Folks make up all sorts of invocations.... a lot of them are quite funny.

I have seen *notdupe and *notadupe before, but it was always wishful thinking. Certainly wishful thinking when I typed it....

In reply to this comment by Shepppard:
Huh, I actually thought there already was a *Notdupe function.

Huh, I actually thought there already was a *Notdupe function.

Yes, yes, this is what I meant! I have edited the description to clarify.

Unwinding a completed dupe is not to be considered!!!!

Has hope been restored to me? oh please oh please....

>> ^arvana:

@lucky760 my understanding of the suggestion is that notdupe would cancel a dupeof before isdupe is called. I know that correcting a mistakenly duped video after isdupe would be a nightmare, but in between the two should be easy. amirite?

@lucky760 my understanding of the suggestion is that *notdupe would cancel a *dupeof before *isdupe is called. I know that correcting a mistakenly duped video after *isdupe would be a nightmare, but in between the two should be easy. amirite?

*notdupe might be like a third safety net for dupes.

I've been in about a half dozen situations where I wished that invocation was available.
I understand that the *dupeof invocation has the backup isdupe invocation.
But having the *notdupe would add more time for discussion on a video.

Maybe we need an invocation of "notdupe."

The person who duped me doesn't agree with you or gwiz. The person who isduped that particular vid is a self-described noobie who was trusting the first call of dupe. (I asked her -- this is what she told me.)

This is all tempest in a teapot. And. We are here because we like to do this.

Having a "notdupe" invocation could slow down the dupe process if there is a difference of opinion. Right now, all it takes is two people with a similar wrong notion (or innocence and trust) to knock out a perfectly good vid.

If it really is a dupe, it will get duped. If it isn't, it won't.




>> ^blankfist:

I didn't watch it. If it wasn't a dupe, it shouldn't've been dupeof'ed.
Not sure where people are getting the definition of a duplicate confused. An excerpt isn't a duplicate. A duplicate is a duplicate.

@chicchorea -- I don't know if you have seen Bone's most excellent logic.

It does seem to make sense. How do you know it is a dupe?

*notdupe

I'll try that.


>> ^BoneRemake:

no no no no no no. no.
The fact he duped it to a dead video is moot.
The fact he duped it to a video he has absolutely no way of proving that this video is a dupe of the other one, is where the questions should be centered.


Namaste.

*nodupe *notdupe *notadupe *negadupe *isnotadupe *antidupe

hmm, does this work? *notdupe

>> ^geo321:

A notdupe invocation might be handy if someone does a wrong initial invocation (like I did, I'm still sorry for that Ant)


NP, dude. I am still chuckling how we both messed up!

Notdupe would work if we had a form to enter that.

A *notdupe invocation might be handy if someone does a wrong initial invocation (like I did, I'm still sorry for that Ant)

>> ^ant:

>> ^SlipperyPete:
dupeof=http://videosift.com/video/How-a-Watch-Works

But it's only 9:43 long. Look at mine!


Sorry dude - you're right. I duped another of the same vid a couple of days ago, and saw the intro of yours and assumed the same.

*notdupe

The reason why I submitted the longer clip was that I saw jabba the Hutt and scenes from the return of the Jedi in the longer clip. The shorter clip has just astronauts. The long video has stuff from the movie - that's why I have the 'Leia approves' in the title



>> ^Hybrid:

Hmm. I see your point, and it was my bad in not noticing that the times were different. I can never remember what the best call is for potential dupes like this - where the time differs, but the intention/message of the clip remains the same. What do others think? Perhaps it needs a discussion? In the meantime, I'll call notdupe
<div><div style="margin: 10px; overflow: auto; width: 80%; float: left; position: relative;" class="convoPiece"> mintbbb said:<img style="margin: 4px 10px 10px; float: left; width: 40px;" src="http://static1.videosift.com/avatars/m/mintbbb-s.jpg" onerror="ph(this)"><div style="position: absolute; margin-left: 52px; padding-top: 1px; font-size: 10px;" class="commentarrow">◄</div><div style="padding: 8px; margin-left: 60px; margin-top: 2px; min-height: 30px;" class="nestedComment box"> If you want to call this a dupe, is OK. However, this is the whole song, and the other is a 1 minute 39 second clip. So technicall tyey are not dupes (I didn't notice the other submission when I submitted mine).
</div></div></div>
<div><div style="margin: 10px; overflow: auto; width: 80%; float: right; position: relative;" class="convoPiece"> Hybrid said:<img style="margin: 4px 10px 10px; float: right; width: 40px;" src="http://static1.videosift.com/avatars/h/Hybrid-s.jpg" onerror="ph(this)"><div style="position: absolute; margin-top: 1px; right: 52px; font-size: 10px;" class="commentarrow">►</div><div style="padding: 8px; margin-right: 60px; margin-top: 2px; min-height: 30px;" class="nestedComment box"> dupeof=http://videosift.com/video/Kicking-Ass-on-the-Keyboard
</div></div></div>

Hmmm, there is no *notdupe invocation. Shouldn't there be one to cancel the original dupeof invocation, @lucky760?