Congrats, dude!

Thank you for the promote, oritteropo! I was away for the weekend and couldn't respond. I actually know Peter Elkas. My fiance used to manage him!
In reply to this comment by oritteropo:
*promote

Thank you for the quality, lampishthing! I was away for the weekend and couldn't respond
In reply to this comment by lampishthing:
THIS IS THE BEST THING MANKIND HAS EVER CREATED *QUALITY

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

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

Thanks!
In reply to this comment by ponceleon:
*quality

Thank you for the extra help! I owe you!
In reply to this comment by oritteropo:
*promote

Thank you!
In reply to this comment by oritteropo:
*quality

Thank you for all of your contributions to the sift.

Congratulations on losing your "P!"

Thank you!
In reply to this comment by jonny:
*promote

Thank you very much!
In reply to this comment by oritteropo:
*quality

Hells yeah! Your power point wasn't for naught!
In reply to this comment by jonny:
hah hah! I told you it was a top 15! :
In reply to this comment by Fusionaut:
Thank you!
In reply to this comment by jonny:
*promote

Thank you!
In reply to this comment by jonny:
*promote

http://tywkiwdbi.blogspot.ca/2012/05/this-is-golden-eagle-wielding-knife.html