Quoting Unicus69:

Quote:
Quoting skipnet50:

Quote:
Terry:

I don't care if you like it ot not, this is NOT the first time you have discovered a loophole and tried to take advantage of it without consulting. The ONLY reason you finally came here is because of my PM, which was not threatening, I told you poinyt blank that you were wrong and I woud repair the damage done immediately upon approval, that's a promise and what I will always do. Ax I said this is not the FIRST time you have tried this stunt and I have called you on it EVERY time and if you try it in the future I will call you on it then as well.

Skip

You make this assumption about everybody when it simply isn't true.  Most people...note I said most, not all...make changes to profiles based on how they think the rules are written.  They don't have any malicious intent to 'take advantage'.  Because they believe they are doing it correctly, they feel no need to consult anyone.

That is what happened with stuntmen within a cast list.  That is what happened with 'BATMAN BEGINS'.  I didn't consult anyone because I didn't see any reason to consultation...to me the rules were quite clear.

Because my interpretation differed from yours, you made the assumption that I was doing it maliciously.  Not a good assumption to make.  I don't know whether or not you are doing the same thing here...but history tells me it is quite possible.

Funny thing though...I don't remember you consulting anyone when you, unilaterally, decided J.R.R. Tolkien was a song writer.  

That was not a violation of the rules, unicus. nor was it a choice taken lightly. First what is a song?
song      /s??, s??/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[sawng, song] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. a short metrical composition intended or adapted for singing, esp. one in rhymed stanzas; a lyric; a ballad.
2. a musical piece adapted for singing or simulating a piece to be sung: Mendelssohn's “Songs without Words.”
3. poetical composition; poetry.
4. the art or act of singing; vocal music.
5. something that is sung.
6. an elaborate vocal signal produced by an animal, as the distinctive sounds produced by certain birds, frogs, etc., in a courtship or territorial display.
—Idiom
7. for a song, at a very low price; as a bargain: We bought the rug for a song when the estate was auctioned off.

Second we have the musical composition that was written to specifically accompany the poemw of J.R.R. Tolkien. Which was also a written expressly for the film.

Now unlike some other users I do not try to define an insrumental piece of mysic as a song, because it is NOT. Furthermore you can have muusc that had words written for it and play the COMPOSITION instrumentally , you can also have a Musical composition and later someone writes words to it.

To have not included Tolkien would have led to erroneous data, because we have had a piece of music listed as instrumental(composer) when in fact it was not. The Tolkien poem was original to the film, though OLD, and it had music written for it to create a song. A less than ideal answer but it achieved the objective of matching the composer of the music that which he wrote for.

Skip

Quoting Rifter:

Quote:
Quoting Unicus69:

Quote:
Quoting skipnet50:

Quote:
Terry:

I don't care if you like it ot not, this is NOT the first time you have discovered a loophole and tried to take advantage of it without consulting. The ONLY reason you finally came here is because of my PM, which was not threatening, I told you poinyt blank that you were wrong and I woud repair the damage done immediately upon approval, that's a promise and what I will always do. Ax I said this is not the FIRST time you have tried this stunt and I have called you on it EVERY time and if you try it in the future I will call you on it then as well.

Skip

You make this assumption about everybody when it simply isn't true.  Most people...note I said most, not all...make changes to profiles based on how they think the rules are written.  They don't have any malicious intent to 'take advantage'.  Because they believe they are doing it correctly, they feel no need to consult anyone.

That is what happened with stuntmen within a cast list.  That is what happened with 'BATMAN BEGINS'.  I didn't consult anyone because I didn't see any reason to consultation...to me the rules were quite clear.

Because my interpretation differed from yours, you made the assumption that I was doing it maliciously.  Not a good assumption to make.  I don't know whether or not you are doing the same thing here...but history tells me it is quite possible.

Funny thing though...I don't remember you consulting anyone when you, unilaterally, decided J.R.R. Tolkien was a song writer. 

Question:  Will you concede that there needs to be some kind of mechanism created that requires EVERY contributor to access and read the rules, and then agree to abide by them?  Sort of like an End User Agreement for lack of a better name.  If everybody had to do that, then at least they wouldn't be able to scream about having a contribution shot down for rules violations.  I'm pretty sure this is something Ken could whip up in jig time to implement.

How would that make things better?  The arguments would continue, but some people would think they are suddenly wearing a badge, or in some cases a bigger badge!  We've got enough testosterone flying around here already.


Sorry guys, but I've said it before and I'll say it again.  The Rules will NEVER be so clear and concise that there won't be people who understand them differently.  There will be disagreements, and not a single one of us has the authority to dictate the intent of a rule.  While those who participated in coming up with the rules surely know what their personal intent was, they may or may not know or understand the intent of the others involved in the discussion.  And when all is said and done, once the proposed rules are delivered to Ken and Gerri, it is THEIR intent alone that matters.

And like a few others have said, this different understanding is generally NOT a singlehanded effort to completely undermine the efforts of others and totally invalidate the database.  Most are simple misunderstandings, and can be resolved by a simple polite note.  This has to be one of the most hostile groups I've participated in.  Immediately jumping to attack at the slightest aggitation.  Brutal, and sometimes quite offensive, messages in the public forums and absolutely horrendous PM's!

I recently voted against a submission and immediately received a nasty PM from the contributor.  My vote was incorrect per the rules, but due to the absolutely rude and threatening demeanor in the message, I responded to the person in much the same manner and left my vote unchanged.  After a series of messages where the attitude only improved slightly, I did change my vote.  Had the original message been civil and pointed me to where I was mistaken, the vote would have been changed immediately.

Quoting jgilligan:

Quote:
Quoting Rifter:

Quote:
Quoting Unicus69:

Quote:
Quoting skipnet50:

Quote:
Terry:

I don't care if you like it ot not, this is NOT the first time you have discovered a loophole and tried to take advantage of it without consulting. The ONLY reason you finally came here is because of my PM, which was not threatening, I told you poinyt blank that you were wrong and I woud repair the damage done immediately upon approval, that's a promise and what I will always do. Ax I said this is not the FIRST time you have tried this stunt and I have called you on it EVERY time and if you try it in the future I will call you on it then as well.

Skip

You make this assumption about everybody when it simply isn't true.  Most people...note I said most, not all...make changes to profiles based on how they think the rules are written.  They don't have any malicious intent to 'take advantage'.  Because they believe they are doing it correctly, they feel no need to consult anyone.

That is what happened with stuntmen within a cast list.  That is what happened with 'BATMAN BEGINS'.  I didn't consult anyone because I didn't see any reason to consultation...to me the rules were quite clear.

Because my interpretation differed from yours, you made the assumption that I was doing it maliciously.  Not a good assumption to make.  I don't know whether or not you are doing the same thing here...but history tells me it is quite possible.

Funny thing though...I don't remember you consulting anyone when you, unilaterally, decided J.R.R. Tolkien was a song writer. 

Question:  Will you concede that there needs to be some kind of mechanism created that requires EVERY contributor to access and read the rules, and then agree to abide by them?  Sort of like an End User Agreement for lack of a better name.  If everybody had to do that, then at least they wouldn't be able to scream about having a contribution shot down for rules violations.  I'm pretty sure this is something Ken could whip up in jig time to implement.

How would that make things better?  The arguments would continue, but some people would think they are suddenly wearing a badge, or in some cases a bigger badge!  We've got enough testosterone flying around here already.


Sorry guys, but I've said it before and I'll say it again.  The Rules will NEVER be so clear and concise that there won't be people who understand them differently.  There will be disagreements, and not a single one of us has the authority to dictate the intent of a rule.  While those who participated in coming up with the rules surely know what their personal intent was, they may or may not know or understand the intent of the others involved in the discussion.  And when all is said and done, once the proposed rules are delivered to Ken and Gerri, it is THEIR intent alone that matters.

And like a few others have said, this different understanding is generally NOT a singlehanded effort to completely undermine the efforts of others and totally invalidate the database.  Most are simple misunderstandings, and can be resolved by a simple polite note.  This has to be one of the most hostile groups I've participated in.  Immediately jumping to attack at the slightest aggitation.  Brutal, and sometimes quite offensive, messages in the public forums and absolutely horrendous PM's!

I recently voted against a submission and immediately received a nasty PM from the contributor.  My vote was incorrect per the rules, but due to the absolutely rude and threatening demeanor in the message, I responded to the person in much the same manner and left my vote unchanged.  After a series of messages where the attitude only improved slightly, I did change my vote.  Had the original message been civil and pointed me to where I was mistaken, the vote would have been changed immediately.

And why shouldn't there be a requirement for every user to read the rules and state that he has done so?  Far too many people bounce in, throw some kind of contribution at the online, and then get all bent out of shape when it gets voted down for rules violations.  Then they try to argue that they didn't know it was a rule, or that the rule is stupid, etc.  You know the drill.

If they have to sign off on reading the rules, ignorance of same is no longer a excuse.

Quoting Lopek:

Quote:
But that is completely irrelevant to this thread Rifter.

Widescreen's contribution was completely within the rules if the tagline had in fact been part of the title (which my investigations confirmed it was not later).

The rules do not allow for the addition of colons in the middle of non-episodic titles. There is no colon anywhere in regards to 2010, so removal was correct (with the above caveat).

He was change he made was spot on with regards to the rule it was intended to be within. As I have said before, I like the colons, I want to see them, but for non-episodic titles adding them is not supported by the rules - it is contravening them.

And I happen to think your interpretation is DEAD WRONG, Andrew. As I hev previously noted, and thus proving my point because all a unilateral choice such as made by this user leads to is ping-pong data, which we are trying to avoid. Now here is what I find interesting the rule has been what it is TWO years, in fact YOU aided in it's writing and just NOW this is a topic, hmmmmm. Like I said we have users who when they figure out a loophole will jump right straight through it and they can rest assured that Andrew will support the jump.

Skip


   

Quoting m.cellophane:

Quote:
Quoting Rifter:

Quote:
My point was, Rick, that all of you who wrote the rules know very well what the intent was,

We don't agree on what the intent was. Most likely this is due to our varied experience, interests and discussions. I recall it had to do specifically with a thread that was active at the time on whether the Star Wars profiles should have colons or dashes and that we sought to end that battle. I don't recall that subtitles or taglines were ever considered.

You have a great memory. I looked it up this morning and you are absolutely correct on how it came up and the fact that subtitles or taglines were ever considered.

The discussion(s) usually ended up in the "Bad(der) Santa" or "There's Something (More) About Mary" Title debates.

Quoting Rifter:

Quote:
Quoting Unicus69:

Quote:
Quoting Rifter:

Quote:
He did have a hand in writing them, a major hand.  But, too many people won't admit that openly, and when he says what the intent was, they disallow that as if he were so schmoo off the street.

As did Andy and quite a few other people in this forum.  But, a few people won't admit that openly, and when they say what their intent was, they disallow that as if he were so schmoo off the street.

That is a double edged sword you are wielding and it cuts both ways.

I made no mention of who did what or if they did more than somebody else.  I just said he had a major hand in it, and he did.  So did a number of others.  Don't read things into what I said that aren't there.

Let me clarify.  You seem to be asking people to give Skip some basic respect because he helped author the rules.  All I am saying is the other members of the rules committee deserve the same.  When they have an opinion that differs from Skip's, they are accused of trying to undermine the very rules they helped write.

I did not mean to imply that you meant anything other than what you said.

Quoting Rifter:

Quote:
Question:  Will you concede that there needs to be some kind of mechanism created that requires EVERY contributor to access and read the rules, and then agree to abide by them?  Sort of like an End User Agreement for lack of a better name.  If everybody had to do that, then at least they wouldn't be able to scream about having a contribution shot down for rules violations.  I'm pretty sure this is something Ken could whip up in jig time to implement.

I would agree to that.  We had one back when I first started using Profiler.  Unfortunately, it won't solve the problem of someone interpreting the rules differently than you or Skip or anybody else.

Different people read things differently.  It is a fact of life.  The problem comes when people assume that every user who contributes contrary to their interpretation of the rules is doing so maliciously.  Making everyone read the rules won't solve that problem. 

Quoting skipnet50:

Quote:
And I happen to think your interpretation is DEAD WRONG, Andrew. As I hev previously noted, and thus proving my point because all a unilateral choice such as made by this user leads to is ping-pong data, which we are trying to avoid. Now here is what I find interesting the rule has been what it is TWO years, in fact YOU aided in it's writing and just NOW this is a topic, hmmmmm. Like I said we have users who when they figure out a loophole will jump right straight through it and they can rest assured that Andrew will support the jump.

Actually, Andrew is dead right.  The rule does not say you can add a colon to the title.  It says you can add a colon IF there is an episode descriptor.  As a matter of fact, it isn't mentioned anywhere else in the rules.  In your PM to Widscreen you even say, ""this is a LONG established Convention."  Convention, not rule.

It wasn't an issue prior to this because nobody tried to follow the rules instead of following 'LONG established Convention'.  I don't know what Widescreen's motives are but this isn't a loophole.  The rule is clear.  Use the title from the film credits and use a colon when there is an episode descriptor.