Stumble This | You should also watch “Stealth Tech: the Philadelphia Experiment” |
Forgive me if this has been submitted before, I couldn't find it on the site.
tags:
Comments 
who voted for this video
finch451
- rougy
- jonny
- reed
- dr20
- qruel
- MarineGunrock
who has this post bookmarked
lucky760
- looris
Time Displacement Experiment (2:16) Related Videos
 Time Lapse Clouds and Sunset (:23) very cool effect |  time displacement experimental video |  Adult panda sneezing 16 times in a row! |
Blog Videos Being Viewed Right Now
Top New Videos by Vote
Subscribe
Top 15 Sifters of All Time
Top 15 Sifters of the Past Week
VideoSift Links
It was * deaded before 3.0 - so what do we do from here? I know this situation has occurred before, but I don't know what the process is.
[edit] Oddly enough, the old vid is not dead, but just had the mature button on it, which VS seems to be able to get around now. hmmm, I think the policy I mentioned still applies, but I'm not sure. If a goldstar saves the older post at some point, this one immediately becomes a dupe. Let's get some more opinions. *blog
The original video has been +deaded, but it wasn't really dead.
It got discarded, but it shouldn't have been.
And this one comes up.
Well.
My opinion is that either the original video has been dead for a while and then resurrected, so the discard is correct, OR that it has never been dead. But in this case, it would mean that the original poster didn't even bother to check if the +dead was correct! So, discard is ok anyway.
That's my opinion, wait for others before +returning it.
It seems Hex should not have invoked *dead because he noted at the time that "YouTube is having some problems" with it. If he was aware there was just some problems being had and not that the video was "no longer available," he should not have invoked.
If the original was validly called dead, this would be a black & white issue and this new post would stay and the old would stay discarded.
IMO, the incorrectly discarded original should be returned to published status and this one should be discarded as a dupe. (Sorry finch451, but very good effort.)
LD: Do you concur, doctor?
AFAIK youtube video can be set as "private", i.e. not embeddable, so they are like dead.
But, if they can be both set and un-set private, it is possible (but I guess we have no way of knowing it) that it has been made private, and made public again later.
Just guessing.
But, for this specific plot in the vast grey area (that should never occur except by incorrect *dead invocation), here's a rule of thumb I think we can all agree to:Does everyone find this acceptable?
It's worth noting, though, that Hex acted in good faith, i.e., the video was inaccessible from the VS site. The question is, even if the video is still there on the host but not viewable here for whatever reason, does that mean it's dead or not?
Also, is it definitely the case that VS can now get around the host age verification pages?
A video is only dead if it is really dead. E.g., a message like "This video is no longer available" or "Embedding disabled" etc.
I will re-publish the original post and this one may be discarded at will.