Quoting Lopek:

Quote:
Quoting Dan W:

Quote:
You're no better than Skip in this so you might want to reconsider as well.

Oh, forgive me for defending a contribution that I think is correct, and that the majority of voters support. 

Look, you were there when the discussion was raging and sided with the rest. Don't act as if it was anything other than that.

If you have a change of heart on something say so but presenting it the way you did is disingenuous.

To put the thread back on topic..........


Quoting Dan W:

Quote:
Quoting Lopek:

Quote:
Well, 28 Votes Later  it now stands at:

Yes:  27
No:  1


PS. Skip, get over yourself you are the biggest Skipocrite in these forums. 

I remember this discussion during the rules rewrite and I opposed the wording that is currently in place for just this reason. If memory serves, I was a minority of only 1 or 2.

The end ruling was that in order to stop the flood of SRP ping-pong updates, we need to disallow all updates which contained an SRP change be it right or wrong. We also discussed the hypothetical this contribution illustrates where all information is correct yet includes a (correct) change to the SRP.

After discussing all of this, the group (Ken included) decided that any update which included a change to the SRP field should be rejected.

In light of this, I am forced to give this contribution a "No" vote.

On a personal level, I agree with the contribution and still feel that this type of contribution should be allowed and the rule be reworded as I argued a couple of years ago.

Quoting Dan W:

Quote:
Quoting northbloke:

Quote:
Thanks for the clarification Dan. It's good to know what the actual intention was behind that rule.
It certainly looks at the very least that a minor rewrite of that sentence is needed just so we don't have to go through all of this again!

Don't misunderstand, I would still vote "No" to an update which, right or wrong, did nothing but change an SRP by a few pennies. The reason is that different sites give different SRP's; usually, with a variation of no more than 4 cents. There simply is no way to decide which is correct if the releasing studio/company does not list it on their site.

The problem comes from the fact that regardless of the Manufacturers Suggested Retail Price, some retail/e-tail companies change it to their "company policy" SRP of:

**.95
**.96
**.97
**.98
**.99.

You stop being so arrogant. ANYTHING you say in this regard is mere spin and rationalizing. The Rule is clear, Lopek and there is absolutely no provision for any exception, which involves a minot change of SRP data.

You can't even claim that the Rule is unclear. You are trying to make excuses for your totally blatant disregard for the Rules. You COULD decide to remove the data, and resubmit according to the Rules, but your ego doesn't like that you have been found out for the Rule-Breaker you are. And for your information my memory is the same  as Dan's. Do the RIGHT thing.

Skip

The reason for all the disagreement Lopek, is YOU. You deliberately have done this to undemine that Rule for your purposes, I did not identify you or the Contribution specifically. You chose to start spinning to justify your position, which is flagarantly against the Rules, and you also chose to include out yourself and include the title data knowing that people would rally to put down Skip, regardless of of the plain FACT that you are dead wrong. Now in case you want to call me paranoid, you will take note that another user made a similar comment in this thread, I am not the only one who has seen this behavior.

I can only say this, Lopek I hope that Ken and Gerri will ignore the votes and turn you down for Rules violation and based on your content here were I them I would be sorley tempted to ban your Contribuitions for 30 days, not that that would matter to you since this is, I think your second Contribution i the last 6 months, that I know of. <shakes head sadly>

The vast majority of the Rules are clear, in fact this one is CLEAR and hasnot posed any serious problem for TWO years, until you decided to undermine it. TWO years, Lopek, many thousands of Contributions and now you claim it is unclear, even that is way too funny. It is unclear because YOU don't want to follow it, face facts, you were caught and you don't like it and your own pride will not allow you to admit you were wrong, hence your rationalization and spin.

And the majority of those were done in the auto system, Lopek. How many have you done since. NOT very many. I know what your stats say, i know what mine say and i don;t mention them...why because the majority of them were auto Contributions.

Poor sad sick young man.

Skip

So you just have to resort to personal insults. How typical.

Skip

Ok, Rule-Breaker(FACT)

Don't think I am happy about this, lopek. Far from it. You have adopted a position that is very simply contrary to the Rules and to get your way you have chosen to spin, rationalize and even indirectly encourage others to join you in your disrespect of the rules. I am not surpised, but I am very deeply saddened and disappointed in you, one of the last people I would have believed would so flagrantly violate the rules.

Skip

Quoting skipnet50:

Quote:
... not that that would matter to you since this is, I think your second Contribution i the last 6 months, that I know of. ...

I have no real opinion on the subject itself , but in this enflamed discussion, the fact is that Skip's affirmation is wrong... His opinion would be stronger using only true affirmations...