Quoting Lopek:

Quote:
I'm changing my vote, I think it is Helena//Bonham Carter's The Birds 

No. That would be Helena//Bonham Carter's-The Birds

Just a general observation.  I'm sure it's not unique and has probably been made many times before.

I've noticed when an unpleasant situation comes up in the contribution forums, there is a great deal of fighting and arguing, rules assessing, and finally, if merited, problem solving.  I also observe that the problem solving phase involves accepted permutations or qualifications to the rules to account for this problem.  Perhaps its a new way of looking at the data or just an agreed upon translation of what we are seeing.  Finally, I notice a bunch of people acknowledging that the new method isn't perfect but it'll work until the next problem comes along and we'll just have to revisit it then.

So far, everything seems reasonable.  A little bumpy, but perfectly reasonable.

Fast foward a couple of years, and now that dreaded exception rears it's head.  Rather than remember that this was inevitable and that it would be addressed at the time, we have a situation where the rules have become this immutable force of nature that are inviolate.  The rules are so rigid, that we have folks actually advocating that it's the data's fault and if the data won't conform, then the data must change.  But....you knew this was coming when you made the rule.

At what point did allegiance to the rules become more important than correct data?  Because you knew going into things, that the rules as written wouldn't always allow correct data.  Sure, we all slapped ourselves on the back when we wrote them and promised to look at those special cases when they arose (wink wink, nudge nudge), so what the heck happened?

Allegiance to the rules at the expense of correct data means your database is useless.  I've been working in the data field for over 20 years.  In all my professional life I've never once received a request for well formatted data that isn't knowingly correct.  However, our goal, with this almost pathological invoking of the rules, seems to be just this situation.  Every database administrator in the world is protective of their data.  Point out a piece of information that is wrong and they'll rush to fix it.  But here, no data is wrong if it matches the rules.  If it doesn't, don't worry, we'll beat it into submission.

I find it fascinating that when this title change was first proposed, few people actually bothered to ask themselves whether it was right...they asked whether it followed the rules.  Big difference folks.

Just my non-SRP related 2 cents.

Quoting mdnitoil:

Quote:
Just a general observation.  I'm sure it's not unique and has probably been made many times before.

I've noticed when an unpleasant situation comes up in the contribution forums, there is a great deal of fighting and arguing, rules assessing, and finally, if merited, problem solving.  I also observe that the problem solving phase invloves accepted permutations or qualifications to the rules to account for this problem.  Perhaps its a new way of looking at the data or just an agreed upon translation of what we are seeing.  Finally, I notice a bunch of people acknowledging that the new method isn't perfect but it'll work until the next problem comes along and we'll just have to revisit it then.

So far, everything seems reasonable.  A little bumpy, but perfectly reasonable.

Fast foward a couple of years, and now that dreaded exception rears it's head.  Rather than remember that this was inevitable and that it would be addressed at the time, we have a situation where the rules have become this immutable force of nature that are inviolate.  The rules are so rigid, that we have folks actually advocating that it's the data's fault and if the data won't conform, then the data must change.  But....you knew this was coming when you made the rule.

At what point did allegiance to the rules become more important than correct data?  Because you knew going into things, that the rules as written wouldn't always allow correct data.  Sure, we all slapped ourselves on the back when we wrote them and promised to look at those special cases when they arose (wink wink, nudge nudge), so what the heck happened?

Allegiance to the rules at the expense of correct data means your database is useless.  I've been working in the data field for over 20 years.  In all my professional life I've never once received a request for well formatted data that isn't knowingly correct.  However, our goal, with this almost pathological invoking of the rules, seems to be just this situation.  Every database administrator in the world is protective of their data.  Point out a piece of information that is wrong and they'll rush to fix it.  But here, no data is wrong if it matches the rules.  If it doesn't, don't worry, we'll beat it into submission.

I find it fascinating that when this title change was first proposed, few people actually bothered to ask themselves whether it was right...they asked whether it followed the rules.  Big difference folks.

Just my non-SRP related 2 cents.

Very well said. 

Quoting mdnitoil:

Quote:


I find it fascinating that when this title change was first proposed, few people actually bothered to ask themselves whether it was right...they asked whether it followed the rules.  Big difference folks.

Sorry, didn't read your post till after my last one.

The rules will not cover everything. There will always be exceptions. Changing the "Guidelines" into "Rules" will not change that.

(I wonder whose idea that change was.....)

We now have a situation where:

1. Inaccurate data is now allowed and encouraged (the SRP debate)
2. Data is manipulated to "fit" the rules (this debate)
3. "Rules" are applied to subjective information (any genre debate)

It's just ridiculous, and allows people like Skip to parade their lack of social skills under the banner of "Defending the Rules".

Well, if the rules need defending, then there is something wrong with them.

Quoting johnd:

Quote:
Quoting Rifter:

Quote:

Oh, get over yourself.  Your opinion is no more important than anybody else's.

Actually, I am the most important person here, and my opinion is the only one that counts.






Sorry, channeling Skip for a moment.....

No, I am!

Quoting Dan W:

Quote:
Quoting johnd:

Quote:
Quoting Rifter:

Quote:

Oh, get over yourself.  Your opinion is no more important than anybody else's.

Actually, I am the most important person here, and my opinion is the only one that counts.






Sorry, channeling Skip for a moment.....

No, I am!

I am Spartacus

Quoting Rifter:

Quote:
If you want to make it so he doesn't have to edit anything, then you don't understand the premise of a user-built database.  That is part of the problem, not part of the solution.  Accuracy is what is on the disc, supplemented by documented source material when necessary.  It ain't personal preference of any kind.  Finally, if the screen shows "Alfred Hitchcock's The Birds", even with a fade-out/in in the middle, that's the title.

That is your opinion, and you are welcome to it but your opinion doesn't make it fact.

Quoting mdnitoil:

Quote:
Quoting Unicus69:

Quote:
Quoting mdnitoil:

Quote:
I find it fascinating that when this title change was first proposed, few people actually bothered to ask themselves whether it was right...they asked whether it followed the rules.  Big difference folks.

I beg to differ.  I thought it was right AND followed the rules. 

Well, I qualified it with "few".

Give me a break, I was on a roll! 

Oh come on...I was just trying to create more 'made up drama'. 



That and I missed the word 'few'.