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

I had a whole lot I wanted to say about this, but I haven't had my coffee yet so the neurons aren't firing. I'm sure there will be some spirited discussion, so let that begin.

*ban

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

Given the nature and potential consequences of siftquisitions, I really think it should last longer than 24 hours.

And I retain my right to get completely out of control while participating in siftquisitions.

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

^ We'll be placing a banner automatically on the front of the site when a Siftquisition is in progress. Everyone has the right to a speedy trial.

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

Siftquisitions are live. The liink to post one is to the right -----> (and up a bit)

So basically you're saying I don't have to wash my nuts?

edit .. on a serious note, the only way this is going to work is if you extend the voting period to a minimum of 72 hours and also make the identity of the voters and what they voted visible.

Most people don't log in here everyday.
Anonymous voting further encourages sock puppetry.

I personally don't like this idea, only because I think it will encourage more sock puppetry and more SiftQuisitions in general. Let's create more tools to harmonize the community. We already know how to bring trolls to justice.

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

^ And yet, you have no problem asking us in private to ban a popular Sifter that would no doubt make Lucky and I the tyrants.

This puts the power in your hands. If you think someone needs to be banned, make your case here. Or don't, it's totally up to you.

And there's no fear about sock puppets because probies can't vote.

When you say "we already know" how to deal with trolls, what you're overlooking is that the "we" in that statement is really just Dag and me. And none of you non-admins might care, but it's very important to us that the decision and sentencing be handled by a jury of peers.

We don't like being the bad guys or being pulled in all directions by people who have all kinds of varying opinions about how to treat an accused offender.

The last round of siftquisitions had many people upset about the fact that there even were siftquisitions, and it was said that private (which apparently aren't private .. thanks for that) messages to an admin are a better way to go.

In any event, I don't have a problem with the siftquisition process, obviously .. since I've called my own. My main concerns for this new way going forward is that 24 hours is an unfair amount of time for an accused member to respond, and that anonymous voting encourages more sock puppetry on this site. You only have to sift one video to get rid of that probationary tag, really not too hard to do.

I appreciate the fact that you're trusting of the community and that you're trying to empower them. I mean that. I'm just voicing my opinion about things I see may be a problem with this new system. Apologies if I offended anyone.

edit .. if you want to vote to have a member banned from this site than that vote from you should be plain for all to see. That's my opinion. Sorry. Anonymous voting to ban people is just bullshit imo.


It can't be "handled by a jury of peers" if you don't know who your peers are.

Sheesh. All this serious talk makes my * ban comment seem overtly childish and dickish. Like I just walked in on a family deciding whether or not they want to pull the plug on granny who has been in a coma for six years and I toss a fart grenade into the room.

say NO to SiftQuisition™

Must be longer than 24 hours.

Must have a minimal number of votes, not just 2/3rds.

Other than that, it's just fine. Good going.

So I was suspended for a "practical joke", but the recent "wings" invocation about chicken receives no suspension, and BF's * ban joke receives no warning either.

This all makes perfect sense!

But at least the stupid Siftquisitions may cease a bit. Thx for the good work, dag&lucky.

This is unconstitutional. CommunistSift is going down a road that Obama has paved with bad intentions. First Choggie gets unfairly victimized, than CP420 invokes the *gay tag, more drama around here than a TNT original series. I think America needs Sarah Palin in these trying times. And that's all I have to say about that.

Adding post to channels (Gay) - requested by BillOreilly.

whoops, my mistake, didn't mean to tag this, accidents happen

^ should just be instabanned based on previous precedence no?

>> ^BillOreilly:
This is unconstitutional. CommunistSift is going down a road that Obama has paved with bad intentions. First Choggie gets unfairly victimized, than CP420 invokes the gay tag, more drama around here than a TNT original series. I think America needs Sarah Palin in these trying times. And that's all I have to say about that.


Videosift doesn't have a constitution, you dolt. *nochannel

dag/lucky, any chance we could slap a fake account together to try it out on?

*nochannel

>> ^burdturgler:
The last round of siftquisitions had many people upset about the fact that there even were siftquisitions

really? I thought I was the only one that railed against the whole idea, and even then I conceded that I accepted it as part of how VS is run.

