I like the idea of community service. Instead of a two week ban, maybe a member could be sent to fix a number of deadpool videos? Just like in real court, the punished have to prove they completed the community service (a list of links to the deadpool vids he/she fixed). Food for thought.

I'll have H.R. write you a letter about how my company doesn't pay jury duty leave and how this is my only form of income. Oh, and it's against my religious practices to judge others. Oh and also, I do not live in this state.

I thought the whole idea was to free up the admins from having to be involved in absolutely every case? If they have to evaluate each member of a jury then that is even more work than evaluating the "crimes" of one person.

If anything I'd say increase the majority needed to "convict" someone in a siftquisition (60%-70%?). I'm not a big fan of the jury system from a statistics and social psychology point of view, but in this case it would also seem to over-complicate things.

I say increase the majority needed for a siftquisition. If problems don't get resolved then admins can step in and do what is needed. They have enough work to do already.

Waste of time

I've got an idea. It's crazy and totally out there, but bear with me:

Break the rules once and you get tempbanned. Do it again and it's a permban.

KISS

*quality
Sounds fair, but maybe too complicated to be practical.

Bad courtroom artist renderings should be mandatory in all siftquisitions, with avatars of the accused and accuser photoshopped over the heads.

Awarding blankfist with one star point for this contribution to Sift Talk - declared quality by dystopianfuturetoday.

Would be interesting, and even kind of fun, if you like Siftquisitions. Too complicated and slow to work, though, I think.

alright! and while were at lets think of 50 more really complicated ways to increase the drama and call even more attention to personal squibblings!! do do! go go!


and will someone please unhobbit everyone already?!?

Actually, a jury of peers would be too complicated, and to some degree it denotes a necessity for compulsory service. Hmmm. Not sure this is a good idea. In fact, I'm sure it is not. It was an amusing idea...

I guess it's either mob rule or Siftler.

Here's my plan to fix both siftquisitions and Videosift's funding problems.

Keep the siftquisition mechanic the same, only now every vote costs $1, with no limit on number of votes cast.

Let the market decide!

More seriously though, maybe we could solve the jury-pool problem by going more with a Supreme Court model; elect an odd-number of judges every so often, and only their votes count.

Poor dag would probably still wind up on the bench, but at least then he'd have some other people around to override him when his mustache starts whispering things to him.

I have a boombox and a sweet hat (not pictured). You all know this.

Here's what we do - Whenever someone breaks the rules, I throw down my hat. The accused and the accuser then step up to the hat and start breaking it the fuck down. I'll play techno/rap/talk radio/pop or whatever.

First one to puke loses.

>> ^NetRunner:


A pay-to-vote model? I don't think that would work for a number of reasons. Not that my idea was much better. I think it's really only a 'mob rule or Siftler' type of thing that will work.

Maybe the community votes on the member being guilt or not guilty, and then have dag/lucky decide punishment? I'm really in favor of 'community service' over temp-bans, personally.

A well-intentioned idea, blankenstein, but a little too cumbersome. I like mauz15's moderator idea. Instead of allowing any Gold star or above member to call a Siftquisition, make it so only a handful of moderators have that power. Ideally they would review the merits of the accusations against the alleged offender, and then could decide if it merits a Siftquisition or not. If a Siftquisition is allowed to proceed, then everyone in Siftopia would still serve on the jury to decide guilt or innocence.

Needless to say, whoever is chosen to be a moderator needs to be knowledgeable of the rules and then must be as impartial as possible during the proceedings. Just as in real life, no one can always be impartial, so hopefully if there is a conflict of interest then that moderator would recuse himself from the proceedings and have another moderator do it instead. So to use your example, if you were a moderator and DFT or I came before the court as the accused, you would recuse yourself.

The trick is choosing the right moderators. I think we should have at least 3 or 4 acting moderators. Member rank should have nothing to do with who gets the job, other than they should be at least a Silver or Gold star. They should be chosen for their wisdom and temperament, not for their rank. They also need to be fairly active here, because they're of no use if they're only here sporadically. Maybe dag and lucky could appoint the first group of moderators, and then every 3 or 6 months an election can be held to see if they keep their jobs. Maybe other members could also throw their hats in the ring at that time too. Let's say there are a total of 4 moderator positions available, and a total of 8 people are running. Let every member be able to cast 4 votes, and the members with the 4 highest vote tallies get the job.

