Quoting Pantheon:

Quote:
Quoting TheMadMartian:

Quote:


We are not going to continue to hash this out. If a user chooses to submit without specific CLT results, they may do so and their contribution may still be accepted depending on a variety of factors, including contribution history.

Voting users may choose to request further details and a "No" vote if the details aren't provided is not an abuse of the voting system. 

Further discussion on this will only lead to argument.

So, yes, you can vote 'no' if CLT results are not included, but they don't have to be.

This has got to be the all-time worst ruling from Ken.

It's one of those 'sit-on-the-fence' rulings that actually doesn't mean very much.

A. You don't have to include CLT results in your notes.
B. People can vote NO if you don't.
C. Either way the contribution may go through.

It leaves the contributor with no clear idea on what they should do.

If Ken had stated - include the CLT results or you contribution will be automatically declined everyone would know where they stand and abide by it.

Likewise if he'd said: 'voting NO because someone hasn't included CLT results in their notes will simply be ignored' would have the same effect.

I can't stand wishy-washy decision making.

I completely agree. With that ruling, no one knows where they stand with regards to the CLT.

Quoting lyonsden5:

Quote:
I agree it is a bit of a cop out reply.

As I see it though those who do vote no are only hurting themselves. Ken has stated your voting habits are recorded. Every time you vote yes for something that gets declined it counts against you. Conversely every time you vote no for something that gets approved it also will hurt your overall voting record.

The no voters are slowly making their own votes not count for much. But that's their prerogative I guess.

Then on the other hand, rick. Ken's ummmm what to call it...I'll use Neill's wishy washy decision doesn't speak well to either the program or to Ken. I am very comfortable voting my own conscience, knowing that i am dead right on principle, than  voting yes just to gratify some lazy user who refuses to provide documentation. If Ken wants to count that against me because of his inability to take a concrete stand which would benefit everybody, then so what. This and other issues are why i have stopped Contributing, I want a high quality database, not one constructed from a pile of dung. I can get dung aplenty elsewhere.

Skip

Quoting Prof. Kingsfield:

Quote:
Quoting lyonsden5:

Quote:
I agree it is a bit of a cop out reply.

As I see it though those who do vote no are only hurting themselves. Ken has stated your voting habits are recorded. Every time you vote yes for something that gets declined it counts against you. Conversely every time you vote no for something that gets approved it also will hurt your overall voting record.

The no voters are slowly making their own votes not count for much. But that's their prerogative I guess.

Then on the other hand, rick. Ken's ummmm what to call it...I'll use Neill's wishy washy decision doesn't speak well to either the program or to Ken. I am very comfortable voting my own conscience, knowing that i am dead right on principle, than  voting yes just to gratify some lazy user who refuses to provide documentation. If Ken wants to count that against me because of his inability to take a concrete stand which would benefit everybody, then so what. This and other issues are why i have stopped Contributing, I want a high quality database, not one constructed from a pile of dung. I can get dung aplenty elsewhere.

Skip

Again with the "lazy user" and " pile of dung". It's as though you simply can't reply without insulting someone. 

Whom did I offend, rick. Did I NAME somebody, I don't think i did. Now all I can say Rick, since i didn't name a single solitary user is, if the shoe fits that's not my fault.

But as usual you respond with an attack, insults directed at one user, while I insult no one, except in your mind.

BTW, the Online should be a TEAM effort which means we all work for the good pf ALL, some user (s) refusing to document their work is not working for the good of ALL.

Given that I am not the only one that has issues with ken's Ruling. Give me a reason why at the very least including CLT results in Contribution Notes should not be required. If there is a valid reasn, I sure can't think what it could possibly be.

Skip

Quoting Prof. Kingsfield:

Quote:


Given that I am not the only one that has issues with ken's Ruling. Give me a reason why at the very least including CLT results in Contribution Notes should not be required. If there is a valid reasn, I sure can't think what it could possibly be.

Skip

The reason is, because Invelos doesn't require it. Their requirements and expectations are all the validation I need.

If you don't like the policy start a thread / poll to get it changed.

Not my words but seem to fit here...
The problem what Ken has stated is not what YOU want. You drone on and on and speak as if you have ALL the answers and if the game is not played your way...you won't play. You would have a lot more credibility if you played the game within the rules and worked for change instead of your endless carping. You seem to believe standing outside the building and throwing rocks at it will somehow change the building.

Quoting Prof. Kingsfield:

Quote:
(...) assuming you are working as part of a larger Team. (...)

IMO team players should contribute to our database.

Quoting lyonsden5:

Quote:
As I see it though those who do vote no are only hurting themselves. Ken has stated your voting habits are recorded. Every time you vote yes for something that gets declined it counts against you. Conversely every time you vote no for something that gets approved it also will hurt your overall voting record.

My believes for how this system works in practise is as strong as it it for the forum "rate post negative" system. As long as person's "credits" aren't visible, I don't even believe their existense. They are just a pile of words to calm down the forum users. That's all...

Quoting Forget_the_Rest:

Quote:

I completely agree. With that ruling, no one knows where they stand with regards to the CLT.

I completely agree too. I cannot see any point why to include them. The CLT data varies daily depending how contributions get approved. What was one results a day ago, might be something completely different today.

The most stupidest thing is that that your own contribution might be the one that swings the scale. After your contribution has been accepted, you might have to contribute right again, since your  accepted contribution changed the CLT results to opposite.