 |
|
|
|
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... 17 18 19 20 21 ...23  Previous Next
|
|
SRP |
|
|
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
| Registered: March 13, 2007 |  Posts: 813 |
| | Posted: | | | | I apologise, there are a couple of other people who also think that the rule is crystal clear, despite an 18 page thread discussing different interpretations of it. I congratulate you on your "self confidence". Edit: 19 pages.  | | | Andy 
"Credited as" Names Database | | | | Last edited: by Lopek |
|  | JonM | | Registered 28 Dec 2000 |
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 343 |
| | Posted: | | | | KEN: "Hey, Honey, they're almost at 20 pages already. I told you these guys were nuts!"
GERRI: "I bet they can't reach 25 by Thursday!" | | | Jon
"When Mister Safety Catch Is Not On, Mister Crossbow Is Not Your Friend."
 |
| | Registered: March 15, 2007 | Reputation:  | | Posts: 5,459 |
| | | Registered: March 13, 2007 |  Posts: 810 |
| | Posted: | | | | | | | Paul Francis
San Juan Capistrano, CA, USA |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 3,480 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting kdh1949: Quote:
Quoting m.cellophane:
Quote:
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.
Well, you thought wrong. The rule is quite clear on this issue. "Do not make contributions with changes of a few cents/pence to the SRP." This is crystal clear. So it's right or wrong, your way or the highway?  Your reading of it is crystal clear to you. That's great, but I've always read it another way which is that a contribution "with changes of a few cents/pence to the SRP AND other changes" is not equivalent to "contributions with changes of a few cents/pence to the SRP" and therefore a a contribution "with changes of a few cents/pence to the SRP AND other changes" is allowed (with documentation, yadda yadda). This is in line with the overall rule of: Quote:
Make sure your contributions add significant value to the database. For example, contributions that only re-order the information within a certain section should not be submitted. These unnecessary changes are highlighted in the rules. Please do not make a separate contribution for them; however, they may be acceptable if you are making wider corrections to a profile. This rule above references the genre-only rule but isn't exclusive to that rule. It's for all "highlighted" rules. The SRP is one of those rules, in my opinion. Quoting kdh1949: Quote:
Quoting m.cellophane:
Quote:
As has been said many times, if it wasn't unclear, we wouldn't be talking about it...
It's only unclear because you are going out on a long limb looking for some justification to challenge it. Is it unclear because I don't agree with you or because you don't agree with me? Which is it?  As I mentioned in a previous post -- don't know how many pages back now  -- this was discussed in my rules session for this rule and it was not our intention to exclude SRP changes as part of a wider update. So this is not going out on a limb on my part. This is what I believe is foundational to the rule. Others disagree with me because of how the language ended up, but in the end, it's still just a disagreement. Just doing my part to reach page 25.  | | | ...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: 2,394 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting m.cellophane: Quote:
So it's right or wrong, your way or the highway? ABSO-FREAKIN-LUTELY. If you don't like the rule that's one thing, but your claim that it is unclear tells me that you need to return to school for a refresher course in the English language. Quote:
That's great, but I've always read it another way which is that a contribution "with changes of a few cents/pence to the SRP AND other changes" is not equivalent to "contributions with changes of a few cents/pence to the SRP" and therefore a a contribution "with changes of a few cents/pence to the SRP AND other changes" is allowed (with documentation, yadda yadda). This is in line with the overall rule of:
Quote:
Make sure your contributions add significant value to the database. For example, contributions that only re-order the information within a certain section should not be submitted. These unnecessary changes are highlighted in the rules. Please do not make a separate contribution for them; however, they may be acceptable if you are making wider corrections to a profile.
