 |
|
|
|
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... 4 5 6 7  Previous Next
|
|
TV series Cover Scans |
|
|
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
| Registered: March 20, 2007 | Reputation:  |  Posts: 2,851 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting TheMadMartian: Quote:
That's my bad, I quoted the wrong post...I meant to quote the one where you said, "The negative vote was correct because the Box Set rules were cited when they had no application in these cases." I'm beginning to wonder if you're just being deliberately obtuse. Citing as your contribution note a part of the rules that does not apply to the changes being made is not useful, and so is a violation deserving a "no" vote. The rule I supplied to you above answers this question as well. Quoting TheMadMartian: Quote:
I'm sorry, but no. While you are posting the actual rule, ignoring the slip case in the child profiles is just your interpretation of that rule. No it's not. You just can't seem to wrap your head around the fact that WE DO NOT FOLLOW STANDARD RULES for the case of TV Show Disc-Level Profile Covers. That is in plain English. The requirement to put the slipcover on the child disappears when we do not follow standard cover rules. The rule for the disc-level profiles says to use the CASE. Period. The only question then is do the discs have their own case or not, and our arithmetic experiment above has answered that question affirmatively. --------------- | | | | Last edited: by scotthm |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | Reputation:  | | Posts: 13,202 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting scotthm: Quote:
I'm beginning to wonder if you're just being deliberately obtuse. Citing as your contribution note a part of the rules that does not apply to the changes being made is not useful, and so is a violation deserving a "no" vote. The rule I supplied to you above answers this question as well. Here is the rule on voting 'no'... "If a user is following the Contribution Rules and his/her data is accurate, and the contribution replaces data which is inaccurate or violates these Contribution Rules, a "No" vote is considered an abuse of the voting privilege and should be avoided when possible." Are you really telling me that, based on that rule, even if the data is correct, a 'no' vote is valid based solely on bad contribution notes? I am sorry, but that is patently ridiculous. If the data is good, regardless of what the contribution notes say, it deserves a 'yes' vote. Quote:
Quoting TheMadMartian:
Quote:
I'm sorry, but no. While you are posting the actual rule, ignoring the slip case in the child profiles is just your interpretation of that rule.
No it's not. You just can't seem to wrap your head around the fact that WE DO NOT FOLLOW STANDARD RULES for the case of TV Show Disc-Level Profile Covers. That is in plain English. The requirement to put the slipcover on the child disappears when we do not follow standard cover rules. The rule for the disc-level profiles says to use the CASE. Period.
The only question then is do the discs have their own case or not, and our arithmetic experiment above has answered that question affirmatively. What you can't seem to wrap your head around is the fact that the slip case or slip cover is part of the case. Nowhere, in the rules, does it say otherwise. That is just your interpretation. | | | 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 20, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 2,851 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting TheMadMartian: Quote:
Here is the rule on voting 'no'...
"If a user is following the Contribution Rules and his/her data is accurate, and the contribution replaces data which is inaccurate or violates these Contribution Rules, a "No" vote is considered an abuse of the voting privilege and should be avoided when possible."
Are you really telling me that, based on that rule, even if the data is correct, a 'no' vote is valid based solely on bad contribution notes? Obviously. Three conditions must be met for a "no" vote to be wrong: 1. The contribution rules must be followed. 2. The contributed data must be accurate 3. The original data must be inaccurate or in violation of contribution rules Since condition one was not met (due to useless/deceptive contribution notes being included) a "no" vote was perfectly in order. That's apart from the issue of whether the data was even correct or not, and I'm convinced it was not. Quote:
I am sorry, but that is patently ridiculous. If the data is good, regardless of what the contribution notes say, it deserves a 'yes' vote. You should be sorry, because per the rules "voting 'Yes' to a contribution which violates these Contribution Rules should also be avoided." Quoting TheMadMartian: Quote:
What you can't seem to wrap your head around is the fact that the slip case or slip cover is part of the case. Nowhere, in the rules, does it say otherwise. That is just your interpretation. That's a sad attempt at grasping for straws. --------------- |
| | Registered: May 29, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 3,475 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting TheMadMartian: Quote:
"If a user is following the Contribution Rules and his/her data is accurate, and the contribution replaces data which is inaccurate or violates these Contribution Rules, a "No" vote is considered an abuse of the voting privilege and should be avoided when possible."
Are you really telling me that, based on that rule, even if the data is correct, a 'no' vote is valid based solely on bad contribution notes? I am sorry, but that is patently ridiculous. If the data is good, regardless of what the contribution notes say, it deserves a 'yes' vote.
Quote:
I posted almost the exact same response so obviously I'm in agreement. |
| | Registered: March 20, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 2,851 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Kathy: Quote:
I posted almost the exact same response so obviously I'm in agreement. A lot of people disagree with many of the rules. That will never change. --------------- |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | Reputation:  | | Posts: 6,635 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting scotthm: Quote:
No it's not. You just can't seem to wrap your head around the fact that WE DO NOT FOLLOW STANDARD RULES for the case of TV Show Disc-Level Profile Covers. That is in plain English. The requirement to put the slipcover on the child disappears when we do not follow standard cover rules. The rule for the disc-level profiles says to use the CASE. Period.
