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.

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!

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.)

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

Attica! Attica!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

>> ^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)

>> ^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.

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

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

Free schmawy!

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

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

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

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

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

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

You can't keep Schmawy down.

BOOOOOOOO!!!!

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

Now who is Harvey Dent and the Joker?

This town needs an enema.

>> ^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.

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?

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

I guess rules are rules, though.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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

>> ^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.