I will not state my actual feelings, since they are not very polite. I will NOT play the game your way, Tim. I have already made the very conscious to deprive the Community of my work because it isn't worth this kind of crap any longer. I am not happy about it but i will not do and undo work simply because some collection idiots wants something different. So, when you are ready to satrt paying me for my time let me know, I have well over $100K in time invested so bugger off.

BTW, for those who I am sure will. I find the whole idea brought up and that tim has mentioned to be just as offensive.

Skip

To me a consensus means that a vast majority agrees. I don't see any definition here that suggest that a small majority equals consensus. But I might be missing something.

Anyway if all of you think that 18-14 is a consensus, I will have to accept that it is, but also say that such a small consensus is worthless, especially since it was in closed forum.

Quoting reybr:

Quote:
18-14 isn't what I would call a consensus though. Maybe it's my Norwegian dictionary that doesn't give me the correct meaning of the word, but a poll with only 32 participants and a slim margin isn't something  I would call 'agreed upon'

Consensus may not be the perfect word for this situation, but it was a najority decision.

Quote:
24-4 on the other hand... Although the total votes are less, we can see a clear trend in what people want

Yes and no.  As I said, the poll was flawed as it did not give the third option.  Because of that, it only shows which of the two options were prefered.  It did not show how many of those people prefered not to use a divider at all.  It started from the position that we are all going to use dividers for group rolls, which had not been decided.

Quote:
Anyway if all of you think that 18-14 is a consensus, I will have to accept that it is, but also say that such a small consensus is worthless, especially since it was in closed forum.

I will not fight you on this point.  For there to be a real consensus, the issue should be discussed in this forum.  To date, I don't think that has happened.

@ Skip: I'm sorry, you've lost me. I really don't understand a word of your last few posts. I'm just amazed to see that when you remember your facts wrong, I can apparently "bugger off". I consider that pretty offensive, especially as I don't think I've done or said anything even remotely wrong.

@ reybr: I can certainly agree that the 18-14 result is not exactly a huge majority. Maybe we should do it over, maybe not. Then again, these decisions are pretty worthless in any case, as most users don't even read the forums, and those that do, have a tendency to just remember the ones that they happened to agree with, or simply remember them with the outcome of their own choice...  As long as they're not incorporated into the rules, they really don't mean anything. That's why I suggested that Unicus' post detailing the use of dividers could/should be copied in the rules a.s.a.p. IMHO, that's the only "correct", or else just "sensible" way of using dividers - at least, if we're going to use them for anything else than for TV episodes.

Edit - I see you beat me to it - quoting reybr:

Quote:
As long as nothing is put into the rules to clarify how to use the dividers, these arguments will go on and on.

Quoting T!M:

Quote:
Quoting skipnet50:

Quote:
No, Tim. We did it the first time. NOT AGAIN. The Rule of the Moment is NOT ACCEPTABLE.

Quote:
18-14 is a majority and as a result a consensus. I have not seen anything that would say we need two-thirds or 80% or anything of the sort.

Eh... I actually AGREE with that original consensus: not to use dividers for group roles. So that consensus - by your own admission - was exactly what I remembered it to be. So no "rule of the moment" at all - Unicus' strategy still stands:

Quoting Unicus69:

Quote:
This is an example of a 'divider':

Police
Actor  Detective Smith
Actor  Officer Jones
Actor  Officer Johnson

This is an example of a 'group role":

Police
Actor Actor Actor
Actor Actor Actor

The first example would get a divider in Profiler, the second would not.

The first example warrants the use of a divider, the second is a "group role" (a single role name shared by a group of actors), for which, per the consensus, NO divider should be used.

As stated in my earlier post, Unicus' example (which is phrased better than mine  ) is exactly how I thought we were supposed to do it anyway.

It's how I have been doing it and don't see any reason to change.

A rules clarification would be great (Gerri....are you listening??? )

Perhaps Tim, instead of only worrying about me offending you. You should sit down and figure out whyt you are offending ME. It is after all a two way street SIR

Skip

Because you are talking at me, tim. YOU wanbt to change the course from what is being done and I will NOT follow you PERIOD. of course, i suppose my opinion is actually irrelevant because users such as your self have forced me into the decision of withholding my Contributions, this is a decision I don t like nor do i talke it lightly. But I will not participate in your little game of endlerss editing just because you have decided you want it. 8,000 Contributions the way you do most of them amounts to to about 800-1000 hours maximum. I keep a log of the time I spend, Tim so I know what I have invested. I am not putting down what you do, Tim, but your work does not involve FULL audits and Hi-Res cover Scans typically, which mine do. I appreciate what you do.

I repeat Tim, I will NOT follow what you want to do. If that offends you...too bad. I folow what has been established already.

Skip

Well Tim until you decide to stop insisting that i follow what you want while dismissing what offends me, I will judge the time you put in as i wish. I have a pretty good feel for how long it takes to do the work in whatever form.

I am not going to follow you and as long as this stupid Rule of the Moment continues I will NO LONGER contribute my work to an ungrateful community. It may not be valuable to you sir, but it is to ME. I am not even Contributing pre-release data any longer nor do i intend to. This is a game that for me, has gone too far and i simply do not wish to participate in it any longer. I am also fed up with users such as you Tim who believe they know more about the rules than I, that will be a cold day in hades. You may not like it, but its a FACT.

Skip