1
38
39

/u/Super_Tux Retires Another Notch Gif (reddit.com)

submitted by Fishy1289

sorted by:
best
best
トップ
新着
注目
論争中
古い順
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]lolzergrushMod Ball[M] -2 ポイント-1 ポイント

Removed per Rule 6.

The gif must be more than merely relevant; that is, the gif must contain more than one relevant element (person, action, object, facial expression, metaphor, etc.)

Relevant elements:

  • Notches

  • ????

If there's some aspect of the context I'm missing, please reply and I'll reverse the removal. Otherwise, this gif could be equally retired any time someone makes a comment about notches.

[–]libertao -2 ポイント-1 ポイント

Really?? I'm pretty scrutinizing of retiredgifs, but this seems seal-of-approval worthy. Thread starts out rhetorically asking how many "Notches" (name of game developer) OP knows, reply makes pun about knowing "notches" on his belt "plus one," the gif submission:

  • Laughs at the pun

  • Adds one more notch to his count (how many "notches" he knows)

  • Which in the gif is a tally of tally notches themselves (a third use of the term)

[–]lolzergrushMod Ball -2 ポイント-1 ポイント

  • Adds one more notch to his count (how many "notches" he knows)

  • Which in the gif is a tally of tally notches themselves (a third use of the term)

Those two are the same - putting notches on a belt and putting notches into the wood of the table are the same thing. The parent context made the pun about the name "Notch" - that wasn't contained within the gif.

As for the reaction gif element, I've brought up my stance on it before. If there's something unique and specific about it, then it could constitute a separate element, but when it's something generic like "laughter", "anger", "upvoting", etc. then we'd have to retire every reaction gif ever used on a celebrity AMA that has the celebrity in a gif, along with every reaction gif used in a context where someone is talking about the person in the gif.

[–]libertao 1 ポイント2 ポイント

Those two are the same - putting notches on a belt and putting notches into the wood of the table are the same thing.

I didn't say "notches on a belt" and "notches on wood," I said notches counting "how many 'notches' he knows." You're missing an element.

Removing this submission considering some of the gifs that stay up here would be ridiculous.

I understand and agree with your point about celebrity AMAs, but that is a separate issue. That is where the second relevant element is merely the actor themself, of which there are a million gifs that are usually reactions which can and are submitted throughout every celebrity AMA. That is also a problem of gross saturation.

[–]lolzergrushMod Ball -3 ポイント-2 ポイント

counting "how many 'notches' he knows."

That was the pun in the parent context made by /u/warnerrr. If this gif had been posted directly in response to that question I'd agree with you.

Like I said, if there's a distinct second element in the gif itself besides the notches, I'm more than happy to overturn it, and if the submitter messages the mods then a different mod will review the decision.

edit:

Removing this submission considering some of the gifs that stay up here would be ridiculous.

This is the frustrating part from our perspective. The reason mods are now actively "curating" /r/RetiredGif is because of all the complaints we were getting about gifs that they felt should have been removed. The voting system wasn't working because we have a small pool of active users, and every time our subreddit is linked under the submitted gif, a handful of users follow it and upvote the gif they saw. So basically every time I make a removal, I'm torn between "is someone going to complain that I removed it" or "is someone going to complain that I didn't remove it?"

[–]libertao 2 ポイント3 ポイント

Elements:

  • Counting
  • Notches
  • Laughing reaction to a pun (optional)

No clue why you're being so stubborn with this. I share your opinion about celebrity AMAs but that is in a world of its own, partly due to oversaturation. If this was just a gif of the developer Notch laughing, I'd agree with you.

[–]lolzergrushMod Ball -2 ポイント-1 ポイント

  • Counting

  • Notches

The expression about "counting notches on ones belt" is a common one, but these are not separate elements. The laughter is too generic since it could apply to almost any submission on this subreddit. Also I dislike being called "stubborn" when I'm merely trying to address your concerns. Please reread my comment as I made an edit at the same time as your response.

[–]libertao 2 ポイント3 ポイント

"counting notches on ones belt"

What does that have to do with anything? Glover is counting zingers/notches of wood and submitter is counting types of "notches" he knows.

The laughter in response to a pun is just icing on the cake whereas those celebrity reaction gifs that is the only possible other element.

So basically every time I make a removal, I'm torn between "is someone going to complain that I removed it" or "is someone going to complain that I didn't remove it?"

I understand your predicament, but the standard should be if it is arguably more than one element (which it clearly is here), just let it go. That's why I'm saying your being stubborn. Go ahead and remove clearly violating submissions, but if someone makes a half-way decent argument that there is more than one element, let the submission stand and have the votes decide.

[–]lolzergrushMod Ball -2 ポイント-1 ポイント

submitter is counting types of "notches" he knows.

All of that happened in the thread above it, where he compared the notches on his belt to knowing people named "notch". This gif was just a response to notches on a belt.

I understand your predicament, but the standard should be if it is arguably more than one element (which it clearly is here), just let it go.

Usually that's exactly what I do, but in this case it's clearly one element to me and I haven't heard anything convincing me otherwise yet. The pun about the name "Notch" had nothing to do with the gif because it was already executed in the comments above it.

Saying "just let it go" when someone disagrees with you isn't persuasive, it makes it sound like you're incapable of seeing the other side's point of view.

[–]libertao 1 ポイント2 ポイント

This gif was just a response to notches on a belt.

Huh? No it wasn't. Not only was it clearly a response to counting the number of "notches" he knew of (by saying "Noted" and tallying a "Notch" in response to a comment saying "plus 1" notch), but you're insinuating that a comment in a thread cannot reference multiple replies, which would be a ridiculous position.

Saying "just let it go" when someone disagrees with you isn't persuasive, it makes it sound like you're incapable of seeing the other side's point of view.

You're not understanding what I'm saying. I'm not saying you should say I'm right, I'm saying that if it is even arguable that a gif has more than one element you should leave it. A moderator should only remove clear violations of the rule. I'm talking about a different standard than just a binary does/does not have >1 element.