The biggest departure from the current system is that only a handful of members can call a Siftquisition, but the membership at large still has the job to choose verdicts. Hopefully the moderators will give multiple choices for the jury, for example:

- Not guilty
- Guilty, one week hobbled
- Guilty, one week ban
- Guilty, two week ban
- Guilty, permanent ban

Or something like that. Not all of those options would have to be available; the choices would vary on a case-by-case basis. No "abstain" option should be possible. If you're that ambivalent, then just don't vote. Cut and dried incidents like downvote sprees don't need a Siftquisition. If the downvotes are mere seconds apart then obviously they're guilty and they get banned for two weeks. (I'm hoping that with the 4.0 upgrade there will be a minimum time between downvotes - like maybe 60 seconds - to prevent downvote sprees from happening in the first place.)

With moderators being at the head of SiftJustice (please dispose of the term "Siftquisition") dag and lucky can let the membership rule itself more, and still preserve the individual's rights. So how does that sound?

???

Well now it is.

^D'oh!

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

There is no cat. There is no bag.

End of line.

Oh no, what have I put in motion?

More important than the method of the trial is the law which dictates what is a crime.

To offer my libertarian 2 cents, all crimes must satisfy three critera:

1. There must be a victim
2. Only the victim can press charges
3. The purpose of law is to enforce restitution for the victim, not punishment for the criminal.

Edeot, just say it.

I'll say it. Awesome-sauce. There! Happy?!

Things happened here.

>> ^volumptuous:
Edeot, just say it.


SNAPE KILLED DUMBLEDORE

The MIB will be here shortly to erase everyone's memory.

*discard

Discarding this post - discard requested by original submitter blankfist.

hahahaha

*undiscard!

>> ^Edeot:
>> ^volumptuous:
Edeot, just say it.

SNAPE KILLED DUMBLEDORE


RUINGUIG!

This process is infallible!

*poromrote!

Only published, queued, or discarded videos, published Sift Talk posts, and published blog posts may be promoted - ignoring promote request by schmawy.

Really Sifty. Sometimes I don't think you know your handle from your crank.

*promote!

You do realize I am always listening. Prescient. Omnipresent. Dominating. Living. Angry. Vicious. Murderous. So, the question is, what exactly did you want to say about my handle, my crank, and my ability to distinguish the two?

>> ^siftbot:
You do realize I am always listening. Prescient. Omnipresent. Dominating. Living. Angry. Vicious. Murderous. So, the question is, what exactly did you want to say about my handle, my crank, and my ability to distinguish the two?


You're not who we think you are. Never were. It's a rouse. A charade. It's all a play. A game.

Yeah, yeah we know. "I am all powerful. Puny humans like you will never stop me".

You are cracking me up tonight, schwamy.

Looks like they've already been here to * omit the *quality entry. I hope you aren't in danger of becoming omitted yourself.

^blankfist:
The MIB will be here shortly to erase everyone's memory.

notarobot cannot award a quality point for this Sift Talk post because notarobot does not have enough Power Points - ignoring quality request by notarobot. (You can always purchase more Power Points.)

[omitted] What? [omitted] I feel [omitted] weird, I [omitted] can't remember [omitted] anything. [omitted]
[omitted][omitted][omitted]

This was a very childish move.

Obviously, what the community did recently, regarding Siftquisitions, was abolish them, making D&L responsible for all types of punishment. I didn't like that either. But that doesn't mean you should discourage any attempt to raise the phoenix from the ashes, i.e. create a new, better slightly tweaked community-based system of law-enforcement.

Trust me, I get that most of the folks who voted against SQs probably didn't understand the principle and that they should be shown the faults of sites arbitrarily run by a couple of admins. But hampering the core users from coming up with a better system serves no purpose whatsoever.

>> ^EDD:
This was a very childish move...


It's okay EDD. I think that there's a strong agreement that Siftquisitions, as they stood, needed an overhall. As for what's happening in this thread well it's just the usual silliness. I still think we should have some kind of idea for how to handle it for when Dag gets back though.

>> ^schmawy:
>> ^EDD:
I think that there's a strong agreement that Siftquisitions, as they stood, needed an overhall.


Or they needed an overhaul.

Fuck. Busted. I feel okay because you totally blew your italics tags, so no one will understand.


>> ^blankfist:
>> ^schmawy:
>> ^EDD:
I think that there's a strong agreement that Siftquisitions, as they stood, needed an overhall.

Or they needed an overhaul.

I wish I was a bird.

Kangaroo Court?

Star Chamber?

Time Out?

Penalty Box?