same guy as the other guy *ban

http://videosift.com/video/Business-Administrator-Quotes-GodFather-Movie-in-Response

Just joined and with no comments this is the first sift.

equidave has been nominated for banination by burdturgler. This may be due to abuse or violations of the posting guidelines. If this nomination is seconded, the account will be permanently disabled.

TWO POINTS FOR ME !

clean up after yourself


Sweep sweep sweep sweep
*discard

Discarding this post - discard requested by member BoneRemake.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'wtf, york city, politics, godfather, libertarian, fail, orourke, crazy, mafia' to 'banned, redacted' - edited by burdturgler

I'm curious -- how did you know it is the same guy?


>> ^burdturgler:

same guy as the other guy ban
http://videosift.com/video/Business-Administrator-Quotes-G
odFather-Movie-in-Response
Just joined and with no comments this is the first sift.

@bareboards2

It was the same video posted from the same YT account by a new VS account created within hours of the first account here being banned for the same exact sift.

Things that don't go in it's favor:
Zero comments. Posting a sift instantly upon account creation. No votes for any sifts (including their own).

That video has 96 views on youtube. What do you think the odds are of two different people sifting the exact same thing with new VS accounts on the same fucking day when that has such little views (and most of them probably coming from VS)?

What if it is was a friend of the York? Who was chatting with his/hir buddy, said it got booted, and thought he would do a solid?

I just checked the rules. Doesn't say anything about friends posting friends videos.

"The video is associated with your account on the video host (i.e., you uploaded it to YouTube, Google Video, etc.).
You played any role, no matter how large or small, in any aspect of the production of the video.
You are in any way responsible for or involved in marketing, promoting, or any other manner of proliferating the video.
You could receive any form of compensation (monetary or otherwise) as a result of the submission or subsequent views.
You are somehow represented in the content of the video (whether photographically, artistically, audibly, or metaphorically) without the approval of a site administrator."

Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. Of course, I am a complete noob on the whole banning thing -- perhaps being autocratic really is best for the Sift.

I went and looked at the YouTube comments -- certainly this guy is a complete asswipe with a crap personality, based on his response to the banning. So maybe you are right. It's interesting that his first two comments were deleted -- I don't know by whom.

The whole thing fascinates me. I am such a noob....



>> ^burdturgler:

@bareboards2
It was the same video posted from the same YT account by a new VS account created within hours of the first account here being banned for the same exact sift.
Things that don't go in it's favor:
Zero comments. Posting a sift instantly upon account creation. No votes for any sifts (including their own).
That video has 96 views on youtube. What do you think the odds are of two different people doing the exact same thing with new VS accounts on the same fucking video that has such little views (and most of them probably coming from VS)?

There was nothing autocratic about it. Someone called *ban and someone else *banned.

>> ^bareboards2:

What if it is was a friend of the York? Who was chatting with his/hir buddy, said it got booted, and thought he would do a solid?
I just checked the rules. Doesn't say anything about friends posting friends videos.
"The video is associated with your account on the video host (i.e., you uploaded it to YouTube, Google Video, etc.).
You played any role, no matter how large or small, in any aspect of the production of the video.
You are in any way responsible for or involved in marketing, promoting, or any other manner of proliferating the video.
You could receive any form of compensation (monetary or otherwise) as a result of the submission or subsequent views.
You are somehow represented in the content of the video (whether photographically, artistically, audibly, or metaphorically) without the approval of a site administrator."
Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. Of course, I am a complete noob on the whole banning thing -- perhaps being autocratic really is best for the Sift.
I went and looked at the YouTube comments -- certainly this guy is a complete asswipe with a crap personality, based on his response to the banning. So maybe you are right. It's interesting that his first two comments were deleted -- I don't know by whom.
The whole thing fascinates me. I am such a noob....

>> ^burdturgler:
@bareboards2
It was the same video posted from the same YT account by a new VS account created within hours of the first account here being banned for the same exact sift.
Things that don't go in it's favor:
Zero comments. Posting a sift instantly upon account creation. No votes for any sifts (including their own).
That video has 96 views on youtube. What do you think the odds are of two different people doing the exact same thing with new VS accounts on the same fucking video that has such little views (and most of them probably coming from VS)?

edit .. doublepost

Members cannot second their own nominations for banination - ignoring repeat ban request by burdturgler.

^ that's the point

@burdturgler -- sorry for the use of the word "autocratic." I am still learning on this one.... equivdave and I are "chatting" on youtube -- I am being to think you guys are correct, it is the same person. I misunderstood one of the things you said before, and now see -- betteryork showed up as a new youtuber the same day he showed up on videosift -- I didn't understand that before.

^^Yo bareboards2-These dot the I's and cross the T's types...gotta watch out for em-!