Quoting hal9g:

Quote:
Actually, you give yourself too much credit for being clever.

Actually, I gave you more credit than I should have.  The inclusion of "See how that cuts both ways?" should have indicated to anyone, without an agenda, that it wasn't a serious statement but an illustration of how that 'logic' can be used both by both sides.

Quote:
I quoted what you wrote.  No one here can interpret any "other" meaning" you may have intended.

Yes, you quoted what I wrote..too bad you didn't understand it.

Quote:
Your sarcasm does not promote an intellectual discussion of the real issue here.  This is typically what happens when someone realizes that they cannot actually argue effectively against the points being made by others.

Ah, so you did see that it was sarcasm.  Seems like you are being disingenuous on purpose.  I wonder why that is? 

Quoting Unicus69:

Quote:
If it were the other way around, I would stop contributing these roles...just as I did with Disney DVD...since it isn't, I will continue doing it the way the community has decided it should be done.

So the community is now the final word on what is permissible, and not the Rules themselves.

You certainly have changed your position dramatically from your previous statements on this practice.

I guess when it's your own personal preference, that will happen!

Quoting Unicus69:

Quote:
Quoting hal9g:

Quote:
So the community is now the final word on what is permissible, and not the Rules themselves.

You certainly have changed your position dramatically from your previous statements on this practice.

Once again you are allowing your personal agenda to cloud the truth.  When it comes to crew credits, this has always been my practice.  I have freely admitted, both here and at IVS, that I ignore the restrictions caused by the crew rules.  I ignore them because they prevent valid, Profiler credits, from being entered.

You are the one who's position has changed dramatically.  You are the one who is pretending that ignoring the rule then is different than ignoring them now.  You are the one who believes that disallowing all credits is bad, and can be ignored, but disallowing only some credits is o.k. and should be followed to the letter.

Quote:
I guess when it's your own personal preference, that will happen!

Too right.

I have no personal agenda other than to follow what the Rules tell us to do.

Once again you keep comparing the old Rules to today....an invalid comparison since the old Rule prevented ALL crew entries.  The new Rules do not and Ken re-emphasized in the last release of the Rules that we are ONLY to use what is in the two crew table columns he specifically identified..

Using the past error in the Rules to justify your current violations just doesn't cut it.

Ignoring the Rule before IS different than ignoring it now and you know perfectly well why.  Anyone with any sense knows beyond a doubt that Ken did not really want to eliminate all crew credits under the old Rule.  He simply listed the column name incorrectly.

When he corrected that error in the new Rule, it becomes quite clear that he does want to restrict crew roles only to the two columns that he clearly identified.  Any other interpretation is driven purely by the fact that you don't like that restriction.  So sorry, but that's what it says.

No matter how much you argue it, entering any crew credits not listed in those two columns other than in custom role fields, is a violation of the Rules.

Quoting Unicus69:

Quote:
Quoting hal9g:

Quote:

No matter how much you argue it, entering any crew credits not listed in those two columns other than in custom role fields, is a violation of the Rules.

No matter how much you argue it, entering any crew credits under the old wording, was a violation of the rules.  Whether or not it made any sense doesn't change that fact.  You want to pretend the situations are different so that you can claim the moral high ground.  Sorry, but I am not going to play that game with you.

I'm not pretending anything.  The situations are different, as I've explained several times.  Admitting as much would destroy your position, however.

Forget about the old Rule.  It's history.  It no longer applies.  Talking about it is a complete waste of time.

Under the current Rule, no matter how much you argue it, entering any crew credits not listed in those two columns other than in custom role fields, is a violation of the Rules.

Quoting Unicus69:

Quote:
Quoting hal9g:

Quote:
I'm not pretending anything.  The situations are different, as I've explained several times.  Admitting as much would destroy your position, however.

You are pretending.  The situations are exactly the same, as I've explained several times.  However, admitting as much would destroy your position.

Quote:
Forget about the old Rule.  It's history.  It no longer applies.  Talking about it is a complete waste of time.

Not going to happen.  Doesn't matter.  Sure it does.  Only to you.

You'd make a wonderful parrot.  An original thought would be refreshing.

If you can't do any better than to repeat what someone else has said with a little twist, you shouldn't bother!

Quoting hal9g:

Quote:
Valid data only according to your personal preference.  It is not valid data according to the Rule that Ken put in place.