This rule above references the genre-only rule but isn't exclusive to that rule. It's for all "highlighted" rules. The SRP is one of those rules, in my opinion. Again, you're entitled to your opinion. But your opinion is contrary to what the rule says. Just because there are 20 pages or more of nonsense about this rule, your opinion isn't fact. It doesn't matter what the original intent of the rule was, so I'm tired about hearing who was or was not involved in the original discussion. THE RULE IS CRYSTAL CLEAR and should be clear to anyone with a modicum of knowledge about the English language. Quoting kdh1949: Quote:
Quoting m.cellophane:
Quote:
As has been said many times, if it wasn't unclear, we wouldn't be talking about it... It's only unclear because you are going out on a long limb looking for some justification to challenge it. Quote:
Is it unclear because I don't agree with you or because you don't agree with me? Which is it? Neither. It is only unclear in your mind because you don't want to admit that it doesn't say what you thought it said - or should say.. Quote:
As I mentioned in a previous post -- don't know how many pages back now -- this was discussed in my rules session for this rule and it was not our intention to exclude SRP changes as part of a wider update. So this is not going out on a limb on my part. This is what I believe is foundational to the rule. Others disagree with me because of how the language ended up, but in the end, it's still just a disagreement. And as I mentioned ABOVE, it doesn't matter a whit what "was discussed in [your] rules session for this rule" - since the rule as written doesn't support your assertion. The rule says what it says - nothing more, nothing less. And mentioning the genre rule is purely a red herring, since there are qualifications in THAT ruile when there are NONE IN THE SRP RULE. So there! Quote:
Just doing my part to reach page 25. Anything I can do to help those efforts... | | | Another Ken (not Ken Cole)
Badges? We ain't got no badges. We don't need no badges. I don't have to show you any stinking badges.
DVD Profiler user since June 15, 2001 | | | | Last edited: by kdh1949 |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 3,480 |
| | Posted: | | | | meh. | | | ...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 |
|  | T!M | | Profiling since Dec. 2000 |
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | Reputation:  |  Posts: 8,667 |
| | Posted: | | | | Now that we're gearing up for the twentieth page, I can't resist throwing my opinion in. I don't really think the rule as it is leaves much room for interpretation. Having said that, I think it's a stupid rule. As someone has said a couple of pages back: any rule that prohibits correct data to be entered into the database should be eliminated.
The strange thing about this thread is that Skip indicates in his first post that he actually AGREES that the "correct" SRP is $29.98. Lopek also seems to have provided substantial "evidence" to back up his claim. If both Lopek and Skip (a miracle if ever there was one) and most voters agree that the "correct" SRP is $29.98, then I don't think it's right a rule should prohibit such a change, certainly not when it's part of a wider contribution.
I can't help but feeling that this particular rule is somehow rooted in the old situation before we had a voting system. Back then, this could result in endless ping-ponging. Under the current system, I think the rule could easily be amended, as the voting system can very well cope with this. Case in point: Lopek seems to have provided enough justification for his change, so a majority of the voters vote 'yes'. If someone would try to make an undocumented SRP-change, that'll probably get voted down immediately. I'd suggest the rule to be changed to something like: "Don't make undocumented changes to the SRP." That's enough for a valid no-vote to any incorrect SRP-change, while correct changes like this one can be accepted. Using that scenario, I don't fear ping-ponging at all. |
| | Registered: March 14, 2007 | | Posts: 2,366 |
| | | Registered: March 14, 2007 |  Posts: 742 |
| | Posted: | | | | I want to be part of this as well, I might feel left out otherwise, so: I share the POV of those claiming the rule to be crystal clear, the wording leaves no room for speculation or interpretation. Changes to the SRP field by only a few cents are forbidden. Period. Now, that's the wording of the rule, easy to read, easy to understand and easy to follow. On the other hand, we have the intent of the rule (be it the true intent remembered differently by the two camps, or the "wished-for" intent by those who didn't participate in the old rules committee): I also agree that the rule SHOULD read something like the genre rule, i.e. allowing for changes of a few cents to the SRP field as long as they are part of a wider contribution. Otherwise, we're dealing with a rule effectively prohibiting us from entering correct data at all. I DON'T believe we need to open this field up for those "small pocket-change" changes altogether. If the profile is perfect except for a difference in the SRP of one or two cents, we should leave it at that. You have to draw the line somewhere in terms of being done with a profiie, and this is a pretty good point to do so IMO. So, what these 20 pages so far boil down to, is a rule that (for a change) is worded perfectly well, straight as an arrow so to speak, which falls short on the intent some people wish to see represented by this rule. Well, at this time, this intent is not represented in the rules. Subsequently, it is currently NOT possible to add such changes and be within the rules. So, "No" votes for these changes are ok, a contribution containing such data should be declined. However, going at each other's throats for 20 pages is in itself ridiculous, childish and shows a distrust on both sides in the voting system. Those in favor of the possibility to include such changes within wider contributions (or even in favor of allowing these changes no matter what - proper documentation provided) should take this matter to the rules forum, draft a new version of the SRP rule, put it up for voting, pass it on to Ken and Gerri and await their final word. Until then, let the votes go whichever way and concentrate on something more important. But, and I firmly believe this is the core of this matter, for some users engaged in this discussion, the most important thing on this board is to "go to war" with certain individuals in these threads, regardless of the subject, regardless of the importance of the subject for the program or the db, regardless of the value of the information argued about for the community, the use of the program, the accuracy of the db, the amount of work enforced on the community as a whole, and the time spent on ripping each other to shreds verbally. For that, those whom it does concern, should be ashamed of themselves. But I know you won't be, because regarding this matter, you ALL have left reason and normal social behavior far, far behind you. BTW, this is not my two cents, I think this is woth at least a nickel | | | | Lutz | | | | Last edited: by Darxon |
| | Registered: May 29, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 3,475 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Darxon: Quote:
I want to be part of this as well, I might feel left out otherwise, so:
I share the POV of those claiming the rule to be crystal clear, the wording leaves no room for speculation or interpretation. Changes to the SRP field by only a few cents are forbidden. Period.
Now, that's the wording of the rule, easy to read, easy to understand and easy to follow.
On the other hand, we have the intent of the rule (be it the true intent remembered differently by the two camps, or the "wished-for" intent by those who didn't participate in the old rules committee): I also agree that the rule SHOULD read something like the genre rule, i.e. allowing for changes of a few cents to the SRP field as long as they are part of a wider contribution.
Otherwise, we're dealing with a rule effectively prohibiting us from entering correct data at all.
I DON'T believe we need to open this field up for those "small pocket-change" changes altogether. If the profile is perfect except for a difference in the SRP of one or two cents, we should leave it at that. You have to draw the line somewhere in terms of being done with a profiile, and this is a pretty good point to do so IMO.
So, what these 20 pages so far boil down to, is a rule that (for a change) is worded perfectly well, straight as an arrow so to speak, which falls short on the intent some people wish to see represented by this rule.
Well, at this time, this intent is not represented in the rules. Subsequently, it is currently NOT possible to add such changes and be within the rules. So, "No" votes for these changes are ok, a contribution containing such data should be declined.
However, going at each other's throats for 20 pages is in itself ridicolous, childish and shows a distrust on both sides in the voting system.
Those in favor of the possibility to include such changes within wider contributions (or even in favor of allowing these changes no matter what - proper documentation provided) should take this matter to the rules forum, draft a new version of the SRP rule, put it up for voting, pass it on to Ken and Gerri and await their final word.
Until then, let the votes go whichever way and concentrate on something more important.
But, and I firmly believe this is the core of this matter, for some users engaged in this discussion, the most important thing on this board is to "go to war" with certain individuals in these threads, regardless of the subject, regardless of the importance of the subject for the program or the db, regardless of the value of the information argued about for the community, the use of the program, the accuracy of the db, the amount of work enforced on the community as a whole, and the time spent on ripping each other to shreds verbally.
For that, those whom it does concern, should be ashamed of themselves. But I know you won't be, because regarding this matter, you ALL have left reason and normal social behavior far, far behind you.
BTW, this is not my two cents, I think this is woth at least a nickel Thank you for expressing my thoughts so well. |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 21,610 |
| | Posted: | | | | I will repeat what I have said before. I started this thread in Generic form in an attempt to merely education. Numerous people have noted that the Rules are clear to them, sadly some of these same people are willing to IGNORE that. Despite the accusations of some parties here, it was not I who named users and title data in a CLEAR attempt to manipulate the Community into supporting a Rule Violation. I have started another thread along similar lines in the same fashion, it is done in a purely Generic fashion, one would hope that users would decide to review their votes and make sure that they are voting WITHIN the Rules. From my POV this has nothing to do with any personal issues, I don't have the time to engage in such issues, this is plain and simply about violating the Rules and there is NO gray area as many of you have agreed.
Skip | | | ASSUME NOTHING!!!!!!
CBE, MBE, MoA and proud of it.
Outta here
Billy Video |
| | Registered: March 14, 2007 | | Posts: 742 |
| | Posted: | | | | Sorry Skip, while I buy your initial intent and follow your generic approach, it seems contradictory if you claim this having nothing to do with personal issues and that you don't have the time to engage in such. The almost twenty pages of this thread including your numerous posts and the content of some of these postings made by you tell otherwise. And before you jump on me (if you're not compelled to do so, I apologize in advance ) : I share your POV about the rule and the contribution in question, and frankly, you should give it a rest and wait how it turns out. Your POV has been made clear, the other side's as well, so there's really nothing left to say (except the personal stuff and endless repetitions, which both are unnecessary, don't you think?) | | | | Lutz | | | | Last edited: by Darxon |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 2,372 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting skipnet50: Quote:
Once again we have a user trying to change SRP. From 28.99 to 28.98
He is trying to cite some sources to support the change and he is right about that part of it. BUT the Rules are very clear. "Do not make contributions with changes of a few cents/pence to the SRP."
They do not say you can change it for a penny if you can prove it, they simply say DON"T DO IT.
My data in fact agress with his, BUT because $28.98 and $28.99 are the "same" price and BECAUSE the Rules say specifically NOT to do it, I withdrew my data once a new Contribution was approved, and I will keep mine locally which is what this user should do as well.
Skip The initial post (quoted above) is not designed at "education" in any way.  At least no form of education I have ever been exposed to. It is not designed to get the communities opinion on something as it doesn't ask what anybody else thinks. It states "Once again we have a user trying to ...." which is an antagonistic statement that would imply that this is something we deal with all the time. I haven't seen an SRP change in quite some time. Yes, you did not say the name of the contributor or the title. What you did do however is tell the contributor what he "should do as well". This is not up to you and knowing who the contributor was you know he would not simply let that statement go, don't try to claim otherwise. Many of us are guilty of flame baiting (myself included). This is nothing more than that. I've stayed out of this thread completely with the exception of an OT post around page 6 but for you to claim you only intent was to "educate" doesn't fly since there was no education or information seeking at all. Just another "somebody is wrong and I am right and I want everyone to know it" post from Mr. 3000 (not saying Andy was wrong mind you ) If it was truly a generic post "in an attempt to merely education" then you would have dropped it on page one after you "educationed" all of us. Quoting skipnet50: Quote:
I will repeat what I have said before. I started this thread in Generic form in an attempt to merely education. Numerous people have noted that the Rules are clear to them, sadly some of these same people are willing to IGNORE that. Despite the accusations of some parties here, it was not I who named users and title data in a CLEAR attempt to manipulate the Community into supporting a Rule Violation. I have started another thread along similar lines in the same fashion, it is done in a purely Generic fashion, one would hope that users would decide to review their votes and make sure that they are voting WITHIN the Rules. From my POV this has nothing to do with any personal issues, I don't have the time to engage in such issues, this is plain and simply about violating the Rules and there is NO gray area as many of you have agreed.
Skip |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 21,610 |
| | Posted: | | | | | | | ASSUME NOTHING!!!!!!
CBE, MBE, MoA and proud of it.
Outta here
Billy Video |
| | Registered: March 14, 2007 | | Posts: 1,777 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quote:
Your comment was unnecessary, combative and argumentative. Wow, it's like bizzaro world!  Talk about the pot calling the kettle black... |
|
|
|
Invelos Forums->DVD Profiler: Contribution Discussion |
Page:
1... 17 18 19 20 21 ...23 Previous Next
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |