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

Summoning Fedquip to royal full Siftquisition ...

[dons robe and sifter shaped hat with crank on it]

From the reposted thread: I just have a problem with anyone who works for AOL / Netscape and is an "influencer" in the realm of social media setting the tone and standard for so much of the Sift. I also have a problem with Fedquip's blatant dismissal of the no self linking rule to apparently further his own agenda, be it political or personal.

Assembling the Jurors for a fair and un-biased tribunal (fair and un-biased is surely, like sunlight to a vampire for fredquick)
[lights torches and stirs up the rabble]

Personally, think he does not have an agenda....just smokes a lot of pot and drinks beer(two things that work wonders for those who have an untarnished constitution)
.......and who is HamiltonHabs32???

now I will stop being an asshole for ten or so minutes.......9
8

Hey guys, don't rush it, he's at momma's and it's momma's day!
Happy Mother's Day to alllllllll the Ma's, and alll yer moms'!

mlx, that is fedquip's blog? May some of our more casual regulars have just a little more background here? Many of us may not be aware that Fed had a problem before with self-linking.

Fed?

Wow! TayTv is way cool, they got their own biased polls...check it!!!
http://poll.pollcode.com/1gMW

SG: Fedquips personal blog (here) which sparked his contract with AOL. Read Taypes of TayTving and I don't care to argue for a little more background.

The Wall Street Journal article which includes FedQuip as a "Wizard of Buzz" (and he himself posted in the 'I don't care' bit) summarizes what bugs me about all this:

The opinions of these key users have implications for advertisers shelling out money for Internet ads, trend watchers trying to understand what's cool among young people, and companies whose products or services get plucked for notice. It's even sparking a new form of payola, as marketers try to buy votes.

Maybe I just wish he'd offer a little more explanation and transparency here, that's all.

"Fedquip, Go Fuck yourself" This is the messege I received in my inbox not too long ago. From a videosifter. And this morning I wake up and that user is going through each of my posts, voting them down, adding cute comments like "Cocksucking punk.....burn in your own hell-", I don't believe this is the type of community I joined.

I started videosharing online years ago, before youtube, before videosift. I created a forum called metronews.

It was a great idea but the time was slightly off as I had to deal with personal stuff I couldn't maintain the site.

When I discovered vsocial and used the service as a host to maintain a blog I <a rel="nofollow" href="http://web.archive.org/web/*/<a rel="nofollow" href="http://throwawayyourtv.com">http://throwawayyourtv.com">created called TayTV, check out the history. This hobby was about highlighting clips from documentaries and comedy shows. The simple concept is that on the Internet you have the opportunity to research and learn more about the media that is being presented to you. I enjoy the progression in media we are seeing here on the Internet and believe me videosift plays a major role in the future of people consume media and information.

TayTV was widely successful, the "wall street journal" named me one of the most influential people in social media. The "Globe and mail" did a story on my internet labour, Netscape.com hired me to supply them with video links and more recently AOL News hired me to blog and research online video, yes mlx the description is flattering if you ask me, but I don't think getting a job sifting is a bad thing. I have spoken to Brian about this and he told me that it was great to see sifters turning pro. I am a firm believer that through hard work you can achieve anything and if you want to share video all day, you can do that.

Now TayTV crashed a few months ago and I couldn't maintain it with my new appointments. I didn't want to let my community down by simply closing down the website. I spoke with Brian and James about moving the community to videosift. I have been a sifter since April 2006 and with the recent addition to the collectives to the sift I could combine taytv with the sift. Sifters embraced TayTV and people joined the collective, the sift community enjoyed the labour I was providing as I got voted up into the top 15 in a very short period of time after the collective was built.

And why not, taytv was all about finding interesting videos, I feel I provide more then just a video, I usually add additional links that give the user a more all round experience with the video. The taytv philosophy is more then just "getting votes", the votes here on the sift are not important to me, sharing videos is what I do and coming here my sole goal was to help Brian and James by sifting videos the community here can enjoy.

Now, I love videosift, I am forever thankful that Brian and James took me in and allowed me to continue my TayTV project here in a collective. I have literally thousands of videos I want to share with you all. I honestly believe what I can bring to videosift is nothing but positive.


Ok.. so I uploaded this clip, guilty as charged. It's a fascinating clip from James Burke, very philosophical clip about media. Because a couple sifters don't like me does that mean we have to remove this clip from the sift? I submitted it to the sift because I know this community appreciates James Burke.

I don't upload clips as much as I used to but I have thousands of clips that I have been dying to share with this community and now with vsocial in the mix I can do that. With the blessing of this community I look forward to sharing more.

Now the AOL job is something new to me, but I have been very open and honest about it, I am not a corporate douche trying to push any agenda like some have suggested. They have given me a forum to post video that will reach far and wide and I want to do it with the best of my ability and If I can help out the sift at the same time I will. For example this post made it to the front page AOL News. I found it here on the sift and gave a hat tip link back to bl968 here on the sift. I am not a full time AOL employee, I am under contract to provide video research, I hope I can continue with new opportunities after this one expires.

Anyway, I have been preparing for radical changes in the way that I do research and those changes will be visible in my future sift participation. Being in a position where I present media to a wide audience I want to do so in a unique manner, I don't want to be just a normal blogging pundit I want to make online media interesting and informative for people to watch. And if I learnt anything in the past two years with TayTV is that I have to adapt and evolve to change.

Anyway, ultimately it's not up to me. I love the sift and I want to include the collective in my ongoing experiment with media, I will respect the decisions made by the powers that be. But what I would like the most is the support from my video researcher peers here on the sift to tune this craft.

I think this is a pretty clear self link violation, no argument there. I was the main proponent of the tay tv inclusion in the sift and I think for the most part it has been pretty positive. I think the level of political discourse has been greatly helped by taytv.

My suggestion is that we disable Fedquip's login for a week as a punitative measure. As far as I can tell though he hasn't gained any monetary value from this, and has mostly just contributed content that he presumably couldn't find elsewhere. This has come up before, I think theo47 was the culprit last time.

Personally I think that this is not really a violation of the self link rule in that he hasn't gained anything tangible from these posts. However, I don't think that there is any room for interpretation if we wish to maintain the moral high ground in banning self links from new users.

At any rate my suggestion remains a one week videosift ban for Fedquip.

I just want to say that self-linking aside, I think Fedquip has contributed a lot to the community and that he is not an 'interloper'.

However, I think that as long as the self-link rule is in place it should be upheld and therefore some limited action must be taken for breaking the rules.

Well Fed, in light of all this...from this casual user's perspective, it seems as if you took well intentioned membership and trust a hair over the line. You've brought great content to the site...no doubt. Have faith in the process here and stay within the parameter's of the community so we all can still enjoy your contributions.

Cheers

Being just a casual user and enjoyer of VideoSift, I don't really know much about the rules or history of the site, but it seems to me that Fedquip isn't self-promoting, just sharing videos that weren't available elswhere but that other sifters will enjoy, and isn't that the point?

Fedquip, instead of violating Sift, you could've asked anyone to post those videos for you and I'm sure dozens would have offered to do it, including me. But that would have affected your ranking here and your ultimate value as an Wizard of Buzz, hmmm?

Now the AOL job is something new to me, but I have been very open and honest about it

I couldn't find anything in your comments here that you'd signed a contract with AOL. Link please? It's about transparency, fedquip. I'd have loved to congratulated you on getting an internet gig, that's great that you get paid for what you love to do. I just feel as though we've been used to further your career and now you're asking us to bend the rules since you are in "a position where I present media to a wide audience."

no apologies here, I was the one who downed, deaded, and dished out the expletives, and again, this one's slant, methodologies, and tactics still stink sick-from what everyone can gather, you know i have nothing good to say about personal, tunnel-agendas, and I trust no-one who uses tools as tools, for the sake of building without a blueprint.-it is sad for me to watch insects at work, knowing their natures, focused on a single goal, they toil away with purpose, instinctual survival circuit malfunction, but necessary,...i suppose..
and watch it

I'll always, as I told feddy in private, question the motivations and actions of his and all posts I find offensive to my sensibilities, but, sadly, very uni-dimensional and predictable.....his is no maverick enterprise.....its an old story, with lotsa boring repeats...
sophomoric is a word that comes to mind, and others-

....but it is time it looks for you fedquip, since there have been no knee-jerk ban party players yet, that you get a reprieve out of what I see as compromising fear-wither if you will for a week, and I shall welcome you back personally,...and sorry-you can forget about the request to just "Ignore" you...sounded like a Nazi asking politely to turn away so he sould bash in my skull-an Insult...
can you tell i took it to heart????

And watch it creepy, there still may be an ban*asterix coming from choggie

I just want to explain to the committee more about how I can do good for the community instead of bad.

This Clip is from a documentary that was previously posted on the sift. After watching the documentary I found this fascinating clip in the center.. I included this description.
http://www.videosift.com/talk/Holocaust-in-Indonesia#142295

"Gwaan submitted a great documentary not to long ago titled "New Rulers of the World" - A John Pilger documentary about Globalization. Here is an interesting segment from the documentary about the very secretive Holocaust in Indonesia. I found an archived TIME article about it here"

In January I watched this documentary and clipped it into segments After vsocial got the greenlight I was careful to add substance or atleast having a reason to share it here on the sift, I linked back to Gwaans submission so if people enjoyed the clip they might dedicate their time to watching the full doc and for good measure I found a historical article about the substance of the clip. I posted this to the TayTV collective simply because that is the type of work I did on TayTV, i highlight clips. I enjoy pointing back to other people submissions and if I can find a constructive way to do so, I do it. I think that helps the sift. I could have easily just gone through my vsocial account and start randomly submitting but I respect this community.

I respect this community so much and the self promotion policy that I edited the video player to remove traces of TayTV. Here is how my default player looks like. You can see I removed my logo and put a picture of the documentary filmmaker on the player, which links to his website.

Now I understand the self promotion policy, but I honestly didn't think it has to be so black and white. I understand it's a great way to stop people from posting from blatantly advertising. I am not an advertiser, and I want this community to trust me the videos I post is an extension of myself. There is a constant evolution, philosophy and a creative urge behind what I do on the sift, on taytv and at AOL.

All I am asking for is trust that what I do in the TayTV collective is not by any means a way of self promoting myself, I want to encourage others to look at media differently and to be creative.

How you just justified the breaking of the rules here, with that, Bart Simpson, "I didn't do it " attitude, dude, thats what little boys do when they get caught, and their mom sees his little puupy dog eyes and ......later on in life, that same puppy, becomes adog, and screws the pooch!(*BA........yer pissing me off, but I am typing and laughing too, so, no violence of course...)-another thing is this
"Fedquip, Go Fuck yourself" This is the message I received in my inbox not too long ago. From a videosifter. "
if you'll recall, pothead, i posted this as a comment, on your pathetic "Army Ethics" post-later, upon sensible request, i altered it as to not offend your adult ears, and to keep simple semantics from becomming the issue-
I told you why, from whence it came, and explained myself ad infinitum, and all I got back were one-dimensional, responses-and now, you are going on and on about why the kingdom of YOU, is beneficial, healthy, blahhppity blahhh....

One of the reasons why I asked you to kick me from yer collective??? You became quickly the TV you exhorted me to throw away!!! and yuuuuk! yer still doing it....



"All I am asking for is trust that what I do in the TayTV collective is not by any means a way of self promoting myself, I want to encourage others to look at media differently and to be creative."

well, you really aren't living up to what you think you want for your self-righteous quest, and I promise I will continue to point that out...

Do you know what nemesis means????

Now that you've explained it, Fedquip, it actually looks even worse to me. You took something that was already on the sift and bugged it with your branding which linked directly back to your personal project? that doesn't sit right with me, at all.

I appreciate your massive contribution to the community but this just smacks of the new marketing mechanism we've been told to expect.

Ok Choggie.. I get it. You don't like me, you have been sending me long private messages for weeks now about how much you want to destroy me. Today you are getting your moment in the sun. Congrats.

You made that clear when you messaged me this last week. (prepares statement for the committee)

Choggie to Fedquip:“...and what the fuck is that suppose to mean, and why does it matter....Have you even ever had bush??!!! You are a problem, motherfucker.......but a real straight up, honest type, in your confusion.....take this as a friendly observation, you are nothing but a ball of confused synaptic fire, and most likely, an alcoholic and/or, prescription drug addict.....but that is just how I, irritate YOU, will MY observations.....oyu need to learn than when someone does not agree with your billboard, you may get phone call from those who have to drive by them everyday, and actually have to have a real....conversation woth someone.......yours with me is approaching overdue.....

To Which I replied

Fedquip to Choggie
Choggie,

I don't know what you are getting at with this comment but I would very much appreciate if we could just end this silly squabble. Please just ignore my postings, if you don't like what I do then just ignore me. Videosift does not belong to either of us so it's best that we just play nicely out of respect for Brian.

All the Best,

You chose to disrespect this community by making your hatred for me public today. I am a nice guy, and I mean well, but this is the internet and I have to be prepared to deal with users like yourself. I used to moderate a Hockey forum back in the day, being a Montreal fan you can't imagine what I had to put up with from the Toronto fans in that forum. We had a code of conduct that was centered around building a positive community that respected new ideas and new perspectives. We disposed of community members that personally attacked and threatened other members of the community, it was a no brainer.

I hope only positives come out of this intervention. I hope the videosift community can find something positive out of the way I participate and I hope I can avoid being banned.

Why not allow (100)Gold Star members to self link? I think I have proven to everybody that I am not using videosift to make money, my blog has no ads, I don't use Revver or the vsocial option for advertising. The clips that I self link to included James Burke and David Attenborough they are my favourite presenters.

If you want the videos up, do as mlx said. Ask someone to post them for you, or get someone to upload them. It's that easy.

Now that you've explained it, Fedquip, it actually looks even worse to me. You took something that was already on the sift and bugged it with your branding which linked directly back to your personal project? that doesn't sit right with me, at all."

