 |
|
|
|
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 2 3 4  Previous Next
|
|
Art Directors |
|
|
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | Reputation:  |  Posts: 13,202 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting RHo: Quote:
The old rules were flawed and everybody ignored them. Are you now telling us that the new rules are flawed as well and we should ignore them or are you saying that they have been corrected? I am saying the new rules, just like the old rules, are flawed. While I don't like it, because I am a stickler for the rules, I do understand that we will have to ignore the prohibitive wording in order to enter valid Profiler credits. Quote:
If the first, I did not like it under the old rules that in some cases people have ignored them on some credits while the same people have used them to argue against an other credit. I did not like it either. The point I am trying to make, which it seems I am not doing a very good job of, is that people ignored the old rules and nobody seemed to care. Now, because Ken included the proper column names and added an extra sentence, some of the people who supported ignoring the old rules have taken to scolding anybody that doesn't agree with their new found 'follow the letter of the rule' stance. It stinks of hypocrisy and that always rubs me the wrong way.  Quote:
If you say the later, I don't like that valid credits, which people obviously want to enter (see the numerous forum discussions lately), can't be entered.
Therefore I'm still convinced that allowing functional equivalents would be an enhancement. I believe that is what the notes are attempting to do, so I would support something along these lines. | | | 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 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 13,202 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting hal9g: Quote:
So you're saying that any Rule that has been ignored in the past is now "grandfathered" in and we can ignore it in perpetuity EVEN AFTER Ken has deliberately attempted to clarify it! That isn't what I said, but you go ahead and twist it any way you want. It seems to make you happy. Quote:
Your statement that the situation is the same is disingenuous at best! The situation is not the same at all! You keep telling yourself that. Quote:
As you stated, under the old rule a strict interpretation meant that NO CREW could be entered. Nobody in their right mind would believe that Ken actually meant that! But somebody in their right mind would believe that Ken meant to exclude OMB, OCB, Song Writer and any number of other credits that aren't written exactly as they are in the chart? Wow, that is some incredible logic you have there. Quote:
That is not even close to being the case under the new wording. The vast majority of all credits that we have entered in the past, can now be entered legitimately under the wording of the new Rule. And what about the ones that can't? Those that are listed in the chart but, because of the wording, can't be entered? I have yet to see a credit that reads "Original Material by Michael Crichton". If Ken meant for us to exclude them, which is what you are saying, then why are they still in Profiler and the crew chart? Quote:
I find it quite amazing that some folks are sticklers for the letter of the law until they personally don't like or agree with what a rule says. Then it seems you are easily amazed. You, the stickler for the letter of the law, seemed quite happy to ignore the last rule because you personally didn't like or agree with what it said. Can you say 'hypocrite'? Didn't think so.  Quote:
Trying to equate a situation where zero crew can be entered to a situation where crew entries are limited to a fairly extensive list in the crew table is simply ludricrous! Both sets of rules prevented the entry of VALID Profiler credits. To what degree they did so doesn't matter. If you want to pretend otherwise, be my guest, but don't expect me to join you on Fantasy Island.  | | | 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 | | | | Last edited: by TheMadMartian |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 2,759 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Unicus69: Quote:
I am saying the new rules, just like the old rules, are flawed. While I don't like it, because I am a stickler for the rules, I do understand that we will have to ignore the prohibitive wording in order to enter valid Profiler credits.
Agreed! But if we ignore some part of the rules sometimes, why not lobby for a change? What makes a credit valid? IMO if the guy behind the credit has done the same job which is usually named as the job in the "Role" column. That's what I would call a functional equivalent. Quote:
I did not like it either. The point I am trying to make, which it seems I am not doing a very good job of, is that people ignored the old rules and nobody seemed to care. Now, because Ken included the proper column names and added an extra sentence, some of the people who supported ignoring the old rules have taken to scolding anybody that doesn't agree with their new found 'follow the letter of the rule' stance. It stinks of hypocrisy and that always rubs me the wrong way.
Again agreed! The small difference in my opinion is that the current rule change has endorsed the "only if listed literally" policy. That's why I'm not happy with the change. I have expected that the rules would evolve into the direction of functional equivalents and not reinforce the old flawed policy. Quote:
I believe that is what the notes are attempting to do, so I would support something along these lines. So we completely agree. Let's change the rules. Actually we would just need to write down what almost everybody has been doing under the old rules, namely enter functional equivalents. | | | | Last edited: by RHo |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 13,202 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting RHo: Quote:
Agreed! But if we ignore some part of the rules sometimes, why not lobby for a change? I have started a thread in the Rules forum. Let's hope we can get something figured out. | | | 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 20, 2007 | Reputation:  | | Posts: 2,852 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting hal9g: Quote:
I am simply arguing that the current wording of the Rules prohibits "functional equivalents", whether we like it or not.
If you get Ken to change the Rules, then we can begin a whole new set of arguments about what is and is not a "functional equivalent". That'll be fun! Let's just get rid of all crew credits except Director, Screenwriter, and Composer, and keep it simple.  --------------- |
|
|
|
Invelos Forums->DVD Profiler: Contribution Discussion |
Page:
1 2 3 4 Previous Next
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |