Comments for "Temp Ban on Schmawy for Abuse of Power" Talk at VideoSift.com

By Fjnbk

Fjnbk (http://www.videosift.com/member/Fjnbk) — Thu, 09 Oct 2008 20:19:37 -0700

Do we have a policy on removing *qualities then? That was the reason that schmawy discarded the post, since he was tricked into giving the * quality in the first place.

All this banning makes me upset. It's flaring up tempers. This is going to end uglily.

By NordlichReiter

NordlichReiter (http://www.videosift.com/member/NordlichReiter) — Thu, 09 Oct 2008 20:23:11 -0700

I agree with Schwamy on this, that was a social engineered plot to get a star point. (However Clever it was it was still a dick move)

Its like contagious shooting!

Who is next! Who is next... It was Lucky and Dag in the Conservatory with the revolver!

By lucky760

lucky760 (http://lucky760.videosift.com) — Thu, 09 Oct 2008 20:25:29 -0700

For the record, schmawy knew what he was doing when he discarded, and it was he who pointed out that he broke the rules and deserved to be banned. He's a man of principles and I completely respect that.

If someone wants a quality redacted, it can be discussed. There's no built-in way to do that but I'm sure we could figure out a work-around if we get such a request.

(And on a personal note, I completely understand schmawy's feelings and why he felt compelled to discard.)

By Sarzy

Sarzy (http://sarzy.videosift.com) — Thu, 09 Oct 2008 20:36:54 -0700

Schmawy did break the rules, but I think in this case he was in the right to do so.

Attica! Attica!

By CaptainPlanet420

CaptainPlanet420 (http://www.videosift.com/member/CaptainPlanet420) — Thu, 09 Oct 2008 20:40:35 -0700

See, even the monkey agrees. For the love of everything, undo the unnecessary ban. No one hates a cat in a hat. This place is about love.

By gwiz665

gwiz665 (http://www.videosift.com/member/gwiz665) — Thu, 09 Oct 2008 20:57:46 -0700

Extenuating circumstances.

A stern warning would do fine, it's not as if it is a continuing attitude. Everyone has one chance to fuck up.

By jonny

jonny (http://www.videosift.com/member/jonny) — Thu, 09 Oct 2008 21:04:16 -0700

Selective application of the rules would be bad. Personally, I thought CP420's post was pretty funny. It seemed obvious to me that it was a joke. And then I started reading the whole thread and thought maybe not. Either way, schmawy fell for it, and awarded a quality point where it probably didn't belong in any case. He was stand up enough to do what he thought necessary and take the consequences. Lesson learned and example set.

Can't wait to see you back schmawy.

By gwiz665

gwiz665 (http://www.videosift.com/member/gwiz665) — Thu, 09 Oct 2008 21:18:16 -0700

Oh, but selective application of the rules is what the real world is all about. While the rules are not different from person to person, the circumstances by which the rules are broken must be counted.

Every rule is bendable given the right circumstances.

But I'm just one voice here, so it's your call.

By kronosposeidon

kronosposeidon (http://kronosposeidon.videosift.com) — Thu, 09 Oct 2008 21:19:03 -0700

Nice one, Captain. Your duplicity got one of the nicest guys here temporarily banned. I hope everyone here remembers your role in this incident. Not like you had any admirers in the first place, youngling.

By doogle

doogle (http://www.videosift.com/member/doogle) — Thu, 09 Oct 2008 22:00:54 -0700

>> ^Sarzy:
Schmawy did break the rules, but I think in this case he was in the right to do so.

Attica! Attica!

*comment-upvote for the Attica! Attica! reference (I confess, I lol'd)

By JAPR

JAPR (http://www.videosift.com/member/JAPR) — Thu, 09 Oct 2008 22:18:50 -0700

>> ^jonny:
Selective application of the rules would be bad. Personally, I thought CP420's post was pretty funny. It seemed obvious to me that it was a joke. And then I started reading the whole thread and thought maybe not. Either way, schmawy fell for it, and awarded a quality point where it probably didn't belong in any case. He was stand up enough to do what he thought necessary and take the consequences. Lesson learned and example set.

Can't wait to see you back schmawy.

This. I enjoy Schmawy's posts and presence on the sift, looking forward to seeing him back.

By swampgirl

swampgirl (http://swampgirl.videosift.com) — Thu, 09 Oct 2008 22:39:56 -0700

He should have been given a first offense pardon. Hasn't that been done before?

By blankfist

blankfist (http://blankfist.videosift.com) — Thu, 09 Oct 2008 22:43:51 -0700

It sucks to see schmawy suspended (I don't like the term "temporary ban"). We'll be glad to see your return, buddy.

By evil_disco_man

evil_disco_man (http://www.videosift.com/member/evil_disco_man) — Thu, 09 Oct 2008 23:11:33 -0700

Free schmawy!

By rasch187

rasch187 (http://rasch187.videosift.com) — Thu, 09 Oct 2008 23:26:46 -0700

By therealblankman

therealblankman (http://www.videosift.com/member/therealblankman) — Thu, 09 Oct 2008 23:32:10 -0700

Fuck Schmawy, and fuck his clever, always changing, always amusing avatar. Burn in hell you stupid,witty, community-contributing, anthropomorphic hi-integrity pussy!

By blankfist

blankfist (http://blankfist.videosift.com) — Thu, 09 Oct 2008 23:56:29 -0700

It's a good thing that the first time choggie ever willfully and unjustifiably discarded something he was banned just like schmawy. Oh wait.

By MarineGunrock

MarineGunrock (http://marinegunrock.videosift.com) — Fri, 10 Oct 2008 00:41:56 -0700

That really sucks. He just returned from a hiatus, and I know he was missed then.

By gorillaman

gorillaman (http://www.videosift.com/member/gorillaman) — Fri, 10 Oct 2008 01:44:38 -0700

Sucks, but I'd actually say calling quality just to endorse a political position is abuse in itself.

By alien_concept

alien_concept (http://www.videosift.com/member/alien_concept) — Fri, 10 Oct 2008 03:47:29 -0700

I reckon out of respect for schmawy, this should have been wavered, seeing as captaincuntface420 was pretty much asking for it. Yes he knew he was breaking the rules and as ever was gracious about the consequences, but this isn't a prison, we're not the police, discarding a post isn't breaking the law. All this rules are rules crap, meh. Shoulda been put to a vote, this is a community after all... On the other hand, maybe we all just need some fresh air for a change

By kulpims

kulpims (http://www.videosift.com/member/kulpims) — Fri, 10 Oct 2008 04:19:41 -0700

I certainly do need some fresh air and am thus voluntarily banning myself for two weeks. see ya

By rasch187

rasch187 (http://rasch187.videosift.com) — Fri, 10 Oct 2008 05:18:55 -0700

You can't keep Schmawy down.

By Ryjkyj

Ryjkyj (http://www.videosift.com/member/Ryjkyj) — Fri, 10 Oct 2008 05:25:10 -0700

BOOOOOOOO!!!!

By Abducted

Abducted (http://www.videosift.com/member/Abducted) — Fri, 10 Oct 2008 06:37:50 -0700

Schmawy is Batman's true identity! To stop the evil he had to become an outlaw!

Now who is Harvey Dent and the Joker?

By MrFisk

MrFisk (http://www.videosift.com/member/MrFisk) — Fri, 10 Oct 2008 10:57:25 -0700

This town needs an enema.

By CaptainPlanet420

CaptainPlanet420 (http://www.videosift.com/member/CaptainPlanet420) — Fri, 10 Oct 2008 11:47:13 -0700

>> ^kronosposeidon:
Nice one, Captain. Your duplicity got one of the nicest guys here temporarily banned. I hope everyone here remembers your role in this incident. Not like you had any admirers in the first place, youngling.

1. You don't have enough skill points to use the power "younglings."

2. I thank you for your candor, but as already stated, I implore the powers that be to reinstate the one and only Cat-in-a-Hat. Only love for Shmawy. No hate needed here. Let's keep '08 a clean election.

