>> ^BicycleRepairMan:

>> ^westy:
there should be an instant death penalty for people like this...
I mean realy its a fucking game ,

Dude, its just a fucking video too. And besides thats what makes it so funny, dude finds a shiny pony in a video game and goes mental.


lol yah i know ,

I guess its just sad seeing a kid this excited when it comes to something that's literally a dice roll.
adults are exploited with the same thing through gambling and TV shows like deal or no deal , just makes me depressed.

>> ^westy:
there should be an instant death penalty for people like this...
I mean realy its a fucking game ,


Dude, its just a fucking video too. And besides thats what makes it so funny, dude finds a shiny pony in a video game and goes mental.

>> ^ulysses1904:

As I posted on LiveLeak:
Did this really need a 40 second intro of a guy in a Halloween mask? Part of video editing skill includes pacing and this compilation really lacked it. The first clip played back in slow motion took forever to get to the point. At least it picked up after that but a lot of these are monotonous reposts. And the soundtrack was something out of "Drama Queen Loops Vol.6". Try again.


Agreed. It really blows when a video's editor has managed to detract from the value of the video by way of incompetence.

As I posted on LiveLeak:
Did this really need a 40 second intro of a guy in a Halloween mask? Part of video editing skill includes pacing and this compilation really lacked it. The first clip played back in slow motion took forever to get to the point. At least it picked up after that but a lot of these are monotonous reposts. And the soundtrack was something out of "Drama Queen Loops Vol.6". Try again.

this is obviously fake. If anything just look at that moment starting at 40 seconds in, when the person filming, starts laughing and shaking the camera. There are no cuts, yet one second the guy in the hay is at least 30 meters from the camera, and the next, is just right next to it.

FAKE.

Watched the first 40 seconds, and stopped. The music just destroys the piece.

I got about 40 seconds in and noticed that Tim Willits said that they've taken this genre to the next level with the addition of vehicle combat! If only I could have had vehicle combat in Half Life 2, oh no, I mean CoD4:MW2, no, hang on, I mean Far Cry 2, or was it Crysis, DAMMIT, it was Borderlands, I'm sure of it!!...

But, at least they have all new characters, I mean, I would have hated it if they used the same characters as they did in... well... 'RAGE 0: The Prequel' I guess.

Having said that, it does look pretty!

@ 40 seconds: That's red spy is a blue spy!

Agreed, 40 seconds shorter would have been perfect.

Ok, yeah, that was cute. Could of been 40 seconds shorter, but still I haven't quite gotten tired of the CSI jokes.

"Since you downvoted my apology, I'll add this."

I downvoted the comment that it was "just a few seconds". My post including ~40 seconds where Robertson calls the earthquake a blessing your original did not. I did not see your video until SP declared *dupeof, and I was annoyed because they were not the same video, as mine was ~50% longer and had additional content. I was more bothered by the fact that this has happened before and it still isn't fixed.

"You decided to passively aggressively scoop my video with 36 seconds of immaterial content."

This is crazy talk. I think you think I care way more about my sifts way more than I actually do. I have been on this site long enough that people know I have never done that, if you don't know me it is because my usage has tapered off lately. Irrespective of your conspiracy theory bullshit, SlipperyPete declared dupeof incorrectly. As per the definition of "dupe", it means a copy. If there was black screen or credits something of that degree padding my video, then I would agree it would be a dupe. But it contained ~50% more content and a completely different segment. You know that.

"My sift must have come up as a dupe; the titles are too similar."

The dupe checking function doesn't work that way. My impression is that it takes time to for he database to load the videos. If two videos are posted close together and have similar titles the dupe checker will not see the first one.

Ask Lucky or Dag I am sure he will say the same thing.

"Since you downvoted my apology, I'll add this."

I downvoted the comment that it was "just a few seconds". My post including ~40 seconds where Robertson calls the earthquake a blessing your original did not. I did not see your video until SP declared *dupeof, and I was annoyed because they were not the same video, as mine was ~50% longer and had additional content. I was more bothered by the fact that this has happened before and it still isn't fixed.

"Your video appeared almost 2 hours later. My sift must have come up as a dupe; the titles are too similar. You decided to passively aggressively scoop my video with 36 seconds of immaterial content."

