And lets not forget the big truth - the contrubutions were accepted as correct, accurate and to the rules! 

Let it go, your vote was wrong, get over it, move on. Life is too short to get hung up on such things... don't dwell on your errors so much.

Quoting Lopek:

Quote:
And lets not forget the big truth - the contrubutions were accepted as correct, accurate and to the rules! 

Let it go, your vote was wrong, get over it, move on. Life is too short to get hung up on such things... don't dwell on your errors so much.

Accepted means nothing, it means you broke the Rules and got away with it...nothing MORE.

Skip

Andy...please stop feeding the troll! 

Quoting Lopek:

Quote:
Quoting skipnet50:

Quote:
Accepted means nothing, it means you broke the Rules and got away with it...nothing MORE.

Skip

So what are you saying? How did i "get away with it"?

Ken/Gerri missed the mega-thread, and the 30 votes, most with comments regarding the situation, and the contributions slipped though?

Or maybe that they intentionally let through a rule breaking contribution?

Both seem pretty damning of Ken/Gerri from my perspective. 

Or maybe you just think, in your usual arrogant way, that you know better then everyone what the rules mean - in this case including better than Ken/Gerri. 

Despite  your claims at the time, lopek. Do NOT do this is VERY clear and needs not translation into whatever language suits you the best, since English clearly isn't it.

The only troll here is Hal

Skip

Quoting skipnet50:

Quote:

The only troll here is Hal

Skip

^Ignore

Quoting skipnet50:

Quote:
Simple, Gunnar. AS CREDITED. Now if you have read what i have said I am willing to grant the Key Field to Mister Roberts or whatever. But the On Screen title still nedds to be dealt with in some form, probably through the addition of ONE single field.

Skip

We do not need a new field for this. There's nothing that needs to be dealt with.

I believe it was northbloke that said it best somewhere in one of these threads where he explained the quotes merely mean "this is the title". Nothing more.

Putting quotes around every title that shows them on-screen would make the program ridiculous. Creating a new field so that we could show the same data both with and without quotes is even more ridiculous.

Quoting Rifter:

Quote:
Why do we ALWAYS have to reduce things to the lowest common denominator?  Maybe we should make it so a blind, illiterate monkey can use it, you think?  Good grief!

I'd say dumbing down the contribution rules to the point that we must enter "Mister Roberts" as opposed to Mister Roberts, is reducing things to the lowest common denominator.  I was on both versions of the previous rule committees.  I know for a fact that things were designed deliberately to allow no wiggle room whenever possible.  What I didn't realize at the time was that we were also trying to eliminate common sense.

It's clear that Mister Roberts is the title.  All evidence points to this fact.  One doesn't have to have worked on the film to accept this fact.  It's not disrespectful to the film makers to apply a little common sense here.

And as for the rules themselves, as has already been pointed out, they say: "Use the title from the film's credits."  I would make the argument that Mister Roberts is what is referred to as "the title" and "Mister Roberts", in addition to whatever else may be present, is what is displayed in the "film's credits".  The rule doesn't say to enter the film's credits, it says to enter the title from the film's credits.

It's sad that the rules, which so many people put so much effort into, are being used to stomp out common sense.  It's one thing to try to eliminate the ping-ponging of profiles which used to plague us.  It's quite another thing to intentionally enter bad and incorrect data because of some stupid rule.  It's stuff like this that makes me almost wish for a return to the good old days and ping-ponging profiles be damned.

I know everyone likes to kick around IMDB.  I don't know why, I just know that we like to think we're somehow superior for whatever reason.  But at least they know the difference between a title and 1950's grammar.  This is Ken & Gerri's database.  In today's society, data is worth money.  Why we're trying to put wrong data in their database is beyond me.  And the fact that they're letting it happen because of some stupid rules is also beyond me.

If the rules are written in such a way to mandate "Mister Roberts" be the title (and I don't believe they are), then the proper thing to do is to re-write the rule to handle these cases properly.  Not put bad data out there because a group of people didn't forsee the rule being twisted in this manner several years ago.

Great Post Mark!