibiades was posting, I don't see how we can't ban this guy.

Remember, virtually everyone was in favor of banning the Doc. If (as the evidence shows) they are very likely the same person, then how can you support banning one and not the other? It's not as though since the MrFisk persona is nicer and pretends to be more oblivious that he isn't the same guy on the other end. That's what we need to be concerned about. In my view, we run an intolerably high risk of keeping around DrAlcibiades by keeping around MrFisk.

"Oh," you might respond, "we can't be totally certain they are the same person." Granted. We cannot be totally certain. But we don't really need to be, either. I suspect of all the people who've ever been banned here, it's only a miniscule minority who we could actually be 100% certain were guilty of what we had accused them of. That is as it should be. Many of the decisions we make everyday--both on the Sift and off--are informed by what we think is the "best explanation" for the data before us rather than some extremely rare sense of certainty. My take is that now is not the time for us to adopt a "proof beyond all doubt" mentality, thereby rejecting entirely (and with great hypocrisy!) inference to the best explanation as our modus operandi for these kinds of situations.

However, you might respond, "Tofumar, it's not that we disagree with you about the way to think about these things. It's just that we don't think, as you do, that they are likely to be the same people." Fine. Then it's up to MrFisk--or you, if you'd like to take up the considerable task--to provide a plausible scenario which explains away these "coincidences." I think we can all agree that saying "I guess I just have a groupie" and "Review my Tits embed and lighten up" don't cut it.

Other more softhearted Sifters might raise one final objection. They might say "We see what you're saying, but we may scare off newbies." I say we should be scaring off newbies like the Doc (and MrFisk). Let's take your point a bit more seriously, however, and think about the risks involved with each decision. If I'm wrong and we ban this guy, we run the risk of punishing him for something he didn't do. Worst case scenario is probably that he gets restored later by the admins (maybe with probie status?), or rejoins under another name. In this latter scenario, he would lose all 11 of his star points, but if, as he is fond of reminding us, his posts are "dope" and he wants to contribute "worthily," it should take no time at all for him to make those up. On the other hand, if we don't ban him, we take a serious chance of inviting the good Doctor into our community. For those of you who need to be reminded why this is a bad idea, go and watch this over at another site. It's one of the most grotesque things I've ever seen in my life.

After you do that, if you still think that banning MrFisk will risk doing more harm to the community than not, I'll be happy to shut my big yapper, and will do my best to get along with him from this point on.

Remember that Mexican guy who was executed for circumstantial evidence?

I'm not by any means a proponent for abusers of the community, but there isn't any hard evidence the two accounts are owned by the same person. The burden of proof should be that by the community to convict, not by the accused to exonerate himself.

When this was brought to my attention 4 days ago, I guessed and still imagine that Dr is probably a friend of MrFisk who acted like a tool. I suppose I'm just naturally inclined to be less accusatory whenever it involves a member who has been here and worked long enough to earn themselves a star.

No ban. The user is on probation, and shall consider himself watched. The evidence does not considerably demonstrate his guilt, and if he indeed is guilty we can gather that he has learned his lesson. He's even declared his innocence, which is all he can do if there indeed is no relation between the two (even if the 30sec gap between votes would suggest otherwise).

The community shall indeed scare off trolls and miscreants and abusers of the vote system, but we must not cut out more of the cancer than absolutely neccessary.

If he was trolling,
he must be rolling around the floor lovin' every second of it.

<yoda voice>Effective troller he must be. Too much to learn from him there is.</yoda voice>, unfortunately.

"The burden of proof should be that by the community to convict, not by the accused to exonerate himself."

Yeah, except that there's a fundamental disagreement about what the burden of proof here ought to be, which was one of the points of my post. I think you are setting it way too high in asking for incontrovertible evidence; evidence the kind of which is rarely found in real life, or in our past instances of banination here on the Sift. If you want to start using that as the metric, then so be it. You should know, though, that you risk indicting yourself as a hypocrite when you do it. After all, we certainly haven't been so timid in the past, and if we want to keep this place from going to hell in a handbasket, I suspect we won't be in the future either. Do you see why? Because as you well know, banning is an indispensable tool in a forum like this, and as it grows you will undoubtedly have to fall back in important instances on less than 100% certainty in the future if anyone is going to get banned at all. In other words, you, in your capacity as an administrator, are setting yourself up for some serious inconsistencies in how you structure--and allow others to operate--the banning procedures around here. You are making yourself into someone who believes one thing about when people ought to be banned, but has followed another thing in the past, and will revert to that same (now rejected) thing in the future if the Sift is going to remain anything like what it is today. Methinks this is not so desirable.

And it is not overly demanding to expect people to be able to give an account of themselves when circumstances seem (more than a little) fishy, nor is it somehow unfair to think that when they can't--when there doesn't seem to be a plausible alternative explanation that they or anyone else can offer in their defense--that this might be strong evidence of their guilt. I'm prepared to argue at length for this, and to generate some thought experiments that will help demonstrate the case. However, since I already said my last comment would be my final (public) input on this, I'll limit that to private messages to you--and then only if you're interested in hearing them.

"I suppose I'm just naturally inclined to be less accusatory whenever it involves a member who has been here and worked long enough to earn themselves a star."

This misses the point. Precisely what's at stake here is whether or not MrFisk earned his star through legitimate means at all. Our star point system is fantastic, and should be both defended and relied upon to inform our decisions about Siftquisitions. But if the question is whether the person has done what all the rest of us had to do to earn our stars, or instead cheated, then that changes things. You can't have a functioning ranking/privelege system based on star points if we can't be sure that the attainment of those points wasn't tainted. It just won't do anyone any good to rely on stars at all if we allow the foundation of the system to be eroded through sock-puppetry. The stars simply won't mean anything at that point.

Alright, I know I'm annoying the shit out of everyone, so I'm gonna stop now.

>> I think you are setting it way too high in asking for incontrovertible evidence; evidence the kind of which is rarely found in real life, or in our past instances of banination here on the Sift.

I'm not sure where you got that information, but that's not the case at all. I've seen lots of solid evidence in almost every case. The only cases of banination that frequently lack solid evidence are for self-linking, but even then there's good presumptuous evidence that makes the guilt apparent.

>> you risk indicting yourself as a hypocrite

I disagree. I've never personally banned anyone who I wasn't sure was guilty. This is especially true for cases of sock puppetry. Every ban I have handed out for such an offense has always, in every single case, 100% of the time, been supported with hard evidence.

>> This misses the point.

I think you missed my point. I simply noted that I personally find myself waiting for more evidence before I personally point my finger at someone who's earned a star.

As I said in my private PM to you, Tofumar:
"If Dag and/or the community decides he does in fact deserve to be banned or receive any other punishment for something he may not have done, I won't argue, but I can't in good conscience condemn someone when the evidence says he's not guilty of the crime with which he's charged."

In fact, I'm not even arguing about any of this now. All I'm saying is I myself can't personally proclaim any certainty about his guilt or innocence.

ashes2flame downvoted all my vids. Clear example of someone voting against the person and not the content. Lame.

What. About. Time. Stamps?

Hell, The sentence "I guess I just have a groupie" pretty much admits guilt to me.

He just told us that he had nothing to do with Dr.A voting on his stuff, but the fact is it's pretty much impossible for him to have done so were it not for Mr. Fisk's input.

Can't we just get more time stamps already?

Indeed, it does seem that way. That is pretty fucking lame, and for someone that started a siftqusition on another member, it was stupid.

I admit, I wanted to do so to counter-act the votes gained from Dr.A, but I knew not to.

From the FAQ: "Please do not down vote a video because you dislike the Sifter who submitted it; this is entirely unacceptable. Instead, vote solely based on the quality of video content. If down voting or any other member privilege is intentionally misused, the offending member will be temporarily banned for no less than 2 weeks. A second offense will result in a permanent ban."


I think we may need another siftqusition.

Awwww, great...

Now we have some solid evidence of the two most prominent members in this thread both committing the same offense against one another. And it seems ashes2flames is the instigator.

Ashes2Flames went on a downvote spree (one after the other, seconds apart) against MrFisk:
| MrFisk | 2008-05-31 22:40:42 |
| MrFisk | 2008-05-31 22:41:15 |
| MrFisk | 2008-05-31 22:41:32 |
| MrFisk | 2008-05-31 22:42:09 |
| MrFisk | 2008-05-31 22:42:45 |
| MrFisk | 2008-05-31 22:43:03 |
| MrFisk | 2008-05-31 22:43:25 |
| MrFisk | 2008-05-31 22:43:58 |
| MrFisk | 2008-05-31 22:44:14 |
| MrFisk | 2008-05-31 22:44:29 |
| MrFisk | 2008-05-31 22:44:43 |
| MrFisk | 2008-05-31 22:45:09 |
| MrFisk | 2008-05-31 22:45:25 |
| MrFisk | 2008-05-31 22:45:42 |
| MrFisk | 2008-05-31 22:45:56 |
| MrFisk | 2008-05-31 22:46:13 |
| MrFisk | 2008-05-31 22:46:33 |
| MrFisk | 2008-05-31 22:47:07 |
| MrFisk | 2008-05-31 22:47:29 |
| MrFisk | 2008-05-31 22:47:44 |
| MrFisk | 2008-05-31 22:47:55 |

A couple days later MrFisk went on a downvote spree, but not against ashes2flames:
| choggie | 2008-06-02 00:29:20 |
| choggie | 2008-06-02 00:29:33 |
| choggie | 2008-06-02 00:29:47 |
| choggie | 2008-06-02 00:29:51 |
| choggie | 2008-06-02 00:30:02 |
| choggie | 2008-06-02 00:30:13 |
| choggie | 2008-06-02 00:30:21 |
| choggie | 2008-06-02 00:30:28 |
| choggie | 2008-06-02 00:30:45 |
| choggie | 2008-06-02 00:31:00 |
| choggie | 2008-06-02 00:31:08 |

Really surprising behavior on multiple counts. 1) Ashes2Flames siftquisitioned MrFisk when he himself is in need of a siftquisition; 2) MrFisk didn't retaliate against Ashes2Flames, but against choggie.

This is extremely disappointing once again for the 3rd and 4th offense of this nature in months.

There's still no evidence of any sock puppetry, even after looking at logs for posts, comments, and votes, but we now have 2 confirmed cases of downvote sprees.

As MG pasted from the FAQ both members will need to be banned for two weeks. If either repeats the offense, that member will be permanently banned.

All downvote spree votes will be nullified.

It's settled, then.

If there's no further evidence of sock puppetry, then this Siftquisition is over. *unsticky

Unstickying this post from the top of Sift Talk - unsticky requested by MarineGunrock.

Ashes2flames, that was dumb. But come on back and keep your head on straight - I like your commentary around here.

awww - I was hoping we could beat hoarse a dead horse deader.

For the record, I only downvoted Choggie's lame videos. I also upvoted the good ones.

So you knew which ones were lame by looking at the title? Me thinks not.

Unlike the rest of you, I took the Hippocratic Oath. I can only help sick people, I can't hurt them.

"In every house where I come I will enter only for the good of my patients, keeping myself far from all intentional ill-doing and all seduction and especially from the pleasures of love with women or with men, be they free or slaves."

Damn, that's quite limiting.

Conversely, I knew which ones were good by looking at the title ... Anyways, it was petty and lame and I offer my apology.

Thanks for the apology, MrFisk.

The ban will happen now for you, Ashes2Flames and MrFisk. You will be automatically un-banned two weeks from when it starts.

We hope to see you both then.

Invoking 2 week ban on Siftquisition meatbags ashes2flames and MrFisk for violation of Sift guidelines - ban requested by entire VideoSift community.

^ So, as twisty and turny as this whole thing has been, I didn't see any of that coming at all.

I dunno - I think I saw this before in an episode of "As The World Turns". It's all eerily familiar.
I'm getting "Déjà Vu all over again".

that was a very surprising end to this siftquisition. I hope both come back and make good contributions.

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

Better viewing than Lost.

>> ^MarineGunrock:
So you knew which ones were lame by looking at the title? Me thinks not.


Wow, away for 2 hours and its all kicked off Shame about the double bans and yeah, voting videos down based on title - thats just stupid.

Hopefully everything will be all huggy bunches now.
good to see the unfair downvotes removed too! nice one lucky

lol - dare I say this was * actionpacked?

I'll shut up now...
I am going off now to vote up some quality videos

I'll say it. it was *actionpacked. I went to bed, and checked this after PT, and WOW.

Moving post to Actionpack Talk - requested by arsenault185.

Heh - maybe Ashes2Flames and MrFisk should get their own channel in two weeks!
Keep us engaged with their wily antics, those crazy two.

With regular guest appearances from choggie, lucky760 and an urn representing the former DrAlciabiades.

Who knows, maybe it'll get Good Aaaron out of the woodwork, RIP.

That was surprising. Both temp-bans are fair.

^ Yep.

I hope this points out that we need VS to have threaded discussion capability...
(or "comment replying")

>> ^dag: Better viewing than Lost.

can we do this again - next week, maybe?

>> ^kronosposeidon:
Speaking only as an American, we don't need proof
Hur hur.

(Just reading thru much of the comments I skimmed over earlier...)

>> ^kronosposeidon:
I believe in giving the benefit of the doubt when there is reasonable doubt to begin with, but do you really believe there is "reasonable" doubt in this case?

I know it's all over now, but to be honest, given the compelling plethora of information in the database, I do feel there is reasonable doubt. (And maybe it's only because of what I've seen or haven't seen in the database that convinces me as much.)

To convince myself further, I did a scan and found 2424 votes that were cast by within one minute of someone else's submission, and in all the cases I reviewed the videos are longer than one minute in length. Almost all instances of this were between respected, veteran members so there's obviously no funny business about it any further than one member giving another one word that they have a new video.

Again, no absolute proof one way or the other, but definitely very reasonable doubt. Unless all you veteran member accounts are also all run by a single individual...

Wait! Maybe that's what's going on here!

SiftBoooooot! Have you been hacking people again???!!! Show me the papers proving your whereabouts immediately.

You don't need to see my papers...

I don't need to see your papers. Move along.

Well, since it's clear that the admins don't want to consider a permanent ban for MrFisk, then it's pointless to pursue this issue further. This comment will be the last time I mention this whole affair.

We never did get to poll more than a handful of members about conviction or acquittal on the charge of sock puppetry for MrFisk, but if the number of people who upvoted my "Speaking only as an American..." comment is a reliable indicator, then I believe a majority would have found him guilty. No smoking gun, mind you, but enough evidence was there for a conviction. Let's not forget DrAl only voted for MrFisk's videos, and not one but two of these upvotes took place almost immediately after MrFisk posted his videos. The rest of DrAl's upvotes don't count because he didnt become a member until just recently, where he retroactively upvoted the remainder of MrFisk's videos. And if someone brings up a wrongful execution as an analogy to rebut circumstantial evidence, then straws are really being grasped at.

So if we're going to use analogies then I'll say this: Someone just walked out the back of someone's house with a TV, and all the cops did was give him a ticket for jaywalking. That ain't justice in my analogy, and this isn't justice that happened here today. So frankly I hope MrFisk never comes back. I won't antagonize him whatsoever if he does, nor will I encourage others in any way to do so, but he'll be a ghost to me if he returns. I won't watch his videos or read his comments. As far as I'm concerned he's been permanently banned. I know that scumbag DrAl and him are the same person, because I failed to be impressed with his "tits embeds" defense. What's reasonable doubt for you, lucky, doesn't mean it's also reasonable doubt for me or anyone else.

If any of you are going to spend your whole life waiting for smoking guns before you act, well frankly you're fucked.

My final word on the matter.

>> ^kronosposeidon:
If any of you are going to spend your whole life waiting for smoking guns before you act, well frankly you're fucked.

George W. couldn't agree more.

Again, not a single monkey hair linking the two accounts, and lots and lots of other members (including you, kp) give/receive upvotes to/from other members within seconds of video submission. Those two points alone lend reasonable doubt enormous credibility.

Not sure why these facts should be overlooked in the common interest of invading Iraq banning someone who might be a douche bag and deserve it, but not necessarily for the reasons one might be so vehemently convinced.

Sometimes lynchers need to set down their pitchforks and step aside so habeas corpus can take a whack.

The Sift is tough but fair on people who abuse it.

There's no need for a "with us or against us" "BAN HIM" type reaction.

Damn, finding that Commodus pic (first link) was hard.

Anyway, my train of thought was derailed looking for that first picture, but it sums up my attitude - if you're going to do a Gladiatorial-style ban-execution, you want it to be based on more than the "good suspicion" of the angry mob, but something more concrete as Lucky wrote about extensively above.

Lucky's comments were really thorough and to the point so I'm not going to town on that.

