| Author |
Message |
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | Reputation:  |  Posts: 2,293 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting liorb22: Quote:
To this:
721. Caretaker
103. Parallax
... I was a No voter (as has been stated) and gave my reasons because of my interpretation... and also as I said, if the Screeners think I'm wrong to interpret that way (and agree with lots of you!) then it'll be passed, no harm done! FWIW my reasoning is: IMO they are not numbering episodes, per se, they are providing production codes Code 721 is a confusing code as it is what they've called 101 and 102 combined, so numbering this way detracts from the data. The Rule as written allows me some leeway in interpretation so I am not voting illegally. OTOH if this does get passed we can have fun going back to ST: ToS and applying the production codes there as that would actually be useful, being as they're on the disc in broadcast order and broadcast order was not the intended one! | | | | It is dangerous to be right in matters where established men are wrong | | | | Last edited: by Voltaire53 |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 |  Posts: 21,610 |
| | Posted: | | | | Oh goody, let's play ping-pong. We don't need stable Profiles, just whatever the interpretation of the week is fine, next week we get a new interpretation and a newly correc ted profile. Yipeee.
Skip. | | | ASSUME NOTHING!!!!!!
CBE, MBE, MoA and proud of it.
Outta here
Billy Video |
|
| Registered: March 15, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 5,459 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Voltaire53: Quote:
IMO they are not numbering episodes, per se, they are providing production codes That's why I argued the case for the "no" vote. They are adding info to what is meant to be a simple list. In this situation it might be fine, but what about other situations? Some Star Trek episodes are listed by Stardate, do we use that as a number? I've seen some TV series use original TX date as an identifier - is that acceptable in a simple list?  |
|
| Registered: March 14, 2007 | Reputation:  |  Posts: 17,804 |
| | Posted: | | | | I'm the only YES voter for the reasons as mentioned before in this thread!  Of course I accept the opinion of the NO voters as well! So let the screeners decide and we'll see!  | | | | Thorsten |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 |  Posts: 693 |
| | Posted: | | | | I have completed an update for the season 2 profile (with child profiles) but I'll wait and see what will be the Screeners decision before submitting it for review. | | | | October 12th, 1985. Tonight, a comedian died in New York. |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 6,635 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Dr Pavlov: Quote:
Why would anyone want to invent data that isn't there?
As to your question, normally this would not happen, but there have been rare instances where the numbering involved differs from that used on the Disc, that's why. For example a an Overview may be numbered 1, 2, 3 but the On screen data relative to the dividers uses Production Numbers or some other numbering scheme. It's not commonplace, but it does happen and if that's what the data is, that's what it is relative to the Online, you are of course free to do whatever you wish locally and your mileage may vary.
Skip Skip, If you would just take a reading comprehension course you could save yourself and the rest of us a lot of useless posts. I repeat...we are not talking about the numbering in the Overview from the back cover. Everyone knows that has to match exactly. We are talking about the numbering of the "Simple Episode List" which may be added in addition to the Overview from the back cover. | | | | Hal |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 4,596 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Voltaire53: Quote:
Quoting liorb22:
Quote:
To this:
721. Caretaker
103. Parallax
I was a No voter (as has been stated) and gave my reasons because of my interpretation... and also as i said, if the Screeners think I'm wrong to interpret that way (and agree with lots of you!) then it'll be passed, no harm done!
FWIW my reasoning is:
They are not numbering episodes, per se, they are providing production codes
Code 721 is a confusing code as it is what they've called 101 and 102 combined, so numbering this way detracts from the data.
The Rule as written allows me some leeway in interpretation Take another look at the back plastic cover. What does it say in the column header above the Episode Numbers? It says "Ep#" not "Prod#" or anything else. "Ep#" to me means Episode Number. | | | | My WebGenDVD online Collection |
|
| Registered: August 22, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 1,807 |
| | Posted: | | | | After reading this thread, I see the merits of both sides.
The rules don't exactly say what to do in this peculiar situation, so I guess any interpretation is as good as any other. | | | | -- Enry |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 2,293 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting liorb22: Quote:
I have completed an update for the season 2 profile (with child profiles) but I'll wait and see what will be the Screeners decision before submitting it for review. And if the Screeners DO pass the present submission I'll be first in line with a Yes, as that would obviously be what the Screeners consider correct. Of course I may lock my local profile first  | | | | It is dangerous to be right in matters where established men are wrong |
|
| Registered: August 22, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 1,807 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Voltaire53: Quote:
And if the Screeners DO pass the present submission I'll be first in line with a Yes, as that would obviously be what the Screeners consider correct.
[...]
I don't think that would necessarily be true, unless they expressly declare it to be a precedent. Besides, even if they approve it, maybe they consider "correct", or at least acceptable, both forms. | | | | -- Enry | | | | Last edited: by White Pongo, Jr. |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 693 |
| | Posted: | | | | The contribution got procced, But not Approved (or Declined for that matter) :  Is that making any sense? | | | | October 12th, 1985. Tonight, a comedian died in New York. |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 17,334 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting liorb22: Quote:
The contribution got procced, But not Approved (or Declined for that matter) :
Is that making any sense? I can't find the post now to verify this... but if my memory serves me I think this has been explained in the past meaning the screener that processed it sent it to be looked at (and decided about) by the next level of screener above them (Ken and/or Gerri?). | | | | Pete |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 693 |
| | Posted: | | | | Should I open a support ticket? | | | | October 12th, 1985. Tonight, a comedian died in New York. |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 17,334 |
| | Posted: | | | | I don't see a need for that... every time that has happen to me. (I remember seeing this a few times before)... I just waited and it got approved anywhere from between minutes and hours later. | | | | Pete |
|