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

With all of the kefuffle with the Saddam video - I thought it might be a good time to refine the posting guidelines. There are no major changes, but the tone is a bit more formal, and I've called them "rules". This is just a draft, but please feel free to suggest other points or clarifications we should add.

ut oh ... no videos depicting violence? what about the porn slapping bi-Otches?!? and all our other 'fight' vids??

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

I guess that's why I called it "extreme violence" I was thinking more of say, someone chopping fingers off or similar.

Hmmm... there will always be problems with any guidelines.

One that jumps immediately to mind is the "Derogatory Racial Videos" guideline... no more Borat or the like. Mustn't forget that he is a raging anti-semite.

Don't know... personally I think that the rules, taken as a whole, seem to work fairly well, with the occasional star-blog thread being warranted. The system isn't broke, so why fix it.

I say leave it alone, with the exception of adding that anyone who submits the Saddam snuff vid will be visited in the middle of the night by theo47. Or, by me if they're in Canada.

Nice wording, re: viral marketing, in #1.

>> no more Borat or the like. Mustn't forget that he is a raging anti-semite.
Borat is also played by Sasha Baron Cohen, a Jew speaking Hebrew for non-english dialog.. not so simple. (Though I agree, it is ambiguous/troubling.)

Good rules. The "Please don't..", takes the edge off, in a nice way. While I imagine the self-linkers will continue, it's good to be explicit for newbs.

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

Also, the racial point is already in the books - so it wouldn't be a change from what we filter now.

The only thing that I would add is this: When one does break a guideline, rule or law...let's take it easy w/ the "ban" invocation. Images of torches and pitchforks come to mind. Ultimately this is an intelligent and civilized forum. Using "blog" and fixing it here is just fine. Save the "ban" power for extreme or repeat offenders. :-)

edit: The term "ban" is pretty severe anyhow. If we use "ban" then it should be exactly that. They should be banned and for good. Say a repeat offender of self-linking that's clearly ignoring the rules. Ban him for good. If someone is breaking other posting rules, but deserves to return to be a contributer, then we should have a probation for him/her. Just my two cents....

"permanent account suspension"

That is such a lawyer way of saying ban. And I like swampgirl's above sentiments.

While perhaps difficult to describe in a simple rule post, we must always remember context, context, context - i.e., a Borat video hardly counts as "racist" as he is clearly lampooning racists & bigots. A tape of a cross-burning, for example, would pretty easiily qualify as racist in context.

Another example would be use of "the n-word" by Michael Richards or a rapper, which are also appropriate (well - newsworthy, anyway, in Kramer's instance) in context.

And I've never quite got the part about banning something that someone uploaded themselves that is clearly not their own - a Daily Show clip or the like is clearly not produced by the submitter and is hardly nefarious.

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

And I've never quite got the part about banning something that someone uploaded themselves that is clearly not their own - a Daily Show clip or the like is clearly not produced by the submitter and is hardly nefarious.

It's a slippery slope Theo. Some video sites post to YouTube to promote their own video site, with water marks, splash screens, and even post-roll ads.

When people register to participate on this site, is there a button (like other sites) whereby a newbie states that he/she has read and accepts the terms and conditions of the site? It has been so long since I registered. I just can’t remember.

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

No, we just link to the posting guidelines on the submission page.

It's a slippery slope Theo. Some video sites post to YouTube to promote their own video site, with water marks, splash screens, and even post-roll ads.

I'm aware of that, and those sorts of submissions should be weeded out. But we also might be missing out on some great content that is submitted in good faith.

Perhaps some sort of disclaimer at the beginning that the rules are a basic guideline and that submissions are subject to the interpretations of the VideoSift community (like the JFK & Saddam video decisions) would be warranted.

No more LadyBug porn? http://www.videosift.com/video/funny-car-ad-peugeot-french-car

what about all those documentaries, are they going to be removed or no longer accepted?

And this one is kind of off-topic:
I thought videos got to the front with 9 votes, did it recently changed or am I just too sleepy?

It's now 10 votes to escape the queue, and a save every four days as compensation (from this Sift Talk).

Back on subject: would the new rules dictate that another blatant breach via Hussein hanging be banned?

That looks fine. Of course there will always be grey areas. Post those submissions and vote on 'em.

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

Mauz, that rule has always been there. We won't be going through to delete documentaries. I can't think of many complete docos that we have - but in any case the rule is to prevent the Sift from being a receptacle for complete Simpsons episodes, etc.

Not really a problem now, as our current hosts don't allow this, but could be an issue as we start to add more video hosts.

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

As for the current potential banning - I know that most of us disagree with QM - but without the dark there is no light (and other philosophical yin-yang mumblings). Possibly he hasn't noticed all the Sift Talk commotion. I've never seen him in here.

But, anyway - it's in your hands. I choose not to pull the lever on this particular set of gallows ...

I saw a comment from QM about Barak Obama - to be honest I think he's on borrowed time if he keeps that up.

I'm pretty ashamed nothing's been done up to this point - he's spewed racist comments unabashedly in plenty of threads before and got away with it.

Seems we should ban the ban feature and leave it up to the mods if no one's willing to rid the place of an obvious scumbag.

@mlx & dag: I had to chuckle, I was just thinking of the "organization" thing the day before. "SiftGroupThink" continues.

*blog

(This is currently classified as a video (not a sifttalk)...It came up as a possible duplicate video.) Thank you for fixing database.

*discuss