Quoting goodguy:

Quote:

Quote:
I'm getting tired of reading people claim that "that isn't what dividers are for" as if theirs is the only valid opinion.

For an opinion to have some value, it has to be formed after reviewing the facts. The facts on how dividers can be handled by the program have been explained a number of times, here and in the threads previously cited. Moving all or part of the role into a divider is simply not supported by the program's functionality.

To use Unicus' example:

Quote:
This is an example of a 'divider':

Police
Actor  Detective Smith
Actor  Officer Jones
Actor  Officer Johnson

How can you argue that this is simply not supported by the program's functionality?  It seems perfectly within the program's functionality to me.  But some have made an argument that this is not what dividers are for.

My main argument/opinion is that I don't see anything in the rules that says that dividers can only be used to separate episodes.  And until someone (Ken or Gerri) tells me otherwise, I consider my opinion to have as much value as yours.  Frankly I resent being told that because I don't agee with someone or with their "review of the facts (or even with those supposed "facts" themselves) my opinion has no "value."  WHO ARE YOU to tell me that my opinion is of no value?

You refer to Skip telling RHo that he is "wrong again."  What is the difference between this statement and yours about the value of my opinion?  Why is one insulting and the other not?  Is it because one is shared by you and the other isn't?

Quoting skipnet50:

Quote:
This was decided a long time ago and not by ME

Where and when was this decided? This topic is one I feel quite strongly about and I can't remember any decision either way.

Quoting Unicus69:

Quote:
This is an example of a 'divider':

Police
Actor  Detective Smith
Actor  Officer Jones
Actor  Officer Johnson

This is an example of a 'group role":

Police
Actor Actor Actor
Actor Actor Actor

The first example would get a divider in Profiler, the second would not.

IMHO, this example should be copied straight into the rules!

Quoting skipnet50:

Quote:
That was the decision way back when

You keep saying that, yet you've failed to post a link to said decision, which apart from you, nobody else seems to remember. My memory tells me that the scenario as described by both Pantheon and by Unicus69 actually was the consensus back then. Anyway - even if it wasn't, I strongly feel that it SHOULD be. IMHO, their take on dividers is the only one that makes sense.

Note that Unicus' second example and your example feature the exact same data: the difference is just in formatting, so there's no sense in using a divider for one of these and no divider for the other. Unicus' first example actually contains different data - that DOES warrant the use of a divider. The key is that we're not after unneccesary duplication of data. If there's only ONE piece of data, in this case "Police", it only needs to be tracked in the role field. If there are two pieces of data - a "Police" header and separate rolenames for the individual officers, only THEN the use of a divider is needed. Again: it's about what data is presented on-screen, not just about formatting.

Quoting skipnet50:

Quote:
That was the decision way back when, and Ken said at that time that he was going to provide more colors for dividers, to provide for a number of other options

I remember you saying that Ken had told you that there was going to be another type of divider in a future release of the program, but I've never seen a post from Ken saying it.

There has also never been a decision either way. Not the way T!M's memory tells him it was, not your way and not the way I want it to be.

If you say there was a decision about this, give me a link to the thread. I've searched but not found anything. And as I said earlier, this is a topic I feel strongly about so I do pay close attention to the topic

There were two discussions and polls about this in the rules forum.

The first had to to with removing the roles from the role field when dividers were used for 'group roles'.  The consensus on that question, 24 to 4, was 'no'.  Meaning if you used a divider for group roles, you also had to enter the role into the role field.

The flaw in that poll/discussion was the same as the flaw in this one.  The option of not using a divider for group roles was left out.

That discussion/poll led to a discussion/poll about using dividers for group roles.  The consensus in that discussion/poll...by a very slim 18 to 14 margin...was not to use dividers for group roles.

Take it for what it is worth, but that is the consensus I, along with many others, have been following in all my contributions.

18-14 isn't what I would call a consensus though. Maybe it's my Norwegian dictionary that doesn't give me the correct meaning of the word, but a poll with only 32 participants and a slim margin isn't something  I would call 'agreed upon'

24-4 on the other hand... Although the total votes are less, we can see a clear trend in what people want

18-14 is a majority and as a result a consensus. I have not seen anything that would say we need two-thirds or 80% or anything of the sort.

Skip