Congratulations! Your comment has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.

Yes, it's a crap title. If you could help me come up with something better, I'm listening.

In reply to this comment by MaxWilder:
Title is inappropriate. It's not about forcing children to conform, but forcing people who want the world to be a better place into people who accept the cesspool that the world currently is. As shown by the dedication to Martin Luther King Jr., this is about people who reject hatred and warmongers.

Congratulations! Your comment has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.

Congratulations! Your comment has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.

Congratulations! Your comment has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.

Congratulations! Your comment has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.

In reply to this comment by MaxWilder:
Perhaps there should be a PSA (Public Service Announcement) category.

I do have a playlist for PSAs.

Congratulations! Your comment has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.

Congratulations! Your comment has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.

I've been thinking the same thing for a while now, It makes me want to get into politics honestly. Thinking "well shit, if SHE can do it..."

In reply to this comment by MaxWilder:
Why do these people remain in office? Incapable of getting the facts straight before giving a speech, but still able to make wise policy decisions? I don't think so.

Don't you know it's irresponsible to link TV Tropes in a public forum like that? Every page I read on there, I open three more. I've got a hundred tabs going on my browser already. I have things to do today!

In reply to this comment by MaxWilder:

In a TV show set in the present, it is most certainly a Wall Banger, and perhaps even a Dethroning Moment of Suck.

Your video, April Fools in Central Station (Antwerp), has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Congratulations! Your comment has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.

You're right that it's a subjective question. I was trying my best to stay dispassionate about that particular instance because, well, I think both videos suck balls. A fucking cat pawing at a printer? Obviously, at least 90 people disagree with me, so I'm probably out of my realm of expertise.

I like your analogy about paintings with mustaches. But we're not hanging originals here at all. We're handing out prints. Yeah, the prints have all been signed by a forger, or even worse by a forger that thinks he has a better sense of style than the original artist. If the forgery hides the original artistic achievement, we should offer copies of the original. But if doesn't, there's only so much we can print up.

I agree - this one is right on the edge. The fact that the 'original' sift had the added effects, though, I think influences the decision. Had it been the other way around, I think the added sound effects would have been quickly deemed to not add anything, and Lucky's post would have been easily declared a dupe. So why should it work differently in reverse?

In reply to this comment by MaxWilder:
The addition of sound effects absolutely makes it different!

If there is a clip of Star Wars where Porkins explodes, it might get sifted. Then if somebody makes a version where a farting noise is added just before he explodes, would that not be different enough to warrant a separate sift? It's just one sound effect, but it changes the meaning of the clip.

The question is, how different does a video have to be in order to be considered not a dupe? And should that decision be made by one person? That seems to me to be contrary to the spirit of the sift.

I don't want to make a big deal out of this, but (forgive me the hyperbole) it seems like a work of art is being refused because this museum already has a copy of the painting where somebody scribbled a mustache on it.


In reply to this comment by jonny:
I should probably let Lucky answer for himself, but here goes anyway.

A different audio track on a video must provide some significant change in the content, not simply a more pleasurable viewing experience in the opinion of some. So, for instance, if someone posts a video of cats being herded with the native sound, and someone else posts the same vid with 'yakety sax', then that might be considered different and not a dupe. In this case though, the only difference is the presence or lack of a few sound effects. Your opinion that those sound effects suck isn't really relevant. The fact that gwiz's video did not have them does not make his post "different" or "original". It might make that particular copy of it better, but that's not the point of duplicates.

In reply to this comment by MaxWilder:
I really don't understand your point here. Those crappy sound effects dramatically change the tone of the video, from a cute cat vid to a goofy over-the-top sound effects vid. Perhaps you were watching with the sound low?

If there wasn't a significant difference, I don't think my preference for the original version would be so strong.


In reply to this comment by lucky760:
FAQ: Minor changes in content, like a few additional insignificant seconds of video or alternate background music, will still be considered dupes. The only exception to this is if the change in audio makes a significant difference to the video content.

The audio can in no legitimate way be validly considered as making a "significant difference to the video content." Claiming that it does when the only difference is a couple of minor sound affects is surprising and disingenuous.

*return

I should probably let Lucky answer for himself, but here goes anyway.

A different audio track on a video must provide some significant change in the content, not simply a more pleasurable viewing experience in the opinion of some. So, for instance, if someone posts a video of cats being herded with the native sound, and someone else posts the same vid with 'yakety sax', then that might be considered different and not a dupe. In this case though, the only difference is the presence or lack of a few sound effects. Your opinion that those sound effects suck isn't really relevant. The fact that gwiz's video did not have them does not make his post "different" or "original". It might make that particular copy of it better, but that's not the point of duplicates.

In reply to this comment by MaxWilder:
I really don't understand your point here. Those crappy sound effects dramatically change the tone of the video, from a cute cat vid to a goofy over-the-top sound effects vid. Perhaps you were watching with the sound low?

If there wasn't a significant difference, I don't think my preference for the original version would be so strong.


In reply to this comment by lucky760:
FAQ: Minor changes in content, like a few additional insignificant seconds of video or alternate background music, will still be considered dupes. The only exception to this is if the change in audio makes a significant difference to the video content.

The audio can in no legitimate way be validly considered as making a "significant difference to the video content." Claiming that it does when the only difference is a couple of minor sound affects is surprising and disingenuous.

*return