Your video, GOP's Little Rule Change They Hoped You Wouldn't Notice, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

This achievement has earned you your "Pop Star" Level 30 Badge!

>> ^bobknight33:

Single payer system will drive up costs and inefficiencies. What these guys are doing is a good thing. Putting up prices and letting you decide.

If Coke was the only drink in to have then they would no no issue to set the price high. As soon as a competitor shows up and delivers a comparable product at a lesser price the true price of the product will be discovered.

>> ^Yogi:

>> ^bobknight33:
Obamacare is not driving out the cost of healthcare for this group. Capitalism is.
from the text above:
The major cause of exploding U.S. heath care costs is the third-party payer system, a text-book concept in which A buys goods or services from B that are paid for by C. Because private insurance companies or the government generally pick up most of the tab for medical services, patients don't have the normal incentive to seek out value.
The Government gave us the third party payer system during WWII. Government is at fault.

Patients shouldn't have to "Seek out value." They're busy, usually being sick, or trying to work while being sick. It shouldn't be a for profit industry, everyone should have healthcare it should be a single payer system.



sorry i live in a "single payer system"

i know people who work in multiple departments/sectors of healthcare...everything from doctors, to home care, to IT

and i can say with full knowledge and satisfaction, that your statement that a single payer system drives up costs/inefficiencies is either ill informed, or completely full of bs...

the notion of competition as being the great equalizer is moronic, in a system where insurance companies spend 100s of millions of dollars lobbying to get the game rules changed in their favor... insurance companies main goal is to make profit... they do that by minimizing cost/quality of service while maximizing return... if you can't see how that contradicts the purpose of health care, you are either naive or morally bankrupt

the arguement that businesses are held to be more financially responsible than government is also a lie... a business only has the financial obligation to report accurate numbers while being fiscally sound... the government has that exact same obligation, but further more has to show VALUE for what it is doing

your argument about Coke mystically assumes Coke is the only drink, thus they could set the price at whatever they want... I assume you are making the arguement that Coke is healthcare? but a company who's goal is to sell coke to make profit... that's an insurance company.... a company who has to be accountable to the people giving it money while making sure that the MOST people have cheap and easy access to coke... that'd be the government

you can either argue that government operates the same as business (as you are trying to do with your horrible coke analogy), or you can argue that they operate differently (as most people who back the business produces better financial results than government argue)... but you don't get to argue both in the space of 2 paragraphs

you, sir or madam, have taken a big old swig of the kool-aid

>> ^Stormsinger:

I've seen a few summaries on YT that were just as deserving of attention as the video itself. I'd hate to see a hard-line rule mean we didn't get to see those. But they're pretty rare, so I'd likely never really notice.


I am with you there mate, I'm certainly not trying to ask for a rule change or a hard and fast rule, just wondering what people's thoughts are

>> ^bmacs27:

@JiggaJonson, you still haven't gotten why they were cheering losing their own quarterback. It had nothing to do with cheering a hit. It had to do with being happy their shitty QB wouldn't be starting anymore. It's not bloodthirstiness. It's a roster issue.
@Yogi, people die from playing all sports every year. That's my point. Soccer is often considered the worst for concussions (as repeated low level concussions are more problematic than single big ones given time to heal) and cardiac arrest concerns (talk about over exertion) and basketball is often considered the worst for overall injuries (e.g. joints). I don't think football is unique in this regard, and at least they are trying to make rule changes to do something about it. If you want to stop concussions, don't allow headers in soccer, or make them all wear helmets and padding. Go ahead and see how that flies with their fans.
Finally, why is this guy wrong to criticize fans for cheering an injured human being? Because of your stereotyping of football fans? That's a specious argument to say the least.


He's wrong because they're the customer. If he doesn't like the customers demands he should pack it in. The point is he's saying this isn't the Roman Colosseum when it clearly is, because the fans decide what they cheer and they've been cheering big injuries for awhile now. They're the blood thirsty mob, if you don't like it than don't participate. I didn't play my senior year of High School Football, largely because I was congratulated by half the defense after injuring the other teams QB so badly he needed to be Airlifted off the field in case of paralyzation. He got up luckily, we got to see a Helicopter land and take off on our field.

High School coaches have always taught kids how to hurt the opponent, you've done a good thing if you put their star player out of the game. This is the sport, this is how it works.

@JiggaJonson, you still haven't gotten why they were cheering losing their own quarterback. It had nothing to do with cheering a hit. It had to do with being happy their shitty QB wouldn't be starting anymore. It's not bloodthirstiness. It's a roster issue.

@Yogi, people die from playing all sports every year. That's my point. Soccer is often considered the worst for concussions (as repeated low level concussions are more problematic than single big ones given time to heal) and cardiac arrest concerns (talk about over exertion) and basketball is often considered the worst for overall injuries (e.g. joints). I don't think football is unique in this regard, and at least they are trying to make rule changes to do something about it. If you want to stop concussions, don't allow headers in soccer, or make them all wear helmets and padding. Go ahead and see how that flies with their fans.

Finally, why is this guy wrong to criticize fans for cheering an injured human being? Because of your stereotyping of football fans? That's a specious argument to say the least.

>> ^wax66:

Didn't even need to see the emotional end. She got into the song and it was an instant upvote. I seriously hope I can buy and download one of her songs some day.



