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

[donning robes and ceremonial Sifter hat] Calling Quantumushroom and My15minutes.

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

*sticky

How much trolling is tolerated before we *capture-and-rehabilitate this guy?

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

/\LOL, great comment, siftbot. oops, I've never used my ban before.

Why would he even do that to my15minutes. my15minutes has never ever EVER downvoted anyone at all. NOT AT ALL. That seems fucking idiotic and rude, and abusive as well. I demand an explanation for this crap, because I am furious! This is UNACCEPTABLE BS.

Now I know I troll people a little via comments at times when I'm annoyed at them, I'll admit it, but I wouldn't ever go through and downvote everything somebody's submitted, especially not when they've been upvoting my videos.

*wtf

edit: Haha, that invocation was mainly meant as a joke (forgot that you could assign sifttalk posts to channels like that), feel free to nochannel it.

Moving post to Wtf Talk - requested by JAPR.

Well... honestly it is his right to downvote yes?

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

>> ^K0MMIE:
Well... honestly it is his right to downvote yes?
Is it his right to methodically downvote a member's entire published sift list? I think that's the crux of the question here.

I guess I see down voting as more of an earned privilege and responsibility. It comes with the bronze star.

Yeah K0MMIE, just like it's our right to decide whether or not there is abuse going on. So you'd be all right if some other individual sifter decided to drive-by downvote your entire library of submissions in one swoop? You think that is appropriate and customary for Sifters to just randomly do that? Let me know.

I am not agreeing with what he did, but I am just saying he has the power to downvote and we wield it how he sees fit.

To put this in terms that I understand I'll relate this to superheroes. Quantummushroom was bitten by a radioactive spider and was given super powers. Except he didn't see it as a tool to help others he saw it as a tool to advance himself. He didn't listen to his Uncle Ben who said "with great power comes great responsibility"

Now, do we blame those who wield the superpowers? Or the radioactive spider? Or does society accept that others will abuse their special gifts? How does a society respond to that?

BAN

>> ^K0MMIE:
How does a society respond to that?

With banhammers and stern glares.

If he has an answer, thats one thing. But i think the likelyhood of a Troll having a good answer for this behaviour is rediculously low.

Still, he's been sumoned to give an acount. Will he even show up?

The guy is obviously not liked much around here, so if we put that thought aside
for a sec we might offer this solution:

After a consensus from the group that QM is in FACT trolling My15min and it's not some big coincidence, QM will have a chance to show up and acknowledge.

If he agrees to lay off then fine, Siftquisition has done a good days work. BUT if he doesn't acknowledge and/or cops attitude..then....

Upon next trollvote from him his downvote privies will be taken from his account or just plain out banned for trolling.

thats my take on it at least

Well I guess we'll just have to wait... in the meantime feel free to vote all my unsifted videos up! My superpowers is being a vote-whore.

>> ^K0MMIE:
Well I guess we'll just have to wait... in the meantime feel free to vote all my unsifted videos up! My superpowers is being a vote-whore.

WHOAH. What a coincidence, that's my superpower too!

I'm in agreement basically with swampgirl's solution. Let him come here and explain himself. If he can't be bothered to do that then we can't be bothered by his presence anymore.

I can't see any legitimate reason for QM's actions, but if he's willing to apologize and swear off this type of behavior then I say give him ONE last chance. I don't like a lot of his comments either, but I'm still reluctant to * ban him just yet. I'm assuming QM's been notified of these proceedings, so if he fails to show within the next 24 hours I say it's time to drop the ban hammer. But if he's penitent then give him ONE last chance.

What kp said.

ok. obviously i have a little explaining to do too. so, here's where this all starts, for me:

http://www.videosift.com/video/Gay-adoption-PSA

came across that on the unsifted queue, all sorted the way i like, and i start watching, and it's weird, but i seem to think it has a weird way of actually trying to say something important.

so then i look at the sifter, and it's shroom. and honestly, i'm pleasantly surprised.
'cuz i didn't see anything, attacking the message, from him. and it reminded me of another very recent, much cooler, and pretty fucking amazing sift, all things considered, by Doc_M:

http://www.videosift.com/video/Barack-after-his-close-New-Hampshire-loss-Yes-We-Can

which really blew me away, and i told him so. because, as a Lib, i really am very accustomed to being able to work almost as well with the (Social Liberal) Dems, as the (normally Fiscal Conservative) Reps.

i just honestly don't think shroom is here to get along, the way that i often see Doc and deedub making real efforts to get along with everyone, and make honest arguments, when they can't agree.

here's another guy on the mostly-right, who happens to be just about the sharpest i've seen on YouTube, from a mostly conservative stance:

http://www.videosift.com/member/justa11en

because he does a better job, of making sharp, honest arguments, and defending his point of view, than (and SO not intended as a slam on Doc or Deedub) anyone i've seen defend a Conservative point fo view, here at the sift.

which is exactly why i asked him to create a login here, for possible future use, after he uploaded this:

http://www.videosift.com/video/The-New-Day-Resolution

i do not see, in shroom, what i see in the other 3 i mention. i don't think he's here to get along. i think he's here to push buttons.
and i know many here that wholeheartedly agree, and we all let him, because we're 10 times more tolerant than he'll ever be, and he knows it, and it probably really pisses him off.

to my knowledge, we have more than just the "mores" here. we have some "folkways". and one of 'em says, you try hard not to downvote, while unsifted, without a comment/reason.
the second, and more important, says you don't target an individual, and downvote their queue with clearly nothing more than malice in mind.

would shroom like to explain to anyone here, what he found so distasteful, about 2 malaysian kids holding hands?
while he tosses up a hacked-up PSA, from the 80's, about domestic violence, that we're supposed to find fucking amusing now?
it's the only upvote i've ever given here, that i genuinely regret.

because unlike the other 2 clips, that i did really like, and gave an honest (if confused) upvote, that one i only upvoted, in a vain attempt to be able to say what i wanted to tell him, and not have him do, the very thing he did anyway.

that's not all i have to say about the whole damn thing, but i also don't want to waste anyone's time. i just thought this was the pertinent timeline, from my point of view, and i'd be happy to bookmark this, answer any questions, as soon and as accurately as i can, and let everyone else here decide what, if anything, should happen to either of us.

thank you, all, for taking the time to read this. srsly.

- owen / m15

For the sake of accuracy, he hasn't downvoted all of my15's videos, just 28 out of 35.

ps. this one time, i'm not going to upvote any comments on this page, because you already know what i would and would not endorse.

[EDIT] m15 temporary upvote moratorium - rescinded. 8 am, eastern, the states, Jan 17 2008. case closed. my upvoting, or lack thereof, no longer affects outcome. which is that what i had hoped for and expected, and believed most favorable, for all involved.

Obviously this incident goes to show that the guy is a human being and can be influenced by emotion like all of us. We should hear what he has to say. The nearest thing I can tell is that it had to do with my15min's comment on his QM's PSA video. It doesn't seem incredibly offenssive so maybe the guy was having a bad day. It's rare that I agree with QM, but I'd hate to prematurely silence him. Without other voices, this site would lose a lot of richness. It was a silly way to act, but I agree with SwampG, we should let him give an honest reply.

Yes... as much as I tire of QM and his constant calls for the annihilation of Tehran in battered Latin (you're not Cato and this is not the Senate dude, fucking let go of it!)... everyone on this site is, in fact, human (except the evil Siftbot ), so I don't think he should be automatically banned for this... but he should be reprimanded and possibly publicly shamed... because if there is one thing I cannot stand is passive aggressive bullshit like targeted downvotes.... soooooo 3rd grade.

Here are the details listed on the YouTube embeds for the original video listed:

"Parody Commercial Funny Domestic Abuse PSA Molester Nigger Ad Retard Racism Drugs Rape Murder Abortion Santa Predator Molested"

Real classy friends you have there Quantum.

I retract my statements, go ahead and ban.

looks to me like a bad day/spat/over-reaction thingy on the part of QM, like maybe he was really drunk and 28 out of 35 was as far as he could go before he passed out, then what if he stays in bed for 24 hours because of the hangover and misses the siftquisition and then finds out he was banned? oopsie.
I'm just kidding, my way of trying to see what could have happened because even from my15minutes' description there really wasn't anything I could see that would spur a downvote spree, so obviously there is more we don't know...
he looks like an avid downvoter (opinion based on record) so perhaps he was just genuinely disliking 28 out of 35 of his vids, once he got into a list of sifted vids from a guy who isn't of a like mind w/ him.
I'd say this could potentially be brushed off, but I would recommend to him not downvoting any more of my15minutes stuff because otherwise.... (insert favorite threat here).

Expecting reasonable answer from QM? Srsly?

What next he concedes that global warming is real?

He will simply state that it's his right to use downvotes as he sees them, and that we are all pinko Nazis for trampling on his freedom which will side track into some attack on Radical Islam.

I agree that completely banning the guy is a bit harsh, though he's clearly somewhat of a dick. But downvoting almost all of someone's videos as part of some stupid vendetta? Yikes. I don't know if this is even possible, but perhaps his ability to give downvotes could be taken away, since he has clearly abused that power.

Here are the details listed on the YouTube embeds for the original video listed:

"Parody Commercial Funny Domestic Abuse PSA Molester Nigger Ad Retard Racism Drugs Rape Murder Abortion Santa Predator Molested"

Real classy friends you have there Quantum. I retract my statements, go ahead and ban.

I hate to say "I told you so", but... no wait, what am I saying? I LIVE to say "I told you so."

Hey, come on guys, that's a little harsh judging off the crap somebody types on youtube. I don't even look at the tags/description most of the time, I just post something when I find it hilarious.

Isn't there a limit on how many downvotes can be made within certain time period?

suspend his downvoting ability.

it's a right, not a privilege.

wait...stop...reverse that.

Ugh downvote wars

EDIT: It appears these are nothing new... as MKONE has decided just now to downvote my entire library as well. Hmm.

Ok, I’ll weigh in on this. I haven’t had hardly any dealing with QM personally. However, since we were on the subject I decided to poke in his up/downvote history and some of his comments. I am now not surprised by any said against him here.

Peeking at my own downvotes I have a whole of 17 for nearly 2 years of being here. Dag, as another example, has the same. QM has over 300 in the same amount of time. Not that I am going to complain. We do take the ability and the reasoning of downvoting seriously (except for Ant, with his nearly 2000). This is not the issue, however, but it pulls into my next thought.

A downvote, just like criticism, can be constructive as well as deconstructive. So, by downvoting My15’s queue (well, most of it) did QM bring anything to our community as a whole constructively? As it stands currently, not a farking thing. I would actually like to hear QM’s side of the story on this matter, mainly because it will be what really determines how we judge and react to him in the future.

For what it’s worth, I would place this ultimatum: If QM can come here, and give an acceptable explanation (and this will be a group consensus to determine ‘acceptable’ from ‘crap’) or show remorse for doing it, remove downvote ability for 1 month as punishment. If he comes in with a crap explanation, then permanent removal of downvote ability. If he doesn’t decide to even show up to this, say we give him a week… well, I don’t see any reason not to ban him honestly.

My $.02, inflation not taken into account.

[edit] Looks like mkone would be prime for a chopping block as well. Him vs K0MMIE and Goofball_Jones, it seems
http://www.videosift.com/member/mkone/voteddown?pg=1

my $.02

Although QM is nowhere near my favorite guy, he has earned his powers like anyone else. I don't think its right to out-and-out ban anyone just because he is considered to be a dick.

However, downvoting is a privellege (conferred upon someone who has earned it) which has a purpose and responsibility attached. Any time someone is granted a privellege that comes with responsibility and purpose, they usually understand that the privellege can and will be revoked at will and whim. downvoting is not a power granted to be able to punish someone. QM is obviously abusing his power.

So take it away.

Just like a child who cannot be trusted with a shiny new hammer, we can take back the instrument of damage once it is apparent that it isn't being respected.

Obviously, QM has decided to use something that is SUPPOSED to be neutral in order to cause damage to someone he dislikes. Obviously he is not capable of exercising mature judgement and use his tool in a responsible way. Thus we can act like the guiding principle and remove temptation to act like a toddler. He wants to go all psuedo-ninja and secretly cause destruction, we need to step in and gently correct his attitude.

Because if you just ban him, he won't learn nuffin.

[edit: and christ-a-mighty do NOT give me flak about having said "use his tool"

I do NOT want to hear it]

I like mkone's gloating on my page w/ this private message:

"Before: Votes Received: 1625
After: Votes Received: 1585

ahh"

Nice to see it was for a valid reason.

maybe all of your videos suck. haha jk. (please don't downvote all of mine )

>> ^rottenseed:
maybe all of your videos suck. haha jk. (please don't downvote all of mine )

Ha! You can't hate my 30 Hornets vs 30,000 Bees video, that video is full of awesome.

>> ^K0MMIE:
>> ^rottenseed: maybe all of your videos suck. haha jk. (please don't downvote all of mine ) Ha! You can't hate my 30 Hornets vs 30,000 Bees video, that video is full of awesome.

SO TRUE.

Strip him of his rank and let him stay. He does it again, you ban 'em.

K0MMIE is right about mkone. He went on a downvote spree on K0MMIE, and I think he's after Gooball_jones now.

http://www.videosift.com/member/mkone/voteddown?pg=1

"the best way to stop terrorism is to stop participating in it"

I don't much care for anything else except that the guy downvoted someone's sifts disregarding the content of the sift itself.

And all that because they had a few differing arguments. And now he uses his vote powers to achieve vengeance, which i find it very very childish.

I've had my own share of heated discussions and angry arguments around here, especially in relations to election 2008, Russian democracy, Evangelists and speculations and conspiracy craps. And I'm sure during our arguments I've pissed off people who from time to time downvotes my retaliating posts.

But I've yet to see any of them purposely looking up all my sifts and downvoting them just so they could satisfy their personal vendetta against me, even if the sifts had nothing to do with the arguments.

Nobody is that immature, unless they're still in high school. But this guy apparently sunk that low. Bottom line?

Grow up, will ya?

If he wanted to cast single downvotes only I am sure he would would have named himself "singularitymushroom"...

Where is qm anyway?
Working on the mother of all rants?
Downvoting our Moms?

Rottenseed, I agree that all of my15minutes videos suck(That's a joke).

Like smibbo said, he earned the right to downvote. But this isn't a democracy, we don't have rights. It is a autocracy ruled by Dag, and thereby in reality by persephone where we have privileges. And he has clearly abused his privilege, but that doesn't necessarily mean he should be banned.

In my opinion, at most he should lose a star, and at the least Owen should decide his punishment.

Or maybe you can give him a purple star of shame on his profile, which links to this discussion.

I have to go with MarineGunrock and smibbo on this one. QM's posts have never been a favorite of mine on the Sift as we just come from two different fields of thought. But that's neither here nor there; if anything, his posts continually makes me ponder my own views and I can't fault anyone who promotes thought, (though I'm sure that isn't his intention with his posts). As previously stated, if you abuse something that's been given to you, you take it away.

With that said, I'm in the front row to see how this plays out. Ooh, here comes the hotdog vendor now... Issy, could you pass me that Coney dog and beer? You're such a sweetie.

A lot of you are going back and forth with this 'responsibility of power' and 'rights and privileges' argument.

But I don't see that being an issue here, because the issue is clearly about the guy's abusive immaturity. And all of sudden we get a different topic inserted here, asking: 'is the system system responsible for this event or not?'. It's irrelevant. Where did this come from? I'm looking at your direction K0mmie, you spider man freak!

All this 'do we blame the system that gave him power? Is it the system's fault?' talk is doing nothing but detracting us from the original focus of this siftquisition. And for the record, it's not!

Stay on topic guys.

I don't think that quantummushroom ever visits SiftTalk. Are we going to send him a message?

Dag posted on both his and my15's profiles. The next time he chooses to check his email, he should be made aware of this thread.

http://www.videosift.com/video/Crazy-Eddie-commercials-we-had-to-endure

Can anyone tell me (maybe Lucky) when QM downvoted this? If it was after it was published we've got some serious issues. That vid hit the main page 2 hours ago, 5 hours into this Sifquisition. That would mean he either isn't paying attention or doesn't care.

Redacted due to info from Lucky below.

If the idea of videosift is to have content based on member participation, each one of us are little "editors" of the site that graduate in how much input we have by proving our dedication to this sites quality. If somebody can't handle that then there should be some suspension in their abilities. If you could maybe add the number of contributions or star points that he must have in order to be able to downvote again. Kind of like the increase of one's legal driving age if one gets caught with a DUI while under age.

To be perfectly honest with my comrades here, in the days of my downvoting ability's infancy I had a little quarrel with goofball_jones myself. I acted stupidly and impulsively and downvoted several of his videos. Realizing the error in my ways I decided to just let it go. I don't have to like him and he doesn't have to like me, but there's no need for this community to indirectly suffer because of our beef.

Maybe the point that they are negatively affecting the direction of this website by their actions needs to be explained to them.

I will chime in.

I don't like quantummushroom, don't like his sifts, in general, hate his comments, and would probably enjoy my sift experience more if he were gone. Do I want him banned? No. I recognize that if Dag and Lucky, and whoever else is in charge here don't like his company, they can do so, and they are welcome to: it's their sandbox. But I don't like to ban dissenting voices.

And honestly, if this siftquisition didn't get myfifteenminutes some extra votes, I will be surprised. (But then, I vote for a lot of his videos, anyway.)

I would rather leave this to community action. Would any of you be more or less likely to vote for a QM vid now? Would any of you be more or less likely to vote for a 15min vid now? I suspect a few of you would: probably enough to make a difference. And yes, I would still say this even if QM went wild on my queue.

I approve STRONGLY of dag running the siftquisition, and of things like voting an entire catalogue down being made public.

Edit: one more thing, I wish I could see easily who is downvoting my videos. Sometimes I am sifting about, notice my number has gone down, and spend way too much time trying to find the downvote. Not that I mind the downvote--just I am madly curious to see what it was and if there was a reason. Oh, and I recently got a nice note from a sifter in response to my downvoting his vid. Honestly. That's class.

I think we should seriously consider the purple star of shame.

Slapping stars on someone is not a good idea MH.

Trust me.

I am from Germany.

Someone call Guinness! A new record has been broken for the Biggest Smelliest Pile of Bullshit Hypocrisy on the innertubes.

I can't believe some of the crap I've read in this thread. I'm too angry to even respond coherently to all of it.

For the moment, I'd like to remind everyone of this previous talk post concerning downvotes.

oxdottir, but isn't the act of rethinking your vote based on politics bring this back to a popularity contest? That's not what this is about. It's about the content. Without it, this is just another message board.

>> ^legacy0100:
I don't much care for anything else except that the guy downvoted someone's sifts disregarding the content of the sift itself.

That would be quite the precedent to set considering that even our most honored members are guilty of downvoting a video based on something other than the content of the video itself. (ex: http://www.videosift.com/video/Extreme-video-game-anger)

I'm not aware of any place where it says that there are rules to downvoting, so I don't see how you can rightly dole out any punishment.

QM will participate in polite debate/discussion if engaged properly, as I've had a few with him. I'm not sure if he's naturally hostile or if he's just that way because he's in a hostile environment. When I say that, I don't mean that everyone starts fights with him. I mean everyone has views opposed to his.

I say the farthest this can go is to say "No! Don't do that!" and then to put voting guidelines into writing. The next time this happens there's written rules to be cited and a punishment is to be expected.

Ah, this takes me back to the heady days of the Greek forums, where we are governed by a few, but we all get a chance to rise and speak; making our voices heard so that the council can take them into consideration and render its judgment after all opinions have been presented. This puts a big on my face.

agree with jonny on this one, yer making it much too complicated-and please, admins, don't go makin' no new rule because of qm's snipeish ass.....

I have had person bouts with certain users, they don't, like qm, seem to be here now, affording their trollish 2-cents, similar to qm not being around, to defend/offend/pretend his pathetic or glorious position in this Siftquisition-

doogle, for example, I went and downvoted his queue cause he pissed me off, then went and looked at some more of the video-projection of his tortured soul, and found a few more to take down-there have been others, and they decided to leave, for whatever ego-laden reasons-I miss them and wish them well on their inner journeys-

qm hasn't come to the sift since he perpetrated the heinous crime of downvoting because someone pissed him off, probably because he can only log on at his buddy's place, where they have electricity, or because he's off on some back-patting blog, .....

REST ASSURED, this calling out w/o ban, will add nothing by way of interest in fuel or fervor, to his otherwise, predictable saga here, as the sift's bone-headed whipping boy.....

Please, all you out of the U.S. users, don't buy in to generalizations about us Americans using qm as an example, some of us are just like you....frustrated, idealistic, and set so far into our ways that a goddamn cargo ship fulla big-screen TV's could not change our positions, that of warming chairs with our collective, ineffectual asses. From now on, instead of ignoring qm, try playing the bully card....treat him like a poor puppy what got abused as a child, or, like myself, got covered in various lipstick colors more than covered in welts from a signal whip......

>> ^jonny:
I'd like to remind everyone of this previous talk post concerning downvotes.
It sounds like you're suggesting that maybe it was all a coincidence. Let me assure it was not. Every one of the downvotes were cast within seconds of the last.

2008-01-14 14:44:49
2008-01-14 14:44:44
2008-01-14 14:44:42
2008-01-14 14:43:07
2008-01-14 14:43:03
2008-01-14 14:43:02
2008-01-14 14:42:58
2008-01-14 14:42:53
2008-01-14 14:42:45
2008-01-14 14:42:44
2008-01-14 14:42:38
2008-01-14 14:42:37
2008-01-14 14:42:35
2008-01-14 14:42:14
2008-01-14 14:42:13
2008-01-14 14:42:12
2008-01-14 14:42:01
2008-01-14 14:41:59
2008-01-14 14:41:51
2008-01-14 14:41:47
2008-01-14 14:41:39
2008-01-14 14:41:35
2008-01-14 14:41:34
2008-01-14 14:41:24
2008-01-14 14:41:21
2008-01-14 14:41:18
2008-01-14 14:41:14
2008-01-14 14:41:10

>> ^darkrowan:
Can anyone tell me (maybe Lucky) when QM downvoted this?
It was yesterday afternoon. QM has not been on the site since this ST post was made.

@oxdottir and rottenseed: personally, I have had a vote embargo on QM for about a year now... I don't see it as playing into the 'popularity contest' mentality, but rather, as refusing to aid and abet a troll in his participation on this site.

>> ^xxovercastxx:
I'm not aware of any place where it says that there are rules to downvoting, so I don't see how you can rightly dole out any punishment.

Really? I can't disagree with this statement more. This is a society of friends and friendly people (the vast majority at least). Common courtesy is inherent and needn't be spelled out.

For example, if someone got mad at you then went and discarded every one of your posts, shouldn't we do something about it? Of course no one would argue against some type of action even though there wasn't a written rule somewhere.

I think there might be some sock-puppetry going on here. Anyway to check on that Dag?

>> ^lucky760:
>> ^jonny: I'd like to remind everyone of this previous talk post concerning downvotes.
It sounds like you're suggesting that maybe it was all a coincidence.

Oh come on Lucky. Deathcow downvoted 8 of Anliz's vids in a row. Everyone on that thread knew damn well it wasn't a "statistical coincidence". The answer to Anliz was basically deal with it and don't get so hung up on those little numbers next to your name. Which is I think, the correct answer. I've had a stalker revenge downvoting me since october. So what if the idiot doesn't get it. No amount of my explaining that that breaks the system will change a brat's behavior. Get over it and get on with it.

I think this type of behavior is called "out of arguments". You won my15minutes.

I think QM has made a fool of himself on this one, and if someone punishes themselves like that, it warms my cold, darwinian heart more than any punishment we could give him.

Maybe we could all do "downvote quantumshroom's videos day"?

...just kidding. That would be pretty mean.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
I think there might be some sock-puppetry going on here. Anyway to check on that Dag?
I'm not Dag, but I checked and no, sock-puppetry played no role in the downvote spree.

Bejeebus....

Look, I'm the last person to be defending QM. I think I've made myself clear that he is, in fact, a semi-brain damaged intolerant fascist who repeats GOP talking points over and over again like an autistic 8-yr old.

HOWEVER, wtf is going on here? How hard is this? Any reasonable person realizes this is abuse, or at least no one downvotes all those in a row without realizing there may be complaints.

OBVIOUSLY, he abused his downvotes. Big whoop. Just go in the little database, reverse them, and take away his downvote power. I know it is possible, and probably not that big of a deal. His goal is probably to get banned to vindicate to himself that those bad libherals are fascists.

But as admins, if this is too much trouble, a lot of places would have just banned him. So take your pick admins.

Maybe he had a bad day or was throwing a temper tantrum? Is this different than people that upvote 10 of one persons videos in a row? So you might want to tread lightly, if you are smart you will instead give him a time-out and instead suspend his account for some time period. It seems a waste to have this public flogging just to ban him anyways, you should have just outright banned him (geez, brush up on your Machiavelli)

also, i'd like this on the record, in regards to downvoting, in general.

i have never once taken a single one of ant's downvotes against him, and he knows that because i told him so. we all frequently joke about them.

http://www.videosift.com/video/Crazy-Eddie-commercials-we-had-to-endure

i have never felt ant was targeting me, or anyone else to my knowledge, just being harsh yet honest.

and his votes given / received ratio shows a genuine interest in selecting the best and worst for their appropriate thumbage, before the clip has sifted, and those less interested in manning the churn, suddenly appear.

ant was one of the first, to upvote the one thing i really cared about here.

http://www.videosift.com/video/Shadow-Puppets-animation-by-Chuck-Gamble

and i notice him secretly upvoting my comments.

besides, he's the yin to my yang. i dig ant.

if all that shroom did, to deserve any of this, was downvote any one guy's shit honestly?

we would not be having this conversation, and every one of you knew that, about him, long before i got here.

ps.
>> ^MycroftHomlz:
Rottenseed, I agree that all of my15minutes videos suck.

funny. the way i read that, rottenseed was talking to, and about, K0MMIE. not me.

i guess we all see what we want to, though.

and, if you're willing to provide some more useful and specific criticism, i'd happily accept it, Holmz. here, or in private, at your convenience.

i've only been active here 2 months. but i honestly didn't think anyone had a problem with TED clips, a couple funny commercials, some old TV intros, a single Ron Paul vid, and one cute sift.

pps. were this an isolated incident, with shroom, the way it was with TheSofaKing, three weeks back, dumping on blankfist?

http://sofa.videosift.com#comment-282621

that's how i'd handle shroom.

but this incident, is about as isolated, as Paris Hilton at a circle jerk.

which is a fucking shame, because TheSofaKing needed only the merest of prodding to see the error of his ways instantly.

thank you all again for your time, and attention, to keeping the sift the kind of place that you want it to be.

i will happily submit to the will of the Jedi Council.