--------------- You keep ignoring the key part of that exception to the cover image rule. It says IF the discs are in their own case, use the image from that case. These profiles are of individual discs which are NOT in their own case, they are in the parent case with no other case packaging. I see no room for your interpretation, whatsoever. | | | | Hal | | | | Last edited: by hal9g |
| | Registered: March 20, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 2,851 |
| | Posted: | | | | . | | | | Last edited: by scotthm |
| | Registered: March 20, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 2,851 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting scotthm: Quote:
Quoting hal9g:
You keep ignoring the key part of that exception to the cover image rule. It says IF the discs are in their own case, use the image from that case. These profiles are of individual discs which are NOT in their own case, they are in the parent case with no other case packaging. We've already determined that 2 - 1 = 1, so they indeed do have their own case. Let's take the example of Bonanza Season Three again, where you say that the discs of volume 1, and the discs of volume 2, each have their own case. What then is the case for the parent, season level profile?  Is it possible that it's a Keep Case also? But where is its Keep Case? The two physical keep cases belong to the discs of volumes 1 & 2. If the parent is a Keep Case w/Slipcover it's obviously possible for discs to have "their own case", and for the parent to have it to. --------------- | | | | Last edited: by scotthm |
| | Registered: May 19, 2007 | | Reputation: |  Posts: 5,715 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting scotthm: Quote:
Quoting scotthm:
Quote:
Quoting hal9g:
You keep ignoring the key part of that exception to the cover image rule. It says IF the discs are in their own case, use the image from that case. These profiles are of individual discs which are NOT in their own case, they are in the parent case with no other case packaging.
We've already determined that 2 - 1 = 1, so they indeed do have their own case.
Let's take the example of Bonanza Season Three again, where you say that the discs of volume 1, and the discs of volume 2, each have their own case. What then is the case for the parent, season level profile?
Is it possible that it's a Keep Case also? But where is its Keep Case? The two physical keep cases belong to the discs of volumes 1 & 2.
If the parent is a Keep Case w/Slipcover it's obviously possible for discs to have "their own case", and for the parent to have it to. This is obviously for you; I'd tend to say for you only... For others it is obviously, that the case type for the parent of your example is custom, since obviously no available case type matches this small sleeve... Obviously. | | | | Complete list of Common Names • A good point for starting with Headshots (and v11.1) |
| | Registered: March 20, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 2,851 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting AiAustria: Quote:
For others it is obviously, that the case type for the parent of your example is custom, since obviously no available case type matches this small sleeve...
Obviously. It is a four-sided heavy paper that slips over one or more inner cases, known to Profiler users as a Slipcover. --------------- |
| | Registered: May 19, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 5,715 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting scotthm: Quote:
Quoting AiAustria:
Quote:
For others it is obviously, that the case type for the parent of your example is custom, since obviously no available case type matches this small sleeve...
Obviously.
It is a four-sided heavy paper that slips over one or more inner cases, known to Profiler users as a Slipcover. But a slip cover is not a case type... Obviously. | | | | Complete list of Common Names • A good point for starting with Headshots (and v11.1) | | | | Last edited: by AiAustria |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 6,635 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting scotthm: Quote:
Quoting AiAustria:
Quote:
For others it is obviously, that the case type for the parent of your example is custom, since obviously no available case type matches this small sleeve...
Obviously.
It is a four-sided heavy paper that slips over one or more inner cases, known to Profiler users as a Slipcover.
--------------- No, it is a slip case. Your example is a special case. The rules do not and cannot address every possible variation. The Star Trek contributions are not a special case, and the individual discs or subsets of those individual discs do not have their own case. The slip cover is part of the one and only one case. | | | | Hal | | | | Last edited: by hal9g |
| | Registered: March 20, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 2,851 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting hal9g: Quote:
No, it is a slip case.
Your example is a special case. Of course. --------------- |
| | Registered: May 29, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 3,475 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting hal9g: Quote:
Quoting scotthm:
Quote:
Quoting AiAustria:
Quote:
For others it is obviously, that the case type for the parent of your example is custom, since obviously no available case type matches this small sleeve...
Obviously.
It is a four-sided heavy paper that slips over one or more inner cases, known to Profiler users as a Slipcover.
---------------
No, it is a slip case.
Your example is a special case. The rules do not and cannot address every possible variation.
The Star Trek contributions are not a special case, and the individual discs or subsets of those individual discs do not have their own case. The slip cover is part of the one and only one case. There is a forum posting, including a poll and input from Ken, regarding special cases: http://dvdprofiler.com/Forums.aspx?task=viewtopic&topicID=780093&messageID=2452544 |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 6,635 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Kathy: Quote:
Quoting hal9g:
Quote:
Quoting scotthm:
Quote:
Quoting AiAustria:
Quote:
For others it is obviously, that the case type for the parent of your example is custom, since obviously no available case type matches this small sleeve...
Obviously.
It is a four-sided heavy paper that slips over one or more inner cases, known to Profiler users as a Slipcover.
---------------
No, it is a slip case.
Your example is a special case. The rules do not and cannot address every possible variation.
The Star Trek contributions are not a special case, and the individual discs or subsets of those individual discs do not have their own case. The slip cover is part of the one and only one case.
There is a forum posting, including a poll and input from Ken, regarding special cases:
http://dvdprofiler.com/Forums.aspx?task=viewtopic&topicID=780093&messageID=2452544 That thread appears to be about steelbooks and j-cards. | | | | Hal |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 6,635 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting scotthm: Quote:
Quoting hal9g:
Quote:
No, it is a slip case.
Your example is a special case.
Of course.
--------------- Good, we finally agree!  | | | | Hal |
|
|
|
Invelos Forums->DVD Profiler: Contribution Discussion |
Page:
1... 4 5 6 7 Previous Next
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |