One more try...

The rules are the rules, but when the rules don't make sense, it's time to look at things, not just blindly follow them.

If anybody here thinks we will ever have a set of rules that will correctly address any and all situations we might find on a DVD, they are clueless.  There are too many variations that we will never think of.  And, if we did, the rules would be thousands upon thousands of pages long.  Then, we would spend all our time reading the rules and not have any time to collect, let alone watch, DVDs.

Common sense IS the answer.  I know several here don't believe in it, but it's being shown all over this thread and the voting.

If we have to go through and change every title every time there is a rule change because the rules demand it, then we are actively pursuing the goal of the perpetual ping-pong.  From all of the arguments I've heard here, we were supposed to be trying to avoid that, but maybe I'm confused.


Flame away...

Dear Ken (kdh1949),

It was not my intention to engender further combativeness or negativity. It is the tendency of those on these forums to become personal, nasty, agressive etc. that I was hoping to defuse somewhat.  I want to participate in thoughtful, civil, and constructive discussions not name calling, threatening, arguments. I do care what you think and I respect your point of view.  I'm not suggesting you were especially combative but the "you should be banned from contributing" was not helpful.


On my use of the term "guidelines" in my previous post I was not conciously using that term as a reference to the previous era (before I bought the program I believe) when the "rules" were called guidelines. I was simply using the term generically -- I guess I meant the rules are designed provide "guidance" to users on what is a proper contrbution. They are not exhaustive (they have to remain brief obviously) and as a result do not answer all questions -- there is clearly room for interpretation --- they can be (and have been) changed periodically to address certain points. All this means to me that the rules should not elevated to sacred status. The underlying purpose of the rules is to produce ACCURATE results and when they don't do that it's a problem.

That having been said I respect the rules and do not contribute things that I believe violate them. I agree that personal preferences regarding database entries are best left to user's local database. For instance I like to use 2-Disc Set in the "Other" section of "Features" but I would not contribute that or support someone who does. Why? The rules specifically say you shouldn't and that result is NOT silly - it's a matter of personal preference.

However I think the purpose of the rules is to produce an accurate and consistent database - in this case (Star Wars DVD Titles) I think the rules are producing an inaccurate result which hurts the database -- which is why I voted no. I am honestly and sincerely suggesting that an exception to the rule be permited in this instance but like I said before I will respect the decision of Ken Cole (he is the owner of the database after all) regardless of whether I agree with it.

In that respect I cannot agree with some people who have stated they plan to make a contribution to change the title back if Skip's current contributions are approved. I think everyone (as I stated in my earlier post) should accept the decision (whatever it is) and move on.

I also hope that those with differing viewpoints (such as Skip - who I like personally and whose tremendous effort in making detailed and accurate contributions I greatly appreciate) can accept that I have a honest and sincere differing view about whether this contribution is a good one for the database. As much as I might disagree with someone's opinon stated here I can't envision ever campaigning to punish those with removal of voting privileges just because of a sincere disagreement about a particular contribution. It certainly seems that some people have an honest belief that the rules permit "Episode" to remain in the titles at issue here.

However as I stated before IMHO the rules as written favor removing the word "Episode" from the title but I also feel that since the rules can be and are changed (and by the way are not perfect, infallible, or handed down by God (although Ken Cole is the God of DVD Profiler )) that we can permit people to at6 least express the view (through their vote) that a particular contribution makes the database less accurate. Ultimately Ken Cole decides what to do and I hope he considers all sides.

Sincerely,

Brian

Skip,

Thanks for the thoughtful comments. I also can say I appreciate what you are saying. I think your points are well taken. As I stated before I will respect Ken's decision (ruling seems a bit much) and move on -- of course I will retain "Episode" in my local which in the end is a nice feature of the program.

I also want to state that I personally did not campaign for the rule change and agree that in most cases changes to the rules create as many problems as they solve. I also want to state (b/c it ofen goes by the wayside in these debates and isn't said often enough) that I think this is a very nicely done program and Ken Cole deserves credit for creating it and improving it and nuturing it along despite all the obstacles legal and otherwise he had to overcome. I also appreciate the efforts of those who take the time to painstakingly add the overview, cast, crew, common names and the like to the profile for many DVDs. I know I contribute very little by comparison. My only wish is that these intrepid contributors owned more of my more esoteric titles

Skip are you willing to go out and buy more of the same titles I own so you can work your magic?

Happy Thanksgiving

Brian

Quoting Mark Harrison:

Quote:
Quoting skipnet50:

Quote:
I must admit I do so enjoy ramming the majority's bad rules back down their throats, it was short-sighted at the time and I tried to explain all of that but as usual if Skip says it then it has to be bad, so live the fallout of your own decision.

I voted neutral because I can't support changes being made to ram anything down elseone else's throats.  I don't believe this was done to improve the database, but to prove a point.  And I won't partake.

Oh, that's exactly what's going on here...and if anyone allows Skip to convince them otherwise, they're fools. It's saddening for a grown man to act in such a manner over something that, in the big picture, isn't the least bit important.

Quoting chibul:

Quote:
Oh, that's exactly what's going on here...and if anyone allows Skip to convince them otherwise, they're fools. It's saddening for a grown man to act in such a manner over something that, in the big picture, isn't the least bit important.

Who cares if that is "what's going on here"?  The contribution follows the rules and that is all that matters.  I voted 'yes' when hal did this and voted 'yes' when Skip did it.

As for it not being "the least bit important", how many profile changes are?  I mean, if we are looking at the 'big picture'.  I can't count the number of contributions I have voted on where the only change is, 'added widescreen to dist. trait'.  How important are those? 

Quoting kdh1949:

Quote:
Quoting bbursiek:

Quote:
The person voting should vote what they want the result to be (otherwise why vote? - Ken decides the rules not us) -- whether they want that result because they feel the rules require it or because they feel an exception is warranted.

Not true.  The rules state that:

If a user is following the Contribution Rules and his/her data is accurate, and the contribution replaces data which is inaccurate or violates these Contribution Rules, a "No" vote is considered an abuse of the voting privilege and should be avoided when possible.
If someone votes they way that they want the result to be - and that result violates the rules, it's an abuse of the Rules and the voter can be banned.

Not true. The rule states that voting against an assumingly correct contribution should be avoided when possible, which means that if the voter thinks the contribution could be wrong, he is in fact allowed to vote "No". We, the voters, are the jury. Mr. and Mrs. Cole are the judges. It's not the other way around.

Waassamatter, Richie, don't like the taste of crow. Believe me my friend, no one was more upset about finding this than me. But i also hoped it would be a good object lesson. Remember this not something that I wanted, but it was something that the majority wanted, so now we have THIS, and there WILL be others, of differing forms to be sure, but the basic premise is the same. I have discovered another title which was modified by Hal correctly I might add, but the On Screen title is different from the Front Cover title. I would have a lot more respect for you and others, richie, if you would basically do what I did, sigh, cry over it a bit maybe but recognize that the Rules are what they are and no matter the film the Rule applies to ALL. Don't make the mistake of thinking I am pleased about it, I am merely amused and horribly disappointed in (but not at all surprised) the reaction.

You get what you want, until it is no longer convenient or you don't want it any longer. I am sorry but i am not sympathetic.

Quoting EnryWiki:

Quote:

Quote:
What we really need is a "DVD Title" field, a "Movie Title" field (on screen) and an "Original Title" field.  I'm sure some would also like a "Other Title" field as well.

I couldn't agree more 
I asked for something like that in
http://www.invelos.com/Forums.aspx?task=viewtopic&topicID=201135&messageID=402791
Posted: September 14, 2007 5:23 PM   

I would strongly agree, too.