I have set a Sift Precedent with my invocation .

My compliments to Lucky for setting up code which processed the transfer so efficiently - interestingly, burdturgler's downvote on the original was deleted in the process of this operation. That's some smart coding. My apologies to the four downvoters below in case they planned on upvoting; I consider this action infinitely more efficient than waiting for all 105 (as of this time) voters to enter their votes a second time.

There's no problem with submitting this post and starting over with it, but it was made pretty clear here and here that dupeof should not have been invoked on the first sift.

Heh, I completely was MIA for that sift talk.

The policy makes sense to avoid people toying with their own sifts. I've invoked the command as a third party, though... (since that's what the system is hardcoded to limit, of course).

Time to join that conversation.

The point is to avoid exactly what happened here. Dupeof exists to reward the original submitter of content. Not to transfer votes to someone who submits content later. The solution now in my opinion is to let Grimm discard this and resubmit it.

Well no, I'm challenging the consensus on the sift talk. We only started to form that opinion four days ago.

I consider it a complete waste of time to have 100+ people reload a page like this when they've already expressed their opinion regarding this sift.

It's ok by me, Krupo.

Now, someone neutralize my downvote and someone else add an upvote for me

Cool - see? It was a fantastic idea. (1:08)

Don't get me wrong. I'm glad Grimm submitted this and I'm happy for him to get the votes, but I think it's wrong to use dupeof this way and it's because this is not a precedent that that sift talk post was made. I'm going to leave it at that and let it get hashed out over there because apparently wherever this embed goes I wind up bitching on it.

Congratulations on over a 100 sloppy seconds! And yes I would have upvoted this, definitely. Sorry you guys who downvoted the original video...things just seem to work a little odd around here.

*islam

Sorry Grimm, but yeah this does violate the re-post *dupeof rule, and obviously my check to prevent it isn't working properly at the moment.

Grimm, please resubmit and everyone else please do not invoke dupeof.

*kill

This must be hard for Turd McBurgerson. First he voted against the video...then for it...now his vote is redacted altogether. Gotta stop messing with a man's vote, eh?

*lies

Adding video to channels (Lies) - requested by CaptainPlanet420.

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

*kill

Just for the record I had no knowledge that Krupo (or anyone else) was going to invoke dupeof. I just figured the video deserved it's place here and hopefully without all the baggage that came from the original posting of it (which is why I didn't even mention it).

It's been re-resubmitted here.

http://www.videosift.com/video/Dick-Cheney-Indicted-by-Texas-Grand-Jury-1