@xxovercastxx Red menace! I'm here entirely for the bragging rights, showing good videos is a byproduct of that. After I've gotten my crown, there isn't much more to gain, so now I sift more rarely and just things I like myself. There is to little systematic focus on "look what I did". If the sift promoted that more, like games do, like reddit does, like many other places do, then it would get bigger. I'm certain of it. We need more competition and we need more reward, it will cause growth and it will better the sift for all of us! I'm a single blue fish in an otherwise red sea, ach!

If you don't like that argument, and you're a commie, then you might appreciate that there is a pragmatic element to not having videos not be linked to dead users, in that live users actually go around and fix their videos when they go dead. Furthermore, if the point of sifting is to show videos to more people, then we should be able to repost as much as we like - dupeing only takes the video away from views, especially if it's to an old post - then the video vanishes for people who don't know what to look for.

@BoneRemake over the years a lot of unwritten rules have sprung up from discussions

for instance:
* It used to be that if any video that wholly contained another newer video, then the newer video was considered a dupe - that's not changed to include that if it's "significantly different" then it's not a dupe. That's a big grey area right there.

* If an original video is long and the newer video is not, then - within reason - you should not dupe it, because the newer is likely significantly different in that it focuses on a single event or small part of the other video

* if the newer video is posted by me, then I kill you!

* If a video is discarded, you can bring it back with promote, this is a bad thing, since it fucks around with dupes - while the video was discarded, it was "legal" to post the video again and fair game. But if you promote the old one, then suddenly there's an older version lying around - in that case the old version is actually killed and the newer stands.

@blankfist:
It's simple:
more views = good
more votes = good
dupeof -> no more views, no more votes ->bad
dupeof -> clean up sift -> good
dupeof = bad+good

I'm sure you get my point, but just to spell it out, the video loses by being dupeofed quickly, because it does not get exposure - this is more relevant with old posts, like the one referenced earlier, because a lot of younger sifters might not have seen it at all - a promote does not do the same as just letting this one ride the wave of votes and then dupe it afterwards. Viewer win, the original poster wins, the new poster wins (top 15/1 achievement) and who loses?

Tags for this video have been changed from 'bedingfield, 2004' to 'natasha bedingfield, unwritten, 2004' - edited by xxovercastxx

@blankfist, since you're sick, I'll try to make my point directly. My overall argument is that you're already living in a "voluntaryist" society, and just don't like the implications of the contract you've agreed to. What I'm saying here isn't how I see the world, but how I think you should be looking at the world based on your own principles. I am, indirectly, trying to show you that your own principles bear reexamining, or at least the conclusions you're currently drawing from them.

Now, back to making my argument:

You don't need to sign things to give consent. In your last comment you agreed that there can even be unwritten implications inherent in all agreements that must be considered binding (i.e. that a rental agreement with the mother would naturally allow her permission to add a child). Now the only missing piece is that I think there's an open question about the kid's options are if the mother dies or merely decides to move out, and the kid wants to stay in my house. For the sake of argument, let's say he's an adult when this happens.

I say that since it's still my house, the son is still obligated to follow the house rules, and obligated to contribute the way his mom was. I decide that since he was born here, it's only fair that I consider him a signatory to the agreement mom signed, and entitled to the full range of rights and duties contained therein. If he decides he can't abide by that agreement, then he should know he can't live in the house anymore, since he only gets the right to live there via that agreement.

More broadly speaking though, if I allow guests into my home, they implicitly agree to abide by my rules in the house. If they don't want to follow those rules, I'm within my rights to ask them to leave. If they don't, I'm within my rights to use force to remove them.

This is entirely the situation with the US (or any other nation, for that matter). The government of the country holds allodial title to the land within its borders. What citizens buy when they buy title to land is fee simple -- it's ours, but not in the sense that it becomes sovereign territory exempt from all US law.

In other words, I think if you want to be assiduous about property rights being the sole determinant of authority, you are essentially making the argument that the government has a legitimate authority to levy taxes and enforce laws. Taxation isn't theft, refusal to pay taxes is theft. Violence against police who enforce laws you disagree with isn't self-defense, it's a breach of contract, and willful destruction of property (namely the bodies of the cops you injure).

Again, this is not how I see the world. I reject the notion that property imbues its owner with absolute authority, and I reject the notion that all contracts are inviolate.

Wait, does anyone else think his reaction was really strange? I mean, not the not getting killed part - I can see why he was shooting for that. More specifically, I meant the returning to the sidewalk and continuing on his way with only the occasional glance backwards. Is he not, perhaps, interested as to why the driver just broke one of the unwritten laws of driving ("Don't drive on the sidewalk"...come to think of it, that is probably written down somewhere).

my personal only one ever kinna unwritten and spoken here rule is...if you want to piss on the parade with the changing of the tags or channels, you need to cast yer vote one way or the fucking other.....cheers...thanks for the love!

In reply to this comment by geo321:
*fear *long

I am wholly opposed to offering choggie clemency of any sort. He made it clear that he was utterly unconcerned with adhering to the unwritten rules of civil interaction with human beings, and made it clear that he felt that even the written rules of the site should not constrain his behavior.

choggie is only interested in standing in judgment of others, and tormenting people. There are vast quantities of people who left this site, never to return because of things he said and did.

Bringing him back would be a tragic mistake. I guarantee it would result in an eventual re-ban after much new, avoidable, pain and anguish is wrought by this fucking sociopath.

I cast the first vote for Never. I'd cast a thousand more if I could.

People who enjoyed choggie's lack of civility are free to subject themselves to it outside of Videosift. No one is stopping you.

I think it is alarming that people get so up in arms about me making that poll. You can always just vote no? It's a only gauge to figure out what people think.. it's not like it's binding or anything.

Furthermore, I made the poll because swampgirl never got around to it and with the newest banning, so it seemed like an opportune time to do it.

I obviously didn't experience his presence as badly as some of you did, but why are you all of a sudden being all rass-ma-tass on my ass for this poll?

Ignore is there for a reason, if you want to use it. The only thing I thought was necessary was to strip him of his powers (which we can basically do with hobble now), because he misused his powers.

Personally I have no contact with choggie and I have no real interest in it either. When this matter is resolved, whichever outcome, I will not bring this up again, unless he does break rules again and should be ousted. I'm not arguing FOR him, I'm arguing from the rules of the sift. Bringing attention to problematic issues should not be stigmatized, or have you such short memories?

>> ^blankfist:
>> ^gwiz665:

If you agree his "original" ban was justified, then why are you arguing in favor of repealing it? Furthermore I don't understand what you're intending by contrasting "personal ban" and "account ban".
Dag banned the person, not just the account. It wouldn't make sense otherwise. His behavior (that of the person) was destructive and vindictive to the site. What good would it do any of us to ban his account and allow him back to one day do it again?


Because banning the person was the wrong thing to do. He should have banned the choggie account and let him start over, until he broke the rules on the new one.

I'm not arguing for giving him his old account back, I'm arguing that he should be allowed to make a new account if he wants and have a chance to behave on that. If he can't then another ban can be in order. And if this happens a number of times, then, finally, a ban on his person would be in order.

He got capital punishment for a lot of speeding tickets and reckless driving - I think that's wrong.

>> ^xxovercastxx:
For the old-timers? No. For everyone. VS is not for the people who used to come here, it's for the people who come here now.
choggie is often portrayed as some sort of mad genius... like the Unabomber only less articulate and vastly more destructive.
For those who think we should resurrect choggie in any form: Why?
I concur that his video selection was interesting and unique, but there are lots of people who post interesting and unique videos. Not many people vote for them. choggie was successful because he got here early and didn't have to compete for views the way we all do now.
I disagree that he had anything interesting to say and, if he did, nobody could decipher it. Speaking in tongues does not make him a genius. If you miss choggie's "wisdom", volunteer as an aide on a schoolbus. Those kids call each other "fuckers" and talk about masturbation and circle-jerks left and right. You'll be bathing in choggiesque enlightenment for hours a day, 5 days a week.
If choggie really wants to return, let him email dag and make his case.


You are of course correct that this poll is for everyone, my quip was merely reflecting on that fact that no one who's been here for less than a year know anything of him, other than old comments.

As far as I know, choggie did return for a while on the user Sallyjune, which to my understanding dag knew about and left alone, because he behaved (I may be mistaken, so please correct me if this is wrong). This is essentially a unwritten pardon, but this account was instabanned by blankfist when he found out it was choggie behind the veil. (For the record, I didn't know it was him until after the ban and after the comment I made on the profile.) That was probably the first time the seed of this poll started for me.

I get an uncomfortable feeling when people (especially you, freedom-loving blankfist) go around banning accounts that have not broken any rules. If the user had made any threats or personal attacks or whatever, there would be a reason, but I don't think that the way it works now is a good one. We should only ban for "gross violations" of the sift guidelines, otherwise it should be up to admins to do it.

What could be more important? In the near future, health care will be 16% of our GDP, far more than any other first world country. We're going to piss the riches of our nation down the toilet to prop up an insurance industry that does nothing but push paper around?

You - like Obama - offer a false choice. Health care costs are increasing. This is true. Something should probably be done to help reduce costs. This is also true. What is NOT true is that the proper, correct, wise course of action is to accept Obama's plan.

In fact, it is something of a misnomer to even call it "Obama's Plan". Obama doesn't really have a plan. For all his rhetoric and his speechifying, Obama has never once put forward a concrete, solid "plan" that is written down on paper for people to discuss. The plans we are discussing today are the House plans (of which there are 4 or 5 different ones in 'draft' form) and to a lesser extent the Senate plan (which is largely unknown and unwritten).

Now - there are some pretty alarming provisions in the House bill. Page 18 is a provision that will essentially put private insurance offerings out of business within a few short months to years. Page 838 has language that suggests government will be required to visit the homes of new parents to advise and consent on educational and social choices. Page 22 mandates audits of all companies who self-insure. Page 30 establishes a government committee to decide on patient health care options. Page 59 gives the Federal government involuntary, uncontested access to your personal checking accounts in order to draft for payment. Page 65 ensures taxpayer subsidization of Union health care in perpetuity. Page 72 and 84 forces all private insurance to use the government's rules, and also forces them to be 'part' of the government system (effectively making 'private' insurance an 'in name only' option). Pages 95 turns ACORN and other liberal interest groups into an army of 'enrollers' to recruit people into the plan. Page 102 automatically enrolls any Medicaid qualifier into the national plan. Page 124 shuts the door on suing the government plan for malpractice, price fixing, or any other consumer recourse for mistakes & constested decisions. Page 127 gives the government panels the right to set doctor wages. Page 145 forces all companies to auto-enroll employees in the system whether they participate or not. Page 149 forces all companies to pay health care for part time employees and family members. Page 150 forces anyone with a salary of 250K+ to pay a 6% tax if they don't participate in the national "option". Section 1233 gives the doctor the mandate to 'initiate' so-called 'end of life couselling' to patients, and who is to say that at some point the government won't apply pressure to doctors to do this less as an 'option' and more as a 'you really should do this...' approach? For government to even brush against these kinds of issues is creepy beyond belief.

Now - the neolibs of Congress and the Senate are defending the umbrella term "health care reform" by saying that the bill really DOESN'T do all these things. The problem is, there is concrete language right there in the bill that says YES the government IS going to get involved in these things. The American people have seen it, and they don't like it. The language in the bill is vague, indeterminiate, and smacks of the 'public option' really being a Trojan Horse to a nationalized, mandatory, compulsory system. And what is more - Barak Obama (and the neolibs) have for YEARS said that what they are really after is a nationalized system. Why in the world should we believe them when they say they DON'T want a national system when (A) the bill is leading towards nationalization and (B) they have said that's what they want?

The fact is that the Health Care plan that is going through Congress is a horrible plan, and the American people have seen it for what it is. They don't want it. And they are NOT satisfied with politicians who make vague, non-committal excuses that the bill really ISN'T what the people think it is (when all evidence contradicts them). Should health care be reformed? Probably. Should the government be solution to the problem? Pht - not in a BILLION years.

The demand being made by Obama and the neolibs that THIS PLAN be passed now now now now now NOW over the objections of the majority of the American people is not flying. There is no reason to be so hasty. It makes the neolibs look shifty, desperate, and untrustworthy - and the American people as a whole are not falling for it. If it is SOOOOOO all-fired important, shouldn't Obama have a plan on paper? Shouldn't Congress be willing to address the SPECIFIC objections over language in the bill rather than just whining "No no no - you're wrong!" Can't we just admit the House bill is crap and broom the whole thing and start over with a bill that DOESN'T contail all these suspicious provisions? If you're answer is "NO NO NO - we need THIS bill NOW!" then I have no choice but to conclude that you're a partisan zombie. Something this important should be done slowly, carefully, with rigorous testing, and with the consent of the majority of the American people.

Thanks man! The sift's dates say otherwise, but I believe this was the first video I tried to sift and I was afraid I'd break some unwritten rule by voting for myself: http://www.videosift.com/video/The-many-insane-faces-of-Ren-ren-n-stimpy

Good stuff! thanks for all the promotes along the way! Now I can return the favor.

In reply to this comment by kronosposeidon:
Jigga is the man. Way to go, brother.

As much as I dislike WalMart, this feels like propaganda to me. I could be wrong. He seems like he's justifying his own shady practices (to himself) by claiming that everyone does the same; clearing his own conscience. All that stuff about pressures and unwritten rules. I dunno. We're all very willing to believe WalMart is the devil. Heck, maybe it is, but this guy is a little off.

1- I once drove Zsa Zsa Gabor's Rolls Royce with her husband in the passenger seat

2- The same day, Zsa Zsa spilled her hommade soup on a white shirt I was wearing

3- I've never impregnated a girl

4- A song I wrote has been banned in Thailand (1 woman, 2 men...google it)

5- I've been a non-theist since the age of 8

6- I don't like any of the tattoos that I have

7- When I was ten years old, I killed a turtle with a rock and felt horrible ever since.

8- As a kid, I cried at the end of the M*A*S*H series

9- My band was the in-house band for the 2000 AVN (porn) awards ceremony

10- I once sang a song with Ween on stage (up on the hill)

11- I've never been in a car accident nor received a traffic ticket, yet I've been driving for 25 years

12- I never graduated from high school and don't really care about a GED or whatever, also

13- My band gigged regularly from 1982-1988

14- When I was 7, I pooped in my pants at a playground, then ran into a local bar, removed my underwear and left them in a bathroom stall (little kids undies in a bar's bathroom?!)

15- I can't remember a couple of my past girlfriends' names

16- My first animation gig was working on a Bjork video in 1996

17- I collect matchbooks from around the world (for reasons unknown to me)

18- I am consciously and happily addicted to the internets and aware of all of its traditions

19- My best friend in Jr. High was caught by the FBI for phreaking (1984)

20- I was given a 22 revolver for my 4th birthday

21- My family has owned most farm animals, except a cow

22- I had a spinal tap at age 17

23- I've never broken a bone

24- There are unwritten symphonies constantly playing in my head

25- I once gave John Draper (Captain Crunch) a ride home from an outdoor rave

26- The only goals I have in life are to have as many peak experiences as possible, and try to be a nice and smart person

The faq could use some sprucing up, as long as we keep it clear that it is supposed to embody the spirit of the law and not be taken literally to an insane degree. Right now they are defined as relatively vague, which is probably the best way to do it. Still, we have a bunch of unwritten laws that might as well be jotted down, ie.:

Discarding someone else's post for no good reason with ill will warrants 2 week suspension
Habitually invoking a channel that does not belong to the given content -> 2 week suspension
Downvote sprees, a number of downvotes in quick succession with obviously no content viewing -> 2 week suspension

I'm sure there are more.

This so distasteful. I dislike being part of something, I keep my tribe small. A wife, and three cats.

Humans, and tribalism. They fail to account for those that the tribe shirks. Those that seek only to be alone.

Tribes and violence, like the gang of girls.

This is all like the matrix to me, I see it every day.

I know that there are a small percentage of people who are not constrained by unwritten rules or societies practices.

Thinking more about this I'm not sure I like it at all. We're not going to know if a promoted video is quickly bumped off the list. So any given promote could be wasted. I don't think an "unwritten" rule is going to emerge or work particularly well. One promote at a time would be my preference.

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

^that's what I was thinking - an unwritten rule might come out of this.