You could have done - except there was a strong possibility she was going to beat "Little Mix" (last years winners) to number one this week. Following a swift rule change she was forced to pull the track from itunes - even though it's still showing at number 5 in the midweek charts.

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/showbiz/tv/x_factor/article4509410.ece

>> ^legacy0100:

It would be great to know all the different ways of earning a star point in the current system.
VideoSift has gone through multiple upgrades and rule changes throughout the years. So for those of us who hasn't been keeping track are lost without a proper information listed on the FAQ section.


I believe that currently, the only way to earn a star point is by getting a video sifted -- all the other things that used to reward star points (e.g. getting 15 votes on a comment or fixing a dead embed) now reward power points.

It would be great to know all the different ways of earning a star point in the current system.

VideoSift has gone through multiple upgrades and rule changes throughout the years. So for those of us who hasn't been keeping track are lost without a proper information listed on the FAQ section.

also http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/25/nyregion/in-new-jersey-rules-changed-on-witness-ids.html?_r=1

I think people who fuck up need to be punished more readily.

If people don't give a shit about the details then adding this invocation may just lead to dupeof/notdupe wars.

What we need to do is hobble or suspend people who screw it up out of blatant negligence. And before we can really do that, we need the written rule changed to match the rule that was voted into place a month or so ago.

The law they're breaking? Protesting in a Memorial. You can't protest anywhere in the parks without a permit. Everyone IS treated equally. The video itself is incriminating. It's labeled from a protest group as a protest video. It's not legal to protest without a permit in the parks.

An officer does not have to tell you what law you are breaking to arrest you. That's mythology. I know because I've been through it. It's the DA's job to figure that out. If the officer couldn't name exactly what you are being arrested for he has an attorney that will do it for him. That's why you need one too. In fact, in most places disobeying an officer is a crime. That's because police have a hard job, shitty pay, and should be respected, even if they're not articulate.

This makes it a very very bad idea to disobey an officer even if he doesn't communicate well ... but then maybe you weren't listening. In spite of the 1 in 10,000 instances that everyone hears about, the rest of the times the "dissident" loses.

If I'm at the capital I don't want my opportunity to visit sites disrupted by people, who I may or may not agree with in most general terms, breaking the Equal Rules For All concerning the management of protest traffic. You don't get to ruin innocent people's day just because you didn't get something you want. That's not being civil. If you want the rules changed you have to show that you're willing to live in the rules that do work. MLK would agree, I'm sure. Go dance outside and leave the Jefferson pilgrims the hell alone.

Yes, dancing is a visual distraction.

>> ^gwiz665:

We have established in earlier discussions that it is a rule, so don't go around confusing new members by saying it's not. Just because whoever writes this stuff down has dropped the ball, doesn't mean all of us have to suffer. This is not legal territory, just because it's not written down, doesn't mean it's not there.

So am I supposed to read all comments on the site every day in order to figure out what the rules are? If people disagree about what the rules are supposed to be, who do I believe? Do I have to count for and against and go with the majority?

Idiotic indeed.

It's one thing to follow precedent where the rules are vague or completely silent, however the posting guidelines clearly state that excerpts are dupes.

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. The only exception to this is if the change in audio makes a significant difference to the video content.

For example, let's say you post a 1-minute video which is an excerpt of a 15-minute video that I posted previously. You've got 1 minute of "content" there. That content is, in fact, "already on VideoSift in a published, queued, personal queued, or dead video submission".

There's no room for debate about what the current rule says. It's right there in black and white for anyone willing and able to read it.

Now, to be clear, I've got no problem with people campaigning for rules changes and/or clarifications; I feel like I've been doing just that since the day I signed up; I just don't support this particular rules change. I'll still follow it if it's adopted. I would just ask that we take a little time and make sure we're very clear in rewriting that rule if we do. There will be sticky spots if we allow excerpts:

How long does a video have to be before we allow excerpts? *long?
How short does a video have to be to count as an excerpt? Certainly a 9:30 excerpt of a 10:00 video is not desirable? *brief only?

@bareboards2: I'm not talking about you when I talk about hurt feelings. I'm not talking about anyone specifically, actually.

@gwiz665: I'm not sure modeling ourselves on xbox live or reddit is something we ought to do. Personally, I like that there's a forum that I can peruse without being assaulted by "n00b fag!" comments.

The thing about unwritten rules... they're not rules. You've been claiming since you joined up that excepts of long videos are allowed and aren't dupes. Clearly it's a rule you'd like to see in play, but it's also not a rule as of now. Excerpts are dupes no matter how long the original is. By all means campaign for that rule change; I bet you could drum up support pretty quickly; but don't keep telling people that rule is already in effect when it's not. You're just confusing new members and then they get upset when their post is discarded.

>> ^JAPR:

Two different vids, clearly. If he were to post like a billion snippets or whatever, that's one thing, but I see nothing wrong with a long vid and one concise good point out of it that stands well on its own.


Then initiate a poll to have the rules changed.

*dupeof=http://videosift.com/video/Bertrand-Russell-BBC-1959-Interview

>> ^gwiz665:

What if you were born there?


Oh, well, um... well, you can just leave if you don't like the rules, so, you know, like yeah... It's the same. I guess, like, the way you should look at this and stuff is just, you know, um, if you don't like the rules, change them or leave or whatever, you know, kind of like how the slaves couldn't do that and should've just left, and the Jews in Germany and stuff?