This is crazy talk. I think you think I care way more about my sifts way more than I actually do. I have been on this sight long enough that people know I have never done that, if you don't know me it is because my usage has tapered off lately. Irrespective of your conspiracy theory bullshit, SlipperyPete declared dupeof incorrectly. As per the definition of "dupe", it means a copy. If there was black screen or credits something of that degree padding my video, then I would agree it would be a dupe. But it contained ~50% more content and a completely different segment. You know that.

How do you expect me to react when you repeatedly get hostile in this thread where the point that I am raising is that dupeof needs to be changed.

Moreover, I don't think the vote count matters here, it is the fact that dupeof should only be used when the videos are actually a dupe and that is not subjective.

Frankly, there is no way that you could confused a video with a full 40 seconds more content and a completely different introduction and source with Longde's video which at the time was less than a minute long. Seriously, you cant expect me to believe that you watched both videos.

3) Longde...
IMO, he just found a suitable replacement for his content. Which happened to be your content. Which would imply that they were worthy of being duped in the first place, no?

That is ridiculous logic. So you are saying that any subset is equal its set. Come on. Furthermore, there is precedence at videosift for that.

I'm not being hostile. I'm being trollish. There's a difference.
You've got your knickers in a twist over this, and I'm glad it's stimulating discussion.

And seriously, I did watch both videos. I have acknowledged that I did, and I still made the call. Would I do it again? Yes. Because they are essentially the same.

http://videosift.com/video/Dear-Mycroft-Love-SlipperyPete

In reply to this comment by MycroftHomlz:
How do you expect me to react when you repeatedly get hostile in the thread where I bring up the issue that dupeof needs to be changed.

Moreover, I don't think the vote count matters here, it is the fact that dupeof should only be used when the videos are actually a dupe and that is not subjective.

Frankly, there is no way that you could confused a video with a full 40 seconds more content and a completely different introduction and source with Longde's video which at the time was less than a minute long. Seriously, you cant expect me to believe that you watched both videos.

In reply to this comment by SlipperyPete:
I don't have any hard feelings towards you. I do resent getting stripped of privileges for what I feel was a correct invocation.
You're right, it's not about me.

Here is the chain of events:

1) We both post vids and use the same title.

OK.


2) Mine erroneously is declared a Dupe, because SlipperyPete either did not watch both videos or did not care.

No, I watched both videos and decided to call it a dupe because it essentially was. No, they weren't second-by-second identical, but I felt they were close enough to be declared as such. In addition, your video only had two votes on it at the time I duped it; hardly a sift-shattering event.


In reply to this comment by MycroftHomlz:
Why did you downvote that video? Simply because you got caught abusing your privileges? Look Pete, this isn't about you. This is about something that is wrong with videosift. Even at the time you declared my video a dupe, there was 36 seconds difference between them (and the video was only 59s long), and they had different thumbnails. I have no hard feelings towards you, and I could not care less how you feel about me. I am just tired of this happening, when there seems to be an obvious solution.

How do you expect me to react when you repeatedly get hostile in the thread where I bring up the issue that dupeof needs to be changed.

Moreover, I don't think the vote count matters here, it is the fact that dupeof should only be used when the videos are actually a dupe and that is not subjective.

Frankly, there is no way that you could confused a video with a full 40 seconds more content and a completely different introduction and source with Longde's video which at the time was less than a minute long. Seriously, you cant expect me to believe that you watched both videos.

In reply to this comment by SlipperyPete:
I don't have any hard feelings towards you. I do resent getting stripped of privileges for what I feel was a correct invocation.
You're right, it's not about me.

Here is the chain of events:

1) We both post vids and use the same title.

OK.


2) Mine erroneously is declared a Dupe, because SlipperyPete either did not watch both videos or did not care.

No, I watched both videos and decided to call it a dupe because it essentially was. No, they weren't second-by-second identical, but I felt they were close enough to be declared as such. In addition, your video only had two votes on it at the time I duped it; hardly a sift-shattering event.


In reply to this comment by MycroftHomlz:
Why did you downvote that video? Simply because you got caught abusing your privileges? Look Pete, this isn't about you. This is about something that is wrong with videosift. Even at the time you declared my video a dupe, there was 36 seconds difference between them (and the video was only 59s long), and they had different thumbnails. I have no hard feelings towards you, and I could not care less how you feel about me. I am just tired of this happening, when there seems to be an obvious solution.