..I kept waiting for a punchline..or a joke.. But.. No.. No. Nothing but describing the price is right.

I guess this is what happens when Dane Cook tries to write his own material..

Tags for this video have been changed from 'lu, lu, lu, lu, lu' to 'Dane Cook, PIR, Price is right, nana' - edited by arsenault185

Dupe *discard
http://www.videosift.com/video/Dane-Cook-Insomniac-Tour-Language-NSFW

Discarding this post - discard requested by member arsenault185.

Can we *discuss?
As I object - this clip is shorter, but not exactly a dupe. That other video is his whole 20min set. This is a short one.

There have been short and long version of videos posted here before...usually political stuff.
Example (Elmo voice):

Edwards endorses Obama:

• short
  
• long

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

Is this being *discussed? Where?
Someone help please.

I have another example:

Samurai pulls off fastest submission in history

• short
  
• long
  
  Edit: fixed link mistake

Resurrected to *discuss doogle's opinion that this is in fact not a dupe.

Obviously I thought it was a dupe, as I discarded it. Heres my logic: The Sift has generally considered clips from much longer movies to stay as they have a point in themselves. I can see that, as it isolate one great part of an hour+ long movie, but as the entire set is only 20 minutes, and this clip is 1/4 of it, I don't believe that rule applies. Nothing Personal, doogle, and I love Dane Cook, but it was already there. Now had this been from a video of several comedians doing their bits, and that video was 45+ minutes, then I could agree that it would stay.

Well as far as the submission one, That was definitely a dupe. He duped himself. There is no getting around that, especially since the other version was only a couple minutes. I went ahead and discarded it. The newer shorter clip didn't offer anything extra.

well arsenault185, I can tell you're consistent! (Re: also labeling the other as a dupe as well) And I see your rationale here - it's a good one.

I do think I capture something here better than the longer version, and that would be determined by a collective agreement, which would be reflected in the votes, of which mine has 33 votes compared the longer one at 15 votes. I see that this makes a point as, from your logic, "clips from much longer movies to stay as they have a point in themselves" except not made specific to duration. Of course a slightly longer video would encompass and have duplicated the point (in themselves), but also concise expression can express a different point in themselves and having a point.

This bit from Dane Cook can be expressed more specifically in its concise context, that may be lost in his whole set, and the concision in this expresses it clearly, applying not as duplication but meaning in concision.

I hope this makes sense. Thanks for sharing your insight!

^ I can see what your saying, but the other video was posted almost 2 years ago. It seems like most videos from back then didn't get as many votes, unless it was something really special, or got promoted.

As far as pointing at a specific length, that would be something very difficult to do. Its all about perception.

This is 100%, by current definitions, a straight dupe. It is subsumed by the other submission. For it to not be a dupe, it would take a change in the way things are here. Perhaps that is arguable, but it certainly is totally clearcut that a later, shorter version is a dupe.

And I, for one, think it is fine that it is a dupe and is discarded. I would say if you want to pm the people who voted for the short version and point them at the long, go for it.

I think it's a dupe too. Three for discard, one for keep. Consensus achieved. *discard

Discarding this post - discard requested by member kronosposeidon.

*dupeof=http://www.videosift.com/video/Dane-Cook-Insomniac-Tour-Language-NSFW