It's been brought to my attention that Quantumushroom has downvoted my15minutes entire library of submissions.
I'd like to know why, and I'd like this to be aired publicly for the purpose of precedence setting.
I don't want to prejudice this Siftquisition, but I'm hard pressed to understand why one member would down vote another member's entire Sift library, unless it was a vendetta.
I'd like to know why, and I'd like this to be aired publicly for the purpose of precedence setting.
I don't want to prejudice this Siftquisition, but I'm hard pressed to understand why one member would down vote another member's entire Sift library, unless it was a vendetta.
*wtf
edit: Haha, that invocation was mainly meant as a joke (forgot that you could assign sifttalk posts to channels like that), feel free to nochannel it.
Well... honestly it is his right to downvote yes?
Is it his right to methodically downvote a member's entire published sift list? I think that's the crux of the question here.
I guess I see down voting as more of an earned privilege and responsibility. It comes with the bronze star.
To put this in terms that I understand I'll relate this to superheroes. Quantummushroom was bitten by a radioactive spider and was given super powers. Except he didn't see it as a tool to help others he saw it as a tool to advance himself. He didn't listen to his Uncle Ben who said "with great power comes great responsibility"
Now, do we blame those who wield the superpowers? Or the radioactive spider? Or does society accept that others will abuse their special gifts? How does a society respond to that?
How does a society respond to that?
With banhammers and stern glares.
Still, he's been sumoned to give an acount. Will he even show up?
for a sec we might offer this solution:
After a consensus from the group that QM is in FACT trolling My15min and it's not some big coincidence, QM will have a chance to show up and acknowledge.
If he agrees to lay off then fine, Siftquisition has done a good days work. BUT if he doesn't acknowledge and/or cops attitude..then....
Upon next trollvote from him his downvote privies will be taken from his account or just plain out banned for trolling.
thats my take on it at least
Well I guess we'll just have to wait... in the meantime feel free to vote all my unsifted videos up! My superpowers is being a vote-whore.
WHOAH. What a coincidence, that's my superpower too!
I can't see any legitimate reason for QM's actions, but if he's willing to apologize and swear off this type of behavior then I say give him ONE last chance. I don't like a lot of his comments either, but I'm still reluctant to * ban him just yet. I'm assuming QM's been notified of these proceedings, so if he fails to show within the next 24 hours I say it's time to drop the ban hammer. But if he's penitent then give him ONE last chance.
http://www.videosift.com/video/Gay-adoption-PSA
came across that on the unsifted queue, all sorted the way i like, and i start watching, and it's weird, but i seem to think it has a weird way of actually trying to say something important.
so then i look at the sifter, and it's shroom. and honestly, i'm pleasantly surprised.
'cuz i didn't see anything, attacking the message, from him. and it reminded me of another very recent, much cooler, and pretty fucking amazing sift, all things considered, by Doc_M:
http://www.videosift.com/video/Barack-after-his-close-New-Hampshire-loss-Yes-We-Can
which really blew me away, and i told him so. because, as a Lib, i really am very accustomed to being able to work almost as well with the (Social Liberal) Dems, as the (normally Fiscal Conservative) Reps.
i just honestly don't think shroom is here to get along, the way that i often see Doc and deedub making real efforts to get along with everyone, and make honest arguments, when they can't agree.
here's another guy on the mostly-right, who happens to be just about the sharpest i've seen on YouTube, from a mostly conservative stance:
http://www.videosift.com/member/justa11en
because he does a better job, of making sharp, honest arguments, and defending his point of view, than (and SO not intended as a slam on Doc or Deedub) anyone i've seen defend a Conservative point fo view, here at the sift.
which is exactly why i asked him to create a login here, for possible future use, after he uploaded this:
http://www.videosift.com/video/The-New-Day-Resolution
i do not see, in shroom, what i see in the other 3 i mention. i don't think he's here to get along. i think he's here to push buttons.
and i know many here that wholeheartedly agree, and we all let him, because we're 10 times more tolerant than he'll ever be, and he knows it, and it probably really pisses him off.
to my knowledge, we have more than just the "mores" here. we have some "folkways". and one of 'em says, you try hard not to downvote, while unsifted, without a comment/reason.
the second, and more important, says you don't target an individual, and downvote their queue with clearly nothing more than malice in mind.
would shroom like to explain to anyone here, what he found so distasteful, about 2 malaysian kids holding hands?
while he tosses up a hacked-up PSA, from the 80's, about domestic violence, that we're supposed to find fucking amusing now?
it's the only upvote i've ever given here, that i genuinely regret.
because unlike the other 2 clips, that i did really like, and gave an honest (if confused) upvote, that one i only upvoted, in a vain attempt to be able to say what i wanted to tell him, and not have him do, the very thing he did anyway.
that's not all i have to say about the whole damn thing, but i also don't want to waste anyone's time. i just thought this was the pertinent timeline, from my point of view, and i'd be happy to bookmark this, answer any questions, as soon and as accurately as i can, and let everyone else here decide what, if anything, should happen to either of us.
thank you, all, for taking the time to read this. srsly.
- owen / m15
[EDIT] m15 temporary upvote moratorium - rescinded. 8 am, eastern, the states, Jan 17 2008. case closed. my upvoting, or lack thereof, no longer affects outcome. which is that what i had hoped for and expected, and believed most favorable, for all involved.
"Parody Commercial Funny Domestic Abuse PSA Molester Nigger Ad Retard Racism Drugs Rape Murder Abortion Santa Predator Molested"
Real classy friends you have there Quantum.
I retract my statements, go ahead and ban.
I'm just kidding, my way of trying to see what could have happened because even from my15minutes' description there really wasn't anything I could see that would spur a downvote spree, so obviously there is more we don't know...
he looks like an avid downvoter (opinion based on record) so perhaps he was just genuinely disliking 28 out of 35 of his vids, once he got into a list of sifted vids from a guy who isn't of a like mind w/ him.
I'd say this could potentially be brushed off, but I would recommend to him not downvoting any more of my15minutes stuff because otherwise.... (insert favorite threat here).
What next he concedes that global warming is real?
He will simply state that it's his right to use downvotes as he sees them, and that we are all pinko Nazis for trampling on his freedom which will side track into some attack on Radical Islam.
"Parody Commercial Funny Domestic Abuse PSA Molester Nigger Ad Retard Racism Drugs Rape Murder Abortion Santa Predator Molested"
Real classy friends you have there Quantum. I retract my statements, go ahead and ban.
I hate to say "I told you so", but... no wait, what am I saying? I LIVE to say "I told you so."
it's a right, not a privilege.
wait...stop...reverse that.
