This is bound to get confused with my coming channel *quickie.

I think I'm going to abstain from this one -- I'd feel like too big of a jerk to try deny someone a channel that they want to create, but at the same time, this seems way too broad and impossible to define. You could probably make an argument for something like 90% of the videos on here to fall under a quirky channel. And who's to say what is and is not quirky? I might find something quirky that someone else finds completely normal, and vice versa.

Meh, I'm inclined to let it in since we have a * willhelm channel (which is fucking stupid) but as much as that was too specific, this is too general to be useful.

It seems to fit nicely with my favourite playlist! http://videosift.com/playlists/Ornthoron/Hail-to-the-absurd

I say aye.

>> ^Sarzy:

And who's to say what is and is not quirky?


Well me, of course.

>> ^shuac:

>> ^Sarzy:
And who's to say what is and is not quirky?

Well me, of course.


Well, sure, and that's why this channel sounds more like a great idea for a playlist you should create than for an actual channel. It's way too broad and subjective. It would be like if someone wanted to create a *cool channel, for videos that are cool or have cool people in them, or a *delightful channel, for videos that are delightful.

Sounds a bit like * obscure to me.

>> ^kymbos:

Sounds a bit like obscure to me.


seconded

Being a quirky kinda guy, I think it's a great idea.

>> ^kymbos:

Sounds a bit like obscure to me.


I wouldn't say so, considering the description of the obscure channel:

"The Obscure Collective seeks to highlight obscure video clips from the music, animation and movie world. But mostly music."

I think that "quirky" is far too subjective.

Well just looking at the comments here I can see it would be confusing.

Although @shuac has defined it as an off-beat visual media channel we already have to discuss what fits. Quirky is extremely broad and visual media is everything on VS. I'm already confused by the channels (what the fuck is *willhelm any way?).

I say let shuac have his channel and @ant can arbitrarily put things in it--or take them out--depending on his mood that day.

I say the more the merrier. Great channel. As good as any of the other ones.

>> ^Ornthoron:

>> ^kymbos:
Sounds a bit like obscure to me.

I wouldn't say so, considering the description of the obscure channel:
"The Obscure Collective seeks to highlight obscure video clips from the music, animation and movie world. But mostly music."

The particular element that makes something suitable for the Quirky channel is "overtly producing something that's not necessarily meant for widespread appeal" like a piece of art that speaks to only a tiny handful of people.

That sounds to me like what the word "obscure" means.

The Quirky channel is mainly a subset of movies ... but it also applies to most other visual media [including] music

So, it's for video clips, including music, but mostly movies, while obscure is for video clips, including movies, but mostly music.

Seems like a lot of overlap there to me.

Just saying. I'm still inclined to stick with the "how can we refuse anyone anything in the post-wilhelm era", but I think this much overlap might be reason enough for me to go the other way on this.

I don't like the name quirky, but I'd lurve a *weird or *subversive channel. *subversive is badass the more I think of it. Do it. Do it. Do it. </peer pressure>

Just thought it worth pointing out that this whole "Post-Wilhelm Era" term seems a bit misunderstood. The reason we do these polls when a new channel is proposed is specifically because of the Wilhelm channel.

The entire point of this poll is to potentially avoid activating new channels that probably shouldn't be activated. If everyone thinks "well wilhelm exists, so why shouldn't this," then there's no point in taking a poll at all.

Bottom line is: don't let the existence of one poorly-conceived channel convince you to allow another one.

Booooo... I love the Wilhelm Channel!

Say what you want about #wilhelm, it's certainly not subjective.

This is #obscure all over again, but with a name that doesn't reflect the content.

>> ^Sarzy:

I think I'm going to abstain from this one -- I'd feel like too big of a jerk to try deny someone a channel that they want to create, but at the same time, this seems way too broad and impossible to define. You could probably make an argument for something like 90% of the videos on here to fall under a quirky channel. And who's to say what is and is not quirky? I might find something quirky that someone else finds completely normal, and vice versa.

You're apparently completely against this channel and willing to state it publicly. Why not just make it official? Don't think of it as being a jerk; it's just QA.

It's not like @shuac can't have a channel because this one gets denied. He can still try something else, or even refine this one and try again.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

Also enjoy the Wilhelm channel - but agree with Lucky of course.>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

Booooo... I love the Wilhelm Channel!

>> ^xxovercastxx:

>> ^Sarzy:
I think I'm going to abstain from this one -- I'd feel like too big of a jerk to try deny someone a channel that they want to create, but at the same time, this seems way too broad and impossible to define. You could probably make an argument for something like 90% of the videos on here to fall under a quirky channel. And who's to say what is and is not quirky? I might find something quirky that someone else finds completely normal, and vice versa.
You're apparently completely against this channel and willing to state it publicly. Why not just make it official? Don't think of it as being a jerk; it's just QA.
It's not like @shuac can't have a channel because this one gets denied. He can still try something else, or even refine this one and try again.


Agreed. I don't take it personally, trust me. Vote how you want. My circuitry doesn't allow personality is such that if this doesn't go thru...no biggie. I've got more channel ideas too. The next one I try may be too narrow...but we'll find out!

F!*@ that Shuac. Don't be so reasonable. I'm down-voting every new channel suggestion that anyone else makes from now on in retribution.

@dag, I was thinking the waronterror channel should be changed to just the war channel, considering that "the war on terror" is a) an archaic concept and b) a propaganda term to begin with.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

@dag, I was thinking the waronterror channel should be changed to just the war channel, considering that "the war on terror" is a) an archaic concept and b) a propaganda term to begin with.


The war on terror is ideological. What if there was a war channel also?

>> ^lucky760:


Bottom line is: don't let the existence of one poorly-conceived channel convince you to allow another one.

I'm glad you at least admit the Wilhelm channel was poorly conceived.

>> ^JiggaJonson:

>> ^lucky760:

Bottom line is: don't let the existence of one poorly-conceived channel convince you to allow another one.

I'm glad you at least admit the Wilhelm channel was poorly conceived.


Reading back, perhaps my words were poorly chosen. I personally like Wilhelm, especially every time I hear the scream more and more in new movies and TV shows. It's an uber-specific channel, but there's always more content for it and I think it's really fun.

My point was if you think any existing channel was poorly-conceived (Wilhelm or not), don't use that as a reason to permit a new channel that you think is also poorly-conceived.

Sounds like my chances of creating a *videobetween120and125secondslong channel are slim.

Feels a bit nebulous to me. Does sound more like a playlist but then who really views playlists much anyway?

hmm, Like other people have said, I think its either
1: Too close to the "obscure" channel.
2: If its nothing like obscure, its really hard to define, and thereby could apply to almost anything.

On a related note, I really would like to see an "audio" channel, for those non-video videos. ( but that may be a bit boring for people to create..

I only voted 'no' because I don't wanna go back and re-channel 94% of my sifts.

Voting for this poll ended with the majority of users voting Deny.

I voted 'no', mostly because as a English-is-not-my-first-language I have enough problems with channels that exist already. I kind of get what might be 'obscure', to me 'quirky' sounds like 'perky obscure' , and with either one, I am not crystal clear. Not to mentions channels like 'grindhouse', 'debunked'.. not that I am likely to sift anything to go on to those channels anyway.

I just think it would be nice if it was crystal clear what goes to a specific channel. Maybe because I am also a blonde, I always have problems with my channel assignments. Luckily most people are helpful abd NICE and they add correct channels to my submissions, or change them to proper channels. All I am asking is that you are nice about it (and like I said, most people are).

But then, you should be nice about everything else too. I do not like rude comments abouut my channels, tags or titles. If you are rude, I am most likely to ignore you. This might be 'just online' , but rude comments are disrespectful and people should just try to be civil. But hey, I try not to read any comments because I know things can get pretty ugly in some fronts..

Anyway! Sorry shuac about not voting for your channel. I just would love to see something a bit easier to define. I hope you have several other choices in mind, I had plenty when I was making mine.

OK, we'll see how long it takes for me to start thinking I never should have posted this comment..