24 hours is an unfair amount of time for an accused member to respond

Absolutely. And when someone has been in a confrontation with other users, there's a pretty good chance that person might decide to take a couple days to cool off. I know there will be messages left on profiles, but 24 hours is very short, even in internet time. Besides, as the resident public defender, I can't be around every day either.

if you want to vote to have a member banned from this site than that vote from you should be plain for all to see.

I agree with that completely. Anonymous voting on siftquisitions is a really Bad Idea™.

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

OK, let's boost it to 72 hours. Also, here's an old test account http://www.videosift.com/member/ietest

We can have a test run with it - Someone please give it a try.

>> ^lucky760:
none of you non-admins might care, but it's very important to us that the decision and sentencing be handled by a jury of peers.

I care. Seriously, I appreciate the theory, but in reality, siftquisitions are little more than vigilante justice. What credible court system allows the complainants and their friends to also sit on the jury?

That actually gives me an idea. How about having a rotating set of judges/jurors? Create a pool of potential judges from gold-100s and up, and randomly pick 9 (or 15 or whatever) that are not involved or haven't previously expressed an opinion on the matter. The case is presented by the original caller of the siftquisition, calling witnesses and presenting evidence as needed. The accused can either defend themselves or if they are unable to do so (due to absence or whatever), a representative would be appointed. The judges deliberate for up to a day, and render their decision. Final appeals to admins are allowed, but not necessarily accepted.

>> ^volumptuous:
So I was suspended for a "practical joke", but the recent "wings" invocation about chicken receives no suspension, and BF's ban joke receives no warning either.
This all makes perfect sense!
But at least the stupid Siftquisitions may cease a bit. Thx for the good work, dag&lucky.


I don't think tagging something to a an inappropriate channel is automatically an offence. If it was then everytime I have to click "Remove post from this channel" to untag a submission from my channel we'd have to ban someone. The point is that misuse of the Gay invocation is intended to cause offence.

People invoking ban has been happening forever and I don't see the point of trying to turn that into an offence now.

I'm not saying I know how to run an online community but mostly I believe in the power the admins to rule the roost and make just and wise decisions. It won't always happen but no one's perfect. I really hope this new tool works out but I don't have a good feeling about it - I don't believe things are bad enough around here to warrant it.

I looked at the "test Siftquisition." I see the three choices:

•Vote for a Permanent Ban
•Vote against a Permanent Ban
•Abstain

Does this mean there will no longer be 2 week Suspensions, just Permanent Bans?

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

^No, when you call a Sifquisition, you pick the sentence: warning/ 2 week suspension / Permanent ban

>> ^dotdude:
Does this mean there will no longer be 2 week Suspensions, just Permanent Bans?

No, in the submission form, the accuser is allowed to pick the suggested punishment - warning, 2 week suspension, or permanent ban. But it does beg the question of why only the accuser is allowed to choose the possible outcome.

>> ^Deano:
The point is that misuse of the Gay invocation is intended to cause offence.


When I did it, which was the cause of my suspension, it was intended to be a joke. It even got laughs. But I was suspended anyway.


People invoking ban has been happening forever and I don't see the point of trying to turn that into an offence now.


So, since it's been going on for a while, it's ok. OK, I got it. No wait, I don't get it. People have been doing the * gay joke here since I arrived, so that's OK too? Or not, but it is(nt).

Right, everything's clear now.

^I think I can explain this to volumpuous. Let me don my Obama mask so to keep his attention the entire time. [clears throat]

Star members are immune to bans, therefore the * ban invocation is pointless against star members (and higher). Sift Talk posts and videos are NOT immune to * gay invocations, and the channel is added when invoked every time.

Though, yeah, your gay invocation was hilarious. [edit] I'm also guilty of the * gay invocation on Sift Talk posts and videos. That is until it became illegal.

^Bill, correct me if I'm wrong but if we all vote, wouldn't that be a DEMOCRASIFT?

OK. That being said:

I've never been opposed to the whole siftquisition thing. I think sometimes people really do deserve to be banned and I think it's funny that some people have such a huge problem with it...

...but this seems a little crazy.

>> ^blankfist:
^I think I can explain this to volumpuous. Let me don my Obama mask so to keep his attention the entire time. [clears throat]
Star members are immune to bans, therefore the ban invocation is pointless against star members (and higher). Sift Talk posts and videos are NOT immune to gay invocations.
Though, yeah, your gay invocation was hilarious.



I couldn't read what you wrote. Everything after the word "Obama" was blurry, due to the tears of joy streaming down my face.

This will be an interesting social experiment.