EDIT: It appears these are nothing new... as MKONE has decided just now to downvote my entire library as well. Hmm.
Peeking at my own downvotes I have a whole of 17 for nearly 2 years of being here. Dag, as another example, has the same. QM has over 300 in the same amount of time. Not that I am going to complain. We do take the ability and the reasoning of downvoting seriously (except for Ant, with his nearly 2000). This is not the issue, however, but it pulls into my next thought.
A downvote, just like criticism, can be constructive as well as deconstructive. So, by downvoting My15’s queue (well, most of it) did QM bring anything to our community as a whole constructively? As it stands currently, not a farking thing. I would actually like to hear QM’s side of the story on this matter, mainly because it will be what really determines how we judge and react to him in the future.
For what it’s worth, I would place this ultimatum: If QM can come here, and give an acceptable explanation (and this will be a group consensus to determine ‘acceptable’ from ‘crap’) or show remorse for doing it, remove downvote ability for 1 month as punishment. If he comes in with a crap explanation, then permanent removal of downvote ability. If he doesn’t decide to even show up to this, say we give him a week… well, I don’t see any reason not to ban him honestly.
My $.02, inflation not taken into account.
[edit] Looks like mkone would be prime for a chopping block as well. Him vs K0MMIE and Goofball_Jones, it seems
http://www.videosift.com/member/mkone/voteddown?pg=1
Although QM is nowhere near my favorite guy, he has earned his powers like anyone else. I don't think its right to out-and-out ban anyone just because he is considered to be a dick.
However, downvoting is a privellege (conferred upon someone who has earned it) which has a purpose and responsibility attached. Any time someone is granted a privellege that comes with responsibility and purpose, they usually understand that the privellege can and will be revoked at will and whim. downvoting is not a power granted to be able to punish someone. QM is obviously abusing his power.
So take it away.
Just like a child who cannot be trusted with a shiny new hammer, we can take back the instrument of damage once it is apparent that it isn't being respected.
Obviously, QM has decided to use something that is SUPPOSED to be neutral in order to cause damage to someone he dislikes. Obviously he is not capable of exercising mature judgement and use his tool in a responsible way. Thus we can act like the guiding principle and remove temptation to act like a toddler. He wants to go all psuedo-ninja and secretly cause destruction, we need to step in and gently correct his attitude.
Because if you just ban him, he won't learn nuffin.
[edit: and christ-a-mighty do NOT give me flak about having said "use his tool"
I do NOT want to hear it]
"Before: Votes Received: 1625
After: Votes Received: 1585
ahh"
Nice to see it was for a valid reason.
maybe all of your videos suck. haha jk. (please don't downvote all of mine )
Ha! You can't hate my 30 Hornets vs 30,000 Bees video, that video is full of awesome.
>> ^rottenseed: maybe all of your videos suck. haha jk. (please don't downvote all of mine ) Ha! You can't hate my 30 Hornets vs 30,000 Bees video, that video is full of awesome.
SO TRUE.
http://www.videosift.com/member/mkone/voteddown?pg=1
And all that because they had a few differing arguments. And now he uses his vote powers to achieve vengeance, which i find it very very childish.
I've had my own share of heated discussions and angry arguments around here, especially in relations to election 2008, Russian democracy, Evangelists and speculations and conspiracy craps. And I'm sure during our arguments I've pissed off people who from time to time downvotes my retaliating posts.
But I've yet to see any of them purposely looking up all my sifts and downvoting them just so they could satisfy their personal vendetta against me, even if the sifts had nothing to do with the arguments.
Nobody is that immature, unless they're still in high school. But this guy apparently sunk that low. Bottom line?
Grow up, will ya?
Where is qm anyway?
Working on the mother of all rants?
Downvoting our Moms?
Like smibbo said, he earned the right to downvote. But this isn't a democracy, we don't have rights. It is a autocracy ruled by Dag, and thereby in reality by persephone where we have privileges. And he has clearly abused his privilege, but that doesn't necessarily mean he should be banned.
In my opinion, at most he should lose a star, and at the least Owen should decide his punishment.
Or maybe you can give him a purple star of shame on his profile, which links to this discussion.
With that said, I'm in the front row to see how this plays out. Ooh, here comes the hotdog vendor now... Issy, could you pass me that Coney dog and beer? You're such a sweetie.
But I don't see that being an issue here, because the issue is clearly about the guy's abusive immaturity. And all of sudden we get a different topic inserted here, asking: 'is the system system responsible for this event or not?'. It's irrelevant. Where did this come from? I'm looking at your direction K0mmie, you spider man freak!
All this 'do we blame the system that gave him power? Is it the system's fault?' talk is doing nothing but detracting us from the original focus of this siftquisition. And for the record, it's not!
Stay on topic guys.
http://www.videosift.com/video/Crazy-Eddie-commercials-we-had-to-endure
Can anyone tell me (maybe Lucky) when QM downvoted this? If it was after it was published we've got some serious issues. That vid hit the main page 2 hours ago, 5 hours into this Sifquisition. That would mean he either isn't paying attention or doesn't care.
Redacted due to info from Lucky below.
To be perfectly honest with my comrades here, in the days of my downvoting ability's infancy I had a little quarrel with goofball_jones myself. I acted stupidly and impulsively and downvoted several of his videos. Realizing the error in my ways I decided to just let it go. I don't have to like him and he doesn't have to like me, but there's no need for this community to indirectly suffer because of our beef.
Maybe the point that they are negatively affecting the direction of this website by their actions needs to be explained to them.
I don't like quantummushroom, don't like his sifts, in general, hate his comments, and would probably enjoy my sift experience more if he were gone. Do I want him banned? No. I recognize that if Dag and Lucky, and whoever else is in charge here don't like his company, they can do so, and they are welcome to: it's their sandbox. But I don't like to ban dissenting voices.
And honestly, if this siftquisition didn't get myfifteenminutes some extra votes, I will be surprised. (But then, I vote for a lot of his videos, anyway.)
I would rather leave this to community action. Would any of you be more or less likely to vote for a QM vid now? Would any of you be more or less likely to vote for a 15min vid now? I suspect a few of you would: probably enough to make a difference. And yes, I would still say this even if QM went wild on my queue.
I approve STRONGLY of dag running the siftquisition, and of things like voting an entire catalogue down being made public.
Edit: one more thing, I wish I could see easily who is downvoting my videos. Sometimes I am sifting about, notice my number has gone down, and spend way too much time trying to find the downvote. Not that I mind the downvote--just I am madly curious to see what it was and if there was a reason. Oh, and I recently got a nice note from a sifter in response to my downvoting his vid. Honestly. That's class.
Trust me.
I am from Germany.
I can't believe some of the crap I've read in this thread. I'm too angry to even respond coherently to all of it.
For the moment, I'd like to remind everyone of this previous talk post concerning downvotes.
I don't much care for anything else except that the guy downvoted someone's sifts disregarding the content of the sift itself.
That would be quite the precedent to set considering that even our most honored members are guilty of downvoting a video based on something other than the content of the video itself. (ex: http://www.videosift.com/video/Extreme-video-game-anger)
I'm not aware of any place where it says that there are rules to downvoting, so I don't see how you can rightly dole out any punishment.
QM will participate in polite debate/discussion if engaged properly, as I've had a few with him. I'm not sure if he's naturally hostile or if he's just that way because he's in a hostile environment. When I say that, I don't mean that everyone starts fights with him. I mean everyone has views opposed to his.
I say the farthest this can go is to say "No! Don't do that!" and then to put voting guidelines into writing. The next time this happens there's written rules to be cited and a punishment is to be expected.
I have had person bouts with certain users, they don't, like qm, seem to be here now, affording their trollish 2-cents, similar to qm not being around, to defend/offend/pretend his pathetic or glorious position in this Siftquisition-
doogle, for example, I went and downvoted his queue cause he pissed me off, then went and looked at some more of the video-projection of his tortured soul, and found a few more to take down-there have been others, and they decided to leave, for whatever ego-laden reasons-I miss them and wish them well on their inner journeys-
qm hasn't come to the sift since he perpetrated the heinous crime of downvoting because someone pissed him off, probably because he can only log on at his buddy's place, where they have electricity, or because he's off on some back-patting blog, .....
REST ASSURED, this calling out w/o ban, will add nothing by way of interest in fuel or fervor, to his otherwise, predictable saga here, as the sift's bone-headed whipping boy.....
Please, all you out of the U.S. users, don't buy in to generalizations about us Americans using qm as an example, some of us are just like you....frustrated, idealistic, and set so far into our ways that a goddamn cargo ship fulla big-screen TV's could not change our positions, that of warming chairs with our collective, ineffectual asses. From now on, instead of ignoring qm, try playing the bully card....treat him like a poor puppy what got abused as a child, or, like myself, got covered in various lipstick colors more than covered in welts from a signal whip......
I'd like to remind everyone of this previous talk post concerning downvotes.
It sounds like you're suggesting that maybe it was all a coincidence. Let me assure it was not. Every one of the downvotes were cast within seconds of the last.
2008-01-14 14:44:49
2008-01-14 14:44:44
2008-01-14 14:44:42
2008-01-14 14:43:07
2008-01-14 14:43:03
2008-01-14 14:43:02
2008-01-14 14:42:58
2008-01-14 14:42:53
2008-01-14 14:42:45
2008-01-14 14:42:44
2008-01-14 14:42:38
2008-01-14 14:42:37
2008-01-14 14:42:35
2008-01-14 14:42:14
2008-01-14 14:42:13
2008-01-14 14:42:12
2008-01-14 14:42:01
2008-01-14 14:41:59
2008-01-14 14:41:51
2008-01-14 14:41:47
2008-01-14 14:41:39
2008-01-14 14:41:35
2008-01-14 14:41:34
2008-01-14 14:41:24
2008-01-14 14:41:21
2008-01-14 14:41:18
2008-01-14 14:41:14
2008-01-14 14:41:10
>> ^darkrowan:
Can anyone tell me (maybe Lucky) when QM downvoted this?
It was yesterday afternoon. QM has not been on the site since this ST post was made.
I'm not aware of any place where it says that there are rules to downvoting, so I don't see how you can rightly dole out any punishment.
Really? I can't disagree with this statement more. This is a society of friends and friendly people (the vast majority at least). Common courtesy is inherent and needn't be spelled out.
For example, if someone got mad at you then went and discarded every one of your posts, shouldn't we do something about it? Of course no one would argue against some type of action even though there wasn't a written rule somewhere.
>> ^jonny: I'd like to remind everyone of this previous talk post concerning downvotes.
It sounds like you're suggesting that maybe it was all a coincidence.
Oh come on Lucky. Deathcow downvoted 8 of Anliz's vids in a row. Everyone on that thread knew damn well it wasn't a "statistical coincidence". The answer to Anliz was basically deal with it and don't get so hung up on those little numbers next to your name. Which is I think, the correct answer. I've had a stalker revenge downvoting me since october. So what if the idiot doesn't get it. No amount of my explaining that that breaks the system will change a brat's behavior. Get over it and get on with it.
I think QM has made a fool of himself on this one, and if someone punishes themselves like that, it warms my cold, darwinian heart more than any punishment we could give him.
...just kidding. That would be pretty mean.
I think there might be some sock-puppetry going on here. Anyway to check on that Dag?
I'm not Dag, but I checked and no, sock-puppetry played no role in the downvote spree.
Look, I'm the last person to be defending QM. I think I've made myself clear that he is, in fact, a semi-brain damaged intolerant fascist who repeats GOP talking points over and over again like an autistic 8-yr old.
HOWEVER, wtf is going on here? How hard is this? Any reasonable person realizes this is abuse, or at least no one downvotes all those in a row without realizing there may be complaints.
OBVIOUSLY, he abused his downvotes. Big whoop. Just go in the little database, reverse them, and take away his downvote power. I know it is possible, and probably not that big of a deal. His goal is probably to get banned to vindicate to himself that those bad libherals are fascists.
But as admins, if this is too much trouble, a lot of places would have just banned him. So take your pick admins.
Maybe he had a bad day or was throwing a temper tantrum? Is this different than people that upvote 10 of one persons videos in a row? So you might want to tread lightly, if you are smart you will instead give him a time-out and instead suspend his account for some time period. It seems a waste to have this public flogging just to ban him anyways, you should have just outright banned him (geez, brush up on your Machiavelli)
i have never once taken a single one of ant's downvotes against him, and he knows that because i told him so. we all frequently joke about them.
http://www.videosift.com/video/Crazy-Eddie-commercials-we-had-to-endure
i have never felt ant was targeting me, or anyone else to my knowledge, just being harsh yet honest.
and his votes given / received ratio shows a genuine interest in selecting the best and worst for their appropriate thumbage, before the clip has sifted, and those less interested in manning the churn, suddenly appear.
ant was one of the first, to upvote the one thing i really cared about here.
http://www.videosift.com/video/Shadow-Puppets-animation-by-Chuck-Gamble
and i notice him secretly upvoting my comments.
besides, he's the yin to my yang. i dig ant.
if all that shroom did, to deserve any of this, was downvote any one guy's shit honestly?
we would not be having this conversation, and every one of you knew that, about him, long before i got here.
ps.
>> ^MycroftHomlz:
Rottenseed, I agree that all of my15minutes videos suck.
funny. the way i read that, rottenseed was talking to, and about, K0MMIE. not me.
i guess we all see what we want to, though.
and, if you're willing to provide some more useful and specific criticism, i'd happily accept it, Holmz. here, or in private, at your convenience.
i've only been active here 2 months. but i honestly didn't think anyone had a problem with TED clips, a couple funny commercials, some old TV intros, a single Ron Paul vid, and one cute sift.
pps. were this an isolated incident, with shroom, the way it was with TheSofaKing, three weeks back, dumping on blankfist?
http://sofa.videosift.com#comment-282621
that's how i'd handle shroom.
but this incident, is about as isolated, as Paris Hilton at a circle jerk.
which is a fucking shame, because TheSofaKing needed only the merest of prodding to see the error of his ways instantly.
thank you all again for your time, and attention, to keeping the sift the kind of place that you want it to be.
i will happily submit to the will of the Jedi Council.
- owen
@oxdottir and rottenseed: personally, I have had a vote embargo on QM for about a year now... I don't see it as playing into the 'popularity contest' mentality, but rather, as refusing to aid and abet a troll in his participation on this site.
This kind of behavior is just as bad. I have commonly seen people abusing QM and downvoting based on his name alone. If you want me to start trotting it out, there was a time when a little clique were abusing all of QM's videos. Granted some of the videos were just incendiary and crappy, but you should instead let those wither in the queue instead of auto downvoting on name alone. In truth QM has probably also netted over 20 inappropriate downvotes over the year(s).
Why are we correlating video votes with a person's comments? Just upvote good videos (regardless of who submits them).
I fer one have always felt, that his user name is an insult to the hallucinogenic experience, m'self...
I KNOW......why don't we roast his ass!!!!!
(dag told me to play nice one time.....that calmed me down for about 20 minutes......)
So, if you ban quantummushroom, then you must ban me. TheSofaKing and I have since made peace, and I hold no grudge and I freely upvote his queue whenever I stumble upon it. I think the way my15 and QMR's squabble could work itself out is this way. It's obvious that my15 has more friends on here than QMR does, so even though I'd hate to see roaming cliques dishing out downvotes, I think the only way to solve this is allow for fellow Sifters to deal with this through downvoting and upvoting. When TheSofaKing was downvoting my queue and videos, I got a lot of upvote support from my good friends on here which more than evened things out.
That's what this place is about. The upvote makes you feel all warm inside. And, people like me are going to upvote my15's queue and his other videos to offset QMR's bad downvoting practices. That's the solution, in my opinion. Not banination.
Upvotes coming here: http://www.videosift.com/member/my15minutes/queued
And here: http://www.videosift.com/member/my15minutes/published
I really fear the Sift turning into a place like so many other sites (e.g., YT) where a member can abuse lots of others freely and knowingly face no consequences. I shudder to imagine a day where this is a kindergarten full of children that keep pouring sand over the heads of one another. It should be a safe haven where people come to relax and have fun, not where one should feel vulnerable and violated, always fearful of another sneak attack that will go unchecked.
If something should happen in a situation like this, I think the downvotes should be deleted and the offender warned, only to be banned if they in any way use their powers to attack someone again. (Or the offender should just be banned outright.) To do nothing is to condone it, and condoning abuse of power is
like voting Dubya in for a second termto undermine the fabric with which this community has always been woven.e.g. Warning --> Downvote ability removed --> Ban
(or whatever process is agreed upon / appropriate)
I only downvote based on content, but how I choose to spend my precious time is heavily influenced by reputation, and QM is not worth my time.
I've only ever downvoted one QM video, and I only watched it because of the link in this thread. Usually, I move along.
I KNOW......why don't we roast his ass!!!!!
The die has already been cast. His number did not come up.
I really fear the Sift turning into a place like so many other sites (e.g., YT) where a member can abuse lots of others freely and knowingly face no consequences. I shudder to imagine a day where this is a kindergarten full of children that keep pouring sand over the heads of one another. It should be a safe haven where people come to relax and have fun, not where one should feel vulnerable and violated, always fearful of another sneak attack that will go unchecked.
I've been reading through all this and struggling with how to put my thoughts down until I read this. Lucky, you hit the nail on the head. I agree that the down-votes should be deleted and QM should be warned. If after that he decides to vote for Dubya a second time then he will get what he deserves...
I really fear the Sift turning into a place like so many other sites (e.g., YT) where a member can abuse lots of others freely and knowingly face no consequences. I shudder to imagine a day where this is a kindergarten full of children that keep pouring sand over the heads of one another. It should be a safe haven where people come to relax and have fun, not where one should feel vulnerable and violated, always fearful of another sneak attack that will go unchecked.
Be careful of the tyranny of good intentions.
I don't like the talk of bans or association with what we think of his posts and attitude, those are separate issues and shouldn't come into this if they have no bearing on this. If any action was or is deserved in that case it's a separate issue and should be treated as such. This issue doesn't need a ban to solve it I don't think.
Personally I like the approach Smibbo suggested. Although there are no specific rules against downvoting however you'd like to it is generally accepted that when you act like an ass there can be consequences and this isn't a court room or a democracy. It's us invited to use Dags computer resources and in a real sense we are guests on his property. If we in some way make it an unpleasant place to be he has every right to deal with it, same as we can kick an unpleasant guest out of our own homes or private business. In this case we don't need to kick anyone out, just remove the tool that was abused and give them the chance to earn it back again if they'd like.
As has been mentioned several times now, lots of folks have gone on up/down voting sprees based on the submitter's name alone. Hell, blankfist pretty much invited everyone to do just that. So, are they going to be dragged out too? Will their accounts be permanently or temporarily banned?
(side note - QM has been here contributing comments and videos, whether you like them or not, longer than most of the folks calling for some kind of punishment. Perhaps his continued presence over such a long period should make people ponder why he wasn't banned before. The answer is not "he should have been.")
Voting on anything other than the content of the video is nothing more than mutual masturbation. I guess everyone should get off multiple times today.
Be careful of the tyranny of good intentions.
Well said. (Are two downvotes in a row allowed, but three of them bad? Now extrapolate)
We (as in admins or the community) is left with two obvious options
1) Downvoting is free (once you earn it), no scrutiny what-so-ever. Then qm's actions are legal, if childish.
2) Downvoting must represent an opinion of a video. This means that any suspecion, like this, of abuse must be taken up in a siftquisition.
I much prefer option 2, and it seems most people here does that as well. In that case, this must be deemed abuse, unless qm explains and absolves himself. If there is no response, he pleades no contest and must be punished accordingly.
This particular precedence is a bit disturbing, however, because we would have to set up safeguards against it happening again... maybe, if everyone gave up a little bit of freedom, we could be protected from such terrorism.. heh, that last one was a joke, but we would have to be ready to line up another siftquisition at a later date, if someone else tries these shennanigans.
what should be his outcome? If he's really bugged and upset enough people to the point that they want him banned, that's something he should have thought about before being so disputatious or at least refractory in his views. Let him sleep in the bed that he made. I for one would only vote for a suspension of his downvoting privileges until gold star level. This means he'd have to really straighten up his act and get on our good graces or he'd get frustrated and give up.
wow... i really did not think.... that totally bums me out...
On the other hand, I haven't found any new downvotes, and I didn't have a video discarded. I did do some * kills of discarded videos, but if that affected vote counts, there is a bug.
Not that I care about the little numbers so much, but because this is either an interesting, and sort of unfriendly, occurrence, or a bug. One way or another.
While I'd like to agree with jonny, I can't. The situation with Anliz was just 10 videos and an apparent aberration in behavior even if you don't buy the statistical anomaly in votes. There was no pattern of abuse and they settled it between them quickly. We've got something a bit more extended here and a much stronger pattern, and not against just one person.
You should do better research drattus. Anliz only had 10 vids published or queued at the time. And the votes were in the same order as posting. There is no question about what happened there.
The only other difference here is that QM, aside from not endearing many folks to himself, is not an old personal friend of dag's.Sorry, that was out of line.So, unless this is about not liking what QM has to say or the way he says it, I call hypocrisy.
And if it is about what he has to say - then reference the mutual masturbation remark above and apply to self-indulgent commenting.
MUCH
DRAMA
ABOUT
A
SITE
WHERE
YOU
POST
FUCKING
VIDEOS!
I say give it to Gold 100's.
*°*°*°*°*!!!HOORAY FOR VIDEOSIFTS 300.000th COMMENT!!!!*°*°*°*°*
Thank you. We now return to our popular program: Debate 'til u drop
Tonights Episode: Pizza without mushrooms
[Edit: Damn, off by one!
must. upvote... maatc.
willpower. failing...
>> ^maatc:
Please stand by while we interrupt this broadcast for an important message:
*°*°*°*°*!!!HOORAY FOR VIDEOSIFTS 300.000th COMMENT!!!!*°*°*°*°*
Thank you. We now return to our popular program: Debate 'til u drop
Tonights Episode: Pizza without mushrooms
I researched it just fine, Jonny. If you look back a week or so I had already pointed out that thread among others to someone else here when we were discussing a related issue. The thread is hardly new to me and neither is the type of situation given that I had already discussed the possible need for a thread on the subject with a couple of people both publicly and privately, and well before this came up. The number of videos wasn't argued, just the scale, number of people involved, and time span. Perhaps you should keep your assumptions and hypocrisy comments to yourself and allow for differences of opinion without them.
I don't see an aberration in a long record without similar behavior as a reason for panic, everyone has a bad day or a personality clash eventually. A pattern and one involving multiple people is more likely to promote a hostile environment and to provoke others to respond in kind. If you don't see it that way that's your business, and I think I'll leave it at that.
On edit, no I won't leave it at that. I sent this private but if it's worth saying at all it's worth saying here.
If you want to find some hypocrisy you might examine your assumption that your ideas are valid and others with different views are motivated by some ulterior motive. The personal comments and assumptions are out of line and you don't have the first clue who I am, what I think about any issue or what people or groups of them I might or might not like. All you've got is your assumptions and personal comments based on them.
Looking for hypocrisy are you? Look closer to home.
I think we should all stop this fussin' an' a feudin', and all go and look at joedirt's new and improved avatar, with what looks like the mug we never seen before.....You can take the boy outta the trailer park, but....
and THAT, makes 100 comments more than quantummushroom ever got in one place before......you feelin' all beside yerself there pard???? Someone wander down to the mines and tell qm he's needed over to the com-putey room.....
Really? I can't disagree with this statement more. This is a society of friends and friendly people (the vast majority at least). Common courtesy is inherent and needn't be spelled out.
For example, if someone got mad at you then went and discarded every one of your posts, shouldn't we do something about it? Of course no one would argue against some type of action even though there wasn't a written rule somewhere.
I think discarding has a bit more obvious use, and yes, undoing the damage seems logical to me in that situation as well as this one. My point was that nobody has ever said how a downvote should be used. I downvote things that I feel don't deserve a place in a collection of the best videos. Other people apparently downvote based on whether they like the submitter, the description, the title, etc. These may be childish, but they are permitted by the current rules. Banning someone for being childish seems, well, childish. Define appropriate use of a downvote and it makes the use of a ban cut and dry.
Also, I love BlankFist’s “you’ll have to kill both of us” attitude.
...also, is anyone getting votes right now??? I haven't gotten a vote all day and I blame this thread and not the mediocrity of my sifts.
And stop yer whining bleedingsnowman....I voted for yer Neutrino thing, "Calma, calma......"
>> ^raven:
@oxdottir and rottenseed: personally, I have had a vote embargo on QM for about a year now... I don't see it as playing into the 'popularity contest' mentality, but rather, as refusing to aid and abet a troll in his participation on this site.
This kind of behavior is just as bad. I have commonly seen people abusing QM and downvoting based on his name alone. If you want me to start trotting it out, there was a time when a little clique were abusing all of QM's videos. Granted some of the videos were just incendiary and crappy, but you should instead let those wither in the queue instead of auto downvoting on name alone. In truth QM has probably also netted over 20 inappropriate downvotes over the year(s).
Why are we correlating video votes with a person's comments? Just upvote good videos (regardless of who submits them).
I beg to differ... yes, if I were in any way ACTING against him... say consistently DOWNVOTING (vids or comments, etc)... I would agree with you... however, I chose inaction in regards to him simply because I did not want to enable him to be more of a pest on this site. I realized long ago that this was not someone I wanted to see with even bronze star powers, so I wanted no part in helping him get them.
However, I do think, if you were to look at it, I have actually voted for a few of his vids, because occasionally, he would sift something of undeniable merit... and I do quite clearly recall inviting him to join the HorrorShow after he submitted some slasher flick clips or something of that ilk, despite the fact that as a commenter he repulsed me even back then, but, on the whole, as most of his sifts were at best 'meh', I just stayed my votes... and I don't see anything wrong with that.
childrenvideos? Gladly, people haven't struck back. That's nice to see.Anyway, there's not going to be any consensus. It ought to be taken care of by the admins. They can deal with QM and we can get back to posting videos. This is all looking like mob justice at work. "He slapped my friend, let's burn his house down and run him out of town. Where's my pitch fork and torch?"
Plus, I'm sure that the impact of this has helped my15 far more than it has hurt him at this point.
The wound is mended and then some. Poetic justice.
My favoured solution would be to allow users to remove other users' videos and comments from their view using a block feature. The only way to starve a troll is to ignore them.
which normally, you shouldn't because i'm supposed to have a vested interest in the outcome?...
i'm going to have my new friend TheSofaKing's latest sift, speak for me.
http://www.videosift.com/video/Christopher-Hitchens-on-Freedom-of-Speech
goodnight, sift. goodnight, moon.
Ignore him.
I don't want it to become commonplace, as it will lead to acrimony and possibly the complete degradation of the site from a great community to a perpetual shit-flinging festival.
So I take this very seriously as an important decision-point for VideoSift.
On the other hand, as much as I disagree with QM in almost all his comments, I recognise that it's important to protect dissenting voices and alternative views. I don't support an outright ban.
In this case, (and any future cases) I recommend a 2-week suspension, with complete banning for a second offense.
We should apply the same penalty to Mkone's inane copycat downvoting spreee. (if you're going to be a jerk - at least be an original one).
Also, I don't agree with "retribution" tit-for-tat down voting sprees.
What say ye all?
and just in case anyone cares what i think should happen to him?
which normally, you shouldn't because i'm supposed to have a vested interest in the outcome?...
i'm going to have my new friend TheSofaKing's latest sift, speak for me.
Yes! You are right as always! Free speech is most important. And, we can correct the problem with goodwill in upvoting your queue and published videos - and some can choose to correct it also by downvoting quantumushroom's queue and published list. We don't need to police the user base's intentions with a nonsense witch hunt like this one. It is always the site owner's choice, but I urge them not to suffer from making rash rules for the benefit of making a safe online world for everyone. Reason always before passion.
This could be a huge black-eye for the site.
I don't think as a community, that we want this kind of practice to be part of our culture.
All votes should mean something and that something shouldn't be that the voter was having a
fit of cramps with no Midol in sightbad day and wanted to take it out on the world at large. (Not referring to QM, btw.)Places such as YouTube got to be the way they are for a reason. The users never drew and enforced a line, it became the wild west and the jerks took over. I'm as solidly against restricting unpopular speech as anyone and was proud of one of our members for thinking to speak up for that guy in the Ron Paul evolution thread, but at some point it's not censoring speech but stopping vindictive and potentially disruptive behavior.
If this isn't where we draw the line then maybe we'd better figure out exactly where it is.
We should apply the same penalty to Mkone's inane copycat downvoting spreee. (if you're going to be a jerk - at least be an original one).
Also, I don't agree with "retribution" tit-for-tat down voting sprees."''
I agree 250% with Dag, that's better then that measly 110% that everyone else talks about. The last thing anyone who cares about this site wants is a torn troll infested yousift.
My near-future action may not set a precedence nor should it, for the rest of the sifters, simply a way of speaking some words with fewer goddamn keystrokes.......JEEEEEEZ!
The guy the butt crust, manages to come flapping on someone's sift, or posting his own, (with offensive in its simplistick inane convoludidddity), wwich I must say, is a bothersome, "have to see it," wherein something he says invariably resets one of you other, damaged or otherwise sensitive to heat or cold monkey-robot-automoton motherfuckers......
lesse, took me about 10 mins between bong hits and chin-ups to write this, so ......qm, in sebben fiddy, I'll get to nominatin'......
Yesssss, choggie...DOOOOOO It!"
and suspend his downvote rights for a while. but don't ban him
mete out some discipline and quit worrying about if you're being unfair or mean.
we'll attempt to email them and let them know what's happening. *unsticky.
If you found out your congressman's or MP's voting record was NOT based on what he thought was best for his country or his district, but instead it was based on settling a score with another legislative colleague, wouldn't you be pissed off? Sure, he or she did nothing illegal, but it certainly hurt the democratic process, even if it was only by a little. Would you have much faith in that official's decision after that? No need to answer.
I originally stated that I was against banning for now as long as he showed up and was penitent. Well this late in the game it's a good possibility that he'll be a no-show anyway, and even if he did show up I doubt he'd show any remorse, as Farhad already suggested. And without any perceptible consensus, I thus agree with dag's decision. But if that prick makes one more remark along the lines of poo-pusher ever again, let the ban hammer fall hard and swift, I say.
This message brought to you by "Day Late, Dollar Short" bail bonds.
I like it.
Let the descent begin.
I read my "Siftquisition" with delight at the depth and breadth of entertainment created. Not the "controversy" per se, but the idea(l)s and vociferous opinions.
I was genuinely touched by the number of sifters who hate(d) my comments and corrosive anti-Lincolnesque persona--namely all of them--yet felt I was worth defending on the grounds of free speech, or what passes for it nowadays.
Every attempt to second-guess my recent actions was incorrect, and furthermore, is it anyone's business why anyone votes the way they do? There are no such litmus tests in the real world other than public opinion, which was the true executioner here.
"Bad faith" voting is the charge? The mact-of-the-fatter is, one vote is one vote, per each sift. Had I downvoted all but say, 5 sifts of a certain member, would THAT have been OK? Hey, I unnerstand the Game...VS is someone else's baby, even though they (we) are often trading in copyrighted materials in violation of both the letter and the spirit of the law. If my actions have further refined the rules then so be it; because of this incident you' will have to.
Without minority viewpoints all you've got is a bunch of politically-correct, faux-tolerant bobbleheads, and most sifters know it. Even now the ghosts of my words may haunt the Sift like Boo-Berry from the cereal of the same name.
I accept my 'vacation' with a smile and in the meantime will try to get some real bloodwork done.
Love and respect,
Quantumushroom, a mushroom you love to hate and hate to hate, due to quantum mechanics
He's so despicable, we all get to feel better about ourselves for not running him out on a rail. I think this whole fiasco has really brought to light, yet again, the need for better guidelines for downvoting. Is it possible to have a sifterendum regarding downvote guidelines? Maybe even something as general as: "Do you support the implementation of mandatory guidelines for downvoting videos on this site?" or something in that nature.
I think that that would probably be an easy majority yes vote, and then we could try and figure out what is reasonable.
We have discussed needing to give reasons for downvotes before. This whole debacle could have been much easier to diagnose if reasons were required. If somebody downvotes a whole block of videos, without any good reason, then the response would be much easier to determine.
I agree with Dag's idea that this should serve as the perfect oppurtunity to set a precedent that can shape the community for the future.
So how about it, a Sifterendum, or what?
I picture a snake like character slithering under his desk, in his one room apartment, rubbing his hands, chugging his mountain dew, making love to his dick cheney doll. What a guy.
I think his submissions were inappropriate but he really only gets attention when he says/does crazy things. We pay little attention when he tries to share his interests.
http://www.videosift.com/video/Color-Me-Badd-All-4-Love
Yes, it's all fun and games when your not the one being siftquistioned, it's good to see he at least emailed Dag, but not showing up for your own SQ is poor etiquette.
And that the end of the day isn't what QM did just an example of poor community etiquette, Downvoting a persons queue (picture it, picture gollum here guzzing his dew at 1am downvoting a queue, it's sad) It's not the type of character you want sharing your community, I wouldn't want a neighbour who shits on my lawn everytime I plant flowers.
Obviously QM has some social problems, this is the Internet, and the sift is a community full of people with entirely different backgrounds and reasons for using this website. What QM did was done in poor taste and the Siftquisition is well justified.
Everybody should read QM's email to Dag, because that is the closest we will get to performing an autopsy on this troll. After reading it I simply think QM doesn't understand exactly how this web community runs, he thinks he can come on here and use the site with the tools he is provided in any way he wants.
QM probably is on the payroll of some right wing lobby group, one of many sock puppetting liberal communities to keep them from having civilized conversations, you can find them commenting on my AOL blog 24/7 Web 2.0 is slowly drowning out these trolls and they are becoming more and more extinct.
Thank God
(Full disclosure: My god is Jeda Buddas)
If the chronic downvoter comes up with a lucid defense - yes I voted down X vids, but I queued and watch them earlier, and thought they were of poor quality for reasons XYZ, then you can give someone the benefit of the doubt, which I believe many have called for.
As it stands, there wasn't really any remorse nor justification provided to the results of the Siftquisition appear acceptable in my eyes.
Some quick responses:
>> ^jonny:
Someone call Guinness! A new record has been broken for the Biggest Smelliest Pile of Bullshit Hypocrisy on the innertubes.
I can't believe some of the crap I've read in this thread. I'm too angry to even respond coherently to all of it.
For the moment, I'd like to remind everyone of this previous talk post concerning downvotes.
Hey jonny, as the voice of "let's not get carried away by coincidences" in Anliz's thread, keep in mind the scenario involved:
1. in this case, lucky has provided date stamps
2. in the previous case Anliz was a relatively new user (who I haven't seen in ages, come to think of it - regardless), and I wanted to keep things civil since deathcow is the last person you'd expect to go on a crazy vendetta. Being new, Anliz wouldn't necessarily know the personality of all those he was interacting with.
Upvoted jonny's comment regardless because I like shout-outs to the days of yore when I spent entirely too much time around here - contrast with now, when I spend somewhat too much time around here.
>> ^jonny:
(side note - QM has been here contributing comments and videos, whether you like them or not, longer than most of the folks calling for some kind of punishment. Perhaps his continued presence over such a long period should make people ponder why he wasn't banned before. The answer is not "he should have been.")
Funny you should mention that. Only because we're in forum of the Siftquisition do I bring this forward, but I have private messaged qm in the past before he got his bronze star that he was THIS close to getting *-banned for some other major lapses in judgement that will not be re-described here. The message was delivered and there hadn't been major crap-o's that I was aware of. Until now.
The reason I mention that jonny, is to explain that there has been at least one instance of private warnings sent by people who have been here since the Dawn of Time.
Yeah, I think that QM is a total troll, and I'm glad that we got at least that response from him. He seems content to play his part as the right wing nut job, and it's almost nice to have somebody consistent there playing that role. Much preferable to hit and run whackjobs. To his credit, nobody on this site likes him, but he just keeps coming back for more.
Well I dunno, maybe Bill O does. He's been rather quiet tonight.
He's also made some lucid comments lately and been generally more civil, which is why I wanted to see the e-mail or any sort of response as provided by dag.
There's a new thread up on sift talk discussing a code of conduct of sorts.
Until now the community's been sufficiently small that we could get by with people understanding the conventions by which we operate (conventions = unwritten rules).
Some legalistic pedantry combined with the steady influx of newcomers, however, works against the universal understanding of conventions, which brings us to the place we're now at - where we need to write more stuff down. Ah, society.
If a troll's job is to get yer goat, y'all got got.
If it hadn't been him it would have been someone else soon enough, might as well get it out of the way.
Let me stress that again: he's just trolling anyway. I doubt there's anybody that's ACTUALLY as stupid as his email to dag makes him sound.
All votes should mean something and that something shouldn't be that the voter was having a fit of cramps with no Midol in sight and wanted to take it out on the world at large. (Not referring to QM, btw.)
and also choggie's:
Joe's right, just cause someone posts a good viddy, doesn't mean your seething, ego-infused distaste for their track-record of dingle-berryness, should keep you from voting for it-that's obviously a girl technique,raven, that some of us don't play with......
Well, I gotta say, that's the first time I ever felt like I was spending my time on a website with a bunch of sexist jerks (basing that on comments of course and not on the plethora titty-laden vids that get sifted everyday). Thanks boys, for showing yer true colors, I'm sure Quantum Mushroom would be proud of you.
I take serious offense to being called a sexist jerk. I've edited my comment to not offend the gender sensitive and will say no more than that I think you are being quite a bit over-sensitive with regard to my comment.
One could be insulted by anything if one were to try hard enough.
you make more rules, you add more features, multiply the checks and balances, mix it all up with a bunch of idealism... eventually you end up with the soviet union, and we all know what a happy bunch of comrades they were.
just put flood protection on downvoting and STFU.
JEEEEEEEzus.
edit: lucky downvote for technical or philosophical reasons?
edit2: blankfist also talked a lot of sense but there was so much bullshit in this thread i forgot to mention him.
I have a dream that one day on the first page of the Unsifted, the sons of former P's and the sons of former admins will be able to sit down together at the table of brotherhood.
I have a dream that one day even the votes-per-view default, a queue sweltering with the heat of injustice, sweltering with the heat of oppression, will be transformed into an oasis of freedom and justice.
I have a dream that my four videos in queue will one day exist on a website where they will not be judged by the color of the embed frame but by the content of their pictures and video.
I have a dream today!
In reply to this comment by djsunkid:
Yeah, I think that QM is a total troll, and I'm glad that we got at least that response from him. He seems content to play his part as the right wing nut job, and it's almost nice to have somebody consistent there playing that role. Much preferable to hit and run whackjobs. To his credit, nobody on this site likes him, but he just keeps coming back for more.
Well I dunno, maybe Bill O does. He's been rather quiet tonight.
He's also made some lucid comments lately and been generally more civil, which is why I wanted to see the e-mail or any sort of response as provided by dag.
Quantumushroom is a spectacular human being, and the glue that binds this site together. His suspension has brought shame on not only the Republican party, but to humanity in general.
As for me, lucidity is a given. My comments are always spot-on, and relevant to not only the videos here, but also to society as a whole. I try to bring a balanced, long-term approach to my posts, much like investing in blue-chip stocks.
I simply can't fathom how QM could be considered a "total troll", but to each his own. I've been called "biased" in the past, but we all know that is ridiculous, and quite honestly, inconceivable. I will continue to take my Instabran, stay grounded and humble, and support QM in his journey here at VS.
Thank you to all of my legions of fans here, and good night.
I pointed out the old talk post because of how it ultimately played out, not to cast deathcow as some maniacal serial downvoter like ant. Hell, I got my first vid promotion from deathcow. (That other avatar he had there for a while did scare the bejeebus outta me, though.)
As for QM being on the bubble before, I suspected as much, but the point was that it was handled successfully in private, as opposed to dragging him out for a public flogging.
>> ^Krupo:
Some legalistic pedantry combined with the steady influx of newcomers, however, works against the universal understanding of conventions, which brings us to the place we're now at - where we need to write more stuff down. Ah, society.
ok, so maybe two things. see my comment in the Abuse Addition talk post.
As I asked in your profile, would it insult you for someone to insult a guy with a big beer belly by telling him he looks like he's carrying a baby? Would that translate to you as a sexist person insulting all pregnant women?
I take serious offense to being called a sexist jerk. I've edited my comment to not offend the gender sensitive and will say no more than that I think you are being quite a bit over-sensitive with regard to my comment.
One could be insulted by anything if one were to try hard enough.
Fine, take offense, I'm sorry it came across as sounding mean or something but I was really annoyed at the time I wrote that. I do, however, resent being called 'overly sensitive', or 'upset', because both characterizations of my reaction are, in reality a little harsh, which was more along the lines of 'annoyed', 'mildly disturbed', or 'highly disappointed'. Rest assured, once I figure out which emoticons most accurately capture those feelings, I will in the future use them extensively.
But I don't think you can say that describing a beer gut as 'looking pregnant' is in anyway as nearly sexist or misogynistic as linking intentionally malicious behavior with the female condition of menstruation... the one case is a physical observation (composed with all the tact and insight of a 3 year old perhaps, but it is still just that, a comparative observation). Your comment, however, is a direct character assault on all women because it implies that once a month we become completely irrational harpies... and while you may say that you leveled this insult at the male portion of the audience (yes, I do understand testosterone levels and the possible implications of levying the charge of 'femininity' at a male of the species), it still is an attack on women to use a physical condition that is unique to our gender (not to mention beyond our control) and the negative assumptions surrounding it, as the ammo of that insult... I suppose in some ways I can see your correlation of the fat dude looking like a pregnant woman as going along with this, but the big difference is that being fat with a beer gut is generally pretty harmless to others, as is being pregnant, however, being a completely irrational downvote fiend working out a vendetta, is not... so the implication that the cause for that is somehow a woman's period, stings quite a bit more. Do you see the difference?
I guess I was so disappointed because I had up until this point never really felt on this site that women were treated differently than men, that gross assumptions about our gender would not be used as insults, or our decisions derided as 'girly'. I suppose I was wrong, and I also supposed I should not be surprised, more and more lately I have begun to regret ever mentioning that Raven was girl, because, obviously, many of you (and I don't mean you in particular, lucky) have a hard time dealing with her as such... androgynous, unassigned Raven seemed to get a little bit more respect.
ashamed?
repentant?
....won't do it again......
stay away from my posts,please doogle,if you would,sir.
because i haven't looked in this page since my last post, 2 days ago now.
and, shroom?
if your goal is to make me, personally, hate you?
you've failed, and will always continue to do so.
oh, and, there's just one more thing.
master yoda?
if you haven't already done so (and i missed the post, in the ocean, of what were really some great posts i upped, btw), would you please
*unsticky this, and i'll buy everyone a pint of ben & jerry's.
>> ^BicycleRepairMan:
I have a dream that one day this website will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all videos are submitted equal..."
the children of former P's, and of former admins, will be welcome
to sit down together, at the table
as sisters and brothers.
and party like it's 1999.
>> ^lucky760:
As I asked in your profile, would it insult you for someone to insult a guy with a big beer belly by telling him he looks like he's carrying a baby? Would that translate to you as a sexist person insulting all pregnant women?
I take serious offense to being called a sexist jerk. I've edited my comment to not offend the gender sensitive and will say no more than that I think you are being quite a bit over-sensitive with regard to my comment.
One could be insulted by anything if one were to try hard enough.
Fine, take offense, I'm sorry it came across as sounding mean or something but I was really annoyed at the time I wrote that. I do, however, resent being called 'overly sensitive', or 'upset', because both characterizations of my reaction are, in reality a little harsh, which was more along the lines of 'annoyed', 'mildly disturbed', or 'highly disappointed'. Rest assured, once I figure out which emoticons most accurately capture those feelings, I will in the future use them extensively.
But I don't think you can say that describing a beer gut as 'looking pregnant' is in anyway as nearly sexist or misogynistic as linking intentionally malicious behavior with the female condition of menstruation... the one case is a physical observation (composed with all the tact and insight of a 3 year old perhaps, but it is still just that, a comparative observation). Your comment, however, is a direct character assault on all women because it implies that once a month we become completely irrational harpies... and while you may say that you leveled this insult at the male portion of the audience (yes, I do understand testosterone levels and the possible implications of levying the charge of 'femininity' at a male of the species), it still is an attack on women to use a physical condition that is unique to our gender (not to mention beyond our control) and the negative assumptions surrounding it, as the ammo of that insult... I suppose in some ways I can see your correlation of the fat dude looking like a pregnant woman as going along with this, but the big difference is that being fat with a beer gut is generally pretty harmless to others, as is being pregnant, however, being a completely irrational downvote fiend working out a vendetta, is not... so the implication that the cause for that is somehow a woman's period, stings quite a bit more. Do you see the difference?
I guess I was so disappointed because I had up until this point never really felt on this site that women were treated differently than men, that gross assumptions about our gender would not be used as insults, or our decisions derided as 'girly'. I suppose I was wrong, and I also supposed I should not be surprised, more and more lately I have begun to regret ever mentioning that Raven was girl, because, obviously, many of you (and I don't mean you in particular, lucky) have a hard time dealing with her as such... androgynous, unassigned Raven seemed to get a little bit more respect.
Oh now Raven, I still love you even if no one else does. Girls r teh roxxors on teh sift.