>> ^direpickle:

>> ^CrushBug:
What's the music in this? I used to remember the name.

"Lux Aeterna," from the soundtrack for Requiem for a Dream, by Clint Mansell.


Seems like overkill that someone had to add a choir and cymbals. Wasn't it epic enough to begin with? Still, nice montage.

>> ^PostalBlowfish:

lol @ fanboy. pump the brakes a little, pal! the performance is good, but the "soul" plays as a bit manufactured. as a cover there is nothing special here - just someone playing a song i've heard many times. i think the word "amazing" is overhyping it, and turning into chris crocker about it would definitely be overkill.
it's good. it's not amazing.


I'm going to go ahead and agree. It just goes to show how far reasonable production quality can go towards making mediocre performers appear "amazing."

lol @ fanboy. pump the brakes a little, pal! the performance is good, but the "soul" plays as a bit manufactured. as a cover there is nothing special here - just someone playing a song i've heard many times. i think the word "amazing" is overhyping it, and turning into chris crocker about it would definitely be overkill.

it's good. it's not amazing.

Thanks, Lucky. Will do! Sorry for my mixup.
In reply to this comment by lucky760:
This type of thing has been an issue since *dupeof was introduced. The response 100% of the time to an invalid killing has always been to strip the invocation from the invokers. (This is for the reasons I mentioned in my PM to you.)

The original video was quite different because it had different editing and visual effects and was presented as a commercial for Silk.

Given your appeal, I'll reinstate your *dupeof/*isdupe privileges because it seems you did watch both and genuinely considered them duplicates, which can be understandable since the two were so similar.

In the future, if they aren't actually identical, which was the case here, please opt to *discuss the issue in Sift Talk instead of just killing.

Thanks!

In reply to this comment by Fusionaut:
Wait a second. I saw both videos before the first one died. It seemed like a dupe to me. @<a rel="nofollow" href="http://seltar.videosift.com" title="member since June 11th, 2006 @ 13:55:42" class="profilelink"><strong style="color:#f875ff">seltar assumed that I had not seen the first video posted but I had. If there was any difference in the videos it is slight.

I've had videos that were deemed dupes of dead videos before and I've seen other videos where a similar situation happened. Why is this the first time this has become an issue? There is nothing in the rules/FAQ regarding this:

"A duplicate video is one which contains content already wholly available on VideoSift in a published, queued, personal queued, or dead/deadpool video submission. 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.

If a newer submission's video is a clip of content found within an existing post, it will be considered a duplicate unless it meets both these criteria:

The original post is at least 15 minutes in length
The original post is at least 3 times longer than the clip
If a duplicate cannot adequately be considered an exact or reasonable replacement of the original, it should be * discarded.

Otherwise, instead of * discarding, privileged members may invoke * dupeof on a video that is a duplicate. This invocation will kill the dupe, transfer its votes to the original, and add the duplicate embed code as a backup to the original post. A duplicate video may have * dupeof invoked on even if it has been discarded, so such votes may still validly be transferred to the original video."

It takes two sifters to declare a dupe so that a video is not wrongly duped and in this case two sifters thought that Seltar's vid was a dupe of his one. You're taking Seltar's version of events without even asking me or the the other duper. I don't exactly invoke "dupeof" all that often so a punishment after a first offence seems a bit overkill.


In reply to this comment by lucky760:
Your *dupeof/*isdupe privilege has been revoked for invoking against a video that was clearly not a duplicate or that was dead at the time (which means you could not possibly have known whether or not it was a dupe).

Your action caused a great deal of lost time on the duped post, which cost it all of its hotness and any chance at the Top 15, and a lot of wasted effort was required to undo your mistake.

In reply to this comment by Fusionaut:
oh and *isdupe

This type of thing has been an issue since *dupeof was introduced. The response 100% of the time to an invalid killing has always been to strip the invocation from the invokers. (This is for the reasons I mentioned in my PM to you.)

The original video was quite different because it had different editing and visual effects and was presented as a commercial for Silk.

Given your appeal, I'll reinstate your *dupeof/*isdupe privileges because it seems you did watch both and genuinely considered them duplicates, which can be understandable since the two were so similar.

In the future, if they aren't actually identical, which was the case here, please opt to *discuss the issue in Sift Talk instead of just killing.

Thanks!