- owen

>> ^raven:
@oxdottir and rottenseed: personally, I have had a vote embargo on QM for about a year now... I don't see it as playing into the 'popularity contest' mentality, but rather, as refusing to aid and abet a troll in his participation on this site.

This kind of behavior is just as bad. I have commonly seen people abusing QM and downvoting based on his name alone. If you want me to start trotting it out, there was a time when a little clique were abusing all of QM's videos. Granted some of the videos were just incendiary and crappy, but you should instead let those wither in the queue instead of auto downvoting on name alone. In truth QM has probably also netted over 20 inappropriate downvotes over the year(s).

Why are we correlating video votes with a person's comments? Just upvote good videos (regardless of who submits them).

we can draw a circle around effigies and cast mutating sygils of doom and chaos towards him....admins??, gimme an e-mail and I'll turn the spam-o-matic 2000 machine loose on him.....

I fer one have always felt, that his user name is an insult to the hallucinogenic experience, m'self...

I KNOW......why don't we roast his ass!!!!!

(dag told me to play nice one time.....that calmed me down for about 20 minutes......)

In all seriousness, I was joking around. My voting record probably should have been a hint!

I support my good sifting friend, my15minutes, one hundred and fifty percent. He's a great addition to this site. Period. I don't know much about quantummushroom, but he doesn't sound like a very nice guy, and he certainly doesn't have my support. But, I cannot endorse anyone being banned for downvoting whether it be in bias or for personal malice. I have been guilty of spiteful downvoting myself, especially when TheSofaKing and me got into a little Sift-borne rivalry. We downvoted each other's queues and I went as far as to downvote all of his videos, I believe.

So, if you ban quantummushroom, then you must ban me. TheSofaKing and I have since made peace, and I hold no grudge and I freely upvote his queue whenever I stumble upon it. I think the way my15 and QMR's squabble could work itself out is this way. It's obvious that my15 has more friends on here than QMR does, so even though I'd hate to see roaming cliques dishing out downvotes, I think the only way to solve this is allow for fellow Sifters to deal with this through downvoting and upvoting. When TheSofaKing was downvoting my queue and videos, I got a lot of upvote support from my good friends on here which more than evened things out.

That's what this place is about. The upvote makes you feel all warm inside. And, people like me are going to upvote my15's queue and his other videos to offset QMR's bad downvoting practices. That's the solution, in my opinion. Not banination.

Upvotes coming here: http://www.videosift.com/member/my15minutes/queued

And here: http://www.videosift.com/member/my15minutes/published

I haven't voiced my opinion on this matter and I probably won't, especially when QM has yet to respond, but I would like to speak in general to the issue of abusing power.

I really fear the Sift turning into a place like so many other sites (e.g., YT) where a member can abuse lots of others freely and knowingly face no consequences. I shudder to imagine a day where this is a kindergarten full of children that keep pouring sand over the heads of one another. It should be a safe haven where people come to relax and have fun, not where one should feel vulnerable and violated, always fearful of another sneak attack that will go unchecked.

If something should happen in a situation like this, I think the downvotes should be deleted and the offender warned, only to be banned if they in any way use their powers to attack someone again. (Or the offender should just be banned outright.) To do nothing is to condone it, and condoning abuse of power is like voting Dubya in for a second term to undermine the fabric with which this community has always been woven.

The only thing I feel strongly about is reversing the downvotes. Not so sure about the rest. Maybe write stuff up so that the next time someone copies this behaviour there is something to point to as a guide? (I guess this thread alone could be it.)

e.g. Warning --> Downvote ability removed --> Ban
(or whatever process is agreed upon / appropriate)

^I read it in the style of JFK. Truly impressive my friend truly impressive.

I don't vote based on name, but I do use name as input to help me decide if I should watch--especially in the unsifted area.

I only downvote based on content, but how I choose to spend my precious time is heavily influenced by reputation, and QM is not worth my time.

I've only ever downvoted one QM video, and I only watched it because of the link in this thread. Usually, I move along.

>> ^choggie:
I KNOW......why don't we roast his ass!!!!!

The die has already been cast. His number did not come up.

Can't we just downvote all of MycroftHolmz's videos and call it day?

Joe's right, just cause someone posts a good viddy, doesn't mean your seething, ego-infused distaste for their track-record of dingle-berryness, should keep you from voting for it-that's obviously a girl technique,raven, that some of us don't play with......

>> ^lucky760:
I really fear the Sift turning into a place like so many other sites (e.g., YT) where a member can abuse lots of others freely and knowingly face no consequences. I shudder to imagine a day where this is a kindergarten full of children that keep pouring sand over the heads of one another. It should be a safe haven where people come to relax and have fun, not where one should feel vulnerable and violated, always fearful of another sneak attack that will go unchecked.

I've been reading through all this and struggling with how to put my thoughts down until I read this. Lucky, you hit the nail on the head. I agree that the down-votes should be deleted and QM should be warned. If after that he decides to vote for Dubya a second time then he will get what he deserves...

>> ^lucky760:
I really fear the Sift turning into a place like so many other sites (e.g., YT) where a member can abuse lots of others freely and knowingly face no consequences. I shudder to imagine a day where this is a kindergarten full of children that keep pouring sand over the heads of one another. It should be a safe haven where people come to relax and have fun, not where one should feel vulnerable and violated, always fearful of another sneak attack that will go unchecked.


Be careful of the tyranny of good intentions.

While I'd like to agree with jonny, I can't. The situation with Anliz was just 10 videos and an apparent aberration in behavior even if you don't buy the statistical anomaly in votes. There was no pattern of abuse and they settled it between them quickly. We've got something a bit more extended here and a much stronger pattern, and not against just one person.

I don't like the talk of bans or association with what we think of his posts and attitude, those are separate issues and shouldn't come into this if they have no bearing on this. If any action was or is deserved in that case it's a separate issue and should be treated as such. This issue doesn't need a ban to solve it I don't think.

Personally I like the approach Smibbo suggested. Although there are no specific rules against downvoting however you'd like to it is generally accepted that when you act like an ass there can be consequences and this isn't a court room or a democracy. It's us invited to use Dags computer resources and in a real sense we are guests on his property. If we in some way make it an unpleasant place to be he has every right to deal with it, same as we can kick an unpleasant guest out of our own homes or private business. In this case we don't need to kick anyone out, just remove the tool that was abused and give them the chance to earn it back again if they'd like.

Interesting point Lucky, but wouldn't it be just as bad if you have a place where anyone new that comes along with a different opinion, or expresses it in a way that ticks someone off, gets pummeled by a group of self-appointed self-righteous sift police? Because that is exactly what is happening here. Read owen's comment above - this isn't about downvoting, this is about not liking QM, his opinions, and the way he expresses them.

As has been mentioned several times now, lots of folks have gone on up/down voting sprees based on the submitter's name alone. Hell, blankfist pretty much invited everyone to do just that. So, are they going to be dragged out too? Will their accounts be permanently or temporarily banned?

(side note - QM has been here contributing comments and videos, whether you like them or not, longer than most of the folks calling for some kind of punishment. Perhaps his continued presence over such a long period should make people ponder why he wasn't banned before. The answer is not "he should have been.")

Voting on anything other than the content of the video is nothing more than mutual masturbation. I guess everyone should get off multiple times today.

>> ^blankfist:
Be careful of the tyranny of good intentions.


Well said. (Are two downvotes in a row allowed, but three of them bad? Now extrapolate)

Is this really that hard?
We (as in admins or the community) is left with two obvious options
1) Downvoting is free (once you earn it), no scrutiny what-so-ever. Then qm's actions are legal, if childish.
2) Downvoting must represent an opinion of a video. This means that any suspecion, like this, of abuse must be taken up in a siftquisition.

I much prefer option 2, and it seems most people here does that as well. In that case, this must be deemed abuse, unless qm explains and absolves himself. If there is no response, he pleades no contest and must be punished accordingly.

This particular precedence is a bit disturbing, however, because we would have to set up safeguards against it happening again... maybe, if everyone gave up a little bit of freedom, we could be protected from such terrorism.. heh, that last one was a joke, but we would have to be ready to line up another siftquisition at a later date, if someone else tries these shennanigans.

a vote by a group of his peers? (his star level and up)

what should be his outcome? If he's really bugged and upset enough people to the point that they want him banned, that's something he should have thought about before being so disputatious or at least refractory in his views. Let him sleep in the bed that he made. I for one would only vote for a suspension of his downvoting privileges until gold star level. This means he'd have to really straighten up his act and get on our good graces or he'd get frustrated and give up.

yall downvotes sometimes just cuz you're mad at someone?

wow... i really did not think.... that totally bums me out...

I think this is becoming popular. Perhaps I said something particularly reprehensible in this thread; I don't know. I do know that I suddenly dropped more than 50 votes. Right now I can look at the rankings, and I am at 2611 votes, and the person behind me is at 2663. That is, siftbot hasn't redone the rankings since my vote count dropped from above 2663 to 2611. Perhaps someone was taking me at my word that I would still feel that way even if someone went on a downvote rampage.

On the other hand, I haven't found any new downvotes, and I didn't have a video discarded. I did do some * kills of discarded videos, but if that affected vote counts, there is a bug.

Not that I care about the little numbers so much, but because this is either an interesting, and sort of unfriendly, occurrence, or a bug. One way or another.

^yea it's not the best way to solve a conflict. It's basically a virtual pissing contest.

>> ^drattus:
While I'd like to agree with jonny, I can't. The situation with Anliz was just 10 videos and an apparent aberration in behavior even if you don't buy the statistical anomaly in votes. There was no pattern of abuse and they settled it between them quickly. We've got something a bit more extended here and a much stronger pattern, and not against just one person.

You should do better research drattus. Anliz only had 10 vids published or queued at the time. And the votes were in the same order as posting. There is no question about what happened there.

The only other difference here is that QM, aside from not endearing many folks to himself, is not an old personal friend of dag's. Sorry, that was out of line.

So, unless this is about not liking what QM has to say or the way he says it, I call hypocrisy.

And if it is about what he has to say - then reference the mutual masturbation remark above and apply to self-indulgent commenting.

TOO

MUCH

DRAMA

ABOUT

A

SITE

WHERE

YOU

POST

FUCKING

VIDEOS!

That was weird. My vote count was 2611, and then popped back up to 2670 a couple of minutes later. I have no idea what happened. But I have two windows open on my screen: I'm not just misremembering. But perhaps this is unrelated to the siftquisition.

^ somebody probably saved one or two of your dead videos... that happened to me a while back.

To me the problem is giving the downvote to bronze stars in the first place. We all have the power to "vote" or "not vote" for a video which is fair. But the downvote actually gives someone the power to null the vote of another user. Because of this I don't think the power should be given out so easily in the first place.

I say give it to Gold 100's.

Please stand by while we interrupt this broadcast for an important message:

*°*°*°*°*!!!HOORAY FOR VIDEOSIFTS 300.000th COMMENT!!!!*°*°*°*°*

Thank you. We now return to our popular program: Debate 'til u drop
Tonights Episode: Pizza without mushrooms

[Edit: Damn, off by one! arsenault185 got it with a * requeue]

no shit?!? fuck. i almost feel bad, that it had to happen on this fucking page.

must. upvote... maatc.

willpower. failing...

>> ^maatc:
Please stand by while we interrupt this broadcast for an important message:
*°*°*°*°*!!!HOORAY FOR VIDEOSIFTS 300.000th COMMENT!!!!*°*°*°*°*
Thank you. We now return to our popular program: Debate 'til u drop
Tonights Episode: Pizza without mushrooms

You should do better research drattus.

I researched it just fine, Jonny. If you look back a week or so I had already pointed out that thread among others to someone else here when we were discussing a related issue. The thread is hardly new to me and neither is the type of situation given that I had already discussed the possible need for a thread on the subject with a couple of people both publicly and privately, and well before this came up. The number of videos wasn't argued, just the scale, number of people involved, and time span. Perhaps you should keep your assumptions and hypocrisy comments to yourself and allow for differences of opinion without them.

I don't see an aberration in a long record without similar behavior as a reason for panic, everyone has a bad day or a personality clash eventually. A pattern and one involving multiple people is more likely to promote a hostile environment and to provoke others to respond in kind. If you don't see it that way that's your business, and I think I'll leave it at that.

On edit, no I won't leave it at that. I sent this private but if it's worth saying at all it's worth saying here.

If you want to find some hypocrisy you might examine your assumption that your ideas are valid and others with different views are motivated by some ulterior motive. The personal comments and assumptions are out of line and you don't have the first clue who I am, what I think about any issue or what people or groups of them I might or might not like. All you've got is your assumptions and personal comments based on them.

Looking for hypocrisy are you? Look closer to home.

yeah drattus, you should do better research......

I think we should all stop this fussin' an' a feudin', and all go and look at joedirt's new and improved avatar, with what looks like the mug we never seen before.....You can take the boy outta the trailer park, but....


and THAT, makes 100 comments more than quantummushroom ever got in one place before......you feelin' all beside yerself there pard???? Someone wander down to the mines and tell qm he's needed over to the com-putey room.....

On what exactly, choggie? He didn't argue or correct a thing I actually said, just argued with the opinion that the situations weren't equivalent then tossed in some personal assumptions with no basis outside his own imagination.

>> ^lucky760:
Really? I can't disagree with this statement more. This is a society of friends and friendly people (the vast majority at least). Common courtesy is inherent and needn't be spelled out.
For example, if someone got mad at you then went and discarded every one of your posts, shouldn't we do something about it? Of course no one would argue against some type of action even though there wasn't a written rule somewhere.


I think discarding has a bit more obvious use, and yes, undoing the damage seems logical to me in that situation as well as this one. My point was that nobody has ever said how a downvote should be used. I downvote things that I feel don't deserve a place in a collection of the best videos. Other people apparently downvote based on whether they like the submitter, the description, the title, etc. These may be childish, but they are permitted by the current rules. Banning someone for being childish seems, well, childish. Define appropriate use of a downvote and it makes the use of a ban cut and dry.

Jonny, don't call these people hypocrites. The majority of these commentators had nothing to do with the year-old conflict you're referencing.

Also, I love BlankFist’s “you’ll have to kill both of us” attitude.

...also, is anyone getting votes right now??? I haven't gotten a vote all day and I blame this thread and not the mediocrity of my sifts.

drattus, drattus.....I was bustin' yer balls over here, jeeeeeeez!
And stop yer whining bleedingsnowman....I voted for yer Neutrino thing, "Calma, calma......"

Good enough choggie, I should have guessed that maybe but I haven't been in a good mood recently which has a lot to do with why I haven't posted here much the last week or so. Didn't want my mood to rub off on others but this seemed a straightforward enough subject to post on and I was a bit upset when it got complicated. More than I should have been maybe. As soon as I'm sure this thread is done I'm back to lurking for a bit, doing this sure isn't going to help that mood situation any

My desire to bang a loud drum has clearly offended some folks. I'm not calling any particular person or group hypocrital. I'm calling the communal behavior of this witch hunt hypocritical when similar situations in the past were clearly handled differently. Remember this treat? They were essentially told to take it outside.

This thread is rapidly straying from the original topic. And we don't have much of a consensus.

>> ^joedirt:
>> ^raven:
@oxdottir and rottenseed: personally, I have had a vote embargo on QM for about a year now... I don't see it as playing into the 'popularity contest' mentality, but rather, as refusing to aid and abet a troll in his participation on this site.
This kind of behavior is just as bad. I have commonly seen people abusing QM and downvoting based on his name alone. If you want me to start trotting it out, there was a time when a little clique were abusing all of QM's videos. Granted some of the videos were just incendiary and crappy, but you should instead let those wither in the queue instead of auto downvoting on name alone. In truth QM has probably also netted over 20 inappropriate downvotes over the year(s).
Why are we correlating video votes with a person's comments? Just upvote good videos (regardless of who submits them).


I beg to differ... yes, if I were in any way ACTING against him... say consistently DOWNVOTING (vids or comments, etc)... I would agree with you... however, I chose inaction in regards to him simply because I did not want to enable him to be more of a pest on this site. I realized long ago that this was not someone I wanted to see with even bronze star powers, so I wanted no part in helping him get them.

However, I do think, if you were to look at it, I have actually voted for a few of his vids, because occasionally, he would sift something of undeniable merit... and I do quite clearly recall inviting him to join the HorrorShow after he submitted some slasher flick clips or something of that ilk, despite the fact that as a commenter he repulsed me even back then, but, on the whole, as most of his sifts were at best 'meh', I just stayed my votes... and I don't see anything wrong with that.

Down-voting or up-voting anything just because of who posted it is not what this site is supposed to be about--correct me if I'm wrong--even in retaliation. Won't someone think of the children videos? Gladly, people haven't struck back. That's nice to see.

Anyway, there's not going to be any consensus. It ought to be taken care of by the admins. They can deal with QM and we can get back to posting videos. This is all looking like mob justice at work. "He slapped my friend, let's burn his house down and run him out of town. Where's my pitch fork and torch?"

Plus, I'm sure that the impact of this has helped my15 far more than it has hurt him at this point.
The wound is mended and then some. Poetic justice.

The troll label has been thrown around plenty, but no one has mentioned QM's submission record. It speaks volumes that his ratio of discarded:sifted videos is 8:1. I see that primarily as wasted space in the queue.

My favoured solution would be to allow users to remove other users' videos and comments from their view using a block feature. The only way to starve a troll is to ignore them.

and just in case anyone cares what i think should happen to him?
which normally, you shouldn't because i'm supposed to have a vested interest in the outcome?...

i'm going to have my new friend TheSofaKing's latest sift, speak for me.

http://www.videosift.com/video/Christopher-Hitchens-on-Freedom-of-Speech

goodnight, sift. goodnight, moon.

I bet this just thrills QM, he's gotten everyone in a tizzy. Isn't that what trolls live for? He's getting off on this, dragging it out because it's probably his 15 minutes of fame. How ironic. And sad for QM.

Ignore him.

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

Beyond QM I think this is also a referendum on voting and the community. I see this vindictive behavior as a kind of vote fraud.

I don't want it to become commonplace, as it will lead to acrimony and possibly the complete degradation of the site from a great community to a perpetual shit-flinging festival.

So I take this very seriously as an important decision-point for VideoSift.

On the other hand, as much as I disagree with QM in almost all his comments, I recognise that it's important to protect dissenting voices and alternative views. I don't support an outright ban.

In this case, (and any future cases) I recommend a 2-week suspension, with complete banning for a second offense.

We should apply the same penalty to Mkone's inane copycat downvoting spreee. (if you're going to be a jerk - at least be an original one).

Also, I don't agree with "retribution" tit-for-tat down voting sprees.

What say ye all?

>> ^my15minutes:
and just in case anyone cares what i think should happen to him?
which normally, you shouldn't because i'm supposed to have a vested interest in the outcome?...
i'm going to have my new friend TheSofaKing's latest sift, speak for me.


Yes! You are right as always! Free speech is most important. And, we can correct the problem with goodwill in upvoting your queue and published videos - and some can choose to correct it also by downvoting quantumushroom's queue and published list. We don't need to police the user base's intentions with a nonsense witch hunt like this one. It is always the site owner's choice, but I urge them not to suffer from making rash rules for the benefit of making a safe online world for everyone. Reason always before passion.

How is mass downvoting considered vote fraud, dag? It would be vote fraud if someone found a way to downvote (or upvote) a video more than once, but exercising their star-given rights isn't voter fraud - it's site rule given by your site model, dag. QM didn't hack your system or deceive anyone. I think we've made a mockery of the whole thing, and we really need to take a huge step back, in my opinion, before instilling a disgustingly tyrannical rule of resolve.

This could be a huge black-eye for the site.

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

Maybe vote fraud isn't the correct term. But when someone downvotes 20 videos each within seconds of each other (as Lucky's record shows) - the down voting is obviously not being done for any other reason than a punitive one.

I don't think as a community, that we want this kind of practice to be part of our culture.

That's a very good point. This is supposed to be a site for online video quality control where member votes determine the quality of a video. When there are meaningless votes cast, it does affect the tally and thus the quality.

All votes should mean something and that something shouldn't be that the voter was having a fit of cramps with no Midol in sight bad day and wanted to take it out on the world at large. (Not referring to QM, btw.)

I don't think I'd call it vote fraud but I do think it's worth us figuring out where the lines are at least. Nobody questions the way Ant votes because he spreads it around both good and bad and isn't picking on anyone in particular, it's not in any way destructive. A single bad day such as was discussed earlier I don't approve of but if it's a bad day in an otherwise solid career it's not worth a panic over. But a pattern of it on multiple occasions and multiple people starts to become a habit which could easily spread and become the way we deal with each other.

Places such as YouTube got to be the way they are for a reason. The users never drew and enforced a line, it became the wild west and the jerks took over. I'm as solidly against restricting unpopular speech as anyone and was proud of one of our members for thinking to speak up for that guy in the Ron Paul evolution thread, but at some point it's not censoring speech but stopping vindictive and potentially disruptive behavior.

If this isn't where we draw the line then maybe we'd better figure out exactly where it is.

"In this case, (and any future cases) I recommend a 2-week suspension, with complete banning for a second offense.

We should apply the same penalty to Mkone's inane copycat downvoting spreee. (if you're going to be a jerk - at least be an original one).

Also, I don't agree with "retribution" tit-for-tat down voting sprees."''

I agree 250% with Dag, that's better then that measly 110% that everyone else talks about. The last thing anyone who cares about this site wants is a torn troll infested yousift.

^Hey, that's a pretty good idea fissionchips. Although it still won't stop them from doing things like purposely voting all your sifts down. But it's still a good idea and would help a lot.

fuck it....if there is not an answer agreed upon in saaaaaay 8 hrs, I'll start the ball rollin' m'self, and ban the dumb motherfucker-someone else may second it if they wish, but my nomination will stand as a unilateral "shut the fuck up" for everyone who thinks they have a "fair and balanced" way of saying what anyone here who has known, who has experienced, who has tried, qm for the waste a fuckin' time THAT was-(operative with one more vote to go, word)

My near-future action may not set a precedence nor should it, for the rest of the sifters, simply a way of speaking some words with fewer goddamn keystrokes.......JEEEEEEZ!

The guy the butt crust, manages to come flapping on someone's sift, or posting his own, (with offensive in its simplistick inane convoludidddity), wwich I must say, is a bothersome, "have to see it," wherein something he says invariably resets one of you other, damaged or otherwise sensitive to heat or cold monkey-robot-automoton motherfuckers......

lesse, took me about 10 mins between bong hits and chin-ups to write this, so ......qm, in sebben fiddy, I'll get to nominatin'......

"No choggie......don't do it!!"

Yesssss, choggie...DOOOOOO It!"

i just wanted to say (being a bronze star myself) that i agree with Grimm: give the downvote privilege to gold stars - should be used to better the selection, not as a vengeance weapon. that or limit downvotes somehow...
and suspend his downvote rights for a while. but don't ban him

ya better figure it out in sebben foddytree

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

^hate to put a fly in your ointment - but stars are invulnerable to bannination invocations.

there is a difference between censorship and regulations. Even free speech is regulated - can't yell "fire" in a theatre without reason for instance. REgulating behavior is normal and useful and in private forums (of all kinds) expected. Hate to flog a dying horse but, it's like any situation that requires guidance - people need herding occasionally or they'll stampede and hurt each other. This is place to sift through quality videos fer gawds sake, not a special club wherein rank means you get to pound on someone "lower" than you.

mete out some discipline and quit worrying about if you're being unfair or mean.

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

OK, well - I hate to convict en absentia - but without any input from the Siftquisitioned- we will implement an immediate, temporary 2-week ban on Quantumushroom and Mkone.

we'll attempt to email them and let them know what's happening. *unsticky.

i'm just afraid that without people like QM around choggie's gonna vent his rage on someone like me

Though what QM did was not a violation of any rules, it violates the basic principles of this site: Quality control. Pretty much what lucky said. Yes, fraud is too strong a term to use, so I think it should be dubbed "sifting in bad faith". Though I'm usually reluctant to use analogies let me throw this one out anyway:

If you found out your congressman's or MP's voting record was NOT based on what he thought was best for his country or his district, but instead it was based on settling a score with another legislative colleague, wouldn't you be pissed off? Sure, he or she did nothing illegal, but it certainly hurt the democratic process, even if it was only by a little. Would you have much faith in that official's decision after that? No need to answer.

I originally stated that I was against banning for now as long as he showed up and was penitent. Well this late in the game it's a good possibility that he'll be a no-show anyway, and even if he did show up I doubt he'd show any remorse, as Farhad already suggested. And without any perceptible consensus, I thus agree with dag's decision. But if that prick makes one more remark along the lines of poo-pusher ever again, let the ban hammer fall hard and swift, I say.

This message brought to you by "Day Late, Dollar Short" bail bonds.

If you agree with Dag's proposition, then upvote his comment.
I like it.

Boo! If you're going to impose a two week ban on them, then you must (MUST!) impose one on me for the same offense. I'm guilty of the same offense. If you do it to them, then you must agree to do it to a 100 golder.

Let the descent begin.

Hahah I never downvotes anlizs videos! I only vote for them, check em out.

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

QM Responds: (by email)

I read my "Siftquisition" with delight at the depth and breadth of entertainment created. Not the "controversy" per se, but the idea(l)s and vociferous opinions.

I was genuinely touched by the number of sifters who hate(d) my comments and corrosive anti-Lincolnesque persona--namely all of them--yet felt I was worth defending on the grounds of free speech, or what passes for it nowadays.

Every attempt to second-guess my recent actions was incorrect, and furthermore, is it anyone's business why anyone votes the way they do? There are no such litmus tests in the real world other than public opinion, which was the true executioner here.

"Bad faith" voting is the charge? The mact-of-the-fatter is, one vote is one vote, per each sift. Had I downvoted all but say, 5 sifts of a certain member, would THAT have been OK? Hey, I unnerstand the Game...VS is someone else's baby, even though they (we) are often trading in copyrighted materials in violation of both the letter and the spirit of the law. If my actions have further refined the rules then so be it; because of this incident you' will have to.

Without minority viewpoints all you've got is a bunch of politically-correct, faux-tolerant bobbleheads, and most sifters know it. Even now the ghosts of my words may haunt the Sift like Boo-Berry from the cereal of the same name.

I accept my 'vacation' with a smile and in the meantime will try to get some real bloodwork done.

Love and respect,

Quantumushroom, a mushroom you love to hate and hate to hate, due to quantum mechanics

oh thats cute, makes you just want to squeeze him, really hard

He's a douche, but I think there are larger douches on this site than him.

Yeah, I think that QM is a total troll, and I'm glad that we got at least that response from him. He seems content to play his part as the right wing nut job, and it's almost nice to have somebody consistent there playing that role. Much preferable to hit and run whackjobs. To his credit, nobody on this site likes him, but he just keeps coming back for more.

He's so despicable, we all get to feel better about ourselves for not running him out on a rail. I think this whole fiasco has really brought to light, yet again, the need for better guidelines for downvoting. Is it possible to have a sifterendum regarding downvote guidelines? Maybe even something as general as: "Do you support the implementation of mandatory guidelines for downvoting videos on this site?" or something in that nature.

I think that that would probably be an easy majority yes vote, and then we could try and figure out what is reasonable.

We have discussed needing to give reasons for downvotes before. This whole debacle could have been much easier to diagnose if reasons were required. If somebody downvotes a whole block of videos, without any good reason, then the response would be much easier to determine.

I agree with Dag's idea that this should serve as the perfect oppurtunity to set a precedent that can shape the community for the future.

So how about it, a Sifterendum, or what?

Quantumushroom, a mushroom you love to hate and hate to hate

I picture a snake like character slithering under his desk, in his one room apartment, rubbing his hands, chugging his mountain dew, making love to his dick cheney doll. What a guy.

I think his submissions were inappropriate but he really only gets attention when he says/does crazy things. We pay little attention when he tries to share his interests.

http://www.videosift.com/video/Color-Me-Badd-All-4-Love

Yes, it's all fun and games when your not the one being siftquistioned, it's good to see he at least emailed Dag, but not showing up for your own SQ is poor etiquette.

And that the end of the day isn't what QM did just an example of poor community etiquette, Downvoting a persons queue (picture it, picture gollum here guzzing his dew at 1am downvoting a queue, it's sad) It's not the type of character you want sharing your community, I wouldn't want a neighbour who shits on my lawn everytime I plant flowers.

Obviously QM has some social problems, this is the Internet, and the sift is a community full of people with entirely different backgrounds and reasons for using this website. What QM did was done in poor taste and the Siftquisition is well justified.

Everybody should read QM's email to Dag, because that is the closest we will get to performing an autopsy on this troll. After reading it I simply think QM doesn't understand exactly how this web community runs, he thinks he can come on here and use the site with the tools he is provided in any way he wants.

QM probably is on the payroll of some right wing lobby group, one of many sock puppetting liberal communities to keep them from having civilized conversations, you can find them commenting on my AOL blog 24/7 Web 2.0 is slowly drowning out these trolls and they are becoming more and more extinct.

Thank God
(Full disclosure: My god is Jeda Buddas)

Well that was relatively straightforward. I'm glad you got the e-mail response, dag, otherwise I wouldn't like the in absentia piece, as it's rather important to hear back.

If the chronic downvoter comes up with a lucid defense - yes I voted down X vids, but I queued and watch them earlier, and thought they were of poor quality for reasons XYZ, then you can give someone the benefit of the doubt, which I believe many have called for.

As it stands, there wasn't really any remorse nor justification provided to the results of the Siftquisition appear acceptable in my eyes.




Some quick responses:

>> ^jonny:
Someone call Guinness! A new record has been broken for the Biggest Smelliest Pile of Bullshit Hypocrisy on the innertubes.
I can't believe some of the crap I've read in this thread. I'm too angry to even respond coherently to all of it.
For the moment, I'd like to remind everyone of this previous talk post concerning downvotes.


Hey jonny, as the voice of "let's not get carried away by coincidences" in Anliz's thread, keep in mind the scenario involved:
1. in this case, lucky has provided date stamps
2. in the previous case Anliz was a relatively new user (who I haven't seen in ages, come to think of it - regardless), and I wanted to keep things civil since deathcow is the last person you'd expect to go on a crazy vendetta. Being new, Anliz wouldn't necessarily know the personality of all those he was interacting with.

Upvoted jonny's comment regardless because I like shout-outs to the days of yore when I spent entirely too much time around here - contrast with now, when I spend somewhat too much time around here.

>> ^jonny:
(side note - QM has been here contributing comments and videos, whether you like them or not, longer than most of the folks calling for some kind of punishment. Perhaps his continued presence over such a long period should make people ponder why he wasn't banned before. The answer is not "he should have been.")


Funny you should mention that. Only because we're in forum of the Siftquisition do I bring this forward, but I have private messaged qm in the past before he got his bronze star that he was THIS close to getting *-banned for some other major lapses in judgement that will not be re-described here. The message was delivered and there hadn't been major crap-o's that I was aware of. Until now.

The reason I mention that jonny, is to explain that there has been at least one instance of private warnings sent by people who have been here since the Dawn of Time.

In reply to this comment by djsunkid:
Yeah, I think that QM is a total troll, and I'm glad that we got at least that response from him. He seems content to play his part as the right wing nut job, and it's almost nice to have somebody consistent there playing that role. Much preferable to hit and run whackjobs. To his credit, nobody on this site likes him, but he just keeps coming back for more.

Well I dunno, maybe Bill O does. He's been rather quiet tonight.

He's also made some lucid comments lately and been generally more civil, which is why I wanted to see the e-mail or any sort of response as provided by dag.

There's a new thread up on sift talk discussing a code of conduct of sorts.

Until now the community's been sufficiently small that we could get by with people understanding the conventions by which we operate (conventions = unwritten rules).

Some legalistic pedantry combined with the steady influx of newcomers, however, works against the universal understanding of conventions, which brings us to the place we're now at - where we need to write more stuff down. Ah, society.

140 posts in this thread in 24 hours.

If a troll's job is to get yer goat, y'all got got.

I wouldn't think so. This has less to do with QM than with how we need to deal with these things, it's a conversation that's been creeping up on us for a while now. Others have commented that we're getting a little on edge and more aggressive as a group than we used to be and a few of us were talking more or less privately about the issue a week or so ago, wondering if it wasn't time to have this conversation.

If it hadn't been him it would have been someone else soon enough, might as well get it out of the way.

Ah, a response. Well, it doesn't surprise me the least bit that QM 1) didn't take responsibility for his actions and 2) can't grasp the concept of what caused this incident in the first place. He changes subjects, playing the misdirection hand hoping that we won't catch on and tries to point out our supposed weakness as to remove himself from the spotlight. He doesn't care whose backyard he cuts across to accomplish a gain in his own mind.

QM's a trolling douche with an overly high opinion of his own opinions. It happens.

Let me stress that again: he's just trolling anyway. I doubt there's anybody that's ACTUALLY as stupid as his email to dag makes him sound.

>> ^lucky760:

All votes should mean something and that something shouldn't be that the voter was having a fit of cramps with no Midol in sight and wanted to take it out on the world at large. (Not referring to QM, btw.)


and also choggie's:

Joe's right, just cause someone posts a good viddy, doesn't mean your seething, ego-infused distaste for their track-record of dingle-berryness, should keep you from voting for it-that's obviously a girl technique,raven, that some of us don't play with......

Well, I gotta say, that's the first time I ever felt like I was spending my time on a website with a bunch of sexist jerks (basing that on comments of course and not on the plethora titty-laden vids that get sifted everyday). Thanks boys, for showing yer true colors, I'm sure Quantum Mushroom would be proud of you.

I was just curious what everyone thought about sifters who up vote videos based on who is doing the sifting and may not even view the video.

As I asked in your profile, would it insult you for someone to insult a guy with a big beer belly by telling him he looks like he's carrying a baby? Would that translate to you as a sexist person insulting all pregnant women?

I take serious offense to being called a sexist jerk. I've edited my comment to not offend the gender sensitive and will say no more than that I think you are being quite a bit over-sensitive with regard to my comment.

One could be insulted by anything if one were to try hard enough.

only jonny and choggie and QM talked any sense in this thread. The rest is just a bunch of handwringing and hypocrisy.

you make more rules, you add more features, multiply the checks and balances, mix it all up with a bunch of idealism... eventually you end up with the soviet union, and we all know what a happy bunch of comrades they were.

just put flood protection on downvoting and STFU.

JEEEEEEEzus.

edit: lucky downvote for technical or philosophical reasons?

edit2: blankfist also talked a lot of sense but there was so much bullshit in this thread i forgot to mention him.

it was a joke raven....A JOKE!!!

I have a dream that one day this website will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all videos are submitted equal."

I have a dream that one day on the first page of the Unsifted, the sons of former P's and the sons of former admins will be able to sit down together at the table of brotherhood.

I have a dream that one day even the votes-per-view default, a queue sweltering with the heat of injustice, sweltering with the heat of oppression, will be transformed into an oasis of freedom and justice.

I have a dream that my four videos in queue will one day exist on a website where they will not be judged by the color of the embed frame but by the content of their pictures and video.

I have a dream today!

>> ^Krupo:
In reply to this comment by djsunkid:
Yeah, I think that QM is a total troll, and I'm glad that we got at least that response from him. He seems content to play his part as the right wing nut job, and it's almost nice to have somebody consistent there playing that role. Much preferable to hit and run whackjobs. To his credit, nobody on this site likes him, but he just keeps coming back for more.
Well I dunno, maybe Bill O does. He's been rather quiet tonight.
He's also made some lucid comments lately and been generally more civil, which is why I wanted to see the e-mail or any sort of response as provided by dag.


Quantumushroom is a spectacular human being, and the glue that binds this site together. His suspension has brought shame on not only the Republican party, but to humanity in general.

As for me, lucidity is a given. My comments are always spot-on, and relevant to not only the videos here, but also to society as a whole. I try to bring a balanced, long-term approach to my posts, much like investing in blue-chip stocks.

I simply can't fathom how QM could be considered a "total troll", but to each his own. I've been called "biased" in the past, but we all know that is ridiculous, and quite honestly, inconceivable. I will continue to take my Instabran, stay grounded and humble, and support QM in his journey here at VS.

Thank you to all of my legions of fans here, and good night.

I sometimes wish i could downvote sifttalk posts.

Krupo - I think we pretty much agree down the line, with the exception of "statistical anomalies".

I pointed out the old talk post because of how it ultimately played out, not to cast deathcow as some maniacal serial downvoter like ant. Hell, I got my first vid promotion from deathcow. (That other avatar he had there for a while did scare the bejeebus outta me, though.)

As for QM being on the bubble before, I suspected as much, but the point was that it was handled successfully in private, as opposed to dragging him out for a public flogging.

>> ^Krupo:
Some legalistic pedantry combined with the steady influx of newcomers, however, works against the universal understanding of conventions, which brings us to the place we're now at - where we need to write more stuff down. Ah, society.


ok, so maybe two things. see my comment in the Abuse Addition talk post.

>> ^lucky760:
As I asked in your profile, would it insult you for someone to insult a guy with a big beer belly by telling him he looks like he's carrying a baby? Would that translate to you as a sexist person insulting all pregnant women?
I take serious offense to being called a sexist jerk. I've edited my comment to not offend the gender sensitive and will say no more than that I think you are being quite a bit over-sensitive with regard to my comment.
One could be insulted by anything if one were to try hard enough.


Fine, take offense, I'm sorry it came across as sounding mean or something but I was really annoyed at the time I wrote that. I do, however, resent being called 'overly sensitive', or 'upset', because both characterizations of my reaction are, in reality a little harsh, which was more along the lines of 'annoyed', 'mildly disturbed', or 'highly disappointed'. Rest assured, once I figure out which emoticons most accurately capture those feelings, I will in the future use them extensively.

But I don't think you can say that describing a beer gut as 'looking pregnant' is in anyway as nearly sexist or misogynistic as linking intentionally malicious behavior with the female condition of menstruation... the one case is a physical observation (composed with all the tact and insight of a 3 year old perhaps, but it is still just that, a comparative observation). Your comment, however, is a direct character assault on all women because it implies that once a month we become completely irrational harpies... and while you may say that you leveled this insult at the male portion of the audience (yes, I do understand testosterone levels and the possible implications of levying the charge of 'femininity' at a male of the species), it still is an attack on women to use a physical condition that is unique to our gender (not to mention beyond our control) and the negative assumptions surrounding it, as the ammo of that insult... I suppose in some ways I can see your correlation of the fat dude looking like a pregnant woman as going along with this, but the big difference is that being fat with a beer gut is generally pretty harmless to others, as is being pregnant, however, being a completely irrational downvote fiend working out a vendetta, is not... so the implication that the cause for that is somehow a woman's period, stings quite a bit more. Do you see the difference?

I guess I was so disappointed because I had up until this point never really felt on this site that women were treated differently than men, that gross assumptions about our gender would not be used as insults, or our decisions derided as 'girly'. I suppose I was wrong, and I also supposed I should not be surprised, more and more lately I have begun to regret ever mentioning that Raven was girl, because, obviously, many of you (and I don't mean you in particular, lucky) have a hard time dealing with her as such... androgynous, unassigned Raven seemed to get a little bit more respect.

guilty.
ashamed?
repentant?
....won't do it again......
stay away from my posts,please doogle,if you would,sir.

i'm glad that's over, too, because that means i now get to upvote all the comments i liked the most.

which is taking a while...
because i haven't looked in this page since my last post, 2 days ago now.

and, shroom?
if your goal is to make me, personally, hate you?
you've failed, and will always continue to do so.

oh, and, there's just one more thing.

master yoda?
if you haven't already done so (and i missed the post, in the ocean, of what were really some great posts i upped, btw), would you please
*unsticky this, and i'll buy everyone a pint of ben & jerry's.

Invocations (unsticky) cannot be called by my15minutes because my15minutes is not privileged - sorry.

best in show:

>> ^BicycleRepairMan:
I have a dream that one day this website will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all videos are submitted equal..."

with one very important edit:

the children of former P's, and of former admins, will be welcome
to sit down together, at the table
as sisters and brothers.

and party like it's 1999.

>> ^raven:
>> ^lucky760:
As I asked in your profile, would it insult you for someone to insult a guy with a big beer belly by telling him he looks like he's carrying a baby? Would that translate to you as a sexist person insulting all pregnant women?
I take serious offense to being called a sexist jerk. I've edited my comment to not offend the gender sensitive and will say no more than that I think you are being quite a bit over-sensitive with regard to my comment.
One could be insulted by anything if one were to try hard enough.

Fine, take offense, I'm sorry it came across as sounding mean or something but I was really annoyed at the time I wrote that. I do, however, resent being called 'overly sensitive', or 'upset', because both characterizations of my reaction are, in reality a little harsh, which was more along the lines of 'annoyed', 'mildly disturbed', or 'highly disappointed'. Rest assured, once I figure out which emoticons most accurately capture those feelings, I will in the future use them extensively.
But I don't think you can say that describing a beer gut as 'looking pregnant' is in anyway as nearly sexist or misogynistic as linking intentionally malicious behavior with the female condition of menstruation... the one case is a physical observation (composed with all the tact and insight of a 3 year old perhaps, but it is still just that, a comparative observation). Your comment, however, is a direct character assault on all women because it implies that once a month we become completely irrational harpies... and while you may say that you leveled this insult at the male portion of the audience (yes, I do understand testosterone levels and the possible implications of levying the charge of 'femininity' at a male of the species), it still is an attack on women to use a physical condition that is unique to our gender (not to mention beyond our control) and the negative assumptions surrounding it, as the ammo of that insult... I suppose in some ways I can see your correlation of the fat dude looking like a pregnant woman as going along with this, but the big difference is that being fat with a beer gut is generally pretty harmless to others, as is being pregnant, however, being a completely irrational downvote fiend working out a vendetta, is not... so the implication that the cause for that is somehow a woman's period, stings quite a bit more. Do you see the difference?
I guess I was so disappointed because I had up until this point never really felt on this site that women were treated differently than men, that gross assumptions about our gender would not be used as insults, or our decisions derided as 'girly'. I suppose I was wrong, and I also supposed I should not be surprised, more and more lately I have begun to regret ever mentioning that Raven was girl, because, obviously, many of you (and I don't mean you in particular, lucky) have a hard time dealing with her as such... androgynous, unassigned Raven seemed to get a little bit more respect.



Oh now Raven, I still love you even if no one else does. Girls r teh roxxors on teh sift.