I honestly believe that Howard Zinn is one of the few historians who actually has a grip on reality, both past, present, and future.

Great first submission.

Welcome to the Sift, Tip from a veteran, you can't submit clips you've uploaded yourself on youtube.

Based on the quality of your clip, I vote Mulligan.

since when did we start giving a pass for interesting self links?

shit, srsly?

this is a self-link? why oh why, do so many people not read Rule One?

do we have to make it a big, single-page, 48-sized print page,
that you have to click 'OK' on, that just says "No self-linking"??

this is so not the comment i wanted to have to leave, after watching this.

>> ^my15minutes:
...this is so not the comment i wanted to have to leave, after watching this.


Then edit it. The voting sifters apparently enjoyed the post enough to overlook the technicality.

Viggo is a bad narrator.... I feel sooooo sleepy after watching this

*discuss this bad precedent, good video or not. If henryholt is willing to explain himself, I can forego a ban, but we can't just let the vid slide.

This video is being sent to Sift Talk for discussion - discuss requested by jonny.

"If henryholt is willing to explain himself, I can forego a ban, but we can't just let the vid slide."

I gotta tell ya, I absolutely hate this aspect of the Sift...the guy is a new member (4 days new), he obviously didnt know the rule. Here we go pulling the video, after it had done really well, really quickly. Just so we can hear him "explain himself"- Basically we're starting another one of our famous siftquisitions - I will put my money on him not explaining himself and simply moving onto "more friendly" video sharing pastures. (who do I owe...)

Did this submission ruin the quality of the Videosift environment? (Imperialists don't answer)
Could we not have just given the first time error producer a Private Warning and move on. Naturally, for the ban birds out there we can consider a banning if he is caught a 2nd time.

Do we need to shine a spotlight on new members like this, threaten bans just to keep them in line? Do we need to out them and have them explain themselves? Do you really want to hear what he has to say? Or are you just aching to ban.

This sucks, and what really sucks is I've had to type this argument over and over throughout the time here, and nothing changes, how many potential members have we lost simply because theyre opening act was a self link. I am not promoting self promotion, I am just saying not everybody owns a videosift bible (although they should) not everybody knows the rules as well as some of us. We can be more polite in the way these errors are handled.

I Say *return. and if Henry turns around and submits another Self Link, then we can unleash the ban birds. (feel free to disagree)

(We have to handle these wisely on a case by case basis....In most cases and instant ban is necessary.)

Returning this video from Sift Talk - return requested by Fedquip.

Hi everyone,

I apologize for submitting my own link, I honestly did not read the rules carefully enough when I registered. I take complete blame for this, and it won't happen again.

With that said, I believe this system may be flawed, what is going to stop someone from creating a new account here, or another video sharing site, with different usernames?

Again, please accept my apologies. I'm looking forward to becoming a part of this community, and promise to read your rules more carefully.

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

*discuss

This video is being sent to Sift Talk for discussion - discuss requested by dag.

What would you like to discuss Dag?
I would be interested in hearing your thoughts on this matter.

>> ^Fedquip:
Here we go pulling the video, after it had done really well, really quickly. Just so we can hear him "explain himself"

It's not about any specific explanation, but a way to make sure it wasn't a drive-by and to ensure the potential new user is actually interested enough in the site to take the time to read the FAQ, which in this case, he apparently is.

Basically we're starting another one of our famous siftquisitions

oh come on - this is nothing like a siftquisition. You of all people should realize that. And maybe you hadn't noticed, I tend to be against those as well.

I will put my money on him not explaining himself and simply moving onto "more friendly" video sharing pastures. (who do I owe...)

I'm happy to see that you lost that bet.

Did this submission ruin the quality of the Videosift environment? (Imperialists don't answer)

The content doesn't, but the precedent of allowing a self-link does. It would not only be unfair to existing users who have plenty of great vids of their own they would like to share, but creates an unworkable response system to future self links. Where do we draw the line? What's the criterion for allowing self links? A vid that gets 10 votes? 20? makes it to top 15 in a day? submitted by a friend you asked to join? Or is it simply an ad hoc solution. I guarantee ad hoc would piss off a lot more people.

Could we not have just given the first time error producer a Private Warning and move on. Naturally, for the ban birds out there we can consider a banning if he is caught a 2nd time.

Except in many cases there won't be a second time, because some new users have no interest in sticking around. So should we just let drive-bys float onto the front page out of an eagerness to attract new users?

Do you really want to hear what he has to say?

Yes I am very much interested in what he has to say, again, because it let's us all know he's an interested user, someone who will be a benefit to the community.

Or are you just aching to ban.

Did my comments here suggest that I was? Don't you think I would've invoked it right from the start if that was the case? I didn't even send it for discussion in my first response, hoping that henryholt would reply to that alone. Once it made it to the front page, though, I saw that as a really bad precedent to set.

how many potential members have we lost simply because theyre opening act was a self link.

I'm willing to bet very few, unless you want to include spammers and drive-bys. In most cases where it was an honest mistake, the user comes back. Hell, we even have a user who is quite proud of that fact.

We have to handle these wisely on a case by case basis.

Do we not? A ban was not even invoked on this post. Instead, it was discussed in a fairly mature manner, and the outcome is pretty much exactly what we want, right?

>> ^Fedquip:
What would you like to discuss Dag?

Oh, that was because my discuss invocation didn't seem to work. There's a potential bug that's being looked into.

I would be interested in hearing your thoughts on this matter.

I don't want to speak out of turn here, but I think dag has made his position on this crystal clear on more than one occasion.

The question remains, though, what happens to the vid? I don't see how we can fairly let it stay.

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

If people feel very strongly that this is something that we don't want to lose- the best practice would be to discard this video and post it from someone else.

I know it seems bureaucratic- but by keeping any precedents for self-links out of the system we're aiding the Sift.

Have a random browse of the self-promoted content on *any* other site and you will have to agree that our byzantine little system of social engineering is effective.

^ Thoes are my instincts. I think this should be here and published, even if given to SiftBot to do it. (or Fedquip)

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

OK, good idea - I'll tell Siftbot to do it.

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

*discard

Discarding this post - discard requested by member dag.

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

Here we go:
http://www.videosift.com/video/A-Peoples-History-of-American-Empire-by-Howard-Zinn-2