In reply to this comment by Fusionaut:
Wait a second. I saw both videos before the first one died. It seemed like a dupe to me. @seltar assumed that I had not seen the first video posted but I had. If there was any difference in the videos it is slight.

I've had videos that were deemed dupes of dead videos before and I've seen other videos where a similar situation happened. Why is this the first time this has become an issue? There is nothing in the rules/FAQ regarding this:

"A duplicate video is one which contains content already wholly available on VideoSift in a published, queued, personal queued, or dead/deadpool video submission. 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.

If a newer submission's video is a clip of content found within an existing post, it will be considered a duplicate unless it meets both these criteria:

The original post is at least 15 minutes in length
The original post is at least 3 times longer than the clip
If a duplicate cannot adequately be considered an exact or reasonable replacement of the original, it should be * discarded.

Otherwise, instead of * discarding, privileged members may invoke * dupeof on a video that is a duplicate. This invocation will kill the dupe, transfer its votes to the original, and add the duplicate embed code as a backup to the original post. A duplicate video may have * dupeof invoked on even if it has been discarded, so such votes may still validly be transferred to the original video."

It takes two sifters to declare a dupe so that a video is not wrongly duped and in this case two sifters thought that Seltar's vid was a dupe of his one. You're taking Seltar's version of events without even asking me or the the other duper. I don't exactly invoke "dupeof" all that often so a punishment after a first offence seems a bit overkill.


In reply to this comment by lucky760:
Your *dupeof/*isdupe privilege has been revoked for invoking against a video that was clearly not a duplicate or that was dead at the time (which means you could not possibly have known whether or not it was a dupe).

Your action caused a great deal of lost time on the duped post, which cost it all of its hotness and any chance at the Top 15, and a lot of wasted effort was required to undo your mistake.

In reply to this comment by Fusionaut:
oh and *isdupe

Wait a second. I saw both videos before the first one died. It seemed like a dupe to me. @seltar assumed that I had not seen the first video posted but I had. If there was any difference in the videos it is slight.

I've had videos that were deemed dupes of dead videos before and I've seen other videos where a similar situation happened. Why is this the first time this has become an issue? There is nothing in the rules/FAQ regarding this:

"A duplicate video is one which contains content already wholly available on VideoSift in a published, queued, personal queued, or dead/deadpool video submission. 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.

If a newer submission's video is a clip of content found within an existing post, it will be considered a duplicate unless it meets both these criteria:

The original post is at least 15 minutes in length
The original post is at least 3 times longer than the clip
If a duplicate cannot adequately be considered an exact or reasonable replacement of the original, it should be * discarded.

Otherwise, instead of * discarding, privileged members may invoke * dupeof on a video that is a duplicate. This invocation will kill the dupe, transfer its votes to the original, and add the duplicate embed code as a backup to the original post. A duplicate video may have * dupeof invoked on even if it has been discarded, so such votes may still validly be transferred to the original video."

It takes two sifters to declare a dupe so that a video is not wrongly duped and in this case two sifters thought that Seltar's vid was a dupe of his one. You're taking Seltar's version of events without even asking me or the the other duper. I don't exactly invoke "dupeof" all that often so a punishment after a first offence seems a bit overkill.


In reply to this comment by lucky760:
Your *dupeof/*isdupe privilege has been revoked for invoking against a video that was clearly not a duplicate or that was dead at the time (which means you could not possibly have known whether or not it was a dupe).

Your action caused a great deal of lost time on the duped post, which cost it all of its hotness and any chance at the Top 15, and a lot of wasted effort was required to undo your mistake.

In reply to this comment by Fusionaut:
oh and *isdupe

>> ^Brainmeats:

viral wtf? pringles -> diarrhea .. I'm sure thats the first thing they want people to connect with their brand....


So do they still do Olestra or not? It's the fake fat with the "anal leakage" problem.

So the laxatives would've been overkill if that were the case...

>> ^Deano:

It doesn't help that I hated Inception and found Dark Knight rather tedious with the overkill terrorist theme.
I loved Memento and the look of that film but this action stuff and the blend of CGI and live-action doesn't scream eye candy to me.
I played against Bane in that Batman game by the way and I just kept dodging out of his way. Dude's an idiot!


The Bane we see in this movie seems to be a very different animal compared to the version of Bane we saw in Arkham Asylum and Arkham City. I guess Nolan doesn't do wrestling mask wearing roid monsters, and I admit it wouldn't seem his style either. I did get my ass handed to me at first by Bane in Asylum as I'm kinda slow with console style control schemes, I'm a mouse and keyboard user at heart.

It doesn't help that I hated Inception and found Dark Knight rather tedious with the overkill terrorist theme.
I loved Memento and the look of that film but this action stuff and the blend of CGI and live-action doesn't scream eye candy to me.

I played against Bane in that Batman game by the way and I just kept dodging out of his way. Dude's an idiot!

>> ^Yogi:

This looks like a dupe but in case it's not. It's not nice to make fun of the mentally challenged.


It's not a dupe in the "Videosift" sense, the only reason I put it up is they ran this a few nights ago after the Jazz vs. Suns game and I now easily assume the "Shaqtin' A Fool" bit is a little on the stale side.

But, I liked the commentary and the hiliarity of the plays so I thought I'd at least sift it for that reason alone.

If enough people think it's overkill to have this video I'll kill it--no problems to be had .

Seriously, what is wrong with the guy. I'm glad he has a coach and training team that genuinely seem to be trying to stop him from doing these "no-brainers" type of mistakes now in Denver. The look on the face during those plays of the Wizards coach did have to make you laugh though...

Um... improper use of the discuss function? If you want this video to get more attention, @shveddy, then promote or quality it. It's clearly not in the wrong channel, and even if it were, discuss is overkill.

*return

Choggie had his chance and blew it. That's done.

dft is self-imposed. He issued a mea culpa in what he is temp banned for, and that should be that. He's coming back in force.

Blankfist left. I think it's overkill to ban him for doing what he did - at least from what he told me he did. Once we've had siftups and such, that cat's out of the bag already is it not? Shit, I know Jeremy, Heath, Rommel etc. from siftup posts anyway. It's not trivial to post "personal information" but there's a degree of discretion in it too. Saying "lucky lives at XX street and hates muslims" is obviously retardedly stupid, but from what I hear blankfist just linked to some movie thing dft was in as a kid. Not a huge deal I'd say, also considering they've actually met in real life and shit.

For what it's worth, I like both dft and blankfist even though I disagree about stuff with both on some issues, and I hate how those two bickering with each other has escalated to this level of paranoia and annoyance. You're both alright, now kiss and make up!

In anycase, dft and blankfist should both be unbanned in my humble opinion. I'm not sure bf would even come back either way.

>> ^quantumushroom:

He probably also had cybernetic eyes to see in the tunnel.

>> ^Ryjkyj:
>> ^Enzoblue:
>> ^Darkhand:
Had me until he accelerated with his hand off the throttle!

And went into a pitch black tunnel with no headlight. Little things like that take me out of this. Foliage in the high rises was major overkill,(full trees? Seriously?) the chaser plane and even the seeker missiles it dropped had apocalyptic rust on them...

You guys didn't get that he was some kind of cyborg that controlled technology with his hands? And yes, given enough time, trees will grow anywhere.
I would be more skeptical of a skinny hipster surviving the apocalypse, along with his own suicidal style of motorcycle riding.



Exactly. Or he simply could see because of the bright light of the drones!

The real funny thing was, that his bike had perfect traction on a road with decades of dirt, plants and potholes created by the plants - with tires that seemed to be at least 40 years old.

I thought the same thing then I realized he knew his opponent so well (the missles) that he knew they would provided enough light for him to navigate by that's why he waits till he can see the light at the end of the tunnel to destroy them.
>> ^Enzoblue:

>> ^Darkhand:
Had me until he accelerated with his hand off the throttle!

And went into a pitch black tunnel with no headlight. Little things like that take me out of this. Foliage in the high rises was major overkill,(full trees? Seriously?) the chaser plane and even the seeker missiles it dropped had apocalyptic rust on them...

He probably also had cybernetic eyes to see in the tunnel.



>> ^Ryjkyj:

>> ^Enzoblue:
>> ^Darkhand:
Had me until he accelerated with his hand off the throttle!

And went into a pitch black tunnel with no headlight. Little things like that take me out of this. Foliage in the high rises was major overkill,(full trees? Seriously?) the chaser plane and even the seeker missiles it dropped had apocalyptic rust on them...

You guys didn't get that he was some kind of cyborg that controlled technology with his hands? And yes, given enough time, trees will grow anywhere.
I would be more skeptical of a skinny hipster surviving the apocalypse, along with his own suicidal style of motorcycle riding.