By gwiz665

gwiz665 (http://www.videosift.com/member/gwiz665) — Fri, 10 Oct 2008 12:07:50 -0700

http://www.videosift.com/talk/God-Damn-It-profile-spamming#comment-524501

MGR is equally open for a temp ban. Why was he spared the axe?

By MarineGunrock

MarineGunrock (http://marinegunrock.videosift.com) — Fri, 10 Oct 2008 13:17:00 -0700

Eh, I tried promoting it after - but sifty was being an ass.

I guess rules are rules, though.

By MarineGunrock

MarineGunrock (http://marinegunrock.videosift.com) — Fri, 10 Oct 2008 13:18:31 -0700

But maybe I was spared the axe because the only thing that post was doing was clogging up sift talk?

By gorillaman

gorillaman (http://www.videosift.com/member/gorillaman) — Fri, 10 Oct 2008 13:54:52 -0700

Or it was the most useful post to sift talk in months, sabotaged by tribalism. Just saying.

Fact is MG got it fixed soon after, so no harm done.

By gwiz665

gwiz665 (http://www.videosift.com/member/gwiz665) — Fri, 10 Oct 2008 16:32:28 -0700

Well, I'm not calling for mgr's axing, but choggie did the same thing with the ones he discarded. He promoted afterwards.. if we're not lenient with schmawy it seems strange that we are with mgr.

Bah, I'm to pretty to get worked up over this. Schamw did bring it upon himself, so I suppose you could call it justified.. I just don't like it.

By burdturgler

burdturgler (http://www.videosift.com/member/burdturgler) — Fri, 10 Oct 2008 17:39:56 -0700

I think that the point has been made that the rules get interpreted depending on circumstance. Things are not always black and white. We all know this is bullshit and Lucky you do too. Let it be done with, remove the ban, and let's move on from this ugly mess.

By lucky760

lucky760 (http://lucky760.videosift.com) — Fri, 10 Oct 2008 18:13:31 -0700

Hey, you don't have to convince me. As I mentioned above, schmawy is a cat of strong principles. He refuses to not be banned because he intentionally broke a rule and refuses to receive special treatment. (All Sifters are subject to the same rules regardless of status or reputation.) I think it's admirable, but also why whatever you say about us rescinding the ban is irrelevant.

By burdturgler

burdturgler (http://www.videosift.com/member/burdturgler) — Fri, 10 Oct 2008 18:17:19 -0700

Well I can't even respond to that because what I have to say is fucking irrelevant.

By lucky760

lucky760 (http://lucky760.videosift.com) — Fri, 10 Oct 2008 18:27:19 -0700

Wow, touchy much?

It's irrelevant with regard to whether or not we rescind schmawy's ban because he refuses to allow us to do that.

By burdturgler

burdturgler (http://www.videosift.com/member/burdturgler) — Fri, 10 Oct 2008 18:33:34 -0700

hmm ... Maybe I took it wrong. Apologies.
Maybe we should look at the fact that the only way a good member of this community could do what most of us feel was right, was by breaking the rules.

By gwiz665

gwiz665 (http://www.videosift.com/member/gwiz665) — Fri, 10 Oct 2008 19:21:42 -0700

I'm going to back off of this. I still don't like it, though.

By Krupo

Krupo (http://krupo.videosift.com) — Fri, 10 Oct 2008 20:52:26 -0700

>> ^lucky760:
Wow, touchy much?

It's irrelevant with regard to whether or not we rescind schmawy's ban because he refuses to allow us to do that.

Meh, we could restore it and make him make it a self-imposed ban.

All this internet-rule stuff can get a bit silly at times. This from me, the anointed Chronicler of the Sift.

i.e. certain conventions should allow us to have leeway around a given rule. And just because someone has a messiah complex and wants to be punished (wait, I think it's more an S&M thing), we don't have to indulge their desire, even if it's ostensibly showing some noble adherence to a rule.

I reserve my outrage for outright malicious incidents involving videos on Videosift, not some guys being stupid on Siftalk.