 |
|
|
|
Welcome to the Invelos forums. Please read the forum
rules before posting.
Read access to our public forums is open to everyone. To post messages, a free
registration is required.
If you have an Invelos account, sign in to post.
|
|
|
|
|
Invelos Forums->DVD Profiler: Contribution Discussion |
Page:
1... 14 15 16 17 18 ...23  Previous Next
|
|
SRP |
|
|
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | Reputation:  |  Posts: 3,480 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Rifter: Quote:
And it's still an idiotic waste of time and effort, because that "documented" source could turn around the next day and make another change of a nickel or a quarter, and then somebody is gonna want to change it again on the grounds that it's an 'official' change. That's why the rule says NO changes allowed. ...which is why it shouldn't be set in stone until after it's actually released.  It's like submitting undocumented uncredited in an initial contribution and never being able to do anything about it. Isn't that a pet peeve of yours?  | | | ...James
"People fake a lot of human interactions, but I feel like I fake them all, and I fake them very well. That’s my burden, I guess." ~ Dexter Morgan |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | Reputation:  | | Posts: 13,202 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting m.cellophane: Quote:
Quoting Rifter:
Quote:
And it's still an idiotic waste of time and effort, because that "documented" source could turn around the next day and make another change of a nickel or a quarter, and then somebody is gonna want to change it again on the grounds that it's an 'official' change. That's why the rule says NO changes allowed.
...which is why it shouldn't be set in stone until after it's actually released.
It's like submitting undocumented uncredited in an initial contribution and never being able to do anything about it. Isn't that a pet peeve of yours? You make an interesting point...one I hadn't thought of. | | | No dictator, no invader can hold an imprisoned population by force of arms forever.
There is no greater power in the universe than the need for freedom.
Against this power, governments and tyrants and armies cannot stand.
The Centauri learned this lesson once.
We will teach it to them again.
Though it take a thousand years, we will be free.
- Citizen G'Kar |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 21,610 |
| | Posted: | | | | As John, says under ANY circumstance changes of pennies are a total waste of EVERYBODY's time, and the Rules are clear LIKE IT OR NOT, James. As I have told you before James, I can coun the number of times you have been called on a vote and actually didn't argue it on ONE hand, yet you say to let you know. OTOH, you could probably count the number of times I have not changed a vote when notified of an error on the same hand, without trying to rationalize or spin the position. So let's be realistic here, James,this just another rationalization of a position that is totally inconsistent with the Rules, just as Lopek's Contribution itself is inconsistent with the Rules. There is absolutely no amount of spin or rationalzation that will make it so. HoweverI am also well aware that you believe that you, Lopek and a couple of other users believe yourselves to be the ONLY people who can truly interpret the Rules, and no one else's opinion is valid. I have seen all of this before and will without a doubt see it again.
There is one single sentence that answers all of this and it says very clearly DO NOT do it. IUt is not unclear, it in fact spells it out very clearly. You are making it very clear that you want to return the days of dozens of insignificant changes to SRP on many titles each every week, only to have someone else CORRECT those changes the following week and so and so forth ad infinitum. We have seen that already, perhaps you considered it fun and entertaining...I did not, nor did Ken, nor did most of the members of the Team at that time. Hence the Rule.
Skip | | | ASSUME NOTHING!!!!!!
CBE, MBE, MoA and proud of it.
Outta here
Billy Video |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 2,694 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting m.cellophane: Quote:
Quoting Rifter:
Quote:
And it's still an idiotic waste of time and effort, because that "documented" source could turn around the next day and make another change of a nickel or a quarter, and then somebody is gonna want to change it again on the grounds that it's an 'official' change. That's why the rule says NO changes allowed.
...which is why it shouldn't be set in stone until after it's actually released.
It's like submitting undocumented uncredited in an initial contribution and never being able to do anything about it. Isn't that a pet peeve of yours? This is a completely different thing, in fact it's unique. Far as I know, this is the only field in the whole database that has a prohibition on changes after it gets into the record. It's rather obvious it was a sore spot or the rule wouldn't be worded the way it is. But, all else aside, what difference does it make if there's a few cents difference in the SRP and what shows in the database? It's utterly, absolutely stupid to be wasting time on something as inane as this. | | | John
"Extremism in the defense of Liberty is no vice!" Senator Barry Goldwater, 1964
Make America Great Again! |
| | Registered: May 9, 2007 |  Posts: 137 |
| | Posted: | | | | | | | Funny, these cookies don't taste anything like Girl Scouts.
DVD Collection |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 3,480 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting skipnet50: Quote:
As John, says under ANY circumstance changes of pennies are a total waste of EVERYBODY's time, and the Rules are clear LIKE IT OR NOT, James. I thought that an SRP change within a wider contribution, as discussed during the rule session that I participated in, was clear in the rule. After this many pages though, it seems to be unclear. Quote:
As I have told you before James, I can coun the number of times you have been called on a vote and actually didn't argue it on ONE hand, yet you say to let you know. I've changed my vote when you've pointed out an error in my voting before. When I change my vote, everything's great with you. When I disagree, I'm bad. Whatever. Quote:
OTOH, you could probably count the number of times I have not changed a vote when notified of an error on the same hand, without trying to rationalize or spin the position. You could start by getting rid of your 'no' vote on my North and South profile which you are voting against based on the personal epiphany you reached in the disc dividers thread that you've now created into a rule in your own mind. You now call my removal of your disc dividers to be "too much data".  Quote:
So let's be realistic here, James,this just another rationalization of a position that is totally inconsistent with the Rules, just as Lopek's Contribution itself is inconsistent with the Rules. There is absolutely no amount of spin or rationalzation that will make it so. HoweverI am also well aware that you believe that you, Lopek and a couple of other users believe yourselves to be the ONLY people who can truly interpret the Rules, and no one else's opinion is valid. I have seen all of this before and will without a doubt see it again. I'm not the only person who can interpret the rules. I think I'm just one voice spouting off here. But I have a right to spout.  My interpretation is consistent with what was discussed in the rules session that I participated in (noted in an earlier post). That's the way I've always understood the SRP rule to be...just like the 'genre-only' rule. Quote:
There is one single sentence that answers all of this and it says very clearly DO NOT do it. IUt is not unclear, it in fact spells it out very clearly. As has been said many times, if it wasn't unclear, we wouldn't be talking about it... Quote:
You are making it very clear that you want to return the days of dozens of insignificant changes to SRP on many titles each every week, only to have someone else CORRECT those changes the following week and so and so forth ad infinitum. We have seen that already, perhaps you considered it fun and entertaining...I did not, nor did Ken, nor did most of the members of the Team at that time. Hence the Rule. Fear-based threats of doom. Please...  Quote:
But, all else aside, what difference does it make if there's a few cents difference in the SRP and what shows in the database? It's utterly, absolutely stupid to be wasting time on something as inane as this. What does it matter if an uncredited entry is really accurate or not? Same thing. Quoting SailorRipley: Quote:
You people need like... a hobby or something... This is our hobby.  | | | ...James
"People fake a lot of human interactions, but I feel like I fake them all, and I fake them very well. That’s my burden, I guess." ~ Dexter Morgan |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 21,610 |
| | Posted: | | | | James: This is all sooo simple. You keep trying to refer to your concept of INTENT. !0 There is NOTHING in the Rules that supports your claim PERIOD. 2) You among others have beaten me about referring to INTENT, but it is OK for YOU to do so...I think not, James. The onl;y reason there is any lack of clarity is because you among others have attempted to muddy the waters of this very clear Rules. Again there is absolutely nothing there that supports YOUR claim. Yoiu can dance as hard as you wish, those are the simple FACTS. You also can't deny that until Lopek decided to violate the Rule with your support and others, this Rule has woprked exactly as described for 2 years now. But, NOW you want to CLAIM lack of clarity, ROFLMAO, the obvious hypocrisy stinks to high heaven. Stop spinning, squirming and rationalizing and support the Rule. Your credibility is ON THE LINE. Had I not seen this kind of behavior before this would be funny, but sadly I have and it is not. You and afew others have a unique way of skirting the Rules when it suits your purposes, all while claiming to support the Rules. BTW James, you have referred to a particular session of some members, but guess what, YOU and the Others were in the meeting that was held with Ken when this topic came up, so stop throwing out red herrings. Skip | | | ASSUME NOTHING!!!!!!
CBE, MBE, MoA and proud of it.
Outta here
Billy Video | | | | Last edited: by Winston Smith |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 3,480 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting skipnet50: Quote:
This is all sooo simple. You keep trying to refer to your concept of INTENT. !0 There is NOTHING in the Rules that supports your claim PERIOD. 2) You among others have beaten me about referring to INTENT, but it is OK for YOU to do so...I think not, James. I'm just saying that's the way I remember it and I've carried that belief forward until now. I'm trying to explain where my opinion came from. That's all. I've said many times that everyone has a different memory of intent in the rules. I'm not saying my way is the only way to read the rule. I'm saying it's how I read the rule now and have always read it: Do not make contributions with only changes of a few cents/pence to the SRP. I realize the word "only" isn't there, but until now I didn't think it needed to be as I thought it was implied. Guess not (for some). Quote:
You also can't deny that until Lopek decided to violate the Rule with your support and others, this Rule has woprked exactly as described for 2 years now. He didn't decide to violate the rule. That's your spin. He and I believe he's well within the rule. You can't deny that this has been done before in similar situations but you've never made a stink about it until Andy did it. That's what this is really about. Quote:
But, NOW you want to CLAIM lack of clarity, ROFLMAO, the obvious hypocrisy stinks to high heaven. Stop spinning, squirming and rationalizing and support the Rule. Your credibility is ON THE LINE. My credibility doesn't depend on whether you agree with me or not. Quote:
Had I not seen this kind of behavior before this would be funny, but sadly I have and it is not. You and afew others have a unique way of skirting the Rules when it suits your purposes, all while claiming to support the Rules. You have a unique way of skirting the rules and then accusing others of skirting the rules to deflect attention from the fact that you are skirting the rules. Overviews. Disc dividers. Separate profiles for box sets with dual sided discs. Blah, blah, blah. Quote:
BTW James, you have referred to a particular session of some members, but guess what, YOU and the Others were in the meeting that was held with Ken when this topic came up, so stop throwing out red herrings. I didn't see that topic when I searched the transcripts today. If you can document the conversation, I'd be happy to take a look at it. | | | ...James
"People fake a lot of human interactions, but I feel like I fake them all, and I fake them very well. That’s my burden, I guess." ~ Dexter Morgan |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 21,610 |
| | Posted: | | | | I most certainly have voted No many times to such Contributions, James. Andy holds himself up as you do too, as fervent followers of the rules, this puts the lie to that. Sorry, pal, again i tell you intent is irrelevant, and there is NOTHING in the Rules that supports your interpretation of intent, if it was relevant. I did not cjoose to make a stink about it, read my first post again, it was generic, referring to no particular user nor to any particular title. It was Andy, who chose to out himself and the title data, which puts the lie to his denial of being willful about violating the rules, he knew what would happen as a result of that as well as I did.
Your credibility depends on supporting the Rules in REALITY that you only claim to support in theory.
Skip | | | ASSUME NOTHING!!!!!!
CBE, MBE, MoA and proud of it.
Outta here
Billy Video | | | | Last edited: by Winston Smith |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 |  Posts: 5 |
| | Posted: | | | | Skip, mate.. You keep using words like "illegal" and "violate" about this particular issue. NO rule was ever violated, and taking the legal slant-you would never get it to hold up in court.  The "rule" is in place, I understand that, but Andy's contribution was clearly outside of the context of the rule. Please stop trying to make it out as something sinister, you and I both know it is not true. AJPS, Hey James (wave) |
| | Registered: March 14, 2007 | | Reputation: |  Posts: 4,667 |
| | Posted: | | | | I don't care if the SRP is off by a cent or two, so as far as I'm concerned the rule is ok.
I'm less ok with Skip's arguments. I remember distinctly that on more than one occasion (in the old Intervocative forum), Skip would lambast people for following the rules to the letter when Skip said he knew the intent of the rules.
Now Skip turns 180 degrees around and call people names for trying to read intent into the rules instead of following them to the letter.
Sorry Skip, you're shooting yourself in the foot.
While I agree with you on this particular issue, I find your debating tactics deploreable. | | | My freeware tools for DVD Profiler users.
Gunnar |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 3,480 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting AdulteratedJedi: Quote:
PS, Hey James (wave) Hey AJ!  | | | ...James
"People fake a lot of human interactions, but I feel like I fake them all, and I fake them very well. That’s my burden, I guess." ~ Dexter Morgan |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 813 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting skipnet50: Quote:
I most certainly have voted No many times to such Contributions, James. Andy holds himself up as you do too, as fervent followers of the rules, this puts the lie to that. Sorry, pal, again i tell you intent is irrelevant, and there is NOTHING in the Rules that supports your interpretation of intent, if it was relevant. I did not cjoose to make a stink about it, read my first post again, it was generic, referring to no particular user nor to any particular title. It was Andy, who chose to out himself and the title data, which puts the lie to his denial of being willful about violating the rules, he knew what would happen as a result of that as well as I did.
Your credibility depends on supporting the Rules in REALITY that you only claim to support in theory.
Skip Skip, if you first post was generic, and had spelled out he facts and context of the situation, then I would happily of let this go. But, of course it did not. It missed the crucial fact (imo) that this was a pre-release DVD and the SRP was part of a much wider change. I brought the specific contribution in to allow everyone to see the facts of the situation. Everyone knows why you brought it here, no matter how you try and spin it as a "learning opportunity" and such rubbish. You wanted to call me out in public. The whole thing is completely sad and pathetic. It you read this thread, nearly everyone is saying let the contribution stand, and let Ken/Gerri decide. There is only you is having a childlike temper tantrum demanding I remove it so you get your own way. Everyone else is accepting there is a lack of clarity in the rule- the discussion makes that obvious - only you are demanding that your interpretation is FACT. Maybe you should "get to work" and do some contributions rather than worrying about mine so much. | | | Andy 
"Credited as" Names Database |
| | Registered: March 14, 2007 | | Posts: 1,777 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quote:
Maybe you should "get to work" and do some contributions rather than worrying about mine so much. I thought he quit contributing? I distinctly remember him threatening to take his ball and go home in another thread. |
| | Registered: May 14, 2007 | | Posts: 455 |
| | | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 813 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting mdnitoil: Quote:
Quote:
Maybe you should "get to work" and do some contributions rather than worrying about mine so much.
I thought he quit contributing? I distinctly remember him threatening to take his ball and go home in another thread. That is the point - he always bitched when people criticised his contributions, complaining they don't contribute, and that they should "get to work" instead! | | | Andy
"Credited as" Names Database |
|
|
|
Invelos Forums->DVD Profiler: Contribution Discussion |
Page:
1... 14 15 16 17 18 ...23 Previous Next
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |