 |
|
|
|
Welcome to the Invelos forums. Please read the forum
rules before posting.
Read access to our public forums is open to everyone. To post messages, a free
registration is required.
If you have an Invelos account, sign in to post.
|
|
|
|
|
Invelos Forums->DVD Profiler: Contribution Discussion |
Page:
1 2 3 4  Previous Next
|
|
Art Directors |
|
|
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
| Registered: May 19, 2007 | Reputation:  |  Posts: 6,730 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting RHo: Quote:
Quoting hal9g:
Quote:
If you get Ken to change the Rules, then we can begin a whole new set of arguments about what is and is not a "functional equivalent". That'll be fun!
I guess this will not be as much fun as we have now. Not sure about that, just think about all the funny little ping pong games that are going to start the very next second, followed by hilarious discussions on highly unimportant topics that even though will be discussed till the bitter end.  I think I'll check at EBay for argument enhancers.  Found one!  | | | It all seems so stupid, it makes me want to give up!
But why should I give up, when it all seems so stupid?
Registrant since 05/22/2003 |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | Reputation:  |  Posts: 13,202 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting hal9g: Quote:
Until the most recent version of the Rules, they never specifically said that we could not enter credits that were not listed in the crew table under specific columns. Now they do say that, so anything that happened before is irrelevant. Ken specifically added that verbiage with this release of the program. I can only assume that he did so for a very good reason that you apparently want to ignore. Talk about some fast-talking there!!!!  You really need to stop playing the parser as you are not very good at it. Your claim, while a correct statement, is completely wrong when it comes to the meaning of the words and the rule. The old rule read, and I quote, "The table below gives each of the crew roles available within DVD Profiler. For each category, include only those people credited with the roles listed in the "Film Credits to Include" column." See the part I bolded? The part that states that we can only enter credits that are listed in a specific column? That statement, precludes the entry of credits from anywhere but that column. There was no need for the rules to tell us we "could not enter credits that were not listed in the crew table under specific columns" because the use of the word 'only' already did that. A sentence that reads, "If someone is not credited with one of these roles (or direct translations of these roles), do not include them in the Crew section" is redundant and superfluous as it does nothing more than reinforce the initial sentence. To pretend otherwise is just silly.  | | | No dictator, no invader can hold an imprisoned population by force of arms forever.
There is no greater power in the universe than the need for freedom.
Against this power, governments and tyrants and armies cannot stand.
The Centauri learned this lesson once.
We will teach it to them again.
Though it take a thousand years, we will be free.
- Citizen G'Kar | | | | Last edited: by TheMadMartian |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | Reputation:  | | Posts: 6,635 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Unicus69: Quote:
Quoting hal9g:
Quote:
Until the most recent version of the Rules, they never specifically said that we could not enter credits that were not listed in the crew table under specific columns. Now they do say that, so anything that happened before is irrelevant. Ken specifically added that verbiage with this release of the program. I can only assume that he did so for a very good reason that you apparently want to ignore.
Talk about some fast-talking there!!!!
You really need to stop playing the parser as you are not very good at it. Your claim, while a correct statement, is completely wrong when it comes to the meaning of the words and the rule.
The old rule read, and I quote, "The table below gives each of the crew roles available within DVD Profiler. For each category, include only those people credited with the roles listed in the "Film Credits to Include" column."
See the part I bolded? The part that states that we can only enter credits that are listed in a specific column? That statement, precludes the entry of credits from anywhere but that column. There was no need for the rules to tell us we "could not enter credits that were not listed in the crew table under specific columns" because the use of the word 'only' already did that.
