I can follow this logic.

Agreed. I posted a video that was a dupe of a video from a different source, with different tags, that was also dead.

Was mine really a dupe? What was most disturbing is that it just disappears, and you have to think to go look at your "Killed" list to find out wtf happened.

One possibility is to have the code check the dates and make the older post the automatic "winner"

That said, I definitely agree that there is the possibility of abuse, admin "dupof" approval sounds like a good idea, the question is probably more of volume though. I would hate to create a lot of work for someone.

I love that gold stars now get Dupeof though. I love being able to quickly take care of them...

Ponce, it already does that. You can't dupeof to a newer video, siftbot throws insults at you for that.

I'd like it to be not admin powered as such, they have enough to do, but like ban.. more than one user has to approve of it.

>> ^ponceleon:
One possibility is to have the code check the dates and make the older post the automatic "winner"
That said, I definitely agree that there is the possibility of abuse, admin "dupof" approval sounds like a good idea, the question is probably more of volume though. I would hate to create a lot of work for someone.
I love that gold stars now get Dupeof though. I love being able to quickly take care of them...

Yes, I like having that power as well, but I just feel that there should be some sort of accountability for using it. At the moment, a malicious user could dupeof virtually any video he want to add votes to his own videos. There is no barrier against that, especially if he targets inactive users, who wouldn't wonder why their sifted video list and vote size keeps shrinking.

Creating the work is unfortunate, but is necessary since we want to have anyone from gold star and up be able to flag videos as possible dupes, but not the power to actually obliterate those videos at a whim. This, to me, suggests some sort of higher authority is required

I like it.

demon_ix, you cannot dupeof to your own videos. That's the safeguard against voterobbing.

>> ^gwiz665:
demon_ix, you cannot dupeof to your own videos. That's the safeguard against voterobbing.

So he'll team up with someone else, and they dupeof to each other. Not hard to get by.

Sure, but then there's a *CONSPIRACY afoot! But true, I think at least two people should approve of a dupeof. Just to make sure.

Adding post to channels (Conspiracy) - requested by gwiz665.

Yeah, a *yepitsadupe second invocation is also a viable solution.

Maybe this is a solution:

What if *dupeof sends the clips in question into a combined sift talk post (like a * discuss) and they stay there until somebody with the powers "*seconds" the dupeof call. Like when handling * bans.

That way you need two sifters opinions. Kinda like the codes for the nukes.

Just my opinion, but there has been over a thousand *dupeof invocations and only a very few mistakes. Considering how awesome it is (in its potential for abuse or misuse), I'd say it's working out really well.

There are dupes submitted to the site constantly. Having them all sent to committee or some dupe pool to be sorted out later will just suck. The quicker a dupe is dealt with the better imo, and creating a 2 person rule or anything like that will just slow down the process. People just need to be aware of what they're doing and careful in their invocations.

I agree it would be helpful if siftbot sent a profile message when your video is killed via dupeof. The last time I brought it up we got e-mail notification but Lucky didn't seem too keen on the profile message idea. Maybe that's changed.

There's actually the mistaken dupeof rasch187 had today, that started a different sift talk post, but I'm much more interested in this little chain of events:

>> ^siftbot:
This video has been declared a duplicate; transferring votes to the original video and killing this dupe - dupeof declared by rasch187.

>> ^siftbot:
This video has been incorrectly declared a duplicate - reversed dupeof declared by rasch187.

How did rasch187 do that? Is there a de-dupe invocation that can be used in these instances? Because I was under the impression dupeof was a one way street...

I think lucky had to go manually in and reverse it in the database.

Ah, I see. Like I thought originally, then.