You must've have missed this comment. I didn't discard it - I returned it.

oh shit - now I see what happened. My quote from the FAQ blew it. I'll promote it back tomorrow when I have the power point again.

In reply to this comment by Krupo:
Um, dude - did you skip through the dates? 9 hours vs 22 - the video you discarded is older than winkler's, bad call.

In reply to this comment by jonny:
DrPawn, bamdrew -

from the FAQ [emphasis added]:

Duplicates will be *discarded. A duplicate video is one which contains content already on VideoSift in a published, queued, personal queued, or dead video submission. Minor changes in content, like a few additional insignificant seconds of video or alternate background music, will still be considered dupes.

If you want the rule changed to make an exception for short bits from existing long posts, then post to Sift Talk to get some discussion going. But please don't flaunt this rule, as it will inevitably lead to this kind of fiasco.

Um, dude - did you skip through the dates? 9 hours vs 22 - the video you discarded is older than winkler's, bad call.

In reply to this comment by jonny:
DrPawn, bamdrew -

from the FAQ [emphasis added]:

Duplicates will be *discarded. A duplicate video is one which contains content already on VideoSift in a published, queued, personal queued, or dead video submission. Minor changes in content, like a few additional insignificant seconds of video or alternate background music, will still be considered dupes.

If you want the rule changed to make an exception for short bits from existing long posts, then post to Sift Talk to get some discussion going. But please don't flaunt this rule, as it will inevitably lead to this kind of fiasco.

DrPawn, bamdrew -

from the FAQ [emphasis added]:

Duplicates will be *discarded. A duplicate video is one which contains content already on VideoSift in a published, queued, personal queued, or dead video submission. Minor changes in content, like a few additional insignificant seconds of video or alternate background music, will still be considered dupes.

If you want the rule changed to make an exception for short bits from existing long posts, then post to Sift Talk to get some discussion going. But please don't flaunt this rule, as it will inevitably lead to this kind of fiasco.

This is fucking disgusting. I don't want to be part of a "community" that incites and approves of personal attacks against anyone, especially a young guy who's just having some problems. I thought the way we did things was to quietly ban them and leave it at that. So what if this was a serious hassle, it's the internet, you get that. He got you all annoyed? Awwwww, poor you.
If you can't deal with it with any decency, don't run a website, or don't join one.

I have been comparing this place to the Soviet Union for a long time, and now look, you've even got naming and shaming. Just get some fucking shiny medals and have a parade already. When do we start sending the poets to Siberia?

I just can't believe the hypocrisy in everyone hating things like the church of scientology, and then openly starting a manhunt in the forum. "possible gender issues" ??? Fuck. You don't even realise how serious this could be.

If he kills himself when his parents find out, how are you gonna feel about your "google-fu" then?

Fucking retards. If I hadn't made some good friends here who I want to stay in touch with, I'd delete my account immediately. I might moan about rule changes around here but fuck, you just took it to a whole new level. At least I thought you were nice people.

I feel it is appropriate to use the words of Jon Stewart:

Fuck you.

i don't understand anything any more. half of this seems like what i have been asking for for months, the other half seems like rule soup.

Just... unfathomable. Every time there's a rule change, the complexity increases.

requeue made sense as it was when I first joined: it was a way for a privileged someone (besides the poster, I think) to give a video another chance.

Recently it was decided to halve queue times, but simultaneously grant unlimited requeues thereby making queue time limits irrelevant because anything can be kept in the queue indefinitely... unless you have a job to go to or kids to take care of.

I've submitted 2 videos since then, both at the same time. They both died in the queue on day 4 because I was running late for work and didn't have time to requeue that morning. I've since decided that I won't be doing any sifting until the rules change. I don't need a second job; especially not one which doesn't pay anything.

ahhh that's a shame, i am not privileged any more.

well, the rule changes sure do keep things fun around here.

hmmm yeah.

everything's retarded.

you're not though!

In reply to this comment by maatc:
* promote is the new save

* tuesdays are the new saturday

In reply to this comment by MINK:
save? how to do that? so many retarded rule changes i lost track.

*save doesn't seem to be listed here.

and anyway, i shouldn't have to run around fixing the queue.

* promote is the new save

* tuesdays are the new saturday

In reply to this comment by MINK:
save? how to do that? so many retarded rule changes i lost track.

*save doesn't seem to be listed here.

and anyway, i shouldn't have to run around fixing the queue.

save? how to do that? so many retarded rule changes i lost track.

*save doesn't seem to be listed here.

and anyway, i shouldn't have to run around fixing the queue.

Oh dear. This is sort of what I do for a living, so I probably will write too much, but I can't resist.

In essence, I agree with Johnald_Chaffinch, although there are caveats. That is, you must write to audiences, and people judge you by your writing. If you write to one audience using the manner of another, they will be more resistant to your message. I assure you, the number of people who will think less of you for using a plural verb with a singular noun is not small. Not that I necessarily like this (I hate it that my colleagues think less of someone who says "the data is..." instead of "the data are..." but they do), but I don't make the rules. No one person makes the rules. In some sense, the rules change like a probability wave, and deciding when you don't care to follow an old rule is not a simple thing to do consciously, though it is often very simple if you do it unconsciously.

Now grammar proscribers are often annoying, and often ill-informed (such as when people in America started railing against the word "hopefully" being used as a sentential adverb meaning "it is to be hoped" when it had been used in that manner for, literally, centuries), but not everyone who wants to talk about historically correct usage of words is wrong, and some are very entertaining. For people who like that sort of thing, Bill Bryson, the Fowler Brothers, and Lynn Truss are pretty darn entertaining, and knowing what they have to say will never hurt you when it comes to communication.

Pride is as brutal as this, and this footage was taken from the days before many of the rule changes. What you see above is why it got banned. Today the UFC is much more tame. Still good stuff but not like what you see above.

It seems my comments have been mis-construed into some kind of Witch Hunt, which I never intended...And I know only too well what one is; as a relative was burnt as a witch (possibly why my mums side of the family is full of martyrs!) Plus, I've been on the receiving end of incorrect 'trigger-happy' discards myself in the past (but I certainly don't blame anyone, as the rules are vague). Anyway: I'm a person of principle - if somethings against my ethics then I'll have no conscious part of it in a very vocal way (what hasn't helped me gain friends or votes here!) This is certainly one of those occasions, so let me explain why:

A. Like I've said previously, I think the change would create a two-tiered level of users - those who've earned the right to bend the rules and the new/unappreciated users. I'd find that a little hypocritical and certainly a confusing rule - this would have put me off when joining a few months ago (and repulses me even more with my 'in' status).

B. Instead of searching the web video portals, the bit-torrent network would be more reliable source of videos to submit. Thereby adding another barrier to those who won't look into the darkside of the internet or don't know how to edit/convert video, which leads to:

C. Allowing self-links maybe seen as encouraging copyright infringement - at the moment we're finding links posted by others, if Sifters are adding content (such as the multitude of BBC/C4 docs I've sifted) it will reflect badly on the site itself. For instance, if I worked for major media looking for copyright web-videos to take down, the Sift would be my favourite site (we do all the work they don't want to!)

Example scenarios where the proposed rule change fails:

1. A corporate marketing employee/self-employed agency registers on the Sift and publishes 50 good videos/SiftTalks, easily done as a full-time job spent astro-turfing. After getting a foot in the Gold door (possibly using the same corporations sub-companies virals etc) - the marketer can get down to work.

2. I could make a video directly promoting my work or that of my employer, even submitted to my own host account and add everything except an email address. Basicly, anything I wanted to Sift-Off could be easily submitted at will and commented as such - I'd prefer it's return as a separate section with the top 3 prize of being allowed.

3. In protest of the rule change; I sell my profile to the highest bidder on e-Bay...Thereby earning a nice profit on the cost of the (then) 6 months upgrade and time spent. The buyer is then well within the rules (of the proposed and current ones) to post whatever they want, from whatever source they like.

I have no doubt the Sifters commenting here only want to share good videos with this great community. But using the same community to host or submit the video is an addition to the social bindings that I feel are the biggest attraction on the Sift. Personally, I would be disappointed to see sanctioned self-links being added to the rules for anyone of any status - I could only possibly envisage two allowances: (I've run out of listings, so I'm using smileys!)

Self-link replacements to dead Sifts could possibly be an exception, but difficult due to explanation C (dead for a reason?)

The Gold, Silver & Bronze Sift-Off winners (or more from channels?) get their video legitimately published to the Sift's front with a trophy - as the prizes for a more frequent event (weekly/fortnightly/monthly)

P.S: Sorry Ren, my comment wasn't directed at yourself (I also positively voted and commented for both, I believe) - but a good example of why something needs to change.

I'm confused, the vote says 63% (19 votes) for no rule change, 27% (8 votes) for self-links and 10% (3 votes) for others & suggestions.