In the rules committee forum we currently have a discussion about the style of the contribution rules in general. While some members like to see the KISS principle applied ("Keep it simple, stupid") and feel that the rules should be as terse as possible, others suggest using more explanations and more extensive descriptions, especially for the newbies. I am interested in the community's opinion about this.

Most parts of the current rules use the short style. As an example for the alternative, I'd like to show you a proposal for a combined set of rules for movie box sets and TV series, created by Rifter and Kinematics: See here (please note that this discussion should not be about the proposal itself, as I said it's just a style example).

What do you think ?

I can't stand over-written contribution notes. The worst ones are when someone types out every single change they've made into the notes field. You even see some people who copy out disc IDs... whatever for? They're displayed in their field below. Notes can be concise without losing any information; all that needs to be done is necessary commentary on the changes to be viewed below the notes field, citing sources. Bada-bing.

Quoting Nadja:

Quote:
I can't stand over-written contribution notes. The worst ones are when someone types out every single change they've made into the notes field. You even see some people who copy out disc IDs... whatever for? They're displayed in their field below. Notes can be concise without losing any information; all that needs to be done is necessary commentary on the changes to be viewed below the notes field, citing sources. Bada-bing.

We're discussing the style of the contibution rules here, Nadja, not the contribution notes.

Edit: Oops, to late. 

While I also like the notes to be as brief as possible, I would like the rules to be as long as necessary.

I don't see the harm in the rules being as detailed as possible. This way there is less room for interpretation, which will lead to better contributions. If they're kept to a minimum length then some contributors will probably interpret them differently than others, which will only lead to arguing and back-and-forth contributions. IMO.

How about the concise KISS rules, but with hot links to further examples or "For more information, click here." or something along those lines.  That way, newbies like myself can easily find the detailed info, without bogging down the main rules listing.  This more information link might even include things like "While not a rule, the general forum consensus seems to be..." and the like.

Just a thought.

Anyway, in lieu of that, I prefer more detailed rules.  I would feel more comfortable making some contributions if I weren't so uncertain about what the proper way to do things is.

Quoting TigiHof:

Quote:
Quoting Dan W:

Quote:
PM a link to this conversation, I seem to be missing it.

There isn't a dedicated thread in the committee forum for this, Dan. This discussion comes up frequently in connection with different topics, especially in the latest threads about the box sets/TV series rules.

You know who the big supporters for longer explanations are, I'm surprised they haven't participated in this discussion here, yet.   Btw, I'm pretty much neutral on this, I can understand the arguments of both sides. I simply wanted to have a decision by the community so we can move on with the rules discussion in detail.

You said it was a current discussion and I haven't seen a post in there in over 3 days. Just thought I was missing it somehow.

Quoting TigiHof:

Quote:
Quoting Dan W:

Quote:
You said it was a current discussion and I haven't seen a post in there in over 3 days. Just thought I was missing it somehow.

Yeah, well, as a member of the committee forum you have to develop a new attitude to the word "current". 

Oh??? Did a few of you new guys change the definition of current while I wasn't looking?