Oh I'm tired, time to finish watching this political Basketball vid and then go to sleep.

I would like to add, just in case this happens to me in the future:
Sometimes, I like something a person says in a comment. I click on their profile link. I click on their queue, or their sifted vids. I upvote/downvote vids as I watch them, appreciating that the list is culled practically to my taste already! Sometimes, and this happens a lot...I see vids that I am sure I have seen before (I watch a lot of stuff outside of videosift) ... I then start the clip (if the thumbnail isn't familiar), or I go ahead and vote to save bandwidth (never downvote without watching)...again, when I am dead sure (been wrong once!) I have seen it before.
I was for the temp ban in this case, by the way.

>> ^lucky760:
>> ^kronosposeidon:
If any of you are going to spend your whole life waiting for smoking guns before you act, well frankly you're fucked.

George W. couldn't agree more.
Again, not a single monkey hair linking the two accounts, and lots and lots of other members (including you, kp) give/receive upvotes to/from other members within seconds of video submission. Those two points alone lend reasonable doubt enormous credibility.
Not sure why these facts should be overlooked in the common interest of invading Iraq banning someone who might be a douche bag and deserve it, but not necessarily for the reasons one might be so vehemently convinced.
Sometimes lynchers need to set down their pitchforks and step aside so habeas corpus can take a whack.


HA HA! That's funny shit! Really, really, REALLY funny shit.

I'm done talking about this case, just as I promised, lucky. But I'll tell you one thing right now:

I DO NOT like it one fucking bit to be called a "George W.", and I ESPECIALLY HATE being called a fucking "lyncher". Did I call you names? Please point to where I did. And now you're upping the analogy-ante by going from sentencing a man to death to invading Iraq!?

George W. is a fucking war criminal, and lynchers are fucking animals. What did I do that resembled a lynch mentality? I presented evidence, and asked for people to vote? Does that sound like something a lynch mob would do? Did I act like the leader of an "angry mob" (Krupo)? When gwiz665 cast his vote to acquit I politely thanked him for voting and asked for more people to do so. Yep, that sounds like an angry mob leader to me.

And if you don't have faith in "the mob" here, then I say that Siftquisitions should come to a swift end. Someone's liable to get lynched after all. Are you prepared to say that we should end them, and that the Siftquisitions of the past were all lynch mobs too?

Maybe you think I'm being thick about this case, but even if you believe that I still do NOT deserve to be called a lyncher. I though we had a policy about ad hominem attacks. I can't see how your lyncher remark can be construed in other way. Are you prepared to apologize?

And don't even fucking say you were joking, because it's a piss poor joke.

*sticky

Stickying this post at the top of Sift Talk - sticky requested by kronosposeidon.

First, I didn't call you George W. I said he would agree with your statement, and judging by his presidential history he would. Don't know why that irks you so much or how you could validly disagree.

Second, I'm not going to apologize not because I was joking but because you're misconstruing my words. I didn't point you out as a lyncher. I was speaking in broad strokes about anyone so quick to declare there's no possible way there's any reasonable doubt and we should discount any evidence to the contrary and go ahead with the banination.

Third, when I used (and use) the term "lynch" I never mean it in what is apparently the manner you're taking it, to mean a white lynch mob out to hang an innocent black man. I always use the term in it's generic form. (In fact, the first image that comes to my mind when I hear lynch mob is the crowd of villagers in Beauty and the Beast heading to the castle to rescue Belle and murder the beast.) I was referring to the mob mentality where there's no room for reason and we should all get together and go after the accused under any circumstances.

I didn't launch an ad hominem attack against you or anyone. I'm simply stating that vehemently going after the accused like there is evidence proving him guilty despite the fact that there is evidence to the contrary is action taking on mob mentality. "Who cares about your evidence?! There's no reasonable doubt even though you listed the reasons there is! Screw him! Let's get him!" Are my thoughts really so heinous when I say, "I have evidence to cast reasonable doubt" and you essentially say, "If you wait for a smoking gun you're fucked - I want him banned! I say he's guilty enough!" ?

Finally I'll just state that all my opinions should not be taken as holy word of the Sift. As I said above, I wasn't really arguing the case in either direction, just stating the evidence as I saw it in a somewhat objective manner. I even said specifically if everyone wanted to punish the guy I wouldn't have a problem with it, and I wouldn't.

I just felt compelled to speak to the apparently intentional ignorance of the evidence presented in the case.

yow, Che Pendejo really went to town on ol' choggie-I wanna see the up to down ratio Horatio was wincing about....nah, nevermind.....What doth motivate the vote-caster???....I have run through uppity muckraker's posts before, and stand by a more refined methodolgy and justification than the simpleton's defense, "i voted the bad ones down and the good ones up!?(tantrum)The motivation for the lurk was a couple of obviously understood comments on his part, to perhaps two of his comments, if I can recall, the 2 seconds I last wasted on, Mr.(2-week ban)fisk....

come back contrite, Vanillaboy, and perhaps we'll do this again REAL FUCKING SOON!!!!! Or perhaps you can shrink, grow, or otherwise, bugger off.....either way, the sift has you-

^You just can't apologize, can you? For the life of you, you simply can't see how calling someone a lyncher might offend someone, even if you're using it metaphorically. Well how about I call you a fucking asshole? By "fucking asshole" I mean someone whom I strongly disagree with, that's all. Is that okay?

Lynching is still a charged term, in case you're not up on current events. Just ask George Allen, who besides his "macaca moment", also had a noose hanging from a plant in his office. You know, a LYNCHING noose. That also didn't sit well with a lot of voters.

So if you're not going to apologize for using the term "lyncher", then I'm not going to apologize for calling you a fucking asshole. Fair enough? And from now on we can all each other whatever we want, because we can all claim that we're merely speaking in metaphors. Ad homs are a thing of the past.

Fucking great, eh?

Lynching is NOT a joke, even these days:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CowWSNO6v30

Even the President said "Lynching is not a word to be used in jest."

Boy, you're a great piece of work, kp.

I don't know why you decided so strongly I was speaking in metaphor, but I never said I was because I'm not. I said I'm simply using the term "lynch" in accordance with it's definition (punishment, usually by death, without due process of law) and not in your racially charged manner.

If you're offended by the word "lyncher" it's because you applied a racial meaning to it yourself. Like I said, when I hear and use the word lynch I think of the mob scenes in The Simpsons Movie and Beauty and the Beast, unless the context implies otherwise. Did I not also mention Habeas Corpus in the same sentence, clearly implying my use of "lynch" was for the "without due process" part of it's definition?

So I say again, take my use of the word lynch in the dictionary-definition, non-racial context in which I used it and you should cease feeling offended. I'll forgive you for calling me a fucking asshole, regardless. (It's clear you're a bit hot under the collar.)

Though I still don't know why you feel so comfortable to brush aside all the evidence I presented and demand that he's guilty enough for your sensibilities.

[edit]
>> Even the President said "Lynching is not a word to be used in jest."

Again, I stated explicitly that I was not making a joke. (Hope this doesn't rile you up even more, but I find it humorous that after what you said about Bush you're now quoting him. Teehee. You gotta admit that's funny.)

As perversely enjoyable as it is watching you two go at it (sort of like watching a car crash in slow motion), I don't think this thread needs to be sticky anymore. *unsticky

Unstickying this post from the top of Sift Talk - unsticky requested by Sarzy.

boys, boys, boys...

Look lucky, I even embedded the video just for you:

http://www.videosift.com/video/Lynching-is-not-a-word-to-be-used-in-jest

I don't apologize for what I said, and like The Who said, I don't need to be forgiven.

The word "lynch" is more powerful than you're willing to give credit. Of course I'm hot under the fucking collar, you called me a goddamn LYNCHER. And I don't give a flying fuck what you think it means, it's a lot more powerful than that. If you were in a room full of black people and said to one of them that he's acting like a lyncher, what kind of response do you think you'd get? Do you think your "I'm only referring to 'The Simpsons'" defense would placate them? Then why should it be any different for me?

But no, you insist that I'm the one making the word a term of hate. Like I said from the beginning, don't tell me it's a fucking joke, because it's a piss poor joke.

My dear nephew who used to live with me for a while used to be a sifter here too. We had a riot posting videos and laughing at all the shit we found here together. His dad is black, and my nephew looks just as black as his father. What if it had been him you had directed that remark at? I guarantee you he wouldn't buy your load of shit. And I guarantee you he would come down on you ten times harder than I'm doing now. But he should just laugh it off, right?

Regardless of the race of anyone involved, lynching is a term no one should use in jest. If you find it impossible to see that, then go to hell. No apologies offered, and you can stick your forgiveness up your ass.

*promote

Promoting this Sift Talk post - promote requested by kronosposeidon.

And just so to be clear for everyone else, I am NOT mad about the outcome of the MrFisk case. I couldn't give two shits about it anymore. My anger is with being called a lyncher. That's out of line, yet lucky STILL thinks it's a goddamn joke. Well it ain't, except in his convoluted fucked-up thinking.

>> If you were in a room full of black people and said to one of them that he's acting like a lyncher, what kind of response do you think you'd get? Do you think your "I'm only referring to 'The Simpsons'" defense would placate them? Then why should it be any different for me?

It's called context. You're not in a room full of black people. This discussion is/was not about race and continues not to be except in your eyes. My reference to The Simpsons was not a defense, just an illustration. In fact, I don't feel I'm defending myself at all any more than is required to teach you acceptable use of a sometimes unacceptably used term.

>> But no, you insist that I'm the one making the word a term of hate.

You are.

Because of your nephew and his father you apparently feel you must take it upon yourself to take any possibly racial terms in the most inflammatory way possible and defend them and all black people. In reality, the discussion had nothing to do with race, nor did my language. (Incidentally, I'm wondering: If you have a term other than "lynch" or "mob" that would not incite such anger in you, I'd appreciate if you filled me in.)

>> Like I said from the beginning, don't tell me it's a fucking joke, because it's a piss poor joke... Regardless of the race of anyone involved, lynching is a term no one should use in jest.

For the 3rd time, my use of the word was not a joke and was not in jest. I used the term as it has always been defined since Lynch's Law was created. It's during a few horrible decades the term was commonly used to refer to racial issues, but is commonly used in language today for it's true definition, lacking any racial implication.

So, I guess I should go ahead and stick my forgiveness up my ass, but instead I'll just allow you the room you need to vent and hate and curse and swear, and take a mental note that I should make sure I tippy toe on eggshells around you in case something else I say can be taken as racist by your hypersensitivity. Perhaps you should just ignore all my comments altogether, just in case?

[edit]
>> lucky STILL thinks it's a goddamn joke

For the 4th time, I was not making a joke and I was not jesting, nor have I been since you started coming unglued. Don't know why you're having such a hard time with that point.

In the context I used the word, there was nothing wrong with it. It's a fallacy to believe the term "lynch" is always racially charged in any/every context, no matter what. It's not.

holy shit. so much for some light reading before bed....

my two cents say that there was clear sock puppetry. 30 seconds? impossible without it being.

send a lynch-mob after the escapee....

ok girls, another cheer!!


"David, Merrill, Stephen, Marshawn;
axel-draggin' bitches, the lynchpins' gone!!

To put to death by a mob, w/o legal recourse, usually by hanging-is pretty much the universal definition, though I don't have the Oxford-English, one of her definitions would probably reference the practice you are bent out of shape over-Diagnosis: too much goddamn television (programming) and fast food-suggest television destruction, donation, or a day at a Vietnamese massage parlor....

Your connotation kp, serves only one symbol, one image of a practice invented by sadistic killers-luckys' not killer material....but his gal sure is!!! (mean that in a sincere and appreciative way, and wish you both long life and many much happiness!)

Lucky, how do you KNOW there's no black people reading this right now? I don't remember checking a race box in my profile. But what if it's just one? Or does it matter only if all us are black? What if it were just my nephew? Would you explain to him the "generic" sense of the word and Lynch's law? Would you honestly expect that to work? Or would you say he's just too full of hate, and then pretend you have to walk on eggshells around him?

Teehee. You gotta admit that's funny.

No, I sure don't.

*discard

To hell with it.

Discarding this post - discard requested by member kronosposeidon.

Whoa.

>> ^kronosposeidon:
discard
To hell with it.


I was just getting ready to do that.

>> ^kronosposeidon:
Lucky, how do you KNOW there's no black people reading this right now? I don't remember checking a race box in my profile. But what if it's just one? Or does it matter only if all us are black? What if it were just my nephew? Would you explain to him the "generic" sense of the word and Lynch's law? Would you honestly expect that to work? Or would you say he's just too full of hate, and then pretend you have to walk on eggshells around him?

You're just pointlessly blinded by hate, kp. The point is it does not matter if every single person on VideoSift or just one of them or none of them is black and reading this. There is nothing racial about my comment whatsoever. But if someone wishes to interpret a completely vanilla thing as an insult they are compelled to defend for all people, that's just something they'll need to deal with in their life.

The bottom line is, to answer your series of questions, no. I would not even consider that I would need to explain anything to any of them because my use of the word would be a complete non-issue, and anyone getting upset over perfectly acceptable use of any word does not warrant someone twisting it into something evil.

>> Teehee. You gotta admit that's funny.
No, I sure don't.

Way to take my words completely out of context again. (You're pretty good at doing that, it seems.) Don't tell me, I insulted Asian people by saying TeeHee? Or don't you have an Asian niece you need to defend?

Yeesh. If you're too dense (or just refuse for no good reason) to be able to understand that I and anyone else can use the word lynch in a valid way, you're obviously just set in your way and refuse to consider any other possibilities, so this entire conversation is for naught. It's not like I uttered the N word (which I've never used in my life), which is a word that always carries with it racial connotation. It's also not like a non-black person using the term lynch in reference to a specific black person, which I would agree should be considered offensive.

That's the last I'll speak to this subject.

Another shocking twist! I think sarzy hits it on the nail, like watching a slow motion car crash.

kronos: "If any of you are going to spend your whole life waiting for smoking guns before you act, well frankly you're fucked."

This is just a poor argument, and it is the exact argument we have been getting from those who support the war in Iraq and support an invasion of Iran. You don't have to have a smoking gun every time, but you better have damn better evidence than what we had here.

Anyways, calm down guys. Some people may find "lynch" a racially charged word, but some, like me, read it like lucky does. Lynchmob -> mob mentality ~ angry mobs. Perhaps the choice of word wasn't the best, but by his testimony lucky didn't mean it as a joke or to imply that all who voted "guilty" were KKK. It merely stated that some people wanted to ban very hastily, which is not something that should happen. After all a siftquisition is like a tribunal, not a mob.

If there are black people that are offended by the choice of words, let THEM speak up. No need to be all offended on behalf of someone else. We're a pretty rational group of people here, we're not 4chan. We'll apologize of we genuinely offend someone, I just think you (kronos) are getting riled up over peanuts here. Sorry if lucky's comments struck a nerve, it can happen to us all.

I am offended, that the weasel discarded this post....like burning a page in your journal, embarrassed by your own process-

politcaly correct bullshit-programmed delusion, making the leap from the written word, to name-calling, fucking juvenile, and low-center of grey-matter monkey shit.

HI THER...

err... sorry, wrong room.

Oh my god, is this still going on?
I'm gonna go get some popcorn while we all 'beat hoarse a dead horse deader'.
I sure hope there's no horses here who would take offence to that.

regarding the title of this discussion, KP & Lucky - is your discussion under the "MrFisk and DrAl" (and Ashes2Flames) thing, or the "Absence of Reason"?

*quality

hahahahha

rottenseed cannot award a quality point for this Sift Talk post because rottenseed does not have enough Power Points - ignoring quality request by rottenseed. (You can always purchase more Power Points.)

News flash:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/lynch

"lynch" is not a racially charged word unless you're "gonna go lynch them damn darkies", in which case yes, yes it is, but only because you made it so. I think it's obvious that Lucky wasn't using it in this fashion.

Can't we all just *getalong?

I always miss all the good stuff.

The last word.

Or not... ?

Definitely not.

Screw you all, I am the necroposter-supreme.

Besides, I miss ashes2flames.

*promote Mr. Fisk humor fodder.

Only published, queued, or discarded videos, published Sift Talk posts, and published blog posts may be promoted - ignoring promote request by dystopianfuturetoday.

...or not.

*save?

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

Wow. Forgot about this blast from the past.

*quality

Awarding ashes2flames with one star point for this contribution to VideoSift - declared quality by MrFisk.

*controversy *talks *comedy

Adding post to channels (Comedy, Controversy, Talks) - requested by MrFisk.

*sticky for 24 hours, just to make everyone (hopefully) smile.

MrFisk cannot sticky this post because MrFisk does not have enough Power Points. (You can always purchase more Power Points.)

Haha. Nice try.

Love your GPK avatar.