A sentence that reads, "If someone is not credited with one of these roles (or direct translations of these roles), do not include them in the Crew section" is redundant and superfluous as it does nothing more than reinforce the initial sentence. To pretend otherwise is just silly. I don't disagree that the original version should have prevented using roles not listed in the "Film credits to include column". But there's the rub, isn't it. There was no such column in the table, therefore, that entire part of the Rules was universally ignored, not just the fact that it named the wrong column. What you ignore is the fact that Ken explicitly added language in the new rules that states unequivocally that if the roles are not listed in the two appropriate columns, they cannot be entered. That language did not exist previously. The only reason to add the second sentence was to emphasize that he did not want any roles entered that were not listed in the table. Just correcting the sentence to name the correct columns would have been sufficient to accomplish the same thing, but it seems clear that Ken was emphasizing his wishes by adding the second part. And I'm not entirely clear about what you are arguing for. On the one hand you are saying that we should not have entered other roles under the old rules, but then you seem to be agreeing with Tim that it's OK to enter them under the new rules????  | | | | Hal | | | | Last edited: by hal9g |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 13,202 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting hal9g: Quote:
I don't disagree that the original version should have prevented using roles not listed in the "Film credits to include column". But there's the rub, isn't it. There was no such column in the table, therefore, that entire part of the Rules was universally ignored, not just the fact that it named the wrong column. There is no rub. The fact is, a strict reading of the rules required that no crew credits be entered. Because of that, everybody ignored them. Quote:
What you ignore is the fact that Ken explicitly added language in the new rules that states unequivocally that if the roles are not listed in the two appropriate columns, they cannot be entered. That language did not exist previously. The only reason to add the second sentence was to emphasize that he did not want any roles entered that were not listed in the table. Just correcting the sentence to name the correct columns would have been sufficient to accomplish the same thing, but it seems clear that Ken was emphasizing his wishes by adding the second part. I ignored nothing. In fact, I clearly said that the added sentence was "redundant and superfluous as it does nothing more than reinforce the initial sentence." Reinforce...emphasize...pretty much the same thing. Quote:
And I'm not entirely clear about what you are arguing for. On the one hand you are saying that we should not have entered other roles under the old rules, but then you seem to be agreeing with Tim that it's OK to enter them under the new rules???? Then let me clear it up for you. If it was o.k. to ignore the old rule, because the wording was 'inconvenient', then it is o.k. to ignore the new rule for the same reason. While the wording has changed, the situation is the same...based on a strict reading of the rules, we are required to exclude valid Profiler credits. Most of us can see this. For some reason, you can't...which is fine, but don't sit there and lecture us about 'right and wrong' when you were more than happy to ignore the last version of this rule. | | | No dictator, no invader can hold an imprisoned population by force of arms forever.
There is no greater power in the universe than the need for freedom.
Against this power, governments and tyrants and armies cannot stand.
The Centauri learned this lesson once.
We will teach it to them again.
Though it take a thousand years, we will be free.
- Citizen G'Kar |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 21,610 |
| | Posted: | | | | | | | ASSUME NOTHING!!!!!!
CBE, MBE, MoA and proud of it.
Outta here
Billy Video |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 2,759 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting hal9g: Quote:
Until the most recent version of the Rules, they never specifically said that we could not enter credits that were not listed in the crew table under specific columns. Now they do say that, so anything that happened before is irrelevant. Ken specifically added that verbiage with this release of the program. I can only assume that he did so for a very good reason that you apparently want to ignore. Not true, the rules have always said only to use credits from a specific column of the table. Unfortunately the column has not existed at all. So, we have been instructed to enter no crew credit at all. Of course everybody has ignored this part of the rules. |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 2,759 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting goblinsdoitall: Quote:
Quoting RHo:
Quote:
Quoting hal9g:
Quote:
If you get Ken to change the Rules, then we can begin a whole new set of arguments about what is and is not a "functional equivalent". That'll be fun!
I guess this will not be as much fun as we have now.
Not sure about that, just think about all the funny little ping pong games that are going to start the very next second, followed by hilarious discussions on highly unimportant topics that even though will be discussed till the bitter end. The ping pong argument is not valid any more since Intervocative has introduced the contribution system with voting and feedback. Even on very disputed data we hardly see much ping pong. I'm sure we will not see more discussion about crew credits in the forum when functional equivalents will be allowed as we see already today. |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 2,759 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Unicus69: Quote:
The fact is, a strict reading of the rules required that no crew credits be entered. Because of that, everybody ignored them.
(...)
If it was o.k. to ignore the old rule, because the wording was 'inconvenient', then it is o.k. to ignore the new rule for the same reason. While the wording has changed, the situation is the same...based on a strict reading of the rules, we are required to exclude valid Profiler credits. (...) The old rules were flawed and everybody ignored them. Are you now telling us that the new rules are flawed as well and we should ignore them or are you saying that they have been corrected? If the first, I did not like it under the old rules that in some cases people have ignored them on some credits while the same people have used them to argue against an other credit. If you say the later, I don't like that valid credits, which people obviously want to enter (see the numerous forum discussions lately), can't be entered. Therefore I'm still convinced that allowing functional equivalents would be an enhancement. |
| | Registered: May 19, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 6,730 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting RHo: Quote:
Therefore I'm still convinced that allowing functional equivalents would be an enhancement. Generally I would agree and would go even further and say that opening the crew roles (equivalent to cast roles) would end the discussion. For those of us who'd like to sort on "Director" the general sections as already existing might be kept. | | | It all seems so stupid, it makes me want to give up!
But why should I give up, when it all seems so stupid?
Registrant since 05/22/2003 |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 6,635 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Unicus69: Quote:
Then let me clear it up for you. If it was o.k. to ignore the old rule, because the wording was 'inconvenient', then it is o.k. to ignore the new rule for the same reason. While the wording has changed, the situation is the same...based on a strict reading of the rules, we are required to exclude valid Profiler credits. Most of us can see this. For some reason, you can't...which is fine, but don't sit there and lecture us about 'right and wrong' when you were more than happy to ignore the last version of this rule. So you're saying that any Rule that has been ignored in the past is now "grandfathered" in and we can ignore it in perpetuity EVEN AFTER Ken has deliberately attempted to clarify it! Your statement that the situation is the same is disingenuous at best! The situation is not the same at all! As you stated, under the old rule a strict interpretation meant that NO CREW could be entered. Nobody in their right mind would believe that Ken actually meant that! That is not even close to being the case under the new wording. The vast majority of all credits that we have entered in the past, can now be entered legitimately under the wording of the new Rule. I find it quite amazing that some folks are sticklers for the letter of the law until they personally don't like or agree with what a rule says. Trying to equate a situation where zero crew can be entered to a situation where crew entries are limited to a fairly extensive list in the crew table is simply ludricrous! | | | | Hal | | | | Last edited: by hal9g |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 6,635 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting goblinsdoitall: Quote:
Quoting RHo:
Quote:
Therefore I'm still convinced that allowing functional equivalents would be an enhancement.
Generally I would agree and would go even further and say that opening the crew roles (equivalent to cast roles) would end the discussion.
For those of us who'd like to sort on "Director" the general sections as already existing might be kept. As soon as Ken modifies the Rules or the program to say something else or to act differently, then I will whole-heartedly support that. Until then, the Rules tell us not to enter crew credits that are not listed in the crew table under the "Role" or or "Credited As" columns . Period. | | | | Hal |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 2,759 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting hal9g: Quote:
The vast majority of all credits that we have entered in the past, can now be entered legitimately under the wording of the new Rule. I don't think so. There are likely no legitimate "Original Material By" and "Song Writer" credits in the database at all. And several other credits are entered into the database without any problem even though they are stricktly speaking not allowed by the rules. Plus we have the credit variants which we are discussing in the forum (under old and new rules) which people mostly agree that they should be valid because they are functional equivalents (e.g. UK equivalents), but are not allowed by the rules. And the situation for foreign language credits has not improved as well, because now we know that we should only enter direct translations which are rarely used in every days credits. |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 2,759 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting hal9g: Quote:
As soon as Ken modifies the Rules or the program to say something else or to act differently, then I will whole-heartedly support that.
Until then, the Rules tell us not to enter crew credits that are not listed in the crew table under the "Role" or or "Credited As" columns . Period. Correct! But we still can lobby for a change, can't we? | | | | Last edited: by RHo |
| | Registered: May 19, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 6,730 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting hal9g: Quote:
As soon as Ken modifies the Rules or the program to say something else or to act differently, then I will whole-heartedly support that.
Until then, the Rules tell us not to enter crew credits that are not listed in the crew table under the "Role" or or "Credited As" columns . Period. Agreed, it's just that only because I try to make rule-conform contributions doesn't have to mean that I like the rules as they are. | | | It all seems so stupid, it makes me want to give up!
But why should I give up, when it all seems so stupid?
Registrant since 05/22/2003 |
| | Registered: March 14, 2007 | | Posts: 3,830 |
| | Posted: | | | | . | | | | Sources for one or more of the changes and/or additions were not submitted. Please include the sources for your changes in the contribution notes, especially for cast and crew additions. | | | | Last edited: by ? |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 6,635 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting goblinsdoitall: Quote:
Quoting hal9g:
Quote:
As soon as Ken modifies the Rules or the program to say something else or to act differently, then I will whole-heartedly support that.
Until then, the Rules tell us not to enter crew credits that are not listed in the crew table under the "Role" or or "Credited As" columns . Period.
Agreed,
it's just that only because I try to make rule-conform contributions doesn't have to mean that I like the rules as they are. I totally agree and have said so numerous times. The correct way to address this is to get Ken to change the current Rules to either remove the requirement to only use the two crew table columns, to add additional roles to the "Credited As" column, to allow directions provided in the Notes column to be used, to allow "functional equivalents" formally or some combination of all or some of the above. What we need to be careful of is that whatever we do will insure consistency in the data that gets entered and that it is not left up to individuals to decide what is or is not acceptable. "Interpretation" needs to be minimized as much as possible. That is nothing more than personal preference. | | | | Hal |
|
|
|
Invelos Forums->DVD Profiler: Contribution Discussion |
Page:
1 2 3 4 Previous Next
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |