Mark:

I have only one question. Please define Common Sense. To my knowledge it is very subjective, there is no one size fits all, and my view point of common sense is that many here are not displaying any.

I am not trying to argue it with you, but I keep seeing the term bandied about. but there is no universal definition that can be applied to all in all cases. You were absolutely about the Rulkes being designed not allow wiggle room, but we have users who CLAIM to support the Rules  and also worked on them and are wiggling all over the place.

Here's an example of what i mean by lack of common sense, mark
The central core of the Rules is AS Credited. I have recognized the arguments made by bot Hal and james in regards to titling. Unfortunately that does not change what is on screen. So my very sim-0ple suggestion is to design something, via a new field that will allow the Program to accomodate the issues raised by James and Hal AND stiull accomodate the As credited part of the data as well. I think it is a very reasonable position. What I get in turn, instead of something like I see what you are saying, and that while i may not be in complete agreement..it is reasonable. I don't presume to be able to divine what the filmmakers were thinking...assuming they were thinking which might be questionable...when they made whatever choices they made. I am getting argued with, flamed, insulted and so forth, over WHAT exactly. Please to inform EXACTLY what is unreasonable.

Let me say that I agree completely with what both James and hal have said on this and always have. What i disagree with is that they THINK they can divine the tuth. So, I see two sets of correct data, the James/Hal version whatever you want to call it, and the data that is ACTUALLKY displayed ON Screen, which is what is it and appears in whatever bizarre form the filmmakers chose (not counting typefaces, colors or logo work). So my thought is simply how do we accomodate BOTH pieces of data.
That is where we differ, James and hal think there is one set of data based upon there interpretation and that si their common sense which i share to a large degree, but with my background I also see the other side of the coin and my common sense dictates that BOTH be dealt with.

Skip

Please stop feeding the troll(s). 

Quoting skipnet50:

Quote:
Bottom line here is that I have adopted a totally reasonable position and I get repeated insults from a bunch users whose only response is to behave like children and in TRUE herd mentality play copycat.

Skip

The word "Huh?" is insulting... wow, you really have a thin skin. 
Note: the " in the above are highlighting the word that I am referring to, they are not actually part of the word.

There is nothing to solve, there is just one loony to put pack in his box with his ideas.

Just because you don't see the problem doesn't mean it isn't there, excatly what i said about Common Sense, there is no UNIVERSAL definition, the only thing Universal is your insulting remarks.

I see the problem and I have outlined it, several times. And your response is  insults and demeaning comments which completely destroys your credibility. You can't come up with a counter argument because (1) you haven't even bothered to read it or (2) you genuinely don't see it. If the latter is true I suggest some reflection on your part in all seriousness. I repeat I am merely stating that there are TWO sets of "correct" data, one which is opinion or maybe can be supported by outside the film research and one which is the FACTUAL data as it is displayed On Screen. Unlike you I am NOT saying this one is true and we should exclude that one on whatever basis you care to use, I am saying deal with BOTH.

Skip

Quoting skipnet50:

Quote:
Hal take off  your stupid tin foil hat and engage in discussion...or NOT. Knowing you...

Skip

^Ignore

Quoting Mark Harrison:

Quote:
Quoting Rifter:

Quote:
Why do we ALWAYS have to reduce things to the lowest common denominator?  Maybe we should make it so a blind, illiterate monkey can use it, you think?  Good grief!

I'd say dumbing down the contribution rules to the point that we must enter "Mister Roberts" as opposed to Mister Roberts, is reducing things to the lowest common denominator.  I was on both versions of the previous rule committees.  I know for a fact that things were designed deliberately to allow no wiggle room whenever possible.  What I didn't realize at the time was that we were also trying to eliminate common sense.

It's clear that Mister Roberts is the title.  All evidence points to this fact.  One doesn't have to have worked on the film to accept this fact.  It's not disrespectful to the film makers to apply a little common sense here.

And as for the rules themselves, as has already been pointed out, they say: "Use the title from the film's credits."  I would make the argument that Mister Roberts is what is referred to as "the title" and "Mister Roberts", in addition to whatever else may be present, is what is displayed in the "film's credits".  The rule doesn't say to enter the film's credits, it says to enter the title from the film's credits.

It's sad that the rules, which so many people put so much effort into, are being used to stomp out common sense.  It's one thing to try to eliminate the ping-ponging of profiles which used to plague us.  It's quite another thing to intentionally enter bad and incorrect data because of some stupid rule.  It's stuff like this that makes me almost wish for a return to the good old days and ping-ponging profiles be damned.

I know everyone likes to kick around IMDB.  I don't know why, I just know that we like to think we're somehow superior for whatever reason.  But at least they know the difference between a title and 1950's grammar.  This is Ken & Gerri's database.  In today's society, data is worth money.  Why we're trying to put wrong data in their database is beyond me.  And the fact that they're letting it happen because of some stupid rules is also beyond me.

If the rules are written in such a way to mandate "Mister Roberts" be the title (and I don't believe they are), then the proper thing to do is to re-write the rule to handle these cases properly.  Not put bad data out there because a group of people didn't forsee the rule being twisted in this manner several years ago.

Well, Hell's Bells, Mark, I would love to not have to go through this every little thing that comes up.  I don't have a problem reading the rules and applying them, but then I'm not one of those who is continually parsing the text to ELIMINATE any possible chance of logic or common sense being applied.  I understand the way data needs to be entered to facilitate the online database functioning properly.

I'm sure I'll offend somebody with this, but the truth is brutal.  The rank stupidity of many of those playing this game is appalling. They just can't put aside their personal foibles and prejudices and do what is correct.  And then, when somebody dares to call them on it, they get demonized and marginalized.

Quoting skipnet50:

Quote:
I repeat I am merely stating that there are TWO sets of "correct" data, one which is opinion or maybe can be supported by outside the film research and one which is the FACTUAL data as it is displayed On Screen. Unlike you I am NOT saying this one is true and we should exclude that one on whatever basis you care to use, I am saying deal with BOTH.

You haven't proven the "quoted title" system to factually include the quotes in the title. All you can say is that the quotes are on the screen. But with that definition, we would have lots of other junk in the title like "based on the story by john doe" or "a Major Studio release".

The presence on the screen of these marks does not prove anything. You need to do more than that. You can't just say it is so and then claim that we then have 2 sets of "correct" data.

We have one set of correct data which is the title. Nothing you or anyone else has said has proven that anyone anywhere in the film industry, now or at any point in film history, has ever considered these ubiquitous quotes to be part of the title.

Until you do so, you are reading much more into quote marks than is there. The rules say to use the title, but they don't say to scrape the film for every character that might be on the same or adjacent screens that you can cram into the title field unless others can prove to your satisfaction that you are wrong.