I think you mis-understood, Gwaan posted the full length doc in February. I posted an excerpt from that documentary in May, linking back to Gwaans February submission for people who might be interested in the full length doc and missed it earlier on the sift.

The video player links to Jon Pilgers (the filmmakers) home page and at the end of the clip there is a link to videosift.

OK

This debate seems to be getting rather nasty and personal - this is a siftquisition not a damn lynching! I understand that people are pissed off but lets keep this civil.

Choggie - you and me have had lots of disagreements in the past - but our disputes have never descended into personal attacks, and on the whole we get on pretty well. This post was unnecessary.

Fedquip - self-linking is banned - period. There are lots of great clips that are not available online that I would like to upload and post to my collective. But I don't because self-linking is banned.

Personally, if I may weigh in here, I have to disagree largely with the claim that fedquip has enhanced the content of the sift... I mean, how many of his videos are Daily Show? Bill Maher? The sift was chock full of this stuff before fed showed up... all we have as a result of his entrance is a collective that is dedicated to these shows, along with the occasional posting of documentaries (most of which now seem to have been self-linked), along with whatever the hell happend to make his pals chuckle that day... music, commercials, anything, doesn't matter, post it to TAYTV and friends will upvote it.

The TAYTV collective is a personal annoyance to me if only because it does nothing to aid in the categorization and organization of the sift... which I had always thought was one of the main points of the collectives.

As far as contributing to discourse on the sift, fedquips posts are universally left-leaning and highly editorialized, I've taken issue with this over his "Army Ethics" post but that was not the only example of his agenda.... TAYTV is not about political discourse but about continuously reasserting his own, tunnel-vision view of the world. Do not think I am pointing this out because my politics do not agree with feds... if anything I'm right there next to him on the left side of the line... but I firmly believe that the sift should remain politically neutral, and having TAYTV as one of our highest ranking collectives only serves to cast a leftist pall on the rest of the site... and now to find out that the only way he got to this point was to self-link his own material and then pad the collective with Daily Show and Colbert to reap points strikes me as pretty shady.

I still stand by my call for a ban... and not for a week, but a ban period... correct the initial mistake of showing him the favoritism that gave him a collective in the first place and set an example once and for all that self-linking is never okay... anything less will be a continuation of that initial favoritism.

i didn't misunderstand at all. the video itself has a linked bug embedded in it (down in the bottom right corner). the fact you that changed the player to link to the filmmakers home page suggests to me that you were well intentioned in your submission. the bug itself, however, is the the beginning of a very slippery slope.

"You chose to disrespect this community by making your hatred for me public today."

My point exactly, your inability to derive meaning from words is my beef-You seem to desire the hatred you accuse me of, and I have no ill will towards the poster....THE posts are the target of my derision....how can I hate someone I have never met...I will tell you, because I know myself way better than you perceive me

I can't. Quite the contrary, I really don't think I am capable of hate, not even self-hate-It's freedom, really. Freedom from the predictable action/reaction responses most domesticated primates, in this twisted and beautiful paradigm, But now, to qualify all that with...admission of guilt to the action/reaction response: we all still suffer from it, I am no stranager to it, however, i have become adept at spotting it, calling what it is, and moving on to bigger and better things-
"prepared to deal with users like yourself."-divisive, misleading, inflammatory rhetoric, the same flavor of the crap I see, you post!

"We disposed of community members that personally attacked and threatened other members of the community, it was a no brainer."

asinine!!-this precludes discussion, reflection, and reasonable solutions with a view to self-actualization....works for the puck heads i guess-

again, your perception of a personal attack is misguided and delusional....cult of selfish

"I hope only positives come out of this intervention."

me too....that you will crawl out of your fantasy world, and broaden your horizons , with a view to actualization...ala Jung.....the world is bigger than pathetic political satire, and bandwagonizm.....

The librarians are at the gates!

As I posted on the other post, I do enjoy the TAYTV collective and I have never ever personally communicated with fedquip. TAYTV's reliance on the Stewart/Colbert for vote pimpage will indeed kill it when Viacom murders all of the clips and/or the Motherload eats them due to expiration dates. However, TAYTV has very well-defined content and I like the links I often find there. His content is consistently good (if left liberal and net rootsy) and I really like his approach to linking to related websites such as with the Kiva material.

However, the gaming of the posting rules involved more than 15 videos and numerous hosts so I don't know that a week ban of the person is the answer.

I propose that we keep fedquip, but dissolve the TAYTV collective forever. This will take care of all of the branding and cross-promotion that strikes most of us here as smelly.

Raven - "correct the initial mistake of showing him the favoritism that gave him a collective in the first place and set an example once and for all that self-linking is never okay."

With all do respect taytv was coming whether or not it was sanctioned by us. SfJocko was a member of taytv and had already told Fedquip he would make it. Fedquip went through us so that it would be a transparent action. As for your assertion that he hasn't been a boon to the sift I must disagree. While he has posted a lot of Bill Maher and Daily Show clips he has also posted lots of solid interest material on taytv, and a quick perusal shows most of them to have lots of good relevant links.

Beyond that from a pure traffic stand point I can say without a doubt that Fedquip has been a boon for videosift. We have gotten over 40,000 visitors from his blog since he started his collective.

One final note, the assertion that he just supports his own political agenda with his posts is one that could no doubt be levied at most sifters. With the exception of QM I think we are almost all frothing at the mouth liberals.

I initially had the same thought as rickegee - remove the taytv collective.

I concede that I self linked, in all honesty I knew I was doing it but I didn't think twice because I was not doing it to promote (except promote Attenborough and Burke if anything)

Honestly I am sorry that this has caused such a stir.

If anybody wants to re-submit those clips please by all means do so, I know the community liked them.

I have been in a bit over my head my with my new job, it's a welcome challenge and it has the opportunity to bring many of the issues discussed on the social web to a different type of audience.

And maybe someday I can get Kiva.org there too, it's a great opportunity and the last thing I want to do is lose the support that I have been given from the sift community.

As far as removing the entire collective this seems like a punishment that does not fit the crime. When theo was pulled in front of the siftquisition we just removed his videos. How / why does this deserve a stronger response?

I agree with James - removing the collective is too harsh a punishment.

To be honest, I'm really first and foremost just disappointed to learn about this.

Anyways....

I had no idea taytv was created through administrative action, if I had known that I would have argued against it, although I guess regular sifters didn't have a say in that. Whether it was coming or not is not the point, the point is that all of us other sifters have taken the time to put effort into this community in order to gain standing and the trust (and friendship!) of our fellow sifters. What, aside from the draw of more site hits, prompted you to allow the creation of taytv, and skip this process of ingraining oneself into the community?

I agree with Raven on the point that taytv has, for all my intents and purposes, failed to provide the same kind of categorization and organization of sifts that every other collective has. I hadn't really mentioned it to anyone, but I had been thinking about it for a while, since I feel that's not in the best interests of VideoSift as a whole. (I'd have been in favor of administrative approval for any goldie's proposed collective, rather than allowing us to make our own willy-nilly.) In addition, with Fedquip's blog and all and the business with AOL and such, he IS gaining from self-linking, very obviously. It's bringing attention to him and his goings-on, and I feel that it's the motivation of self-interest that is harming VS.

