Hello UPDvideo, I don't want you banned, but you failed to read the posting guidelines before posting your video. You cannot selflink, and being that this is your video, it is a selflink for you to post it.

Read here: http://www.videosift.com/faq-en.php

The first FAQ is "why did you ban me?"

In reply to this comment by UDPvideo:
In reply to this comment by blankfist:
Steven Spielberg presents a UPDvideo film? Selflink.

I dont understand why you want me to be banned!, my video is just humor, i spent many hours to make the Fx's for the car that goes in time.
I just dont understand, please give me more explaination!

In reply to this comment by blankfist:
Steven Spielberg presents a UPDvideo film? Selflink.

I dont understand why you want me to be banned!, my video is just humor, i spent many hours to make the Fx's for the car that goes in time.
I just dont understand, please give me more explaination!

Steven Spielberg presents a UPDvideo film? Selflink.

if it is simpler, i like it. i think it's simpler. so i like it. it might even be close to the "dynamic queuing" thread i made years ago to try to solve the timezone problem.

at this point i don't believe there is a way of getting only "good" videos to escape the queue, so the queue should just do what it is good at, i.e. filtering out the utter crap and giving us a chance to eliminate selflinkers and snuff etc.

everything else that gets through is "not total crap" and potentially somebody's new favourite clip.

the queue is for filtering out shit, not for finding gold.

*banal *annoying *selflink *discard

Or maybe he was instabanned for selflinking that silly video of himself ...

>> ^Sagemind:
He must have been banished by the colony for hitting on the king peguin's girl!

"Allow - But only for dead sifts that are NOT yours"

How would that be a selflink?

lol are you just fucking with my head?

Because the embed you are fixing it with comes from your own account.
I don't know how else I can explain it.

I don't think it should be considered a self link either. But, last word I got from Lucky was that yes, it was.
Which I explained in detail there.

In reply to this comment by blankfist:
"Allow - But only for dead sifts that are NOT yours"

How would that be a selflink?

"Allow - But only for dead sifts that are NOT yours"

How would that be a selflink?

"Allow - But only for dead sifts that are NOT yours"

How would that be a selflink?

The confusing part is that you talked about both fixing your own sift with your uploads as well as using your uploads to fix someone else's sift. The latter should be, as common sense dictates, fine and the former would still be considered a selflink.

Also this: "... but I wanted to get an idea what people thought about it first." is basically what polls are for

http://twitter.com/hollywoodshorts

Selflink
*ban

>> ^swampgirl:
Let's ask Videosiftbannedme? The dirty selflinker turned out alright didn't he?


I don't if I turned out "alright" per se. The jury is still out on that one.

As for the topic, no, I don't agree with "un-banning" him, even if agreed on via a poll. While true I got banned for being ignorant and not reading the rules regarding self-linking, my ban was due to my own mistake. I didn't repeatedly tell the admin to fuck off, throw a hissy fit because I couldn't have another channel, and basically piss off half the Sift with my rambunctiousness. I understand your position and how you feel about it being hypocritical, SG. But by posting Choggie's videos (and even making fun of them, if an admin did so), they aren't being hypocritical. Being hypocritical would be doing exactly what you postulated earlier: "un-banning" Choggie. (I know you've since changed your position, of which I now support). If Choggie wants to be part of the community again, then let him prove his worth by creating a new account, and following the rules like the rest of the boys and girls here. (No condescension inferred; I just like using different verbiage).

If Choggie wants to post his new fangled Cajun-cookin' show on YouTube, then you have to expect someone from here to post it...admins included.

And hey, if we are on the path to un-ban-ination, can I get my old account reinstated? j/k

(Oh, and I love it when you talk dirty, Swampy. "Dirty self-linker" I'll be playing with my Joydick tonight with that one... )

*update: Actually, strike my comment regarding "even if agreed to via a poll." This is a democracy after all. If the majority wins, then so be it. But I think he should have some sort of account restriction forcing the use of good grammar and punctuation.

>> ^K0MMIE:
Should we also un-ban the spammers so they can have another chance to be a viable member of the community? What do you think they would do with that opportunity. For someone who just went on a destructive spree, what would they do with a second chance?
This idea is just going to cause a bunch of headaches that will not bring any worth to this community/site.
Let's not forget that most people got several warnings before being outright banned. (Except for the dirty spammers.)


Let's ask Videosiftbannedme? The dirty selflinker turned out alright didn't he?

spam *ban

Selflink too.