But apparently, because you feel that it's valid, you can trump what Ken wrote.

That is the same attitude taken by a multitude of others in the past and is directly responsible for the mess we have today.

As usual, people have figured out a way to justify their actions with twisted logic.

I don't know why I bother to engage in these conversations.  They always end up the same way: "I'll do exactly what I damn well please".

End of discussion for me.

Please spare me the self-righteous indignation.  You want us to forget the past because, under the old rules, you were guilty of all of that.  You can pretend all you like but you can't change the facts.

I'll probably regret posting this, but oh well...

I think people forget why the rules are there... The purpose, at least the way I see it (keep that in mind  ), is to elliminate, or at the very least reduce, bad data and personal preferences from making it into the database.  This works because of the voting system and is set up pretty well to accomplish this very task. Not to mention that there are a reletively few number of regular contributers, most of which have a pretty darn good idea of what the rules are.

Some people assume that if we allow some leverage on the rules such as in Katatonia's example: "Once Upon a Time in Mexico, where the credits are this: Shot, Chopped, and Scored by Robert Rodriguez", that the data's accuracy goes out the window. By some user's logic this should be resubmitted and not contain Robert Rodriguez in the crew section, which just seems silly.  Now I'm not saying just allow anything in the database, but the overwhelmingly obvious, or provable via other sources, should be allowed IMO.

If a 'functional equivalent' is contributed but is actually far from it, the voting system would more then likely catch it and it would be voted down, right? I think the stance that everything has to be *exactly* *word for word* following the rules assumes that we are a community lacking in any bit of intelligence.  We are of course humans and will make mistakes here and there, and there will be a few bad apples in the community that will try to squeeze bad data, or personal preferences into the database. But I think the mass majority of our "regular contributers" will do the right thing and only contribute that which actually belongs.  And in the case that a personal preference does get contributed, the community members who really know what's what will vote that contribution down.

Common sense should be used IMO. If it doesn't say *exactly* what is said on the screen, it can still be in the database... as long it can be proved via some other method, or just plain common sense, that it truely does belong in the selected catagory. 

I'm not trying to start a war and mean no offense to anyone in particular here, I just feel some people take the rules way too seriously and forget what we're doing here.  They are here to help us make the best DVD database out there, not prevent us from doing just that. 

Just one newbie's prospective... hopefully the red arrows don't come raining down 

Quoting hal9g:

Quote:
It would seem that someone has done a slight change of direction since posting this. 

Nice try but, no.  If you had bothered to read the entire thread for context, instead of trying to play this game of 'gotcha', you would have seen that my position has not changed on bit.  You see, that discussion took place back when the wording of the rules still refered to the "Film Credits to Include" column.  If you had read the entire thread, you would have seen my further posts that explained my stance further...

"There is nothing convenient about it.  The problem is we can NOT follow that statement in the rules.  If we do, there wouldn't be a single crew credit in profiler.  I don't think anybody wants that.  Since we can not follow that rule, we have to look at the chart...the entire chart.  With the exception of 'writer', it is very easy to do.  Why people want to make it more complicated is beyond me."

"I am sorry but, after re-reading your post, your suggested method is far to convoluted and requires us to accept half the rule, while ignoring the other half.  The simplest way to do crew credits is to use the chart...the entire chart...and ignore the rule that says, "For each category, include only those people credited with the roles listed in the "Film Credits to Include" column. If someone is not credited with one of these roles, do not include them in the Crew section.""

I could be wrong, but it sure seems like I am doing the exact same thing now as I did then...ignoring the part of the rule that prevents the entry of valid data. 

Since you are digging up the past, I found some interesting reading as well...from the same thread.

Quoting hal9g:

Quote:
Now the next argument will be that OMB, OCB and Song Writer are all blank in this column.

It is not a long stretch to "assume" that this was merely an oversight when the Rules got published.

So, whatever should we do?  We could go strictly by the Rule and say no entries can be made for these roles, but does that really make sense?  I didn't think you would think so.

So, we agree that these roles can be entered.  Because there is nothing listed there, it kind of leaves things pretty wide open FOR THOSE ROLES.

As I said, you were quite happy to break the rules when it suited your 'logic'.  Now that it doesn't, you want to condemn everybody else.  Tell me again who changed their direction?