"I'll address a few comments in paraphrased form. "this is fake." Yes a good portion of the scenes on here are FAKE, if you have any question as to which scenes are real and which are fake you should refer to the thousands of sites on the web which tell you whether the scene in question is real or not. "This is gross." Then why did you google it? "This should be taken down from Google Video" Google Video said otherwise, not everyone who googles this type of stuff are snuff junkies who get off by watching people die, this film actually does have some value." - youtuber

If you want to *discuss this do it. If you want to discard one of my videos, do it with more than one cheerleader.

This video is being sent to Sift Talk for discussion - discuss requested by MrFisk.

I love you and your pre-emptive invocations frisky

Uhh, can we have some kind of summary other than a YouTuber on the rag please?

I know most of this is fake, but the stuff that is real is snuff. What value does it have other than to shock? Doesn't belong here.

1- at least a couple of the shown deaths are real.
2- the movie has been made for entertainment

= worthy of discard in the sift's definition. like i said in the previous topic, i totally agree with a discard.

"Faces of Death" is certainly not a snuff film according to the relatively strict official AFU definition. It purports to be a compilation of footage of death, collected by somebody named Doctor Gross [sheesh] as a result of his researches into the nature of death. There are only three sequences in the entire 100 minutes that depict probably genuine deaths. One is news footage of what appears to be a political assassination at a French news conference, the second is a skydiver falling to his death at an airshow, and the third is a botched movie stunt. The famous alligator and bear attack scenes are staged, and neither scene actually shows the victim being chomped or mauled. The monkey brain dinner scene also is unconvincing."

Okay, now let's target the three deaths that should sway the jury yay or nay:
1. "One is news footage of what appears to be a political assassination at a French news conference,"
This is news worthy and would make it onto the sift, presumably, posted by krono with an explanation of why this is news and not snuff.
2."the second is a skydiver falling to his death at an airshow,"
I would argue this as being a tragic news event, also.
3."and the third is a botched movie stunt,"
This is the most questionable of the three, in my opinion, and I would still say this would fall into a fail, tragic, wtf, news event.

A skydiver falling to his death and a botched movie stunt might both be news events, but news outlets wouldn't show the actual deaths. They would simply report them.

This movie doesn't pretend to be newsworthy; it just shows death for the sake of shock entertainment. Still snuff.

^You mean they wouldn't be shown on Quaker-ass American T.V.

Certainly snuff by videosift standard. Death for entertainment.

http://www.videosift.com/video/Children-of-the-Corn-Intro

Wait a minute ... this has been Sifted before....
http://www.videosift.com/video/Faces-Of-Death

See comments in that for full list of "death" scenes, or clicky here:
http://tafkac.org/movies/faces_of_death_review.html

"Wait a minute ... this has been Sifted before...."

sifted and discarded yes, but i guess we need a couple more people to say this either does or doesn't belong on the sift.

but to me it is SO obvious this isn't allowed by the sift's rules...(you might think the rule is unfair and should be changed, sure)

just look at the faq. see what it says. "^You mean they wouldn't be shown on Quaker-ass American T.V." and " Okay, now let's target the three deaths that should sway the jury yay or nay" are totally irrelevant for this jurymember aka 'cheerleader'. this is not a documentary or newsclip. this is a movie for entertainment made in fake documentary style. showing real people dying. at least 3. siftbot doesn't want that on his site. for me, it's as simple as that.

on an unrelated note, should this really be in 'comedy'?

wtf? why is this even being discussed? what is there to discuss?

I remain neutral. I don't care to watch it, so I don't press play. I don't see an issue with having it here, personally.

When I think snuff, I think of someone filming the murder of someone in a basement somewhere in New Jersey. But, that's me.

people like taking issue with things. if you don't like it, just avoid it! just by looking at the title and tags, people will avoid it if they're not interested in this sort of thing.

I guess community enforced rules is the same as no rules but that seems to be the trend lately in a couple of areas

>> ^blankfist:
I remain neutral. I don't care to watch it, so I don't press play. I don't see an issue with having it here, personally.
When I think snuff, I think of someone filming the murder of someone in a basement somewhere in New Jersey. But, that's me.

According to snopes, under those standards, there is no known snuff films in existance...

There is no context here as a news event - it's a movie made for entertainment that shows death.

*discard

When are we going to have a sifters bill of rights? In what form does freedom of speech exist on VideoNazi? Videosift is becoming larger than a collective of circle jerking puppy video watching assholes. And now with the 15 vote minimum the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.

Felt obliged to chirp in.

I've seen I dunno, approx. a third of this film and I think it's actually somewhat educational (the slaughterhouses, etc. - for example, since it made me come to a decision about commercial meat production and now I only buy my produce from natural farms). I honestly didn't feel like it was snuff per se while watching it. It's difficult for me to formulate my opinion in writing on this (it would take at least half a page, I really have a problem with being brief), but I feel bad that burdy took it down the first time. And, I'd like to hear how many of you folks that are declaring this snuff have actually watched it.

I'd like for MrFisk to give me the green light to discard this one and promote the old one (which got 4 votes until burdy discarded it).

P.S. We wouldn't be having this problem if the lot of you hadn't quit your jobs as Sifters: if you don't like something - downvote it so that the system discards it.

^I saw it years ago. That doesn't change my opinion about it.

We ARE doing our job as Sifters. We have the FAQ, which we are attempting to enforce by not allowing snuff to be posted. And this discussion isn't over yet, so don't discard this and promote the other, at least for now.

Ahhh, faces of death... I have a strange association with this movie. My first real girlfriend, back when I was 15. If there had been goths back in the mid 80s, she would have been one. She was definitely a "bad" girl. Lost our virginity one Sunday afternoon, awkward but a lot of fun...

Anyway, she moved away and I went to Indiana the following Summer to visit her. We rented this piece of crap. Funny thing is, I don't remember a damned thing about the movie, probably because I spent the time fondling her or something...

... good times... good times...

i heart you frisky.

this has narration.. somewhat of a plot.. and is presented as an intensely in-depth look into everything concerning death. i skipped through some of the more graphic scenes, but i found it to be intriguing and educational. if you want real snuff, go check out www.nothingtoxic.com or the odd liveleak video.. which is just straight up snuff, and is disgusting (i agree)

this has more value than the ones on those sites. i say give it a big warning in the summary/tags/title, and let it stay.

*nochannel

*fear
*Wtf
*Horrorshow
*Terrible
*Dark
*Fear
*Controversy

For: MrFisk, EndAll, EDD, ZombieGuerilla(?)
Against: Kronosposeidon, paul4dirt, pipp3355, gwiz665

What about the rest of you? Let's put this to the test and get one of the admins in on it too (they made the rules, after all).

Does it matter if this is snuff?

"4. Please do not post entire episodes of television shows or movies, unless you know beyond a shadow of a doubt they are in the public domain."

Either the FAQ gets changed or this gets discarded.
Sorry MrFisk. As I said when I discarded it the first time you posted it, it's nothing personal. The faces of death series, including this particular one, DO include actual deaths and they are promoted and sold as an entertainment franchise. If dag and company want to change the FAQ, then fine. Until then, this clearly meets the definition of snuff at VS.
>> ^EDD:
Felt obliged to chirp in....
I'd like for MrFisk to give me the green light to discard this one and promote the old one (which got 4 votes until burdy discarded it).

I'd like to point out it was 4 votes over almost 4 weeks. It's not like I killed some sift on it's way to top 15.

Fford makes a good point, I've never understood how whole movies/episodes get sifted, isn't it against the rules?

Please do not post entire episodes of television shows or movies, unless you know beyond a shadow of a doubt they are in the public domain.

I think "in the public domain" here means that you won't face any legal trouble for posting it, which is true in this case and a lot of the documentaries that get sifted. I haven't ever seen a full movie, per se, but lots of feature-length documentaries.

The whole is more than the sum of its parts. - Aristotle
Considering the three scenes in question, and assuming they are not fake, this should be taken into consideration when deliberating discards. Does 5% of a video eliminate the value of the rest?

The reason I was infuriated is because when I came home from work I discovered my video discarded by, what appeared to be, a two-man jury. (I'm sorry I called you a cheerleader dirtpaul, we're cool. Burdturgler, we're cool but I'm not regretting calling you a motherfucking cocksucker in the least bit, whatsoever. I understand and appreciate your passion concerning VideoSift, please respect others' as well.)

I propose a moratorium on discard powers until we mandate a 48-hour discuss prior to discard. It would allow the majority of the community to weigh in, as well as, allowing the original submitter to defend him or herself. I think it's abusive ability of power to discuss and discard, back-to-back, with minimal time and argument.

For the record, some of the videos I pride myself on the most are the ones with the fewest upvotes. Do what you will with this video; I've said my part.

It has real death scenes of no real value other than shock value? Snuff. * Discard it.

fford, Endall, ponce: We've discussed that particular rule at length earlier and the main reason it is there, it to prevent people to post entire episodes of series (simpsons, House etc.) and new movies running in the cinema right now. In all honesty, the rule should be scrapped/reworded, because its actual meaning is not its wording.

I think the majority thinks this is snuff, but I'll call in dag and lucky to make a ruling.

This unequivocally qualifies as snuff as defined by our posting guidelines.

*discard

Discarding this post - discard requested by member lucky760.