Enry:

I am going to ask you the same question I asked of bob since you seem to think yourself an expert. What involvement did YOU have in the development of the Rues...none. YOU did not particip[ate in any way, yet you are xepert intrying to tear them apart and i for one am tired of it. Since you have no expertise from which to draw and were involved in NONE of the discussions, your opinions have no basis other than your own mind. You have NO factual basis of ANY kind to draw on. You are wrong. Enough is enough.

Skip

Quoting skipnet50:

Quote:
Quoting bob9000:

Quote:
As Skip says, the rules are clear...I am not sure why he is mis-interpreting them however. DJ's analysis is spot-on. And the poll is giving the correct response per those rules.

Tellme, Bob, just what layer of espertise are you coming from. Did you have some involvement in the Rules development that i am unaware of. I did, Unicus did...you? That would seem to be very bold and brazzen statement that you know more than people who WERE involved in the process.

Skip

Were you involved in the development of the new "Title from front cover" rule?

However, your involvement doesn't make you always right
If the intent was to allow for the back cover, then who wrote the rule forgot to say it!

Quoting northbloke:

Quote:
Quoting Unicus69:

Quote:
Does the title appear in multiple languages?  Yes it does.  The fact that they happen to be on the back of the case doesn't matter.  Yes, the rules says to 'use the title from the front cover', but they go on to list a bunch of clarifications to that rule.  This is one of those clarifications.

It's a clarification, not an exception.

Isn't that what I said? 

Quote:
It must also satisfy the parent rule that it's attached to, which is: "Use the title from the front cover."
The localized title rule can only come into play if the title is in more than one language on the front cover.

Can it be read that way?  Obviously.  Does that mean it is the right way?  Only Ken and Gerri know for sure, but I don't think it is.  I hope one of them will voice an opinion.  Absent that, I guess we will have to agree to disagree.  No sense going around in circles for another 15 pages.

Quoting Unicus69:

Quote:
Quoting northbloke:

Quote:
Quoting Unicus69:

Quote:
Does the title appear in multiple languages?  Yes it does.  The fact that they happen to be on the back of the case doesn't matter.  Yes, the rules says to 'use the title from the front cover', but they go on to list a bunch of clarifications to that rule.  This is one of those clarifications.

It's a clarification, not an exception.

Isn't that what I said? 

What I meant is that a clarification must still satisfy the original rule: that the title must come from the front cover. If we were allowed to take the title from anywhere else, then it would be an exception not a clarification.

Quoting skipnet50:

Quote:
What involvement did YOU have in the development of the Rues...none. YOU did not particip[ate in any way, yet you are xepert intrying to tear them apart and i for one am tired of it. Since you have no expertise from which to draw and were involved in NONE of the discussions, your opinions have no basis other than your own mind.

While I certainly have no intention to join in this particular debate, I do want to to react to this. I actually think having had no involvement whatsoever might actually be a big help in understanding the rules. As we've all seen time and time again, those who were involved keep talking about "intent", and that intent often seems to have been different for each of them. They keep seeing their own "intent", even when that intent got lost in the process, or possible even got changed by Ken, who decided on the "final cut", so to speak. Those who weren't involved can look at what is actually written in the rules, without the burden of seeing their own "intent" even when it isn't there anymore. Based on several heated arguments I've seen so far, I'm pretty confident that those who had no involvement at all, usually have a much clearer view/understanding of what is actually there in the rules.

Quote:
You have NO factual basis of ANY kind to draw on. You are wrong. Enough is enough.

Especially this bit seems rather harsh - we all have the exact same factual basis to draw on: the contribution rules. There isn't, nor should there be, any "special knowledge" required to be able to read and understand those contribution rules. The only true "rule experts" around here are Ken and Gerri.

Quoting skipnet50:

Quote:
<shakes head> You will people will argue anything ad infinitum and listen to no one and I mean no one, I have seen some of you even say ken and Gerri are wrong, if and when they choose to say something.

Skip

Who and when?

Quoting EnryWiki:

Quote:

Were you involved in the development of the new "Title from front cover" rule?

Still curious.
However, I gather you were not one of the proponents of that new rule and had some reservations about it, correct me if I am wrong, so it's not exactly like it's "your" rule.
.

Quoting Giga Wizard:

Quote:
The rules allow for the use of foreign titles. The users of that locality should use what is for them the most workable. They should be able, as we are, to recognise the DVD title in the program. A bit of common sense is always welcome. Nitpicking if the fornt cover should only be used is not common sense. The place for a foreign title is the title field, the orignal title field is for the orignal title.
example:
title field: KAUNIS ELÄMÄ
original filed: La Vita è bella

I have no intention whatsoever to argue about localized titles. We (=the german users) do it all the time. I am just not a proponent of the usage of a "title" that is hidden in the cell of a back cover table. It opposes the very idea of what a title (in general, not just in DVDP terms)  should be.