The Virts' "Gambit" Video
- Thread starter James Smith
- Start date
So I was searching on Digg.com for the video and I searched Gambit and found it.
The thing is that it says it only has 11 diggs.
I think something got messed up.
I think you need to go to the actual page on digg and press the button to digg it.
Here's the link anyways.
http://digg.com/search?s=gambit
6th one down.
The thing is that it says it only has 11 diggs.
I think something got messed up.
I think you need to go to the actual page on digg and press the button to digg it.
Here's the link anyways.
http://digg.com/search?s=gambit
6th one down.
No, we did not artificially increase the amount of diggs, we just created accounts for ourselves so that we could digg the video. It would only be against the TOS if one person created multiple accounts.
Good God, have you even read the TOU? It clearly says that a collective effort by a community/group to manipulate a Digg count is against the rules. What part of that is difficult for you?
Yes, I read the TOS a couple of times. We did not manipulate the Digg count. Manipulating it would be doing something like one person creating multiple accounts so that they could Digg it a bunch of times. The only reason all of us are digging this is because we like the video. Isn't that the idea of digg.com, to digg things we like?
Ok, here's an example of us manipulating or "gaming" the digg community (hypothetical)
"Hey man, we should all create a bunch of accounts (like five each) and then digg it and leave lots of comments."
This is what we did:
"Hey guys, we should digg the video since we like it so much. That way other people will see it too."
Do you see the difference. We did not organize ourselves to manipulate the diggs, we just told other people about it. I'm waiting for a reply from Digg.com to see what they think.
Jesus, you really don't know how to read, my english it's pretty bad, so I'll wait until Ineski or someone actually comes here and explain.
Ok, I read the TOS again, and how I am interpreting it what we did was not in violation of the terms of service. If someone can better explain it, then I'll be happy to change my mind.
Holy s***
First of all,
Manipulate: \mə-ˈni-pyə-ˌlāt\
to change by artful or unfair means so as to serve one's purpose.
Did you just ignore my post altogether? I mean, you quoted it, which would lead me to believe that you read it, but you still managed to reply with disregard to it.
In that last post, I basically put one section of the TOU in easy words. Digg's TOU are NOT open for interpretation. At all. It's not a matter of how you interpret it. It clearly says that any group (one account to each person) working collectively to manipulate (change) a Digg count is against the rules.
They violated the TOU and their video got buried. That's all there is to it.
First of all,
Manipulate: \mə-ˈni-pyə-ˌlāt\
to change by artful or unfair means so as to serve one's purpose.
Did you just ignore my post altogether? I mean, you quoted it, which would lead me to believe that you read it, but you still managed to reply with disregard to it.
In that last post, I basically put one section of the TOU in easy words. Digg's TOU are NOT open for interpretation. At all. It's not a matter of how you interpret it. It clearly says that any group (one account to each person) working collectively to manipulate (change) a Digg count is against the rules.
They violated the TOU and their video got buried. That's all there is to it.
Last edited by a moderator:
Ok, I re-read that section like six more times, and it makes sense now. The part that applies to us is:
"or participating in any other organized effort that in any way artificially alters the results of Digg's services"
I get what you're saying now. That part right there is just a little confusing because of the word, "artificially." It makes it sort of seem like we were just spam that didn't even know what the video was. Although we really do, "digg" the video, because we posted telling others to digg it, that is against the rules. Thank you for clearing that up as I now understand it. The rest of that section makes perfect sense, it's just that sentence that can be somewhat confusing.
So guys, we broke the rules.
Last edited by a moderator:
This is a very cool video, seams like all of the figure heads of cardistry are really pushing the art.
J.
J.