Now all we need is for someone to volunteer to misbehave to see how well it works.

Preferably, let's have it be someone with a lot of friends, to really test it.

>> ^NetRunner:
Preferably, let's have it be someone with a lot of friends, to really test it.


Well, that excludes me.

I see why this is necessary, but it feels kinda awkward. It seems every time Dag has to bring the hammer down the next post is someone mocking the decision by Stalinizing him. Most of the problems with power abuse, it seems to me, stem from people both abusing channel invocations and discarding videos or posts. Why not make it so channel invocations done after the video has been submitted need to be approved by the channel's owner? It would put more of a burden on the owners, but would stop the petty invocations from occurring. Maybe also make it so that non-submitter discards need be seconded by an appropriate star member. I'd prefer to cut back on the ability for abuse rather than punishing it. Siftquisitions can be a messy, and tiring thing.

I was going to weigh in on this but I see that guessandcheck done a much better job than I would have. Siftquisitions are a bit of an ugly affair that have the tenancy to bring out the worst in people.

Why not, as guessandcheck proposed, simply get rid of some of the things that are so ripe for abuse? Why do we even have the power to discard someone else's posts, other than to discard a video after a probie has been caught self-linking (something which could be easily done by, say, crowns only). The ability to discard another person's stuff is almost entirely unnecessary.

As for any other jackass things that some people do to get themselves banned, it does seem like there are classier ways to deal with it than to tie them up and throw them to the mob.

I have a suggestion.

The problem with Siftquisitions, I think, is that nine out of ten times they're completely unnecessary. By that I mean that the offender has done something that is clearly against the site's rules, such as discarding a post, assigning inappropriate channels, or going on a downvoting spree. In those cases there really is no need for a discussion; the offender should just be temp-banned (or perma-banned, as the case may be). A Siftquistion only serves to give people a chance to throw a few rocks at the offender before he's banned, plus it probably makes us look pretty self-righteous to any new people who are wandering in.

My suggestion is to have some sort of "Report an Offense" button, where people will be able to send a private message to Lucky and Dag, and perhaps a couple of other trusted members if needed. They can decide what type of ban is warranted (ie. two weeks or permanent) and then post a Sift Talk post saying who has been banned and why, so that the community knows what has happened. In the rare occasion that the offender hasn't done something that is clear-cut, then perhaps in that instance it can go out to the community. But for the most part, I think that the public shaming that we call Siftquisitions does more harm to this site than good.

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

^I don't like that idea because it concentrates all the power with Lucky and I. We want VideoSift to be as flat as possible. We also don't want to take any powers away from people just because a small minority are abusing those powers.

I'm a nerd and an international relations major so I have some kooky ideas about mixing computers with government. I take the blame/responsibility for the community structure of VideoSift. Here's what I believe:

1. Absolute power really does eventually corrupt absolutely
2. A meritocratic democracy is the best form of government
3. Machines can work with us to help prevent absolute corruption and
facilitate a meritocratic democracy

In the past few months I've felt the creeping corruption. People pushing boundaries for attention, testing limits, crying foul - and then our increasingly frustrated, possibly misguided responses. Ban, suspend, chide, rebuke. And then cries of Hitler, Stalin, Mussoulini.

We want to make the executive branch of VideoSift as weak as possible. Admins will step in where we feel the Sift is truly threatened and being hurt - otherwise we want to put the care of this community into the hands of the people who are emotionally invested and have achieved good things on the Sift.

I hope the Sifquisition function gets used infrequently. I also hope that it's effective in those times when we need it. Calls for bans (usually through private profile messages) are not mainly about misuse of invocations. They are more frequently around people being borderline racist/hateful/homophobic/insensitve. In a lot of these cases it's very difficult to tell if that's the real intention of the accused sifter, sometimes it seems ironic, facetious or just a lame joke.

I'd rather deal with these kinds of things in the open between us all because they can be very subjective - and one admin can't make a consensus. Each time we do deal with it, we're setting a precedent, "case law" if you will on what's OK and what's not on the Sift.

Look, it's an experiment - (this whole damn site is an optimistic experiment) let's give it some time and if we find it's not working we'll try something else.

>> ^jonny:

That actually gives me an idea. How about having a rotating set of judges/jurors? Create a pool of potential judges from gold-100s and up, and randomly pick 9 (or 15 or whatever) that are not involved or haven't previously expressed an opinion on the matter. The case is presented by the original caller of the siftquisition, calling witnesses and presenting evidence as needed. The accused can either defend themselves or if they are unable to do so (due to absence or whatever), a representative would be appointed. The judges deliberate for up to a day, and render their decision. Final appeals to admins are allowed, but not necessarily accepted.


No thanks. I'm already forced into doing jury duty every two years in the real world. I sure the heck don't want to do it in Internet-land.

As for Siftquisitions, I like dag and Lucky's ideas about putting the power in the hands of the people. And those bitching about the possibility of the Sift turning "communist", nobody's forcing you to come here. See? The power of choice at work.

Seems perhaps, that iffn the ban hammer falls before the voice of the damned may be heard, that this would be akin to one of those fine totalitarian tactics you bleeding hearts whine and moan about, Bolshevekian, doomed, part of the dying model-(As any scenario used to replace one that does not reek of true will, true art, and true freedom, is destined). Informants. Even your own grandmother, tuning in to the mob, the spin, "public" opinion, and turning you in, should the concern become some diversion or obsession-

Fuck a shiftquisition. May the accused be subject to ridicule and be offered quarter in the form of a Welcomeback after his/her/its alloted ass-handing, then recalcitrant, no wavers, simply the means to evolve-

Sound unfair t' ya'll bean counters, letter of the law, no balls havin' motherfuckers????

^choggie are you logging in from work now?

My main concern here is mob-mentality. I'd prefer to see voters remain anonymous until the ballot closes. As lucky said, if you really want to make yourself known, you can do so in the comments.

But yes, votes should probably be made public eventually for accountability. Speaking of accountability, how will voters be held accountable? What's to stop userA from voting to ban userB because of a personal hatred? I suspect that if we had this 2 months ago, CP420 would have been banned without even requiring an infraction, just because nobody could stand the guy.

Also seems the punishment should be determined by vote rather than by the person who calls the vote. What do I do if I think ietest should be suspended for 2 weeks? Vote no ban and start another siftquisition?

oh yeah... I also don't see the banner that I assume should be on the front page, notifying all that a SQ is in progress.

"Siftbot became self-aware at 10:21pm PST February 5th, 2009"

re: Stalinizing

Dag I think you are creating a strawman here. Yes, some retards compare you to Hitler/Stalin as a way of accusing you of abuse of power. I think this is inappropriate because you don't abuse your power like that, in fact you are far too egalitarian. So ok, you're not Stalin, and drawing similarities between you and Stalin is only possible if you focus on your history of questionable facial hair.

BUT

Some other less retarded members specifically compare the system of siftquisitions to the system of "justice" that has operated in dark times during the cold war. That is to say, we see similarities between propaganda posters that say "DEFEND THE SOVIET UNION! REPORT TROUBLEMAKERS TO THE AUTHORITIES!" and the way "policing" of the sift works.

THAT DOESN'T MEAN YOU ARE STALIN AND YOU WANT TO KILL BABIES, it just means we see dangerous similarities between the sift's utopian egalitarianism and the Soviet dream.

It also DOES NOT MEAN that we think that abusing the sift is trivial and tolerable, in fact we would probably ban a lot more people than you, given the chance, and purge the sift of people we don't like, in order to make a less egalitarian system that actually has a compass and a definition of "good video", instead of relying on herd mentality. Oh look, I Stalinized myself. How ironic.

The thing I find ridiculous is that adhom is still tolerated and you are still surprised that it causes problems. I think you should get Stalinist on the ass of anyone who is impolite, and then watch the quality of the debates and membership soar. I for one would probably go charter and shut my filthy mouth. Think about it.

I'm thinking 72 hours is just too darned long. It's been quite a while and SQ and poll are sitting there so damned stale... Must we really wait another 28 hours? Anyone think 48 hours would be reasonably sufficient?

>> ^xxovercastxx:
oh yeah... I also don't see the banner that I assume should be on the front page, notifying all that a SQ is in progress.

You only see it if you've yet to cast a vote.

For admins and addicts who visit the site multiple times a day .. every day .. it does seem like a long time.
If you're the sifter about to be perma-banned and you haven't logged in for a couple of days maybe not.

Maybe the promote status of it could drop after 24 hours so that it doesn't look stale.
People will still have the notification in the side panel that a siftquisition awaits their vote.

I can understand why siftquistion died now that I am learning more about them.