I am vehemently opposed to a single-week ban, that's less than a slap on the wrist for what was an outright infringement of rules that Fedquip was very well aware of, and which would have, in the case of a newer user, definitely have resulted in a ban. I am definitely opposed to the taytv collective being allowed to stay. I'm for the most part opposed to a permaban; pragmatically, the truth remains that Fedquip does bring viewers to VS, which is not something I care about but that I'm sure the administrators of VS do, although if it were not for this single fact I would say a permaban is only right and fair. Actually, I personally think Fedquip's entire account should be wiped clean, so that he can start again from scratch if he's willing, although that may be overly draconian. At the very least, I think the collective should be deleted.

And James, I believe that this deserves a stronger response because Theo had absolutely nothing to gain from his self-links. Fedquip, on the other hand, has a financial and self-promotional interest, indirect though it may be, in his having the collective. I think it was wrong of VideoSift administrators granting him the collective to begin with, and I think it's wrong to allow him to continue benefiting from VideoSift's community in such a way.

Can someone provide a link to theo's case? I'd be interested to see what happened.

Personally, I think it's the bugs within the clips that need to be culled. Deliberate subversive advertising can only lead to trouble, even if it's rather innocent at this stage.

"With the exception of QM I think we are almost all frothing at the mouth liberals."

Jumping to conclusions James, I'm a GDI (god damn independent) I call bullshit on everyone and anyone. Even myself.

It seems to me, after reading fedquip's posts here, that he isn't really interested in being part of the sift community at all but instead wants his taytv to be an off-shoot for him and his own agenda of (as raven said) left-leaning political sifts. I still feel raw about the 'Army Ethics' post's title and changing it to 'Ethics during war time' did little to show that fedquip shows anything but distain for not only politicians but the military as well. Agenda Agenda Agenda. Everything that fedquip has said here in his defense stinks to high heaven of elitism as if he is the messiah come to deliver us with his message. He is not helping the sift...at all. He didn't even care about the sift until it became evident to him that he could leech on push his own agenda (there's that word again) by having dag and James be the new hosts for his own blog. If taytv is so important to you fedquip, do the only honorable thing and give it its own site. Then, and only then, will you be able to "share" anything you want with your clique as here on the sift we have many collectives (and no collective is better than any other I don't care what the ranks say) and all your collective seems to do is take away vids that should be categorized elsewhere. Reading your comments and goals I am not swayed in the least bit to feel sympathy for you. If you loved the sift as you say you do you wouldn't have blatantly broken the rules and set yourself above anyone else and this conversation would not even be taking place. If taytv is so "influential" get your own site. I vote to issue a permanent ban and if the collective is going to stay fedquip should pass it off to someone who earned their star.

"Beyond that from a pure traffic stand point I can say without a doubt that Fedquip has been a boon for videosift. We have gotten over 40,000 visitors from his blog since he started his collective."-maybe I should start a blog in all the spare time i spend here, and get my new, single-serving pals to haunt.......oooooooooo, scaaaaaary

what the hell does that matter?? Keep yer day jobs if you think money and traffic and popularity is what you need....."We need the guy cause of ratings???
Look, I don't pretend to understand the motivation of the creation....I am, with all my banter, simply voting up and down, like everyone else according to my own sensibilities and whims......and Roe, the labels liberal, conservative, moderate, etc, are feel-good boxes for concepts bastardized and polluted, words to replace meaning-.....I am indeed, frothing at the mouth, but....haven't you guessed me yet???? I take no sides, contrived and limiting as they have dissolved into........I am, who the hell I am-you may have noticed i defend Qm from time to time, because, a gang-bang of rhetoric, is as filthy to me as a concentration camp, or concertina wire over a road, or assholes who think they know anything, about the big picture.......I defend the defenseless, feed the weak, assist the strong, and Allah-Baba can sort out the rest of them,
perception, is a motherfucker.......

*b *a

no hate here, just whimsical free-form being

n*

"And James, I believe that this deserves a stronger response because Theo had absolutely nothing to gain from his self-links. Fedquip, on the other hand, has a financial and self-promotional interest, indirect though it may be, in his having the collective. I think it was wrong of VideoSift administrators granting him the collective to begin with, and I think it's wrong to allow him to continue benefiting from VideoSift's community in such a way."

Here-freakin'-Here

I also agree with the idea of completely wiping the TAYTV from the sift... because, when it comes down to it, it is not a collective, it is not a category within the larger framework of the sift, it is fed's own personal blog, his own little kingdom where he can say what he wants, skew a vid's content to serve his own message, and bend the rules when he sees fit. From my point of view it in no way enhances any of the other collectives or aids in the organization of the sift. By allowing TAYTV to continue to exist you are setting the dangerous precedent that it is okay for any goldie to have their own such blog in the guise of a collective, do we want that? I should hope not... if someone wants to have a such home on the net there are plenty of free hosters available*. Period. End of Story. Ban.

*let me refer you to one such opportunity

agreed.

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

Hmm, I think Collectives do naturally have a slant towards the creator's interest and leanings - and are not always focused on a single topic with laser like percision. May I present this fine collective as exhibit Q.

I'm a casual sifter myself, so I'm not sure how much say I have in this, but I do think Raven does make a good point about the classification and organization of videos posted to the sift via collectives. There have been several times when I've had to search and check if I'm posting a duplicate video and running a quick browse through a related collective has allowed me to catch those duplicates. With a collective like TayTV, there is little classification other than "nifty videos go here," which is more or less what the entire Sift is. What purpose is there of having a subsection of the Sift that's pretty much a summary of the entire Sift?

Personally, I'm not sure where to go on Fedquip's judgement. I'm sure the more experienced members will come up with a decent solution. However, I do believe that something should be done with the TayTV collective, if only for the sake of properly classifying the videos.

[EDIT]Yeah, Dag, I noticed Nicks collective as well, and I think it's in the same area as TayTV. But then, it wasn't stated as a rule that collectives needed to be focused in any direction, so I guess this one is up in the air . . .[/EDIT]

Fair call... but Nicks Naks is like that top drawer where you put all that stuff that doesn't belong anywhere else still a little pointless I guess.

Fedquips published list reads like a blog. There's plenty of stuff he's put into his collective that would have suited other collectives perfectly whereas the contents of Nick Naks are pretty unplacable odds and ends.

@dag, I have noticed Nick's Nacks... it didn't slip past me, and has also been somewhat of an annoyance (sorry Nicky), in fact, before this whole thing blew up all over the freakin' place I was planning on bringing up the issue of collective definition here on SiftTalk. I firmly believe that as the sift grows we are going to need to somehow redefine collectives in order to head off the possibility of their function dissolving into a bunch of little video fiefdoms consisting of hodgepodges of videos that just happen to strike the fancy of its creator.

Now, I'm not saying that Nicky's collective should be dissolved along with fedquip's. I would encourage Nicky to perhaps better define the selection of videos that go in his collective but I would not say it should be erased.

TAYTV on the other hand, gives fedquip way to much crosspromotional exposure and has undoubtedly added to his overall worth on the internet as a sifter. That he has managed to turn this into a career through AOL is great, good for him, but I'd really rather this site remained a place of recreation rather than a place for up and coming internet stars to enhance their reputation.

guess more codification/clarification may be in order, as Slyverstrink points out, NickyP's may fit the description, but it in no way reflects the blinding light of agenda, as does throw away your tv.....what does that mean anyway???? so many different things, to so many different folks, and so many different ways there are, to get a point across......FEDQUIP'S is the way of shoving it up and down any orifice available......(stinky, smelly, and cheap....Slutty. He's a media slut, the whatever-feels-good-do-it type.....-this one man's,less than humble opinion, which should have no bearing on the current discourse, there being the rules and all)

where the hell is joedirt and theo47 on this???? We respect those referenced here, and appreciate their input, always!!

"Where is my armagnac!!??"

choggie,

could you please lay off the ad-hominem. It's pretty clear you and fedquip have bad blood but you are doing none of us any favors nor this discussion by saying things like

"He's a media slut"

ok. again.....james, nothing personal...I've not met the man-only seen his handiwork, and am editorializing, like anyone else here, using language, medium, perception and personal experience available, as are we all.....this is my way-like the nose on my face, you may dislike it,or think it inappropriate, but goddammit, you must look at it, and probly' laugh about it later with friends, if it suits you-

I will never, regret, deny, and how can one change, anything that is already frozen, in time and space???!!!

Cohesion is important, I agree. aidos has made some very good and to the point posts on this thread (if you haven't read them but just skimmed the post go check them out, he's the pirate logo) and since I didn't really clarify in my last I will get to the point.

I am now for an outright permanent ban on fedquip, let him get a blog on AOL if he is their boy (or blogger or xenga). Don't waste sift space on your own agenda because that is what your taytv blog is ( it is not a collective but a blog to help solidify fedquip's own self-gratification that he is pro at video sharing and just serves as another thing on his resume to help promote himself). Dissolve the blog/collective as it is the source of all this arguing amongst a community that used to run smoothly. I know there have been arguments in the past but as far as I know not to this degree.

Let us throw away taytv! Rabble Rabble Rabble Rabble! <--just trying to inject some humor.

all about smooth
and
if i am not the first to invoke the * b a
n, then if he ain't gone when I come back, I'll be the second.....(already the first in spirit)

and sifters, a week ain't long enough-in this man's, lees than humble, opinion-

Ok what is the deal here? I see the issue as follows.

Several of you seem to have issues with the status Fedquip has in relation to social media. You seem to object that he uses Videosift to find materials for his own use. He doesn't have to be a member of videosift to accomplish this either. He doesn't have to contribute his money, submit videos, or anything else. In other words he could be a total leech.

He's not doing that. He's giving back to the community which gives to him. You know what it's the exact same reason I am here and contributing to the community on this site. While I don't get paid for doing so I use videosift to find material to post on my web site and I know several other bloggers who also use videosift to find material for their web sites. He deserves a punishment for violating a videosift rule. I won't argue against that. But his employement has absolutely nothing to do with his self linking. So lets concentrate on the issue at hand, come up with a reasonable punishment, and keep our personal feelings out of the issue.

I thought we were a community. Lets act like one.

I think that whatever happens we need to leave it at least a day before a final decision is made. we're all in different timezones (some people probably haven't even seen this post yet) and some of us have to sleep now

My issue is not what fed is taking from the Sift, its how he is using the site while he is here, namely his methods of input, and his management of his collective/blog... I don't mind if he uses the sift to locate vids for his other activities on the internet, I am, however, bothered by the fact that he has used this site to further enhance his rep.. and that gain, is indeed, self-promotion... he's a pundit, and the sift is yet one more outlet for him, one more subscriber to his program... frankly, I'm not at all for that... downvote.

In agreement with aidos... this needs a good 24 hours to resolve, I for one, would like to sleep tonight.

If he uses Videosift to enhance his reputation does it not also enhance the reputation of the sift at the same time? I mean come on any advertising for the sift which we don't have to pay for is a good thing. I don't remember who said it but his site sent 40,000 visitors to the site? I would expect the sift made a dollar or two from that. I would suggest Fedquip add a link to the sift from the aol blog site but he has a prominent one on the tay tv site. I however do not think that it should be considered a deadly sin.

I don't really see a problem with people using collectives as personal blogs. When we migrate to vs 3.0 collectives will look a lot more like blogs to facilitate dialog. We are planning on making the landing page a sift talk style page for each collective which will lend its self to blog like posts. Honestly as the community grows we are going to develop micro communities and I see that as a natural and desirable evolution.

Obscure is one such micro community that immediately jumps to mind.

BL, by having his branded collective, he is gaining the VideoSift userbase to enhance his rep, as well as drawing more viewers to his site. His employment, as a blogger or whatever, is directly connected to this, and as such is extremely topical. Especially since he got into this position in the first place because he was given the collective, due to the rep he already had.

And yes, I think more time should be given for other members to weigh in on the discussion, and all of us to think. Honestly, it'll be better when that noise stops....

"Rabble rabble rabble rabble rabble rabble..."

@BL Perhaps, but if he doesn't bother to operate within the guidlines of the sift, is it really okay to let it go unpunished just because he is a known quantity? Also, is it really fair to have one person become 'the face' of an entire community? Where does that leave those who do not agree with the TAYTV agenda? It's kind of like how O'Reilly has become the face of FOX News, and Olbermann the face of MSNBC... do we want that for our community?

aren't our post listings already acting as blogs? Surely dumping all your posts into your collective makes one or other redundant. people already get a taste of what you like by what you post.

No but the punishment should fit the crime. Not for him using the sift to enhance his rep. That's my arguement.

"Especially since he got into this position in the first place because he was given the collective, due to the rep he already had."

Not true, I've said this like nine times but it apparently bears repeating. Sfjocko had already told us he was going to create taytv, Fedquip would have been the defacto moderator anyway. We just made it above board by hooking fedquip up with it ahead of time. Beyond that he made gold star a little over a week and a half later. Taytv was coming to the sift one way or another, it just came with administrative approval instead of without it.

@JAMES... yes Obscure does function as a community, and community is great... but the Obscure collective does stick to its topic of interest... as I've already pointed out, there is no such cohesion within TAYTV. I do think that if the collectives are going to aid in organizing the Sift we collective owners need to make more of a conscious effort to uphold some sort of content cohesion within them... no more of this posting anything and everything to a collective just because its posse will get it published for you (I am referring directly, of course, to all the random commercials, music vids, etc within TAYTV that has nothing to do with activism, politics, or any of the other topics the collective professes to be about).

I suggest the week long ban for fedquip and a complete wipe of TAYTV content... let him start it over, following the rules this time, and work to actually bring us good content (and he does from time to time- I know, I find a lot of stuff for my Iraq-related playlists there) and encourage his members to do the same.

Well given that the punishment (for the same crime on a smaller scale) for new members is a total ban within minutes what would you have happen here...?

True James, but how do you think he went from bronze to gold in a week and half? uh... by having a collective of course, they are vote getters, and I don't think you can argue that by giving him one when he was bronze he was able to go gold in record time. For the rest of us who had to work hard to get our gold stars this was a huge slap in the face.

James, thanks for the clarification, I read what you said earlier but didn't really understand the circumstances. I still think he should have started the collective the regular way. If it was going to happen one way or the other....why not the normal way, why the special treatment?

That point aside, all the rest of my argument still stands.

and now fedquip offers his resignation...

I think that should change as well...

...The current self promotion rule is a bad idea with the best of intentions. In the world of free email services such as Yahoo or Gmail you can easily establish multiple untraceable video hosting accounts and then submit them using another identity on the sift. I have suspected self promotion more than once on sifted videos, but had no way to prove a link. So as it is currently situated the rule rewards less than honest people, while penalizing honest ones.

The sift already has the tools and the user base to deal with crappy videos. If they are not siftworthy, we can down vote them. If the video is over bounds of acceptability we can discard it. Why not allow the community to decide.

When the sift bans someone for whatever reason, it's a lost member, someone who could have subscribed, and/or submitted sift worthy content in the future. It is also lost advertising revenue...

Raven,

I think he did that because he posts like nine videos a day every day. He is probably one of our most prolific sifters. If anything him going charter helped the most because it bumped his queue limit up to 6 from 3. I briefly tried to compete with fedquip over at netscape and he had almost always posted quality content before me. He is truly a prolific internet junky, and while you could argue that his collective helped some I think it was mostly his dogged determination to have no less than 6 videos in his queue 24/7.

"why not the normal way, why the special treatment?"

If sfjocko had created it, it would have been "normal," but it would have no doubt produced ire. This is a touchy situation. I would like to point out that at the time no one seemed particularly perturbed. In fact it seems that this level of ire has only become apparent after fedquip became popular.

Perhaps James, and I will admit that a lot of my problems with the early history of fedquip and TAYTV is indeed sour grapes... but I still stand by my complaints about the later development of TAYTV, the self-posting, the lack of coherence, etc.

I'm sorry if I've come across as a witchhunter of sorts but these issues have been rufflin' my feathers for a while now... and I'm not alone, this was, unfortunately, an unavoidable discussion.

I said it earlier but I want to mention it again because everyone is getting hung up on how fedquip chooses to use his collective (where the rules are not actually well defined).

there's a major issue going on here with self linking. fedquip has been using it to embed advertising directly into the videos themselves. at the moment it seems innocent (a link to his blog) but once you set that precedent it spirals out of control. it's the prefect mechanism for sneaky advertisers to generate revenue.

Well I won't even attempt to defend the self linking, clearly as the rule now stands there is no wiggle room there. I don't know that there is a good way though for us to address the lack of cohesion. We could let videos reside in multiple collectives and do away with the ranking method. Making them more like channels than competing microcosms. But that is basically all I can think of, our collective creation rules are basically non existent at the moment, you are in short free to make a collective about whatever you want.

Aidos,

Those videos were linking to videosift, not his personal site. If anything it's a boon for us to have him posting such links into his vsocial stuff.

"If sfjocko had created it, it would have been "normal," but it would have no doubt produced ire. This is a touchy situation. I would like to point out that at the time no one seemed particularly perturbed. In fact it seems that this level of ire has only become apparent after fedquip became popular."

Then don't you think the fact that it would have produced ire the regular way abouts is telling? I know that I was not perturbed at the time because I didn't notice. If I had known, I would have argued against it then as I am now.

Let me say as well that I had no beef with Fedquip previously, so it's not like I'm bringing out a grudge against him. But the more I hear, the more I'm uncomfortable with the entire situation. Like Raven, the specific way in which the taytv collective was run got to me, I just never said anything because I didn't know if anybody else had noticed or even cared, and also I didn't know all the background on the situation.

Oh, and I do think the collective situation as a whole needs to be addressed. I like that collectives are (for the most part) focused on a particular topic, and that they are cohesive. I also think there should be guidelines and rules to ensure this in the future. For example, admin and/or goldie approval of collective topic before it is granted.

And I don't like collective rankings at all. In fact, I'm very much against them.

I thought that was the whole point of Revver and ifilm to make money for the content uploader? A much easier way to profit off the sift.

gah!

go to one of the clips in question.
hit play.
pause.
in the bottom right of the video is a little taytv icon
click on it
you get his blog

I know it's slightly broken in the frames system but the intent is there pure and simple. to me that's what needs to be stopped.

http://www.videosift.com/talk/Will-I-be-banned-for-sifting-up-my-own-content-The-answer-is-yes

It seems like only 26 days ago that we were circling around the same subject. I don't agree that rank or status should allow a Sifter to self-link.

Part of the joy of the whole process is finding treasures. Discovering a video that someone else enjoyed enough to upload to a hosting site and feeling stupidly for a moment that it must have been posted just for you.

If I am putting my own gold in the creek, then the joy of discovery is lost. We may as well call this site Video Rummage Sale.

See my response

Those videos were linking to videosift, not his personal site. If anything it's a boon for us to have him posting such links into his vsocial stuff.

James, the taytv icon link (in both fedquip's and rickegee's posts) vsocial submissions do indeed link to the taytv blog, not videosift despite what fedquip said.

People People.

I do not use the sift for self promotion.

If you cared to ask instead of speculate you might know more about me and my situation.

End of Story, I came here because I liked this community. Turns out this community doesn't care to learn more about me. So we part.

MLX, I had not hit play and tried the taytv icon, that does indeed link to his blog and not videosift and is in clear violation.

I was only checking out the bottom left image link which links to:

http://www.johnpilger.com/page.asp?partid=12

That adds a new wrinkle.

Ok, I'll ask...

Why didn't you ask anyone else to post all those videos you self-submitted?

Why did you think you could blatantly post something that links to your blog through an icon in the bottom right corner?

Why didn't you mention to anyone here that you got a job with AOL?

I agree that there are issues regarding collectives that need to be discussed... may I suggest we start a new thread? I'm too tired to do so at the moment and would like to get some sleep... if no one else does so by tomorrow I'll start it off, but if y'all want to, go right ahead and start without me. Ciao.

I'm done for the night too but I'm definitely interested in seeing more discussion on the use of collectives.

Why didn't you ask anyone else to post all those videos you self-submitted?
A: I misunderstood the rules, I addressed that and my collective is being demolished because of it.

Why did you think you could blatantly post something that links to your blog through an icon in the bottom right corner?
B: I have been using vsocial for ages, all my videos have different links, on that particular example the watermark linked to my blog, my humblest apologies. again no ads on my site it's not like im terrorizing the sift.

Why didn't you mention to anyone here that you got a job with AOL?
Yeah, I told brian and James, my collective users would have noticed by reading my blog.

It's true, I knew about his Aol involvement but as he had never shilled for Netscape here I assumed it would continue to be a null issue.

"A: I misunderstood the rules, I addressed that and my collective is being demolished because of it."

Even several of the newbies that get banned admit that they were aware of the rules of self-linking but did it anyway. It is the most clearly defined rule on the sift. After 180 or so posts nothing should have been more obvious to you. Your collective is being demolished because of actions you knowingly made and for no other reason. Good night all.

Fed, am a long term user and I just feel like you took advantage of the trust we all place in our users.

How about sleeping on it and propose solutions tomorrow? Fedquip has been courteous to people and maybe it would be good to not lose a long-term member of the Sift over what is a situation not entirely of his gestation. I'm too dang tired tonight to write my reasons or solution, but before anyone really pulls the trigger on this, I think there are several ways to resolve this that help everyone.

Interested? See ya manana.

Sc

here here farhad. Nail on the head with one sentence.

Look, I said this would happen when the subject of his Collective first came up on SiftTalk. Now, do I really give a damn about fedquip or perceived abuse? No.. you all have been voting for his clips.

All you have to do if you find these things is toss the video in question. Send it to the blog..

None of this going nuts with torches crap. You want to run off every account where there is a self link.. There are a lot more than you might think. So if it's not serial abuse or hurting anything, just relax you freaks.

Why not let dag deal with it. His goal is to build a website of good videos. Heck he could change the policy overnight, so just relax. If it comes down to scaring away users or opening the flood gates on self-linking.. You know.. this is a website with a goal of more traffic to sustain paying the bills. Once a website gets too big, the server bills really mean you have to put your own money into it, or drive enough traffic to pay the bills.

So just back to watching videos and let them deal with it, your concern has been noted. Heck, my concern was ignored a long time ago.

I don't think we should start running people off.

and behold, the web 2.0 dream continues to be exposed as an empty idealistic circular argument between well meaning geeks with too much time on their hands.

I like videosift because there's less rubbish than youtube. I find it much easier to sit on videosift and entertain myself for an hour than I do on any other video site.

But get a hold of yourselves, you're just hotlinking to other people's stuff, you're not curing cancer or something.

These arguments, mostly between men, are the internet equivalent of the intro to 2001: A Space Odyssey.

All the free thinking progressive futuristic mashup projects I have ever seen end up with a Soviet. At the end of the process, we see that basically some people own and run this site, and some people do not. The owners try to be democratic but basically only want their own version of democracy to prevail (the one where people vote for the owners' preference).

This is not a criticism of the intentions of the owners, which are undoubtedly noble. This is Animal Farm. This is what happens when some people have power and some do not. This is showing how the internet does not solve the problem of politics and powergames. This is the failure of collective voting and the hive mind.

I was an original fan of TayTV because I liked Fedquip's bias, and I liked getting to know him and seeing what he had to say. I liked his benevolent dictatorship. I forgave his self promotion because TayTV was HIS and self promotion was HIS prerogative (nay raison d'etre)

But then fedquip swallowed the Web 2.0 pill and opened things up, and he took jobs from big companies, and he joined the sift, and his original goal of self promotion was suddenly a conflict of interests problem which he clearly didn't recognise.

You people need to realise that no "community" will ever be what you want it to be. If you want the web edited properly, edit it yourself.

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

That's a very pessimistic outlook MINK, and I don't agree. I know it's cool to dis Web 2.0 and everything, but I don't know what that has to do with the current topic. (Hey I was one the first to say "Kiss Sucks" in the early 80s!) But yeah, web 2.0 sucks - whatever that is.

VideoSift however, is a collection of interesting videos, conversations and people. Check your buzzwords at the door. If people take things that happen here seriously, it's because they've invested themselves in the structure of the community and the relationships they've established.

I don't see how this is a failure of collective voting either. Could you get more Henny Penny?

My thoughts on this are pretty broad. I believe that people are generally good, but subject to a shitload of imperfections - hormonal, psychological, holdover instincts from their lizard hind brain - we live with that - and to paraphrase Nancy Reagan - we're doing the best that we can.

(edited to be less snarky)

Good Morning,

FWIW, there are really two separate topics being discussed here. First is Fedquip's Collective and meteoric rise to the top 15. Second is Fedquip's self-linking.

1. Joedirt is correct. Fedquip's Collective is in a different class than anyone else here on the Sift. He has drawing power no one else can muster. He's reached the top 15 in a matter of weeks. And you know what? That isn't his fault. He was given that position here on the Sift. It's obviously created a tremendous resentment. In a nutshell, TayTV and VS were a merger. Because of the nature of that relationship the TayTV Collective needs to be in a class by itself. No "Top 15." No "Top User" list. No "Rating." Frankly any of those comparisons with regular Sifters just isn't fair and stirs up problems. The rest of us don't (ostensibly) search videos for a living and we certainly can't bring 40,000 hits here. While that's good for the Sift, the current policy of having Fedquip be compared to the rest of us doesn't foster good relations.

2. Fequip self-linked. Fedquip broke the rule. And newbies who do that get tossed. But Fedquip is hardly a newbie and has been a prolific and, at least to me, a courteous contributor to the Sift. It seems to me, at this point, the right thing to do would be to ask Fedquip to get rid of the self-links and get them hosted by someone else. Any further abuse can result in whatever penalty Brian and James deem fair. As Joedirt indicated, there are several among us who haven't had our hands entirely clean of the self-link rule.

Bottom Line: Fedquip brings a lot of people to the Sift. That's good for Brian and James. If that helps keep the Sift around, it's good for all of us. Soooo . . . Keep Fedquip. Put his Collective in a class by itself. His vids will still go through the same process but votes and member rating will not be compared with other members. They won't even register. Have him dump his self-links and let it serve as fair warning. I don't think I'd like to lose him at this point without giving another option a try.

That's my .02.

Oh, yea, and I get all the Attenborough videos.

word to silvercord.

dag i was not attacking. TRYING to do this community thing is very worthwhile. I myself am an admin at an enormous forum and I think it is important to do these community experiments and good things definitely come from them.

But it always results in enormous "discussions" and rigid rules and trolls and dumbasses everywhere. I like the internet but it is full of people discussing who should be banned, and that's just boring.

Even if you build a great voting system (such as videosift) people still get all jumpy about the rules of the voting system. It seems an unavoidable consequence of having a publicly open forum. And it's always us guys waving our cocks at each other, strangely the girls don't seem to take part so much...

I love the way videosift edits out most of the spam from youtube. I love the way i don't even have to look at all of videosift, i can just go into TayTV or the British Comedy playlist or whatever. It's great. But at the bottom of it is a semiretarded popularity contest with a significant and damaging percentage of jealous little bitches. Then you give them a thread to bitch in.

I just like the word semiretarded. Anyway. On you go, keep up the good work, by my own argument I shouldn't even bother posting this and it's your site so I would prefer you stuck to your guns and ignored the crap flying around, rather than being quite so "transparent". Can't please all the people all the time. etc.

Sorry for pessimism, it's a bit more complicated than that, hope i didn't just confuse you even further.

looking back over the thread, almost all of it is well reasoned thoughtful discussion. ultimately it's led to a look at how the current rules work and (I hope) a slight change to them to make them better for the masses.

of course you can't please all the people all the time. at least there's a decent forum here for airing ones concerns.

@MINK:
"These arguments, mostly between men, are the internet equivalent of the intro to 2001: A Space Odyssey."

"And it's always us guys waving our cocks at each other, strangely the girls don't seem to take part so much..."

Excuse me???? I think I also speak for Swampgirl and Mlx here when I say that the women of the sift have just as much invested in this site as the men... we may not do any 'cock waving' as you call it, but we are just as involved dammit.

Anyway: I agree with silvercord 100% on this statement:
"Fedquip's Collective is in a different class than anyone else here on the Sift. He has drawing power no one else can muster. He's reached the top 15 in a matter of weeks. And you know what? That isn't his fault. He was given that position here on the Sift. It's obviously created a tremendous resentment. In a nutshell, TayTV and VS were a merger. Because of the nature of that relationship the TayTV Collective needs to be in a class by itself. No "Top 15." No "Top User" list. No "Rating."

I think we all need to recognize that Fed is not a regular user and should be treated as such if he stays on. Personally, I like swampgirl's proposal and would urge you all to have a looksee:
http://www.videosift.com/talk/proposed-alternative-for-Fedquip

"Bottom Line: Fedquip brings a lot of people to the Sift. That's good for Brian and James. If that helps keep the Sift around, it's good for all of us. Soooo . . . Keep Fedquip. Put his Collective in a class by itself. His vids will still go through the same process but votes and member rating will not be compared with other members. They won't even register. Have him dump his self-links and let it serve as fair warning. I don't think I'd like to lose him at this point without giving another option a try."

Yes Silvercord, thankyou. I posted a sifttalk this morning with a similar idea for Fed about making his blog one of VS friends and partners. If he keeps his collective, then something of the effect should reflect this.

raven. i am well aware there are girls in the world. generally they aren't the ones arguing about power structures on the internet. haven't got any statistics to prove that, unless you count the gender ratio in this thread.
i never said anything about how much girls have invested in this site?!!!? and as you point out, girls aren't cockwaving here, so... ahhh forget it. arguing on the internet is retarded. i would rather watch a clip of TDS ffs.

has the mania cleared up? (rears his head)

good god man... stay down!

How to run the site I'll leave to those with more invested in it, I'm an activist in a couple of areas and the videos from all sources have in cases been highly useful for demonstrating various things to people but between debate and research I don't have a lot of time to post myself. So, no comment on how or if to deal with it though it seems it might be a moot issue at this point. A couple of observations though.

I've read the TAYTV group, or parts of it, since the first blog. Before he got his own web address and well before Videosift. Never commented on it or communicated with him, just not the fan club type, but I think some of you are working on some mistaken impressions.

He didn't run the first major site for profit, he got together with some people and got several sites to donate their advertising revenue to charity. Didn't make a million for it but they made a few bucks for good causes. Rather than a media whore what I tended to see was documentaries such as The Century of the Self which tended to warn against media manipulation. That's why I found it a useful resource. AOL I have no knowledge of so I'll leave that be, I'm from the day where friends didn't let friends AOL and never got over it I guess He has to make a living some way I guess.

Where some of you seems to see a bad guy I see a productive and generally well intentioned kid who did what kids do when they are pretty successful in a short time. Got a little bit of an ego and didn't follow the rules, I can understand the offense at that. Don't get carried away and start assuming too much just because you're looking at a prolific kid who draws a crowd. Some of the anger seems out of place to me.

Coming late to the discussion, but I'll offer my opinion anyway. I don't think that dissolving the collective is the right solution and I hope that fedquip doesn't actually follow through on his promise to do so. In some ways I agree that TayTV has become a hodgepodge of videos without a clear directive but that doesn't mean it doesn't serve a function as a collective. If collectives are meant to help organize the videos on VS, then why do we have channels? If that is really the goal, then perhaps we should expand the number of channels (starting with sports!).

Absent from this discussion of the collective is the fact that there are other contributors to it. Everyone seems to be talking as if fedquip is the only contributor and therefore the collective operates more like a blog. However, I personally have contributed the majority of my videos through the TayTV collective. And I took the original intention to heart, often linking to other websites to further the discussion that the video touches upon. Yes, I came to videosift when TayTV made its move here but I don't really see how it has in anyway detracted from VS since its arrival.

Regarding the self-linking violation, why not just pull the videos in question. Clearly, this tongue-lashing of a thread is going to be a deterrent for fedquip from repeating this offense. Sure, do a one week ban if that is deemed appropriate. But both an all-out ban and a dissolution of the collective seem Draconian to me.

If Fedquip is banned, I will boycott Videosift.

And in other annals of necroposting . . .

Hey hey, I just got back from Reno and... [end random Simpsons ref]

Some quick comments, because if ANYONE's going to necropost around here, it's *ME*.

From Fedquip:
>Now I understand the self promotion policy, but I honestly didn't think it has to be so black and white.

No, it doesn’t *have* to be, but it is. You would need to get the community and admins to agree to change the policy first.

The proper forum, IMHO, for challenging the policy would be in its on Sift Talk, rather than in a Full-on Siftquisition, though - this is more of a forum of defending oneself, rather than attacking existing policy. Despite the maxim that “the best defense is a good offense”, it simply looks REALLY bad in this context. Burnings aren’t necessary, but a bit of contrition is nice.

You did bring on the contrition in comment #142423, though, (and majorly in the offer to leave, which was as dramatic as it was appreciated), so I’m totally appeased.

I know Kiva.org, though... how does that fit into all this, though?

From James:
>With the exception of QM I think we are almost all frothing at the mouth liberals.

*Almost* all. I like wildmanBill’s GDI label.

I just like my latte foam frothing.

From bl968:
>But his employement has absolutely nothing to do with his self linking.

Actuallllllly.... it may not be directly related, but it’s a CLEAR example of why the rule exists in its Super Black & White Form in the first place.

The Sift is about more than just promoting yourself and gaining rank like the monkies dag cited in his initial post introducing the rankings (click on the link on the Top 15 list to see that old Sift Talk post... oh, here it is: http://www.videosift.com/talk/Member-Rankings-Added-to-VideoSift).

However, if you were looking for a New Media job, putting “Top 15 Sift” user on your C.V. definitely wouldn’t hurt.

But if you attain that rank by digging up/creating your own clips then publishing *and* sifting them, it subverts the unique *value* and *meaning* of a top-ranked Sifted video/user.

Similar to monetary inflation, posting your own links dilutes the value of the posting (i.e. it means you couldn’t find someone else willing to post the video... therefore it has lost one step of “approval” before entering the Sift Queue). When a government prints more money, the value of its money falls, and soon you get hyper-inflation.

From MINK:
>and behold, the web 2.0 dream continues to be exposed as an empty idealistic circular argument between well meaning geeks with too much time on their hands.

Well clearly.

wicked necropost, krupo

I only came in three days after rickegee... but thanks.