So you know... No  I personally have not submitted such a thing myself. Matter of fact the one or two times I have seen this situation I decided not to do the cast list as I don't personally agree with it. But that is my personal opinion... it has no place online. And does not effect the rules we have.

But with that said... I do believe that is the way it should be done per the rules as we have them. and to be perfectly honest... it don't matter that you consider it destructive behavior. To get the cast list "exactly as credited" Himself/Herself has to appear in the cast list... so as per the way the rules are written now... that is our only option.

As I said I do understand what you are saying. But I don't see it in no way destructive behavior or abuse of the system... I only see it as following the rules as we have to at this time. And I also want a an exception or comment from Ken top solve the situation one way or the other.... which ever way he prefers. But I refuse to guess at anything... it must be as the rules are written or as per Ken's instructions otherwise.

Quoting Addicted2DVD:

Quote:
So you know... No  I personally have not submitted such a thing myself.

Good! Then I wasn't talking to you - that's that cleared up. I remain convinced that removing cast entries from the CLT results by abusing the "credited as" feature to deal with reversed credits instead of using it for what it's meant for (dealing with name variants) is destructive behaviour, though.

Quoting Addicted2DVD:

Quote:
it must be as the rules are written

The rules say: Use the "Credited As" field where the person's name differs from the credited name.

The rules do NOT say: Use the "Credited As" field to deal with reversed credits.

Quoting Addicted2DVD:

Quote:
only as following the rules as they are written.

So looking back at the example and screenshot I used earlier in this thread... It's all very simple: I see a line in the credits with the words "Ronald Browstein" and "HIMSELF". I turn to the rules to help me determine how to enter this, and what do I find? Use the "Credited As" field where the person's name differs from the credited name. So, I ask myself: does that apply here? Is the person's name different from the credited name? The answer is short and sweet: no. The person's name is Ronald Brownstein, and that's also the name seen on-screen. So do I use the "credited as" field? The answer is just as short and sweet: no!! I really don't know how I can explain things more clearly.

I really don't see another way to interpret this. I CAN see, however, how people would "invent" ways to handle the reversed credits, but again: that's a clear abuse of the "credited as" feature which isn't even hinted at by the rules. It's purely an invention, it harms the CLT results, and in conjuction with the way we establish our common names would technically even lead to having to enter "Himself as Himself" entries. None of that "follows the rules as they are written" - it's all completely invented from scratch by a few users looking for a way to deal with these reversed credits.

I think I'm going to return to my home planet Eros III as it is quite obvious that there is no intelligent life on this one   .

That is just the way it is obviously. A lot of things is a matter of how one reads it. I still read it as 2 separate lists. and personally want an exception so that we don't have to do it as I am reading it.

As long as something can be read more then one way... it will be read multiple ways. And in those cases I don't believe I or anyone else has the right to decide how it is to be done for the online profile... other then Invelos themselves.

I don't have the right to say the way some of you are reading it is wrong... just like you don't have the right to say the way some of us is reading it is wrong. No matter how strongly I feel... or how strongly you feel... we have no idea how Invelos feels until they say.

And to say you can make that argument about "literally every little thing in the rules" that is just not true... there is definitely rules that can not be said about.. bold/italic in overview & Trailers in the features are 2 that pop in mind right away.

We do not have to agree that there is multiple interpretations here... It has been a proven fact that there is multiple interpretations here. both sides feeling they are indeed following the rules as they are written... so the only thing that can be done... is for Invelos to settle it... not recognizing the other interpretation will not make it go away.

One can always create a rational argument to support their position, Tim. Or at least it seems rational to them. This amounts to a user interpretation that the role should be Himself instead of the Actor's name and there is definitely a rationale for that. Unfortunately that rationale runs counter to the rules and the intent. Some other user could use that as a basis to create his own departure from the rules, "I think the role is thiws because I saw the name on the window at xx:xx" or the Name should be this because....Or even making strange unsupportable assumptions about all kinds of things.

You can get upset at me if you wish, Tim. I'm sorry, I am in the best position, outside of Ken & Gerri to know.

Skip

I agree with T!M and I appreciate that he had the energy to put forth a good argument here.

Any time that a user thinks that the rules force them to enter data backwards, then we have a problem. "Himself" is not a name by any definition. Sorry. It's just not. "Common sense" is "sound practical judgment" which is independent of training or specific knowledge. There are sure to be variations, but they have to be both sound and practical.

Common sense, based on practical judgment, tells one to put the name "Robert Klein" in the name field and "Himself" in the role field. There aren't varities of common sense that would call for the reverse, because it's not practical for the use of the program to put "Himself" in the Credited As for the reasons T!M has described.

Those that insist on doing it that way are doing so in spite of the impracticality. That's not common sense. That's following a narrow interpretation of the rules and adding bits about positional columns, which aren't in the rules, and adding bits about recreating the look of the credits as a whole, which also aren't in the rules. It also involves saying that a name isn't a name when it's in a different column from other names. Again, this is not in the rules.

The rules call for names in the name field and roles in the role field. With roles where someone plays themself and the name and role are reversed in the columns, there's no directive in the rules other than to put the name in the name field and the role in the role field. If you think the rules direct that, please respond and quote the rules directly. You won't find it:

"List names exactly as they are in the credits" refers to the spelling of the name. That's the context in which it's used in the rules. There's nothing positional there or anywhere else in the rules.

"Use the "Credited As" field where the person's name differs from the credited name." If you want to put "Himself" in the "Credited As" you have to be able to say that "Himself" is a name. It's not; therefore, you can't do this.

"To determine whether to enter the name directly as credited, or to use the "Credited As" field, use the Credit Lookup tool." As T!M has pointed out, if "Himself" is used as the "Credited As" for someone with a single credit, then the rules require that "Himself" is the common name. This is further proof that "Himself" cannot be used as a "Credited As" name.

"For any film with standard credits, take the actor information from the end credits only, with names and roles listed exactly as they are in the credits and in exactly the same order credited." The "order" referred to here is the order in which a name appears in relation to other names; therefore, it directs which name is entered first, second, third, etc in the credits for the program. This is not a directive about column ordering.

If you feel that it is a directive about column ordering, what do you do when a set of credits transitions from role on the left and name on the right to a two-column block of names under a header? Do you declare the names on the left to be roles played by the names on the right? Hopefully you discern that both columns contain names.

Quoting skipnet50:

Quote:
I daresay , i agree with Pete on this., Tim. While i understand what you are saying what your concerns are. You are alsoi not in any position to be making any kind of interpretations. From on Online point of view we are trying to be accurate to the actual data on screen. The Alias system while having ties to the Online is much more of a local issue than an Online. By that I mean, users are all free to make use or NOT of the Alias data at their option or even as they see fit, it is NOT a requirement. The system eas designed to list the data EXACTLY as seen On Screen, while the Alias data is importan6t it is secondary in the overall scheme to the accuracy of the data to On screen, You are correct when state the sacredness of the rules and oine user interpretation leads to another and then another and soon we have no rules. I know you don't like it but it was me who designed the Rules and i think i am in a better position absent any comments from Ken and Gerri toi try and give you a picture of what is trying to be achieved. So, for the moment....

Skip

Quoting skipnet50:

Quote:
One can always create a rational argument to support their position, Tim. Or at least it seems rational to them. This amounts to a user interpretation that the role should be Himself instead of the Actor's name and there is definitely a rationale for that. Unfortunately that rationale runs counter to the rules and the intent. Some other user could use that as a basis to create his own departure from the rules, "I think the role is thiws because I saw the name on the window at xx:xx" or the Name should be this because....Or even making strange unsupportable assumptions about all kinds of things.

You can get upset at me if you wish, Tim. I'm sorry, I am in the best position, outside of Ken & Gerri to know.

Skip

The Appeal to Authority argument ("I am in the best position, outside of Ken & Gerri to know") is a
Red Herring logical fallacy.

Quoting Daddy DVD:

Quote:
I have to admit the rule above had me confused, but your clear explanation convinces me to enter the names and roles in the appropriate fields when they appear in the "wrong" columns from now on.

Thanks, Martin.