 |
|
|
|
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... 8 9 10 11 12  Previous Next
|
 Bemused! (Locked) |
|
|
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | Reputation:  |  Posts: 6,635 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Pantheon: Quote:
Quoting GSyren:
Quote:
Funny,
When I asked about documentation for Credited As in this thread, everybody agreed with me.
Where were T!m, Pantheon & co then... 
Didn't see that thread. Maybe that was when I'd decided the forum wasn't worth the effort.
Still - more importantly why are T!M and I being singled out? Because we're the only ones who don't quake the moment the forum shouts?
Ken's made the ruling. Just because people don't like it doesn't give them the right to single out people for the firing squad.
I'm positive I'm being blamed for this situation. Well I'm sorry that I didn't blindly follow the forum but used my brain and thought for myself. I'm sorry that I won't be cowtowed into following the dictatorship that many like to enforce in this forum.
I disagreed with the interpretation of the rules. I raised it in the forum and Ken ruled on the subject. Luckily, in this instance, for me. There have been many times when the exact opposite has happened (his ruling on uncredited cast springs to mind).
I don't condemn Ken for his ruling and neither do I persecute the people who supported his ruling.
If the rule for Credited As is changed because it is discussed and submitted to Ken then that's fine. I will follow Ken's instructions.
But I absolutely will not follow the supposed rules of a small minority of users who seem feel they have the right to dictate to others how they should use this program or follow the rules. Do you believe that the tone of posts like this really adds to the possibility of creating a more harmonious community here? I'm not sure why you feel that's it's necessary to take such a combative approach to the discussion?  | | | | Hal |
| | Registered: March 14, 2007 | | Reputation: |  Posts: 1,819 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting hal9g: Quote:
Quoting Pantheon:
Quote:
Quoting GSyren:
Quote:
Funny,
When I asked about documentation for Credited As in this thread, everybody agreed with me.
Where were T!m, Pantheon & co then...
Didn't see that thread. Maybe that was when I'd decided the forum wasn't worth the effort.
Still - more importantly why are T!M and I being singled out? Because we're the only ones who don't quake the moment the forum shouts?
Ken's made the ruling. Just because people don't like it doesn't give them the right to single out people for the firing squad.
I'm positive I'm being blamed for this situation. Well I'm sorry that I didn't blindly follow the forum but used my brain and thought for myself. I'm sorry that I won't be cowtowed into following the dictatorship that many like to enforce in this forum.
I disagreed with the interpretation of the rules. I raised it in the forum and Ken ruled on the subject. Luckily, in this instance, for me. There have been many times when the exact opposite has happened (his ruling on uncredited cast springs to mind).
I don't condemn Ken for his ruling and neither do I persecute the people who supported his ruling.
If the rule for Credited As is changed because it is discussed and submitted to Ken then that's fine. I will follow Ken's instructions.
But I absolutely will not follow the supposed rules of a small minority of users who seem feel they have the right to dictate to others how they should use this program or follow the rules.
Do you believe that the tone of posts like this really adds to the possibility of creating a more harmonious community here?
I'm not sure why you feel that's it's necessary to take such a combative approach to the discussion? I'm sorry but I don't believe I was being combatative. I believe I was stating how I perceive the current situaiton. How I am being made to feel, in effect. Why is it ok for some users to express how they feel and not others? We have recently had 2 prominent users leave these forums because they were tired of being treated unfairly. Harmony will only be achieved when the bullying stops. And you only stop a bully by standing up to them. Surely the most important thing in my statement is that whatever Ken's decision it should be followed. |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | Reputation:  | | Posts: 13,201 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting GSyren: Quote:
Is that really what Ken meant? If it is, then why the "If there is a dispute..." disclaimer? The information is either right or wrong. If I prove it to be wrong, then asking the contributor for documentation is a moot point.
So what does it take?
- I can prove it's wrong
- I know it's wrong
- I suspect it's wrong
- I don't know, but it may be wrong I don't know if that is what Ken intended, but it will be the end result. From my understanding, based on all the posts I have read, if you want to vote 'no', you have to do the research and prove that the two names in question don't refer to the same person. In addition, some people aren't even including the CLT results. So, not only do we have to research the names, we also have to check the CLT. How many people do you think are going to go through that effort? I know I'm not as I am not making the contribution. To me, this is just backwards thinking. | | | 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 | | | | Last edited: by TheMadMartian |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 6,635 |
| | Posted: | | | | - Removed - | | | | Hal | | | | Last edited: by Forum Moderator |
| | Registered: March 14, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 1,819 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting hal9g: Quote:
you seem to have a persecution complex. Nice! Maybe best to keep that kind of observation to yourself, eh? You never know how hurtful that sort of thing could be. For all you know I actually do have a mental health issue - one which could be affected by a statement such as this. Prettying it up with 'observation, not attack' really doesn't change the impact of such a statement. As for the rest of your statement: Some forum members took it upon themselves to come up with a ruling regarding Credited As procedure. They then chose to instigate that decision upon the community at large. Maybe I'm misinterpreting but, to me, that's dictating. That's 'do it because we said so'. As for 'blind' and 'brains' - who are you to tell me what, if anything, I was implying. If I wanted to say the forum members are blind then I would have said: The forum members are blind. Also I wasn't stating anything because people disagree with me - but simply that I and T!M are being singled out. Surely it's easy enough to discuss this issue (in the rules thread IMO) without resorting to singling out individuals. I don't recollect using any one person's name in any of my posts. I haven't accused any individual of making up rules or being a bully. I have merely stated how I feel about the current situation and the forum in general. The initial discussion that started this thread had hardly gone on for long when Ken made his ruling. It's not like there had been countless pages of endless 'I'm right, you're wrong' posts (as normally happens with this sort of discussion). Ken simply made a statement agreeing with my stance on this issue. Now, surely if so many disagree with that decision they can compile a list of their reasons and submit it to Ken. If Ken agrees then I am sure he will change his ruling. | | | | Last edited: by Pantheon |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 13,201 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Pantheon: Quote:
(***)
Some forum members took it upon themselves to come up with a ruling regarding Credited As procedure. They then chose to instigate that decision upon the community at large. Maybe I'm misinterpreting but, to me, that's dictating. That's 'do it because we said so'. No, some forum members interpreted the rules differently than you did and voted according to that interpretation. It happens all the time. Why it became such a big deal here is beyond me. | | | 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 14, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 1,819 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting hal9g: Quote:
Rules which still state that you are to provide support for changes in your contribution notes Which is what started this whole thing. The rules do NOT state that you need to list numerous sites you visited to support your work. They 'indicate the source of the data'. Well - researched on the internet and then confirmed using CLT IS indicating the source of the data. Source=Internet and CLT. I fully understand that others interpreted it differently. But the simple fact is that the rules do not state anywhere that the level of documentation required is what the forum was enforcing. A fact which Ken has since supported. He's stated that if you want that level of documentation you can do it locally. I, for one, think Ken would rather have more people contributing than more people leaving. Maybe I'm being obtuse, though. |
| | Registered: March 14, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 1,819 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Unicus69: Quote:
Quoting Pantheon:
Quote:
(***)
Some forum members took it upon themselves to come up with a ruling regarding Credited As procedure. They then chose to instigate that decision upon the community at large. Maybe I'm misinterpreting but, to me, that's dictating. That's 'do it because we said so'.
No, some forum members interpreted the rules differently than you did and voted according to that interpretation. It happens all the time. Why it became such a big deal here is beyond me. It's because they were stating it was a rule. I was seeing NO votes with 'Forum decision states you must list sites as support for your changes' (words to that effect). Actually it's the fact that people were voting NO based on a forum interpretation. I never voted NO to a Credited As contribution without documentation UNLESS I checked the entries and they proved to be false. I also wasn't enforcing that process on other people. Surely you can see the distinction between following an interpretation of the rules for personal conduct and attempting (and in this case succeeding) to enforce that interpretation upon the general users? |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 6,635 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Pantheon: Quote:
Well - researched on the internet and then confirmed using CLT IS indicating the source of the data. Source=Internet and CLT. Personally, I would not accept "Source=Internet" for an SRP contribution or a Release date contribution. Why should I accept it for a "Credited As" contribution? I do not believe in putting onerous requirements on contributors, and agree that some users have used standards far beyond what I think is reasonable, but, to allow contributors to put stuff into the main database on a "just trust me basis".....I just can't support that. I just don't think that asking a contributor to supply one or two links that support their contribution is asking too much. | | | | Hal | | | | Last edited: by hal9g |
| | Registered: March 14, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 1,819 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting hal9g: Quote:
"just trust me basis".....I just can't support that. Then I assume you check ALL contributions coming through? 'Cast and Crew taken from credits' is just as much of a trust issue and Credited as researched on internet and CLT. You still have to trust that the cast and crew came from the credits. If you don't you have to check it. Same principle IMO. |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 6,635 |
| | Posted: | | | | Not all, but yes I spot check contributions all the time. | | | | Hal |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 6,635 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Pantheon: Quote:
Quoting hal9g:
Quote:
"just trust me basis".....I just can't support that.
Then I assume you check ALL contributions coming through?
'Cast and Crew taken from credits' is just as much of a trust issue and Credited as researched on internet and CLT.
You still have to trust that the cast and crew came from the credits.
If you don't you have to check it.
Same principle IMO. You keep making this comparison, which I don't believe is valid. In the one case, the contributor has stated that he used the film credits for the data. I can go directly to the source that HE cited and validate that. If the user provides no source, I cannot validate his source, can I? I can only try to find my own, which is much more time-consuming for me as a voter going through dozens of contributions. | | | | Hal |
| | Registered: March 14, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 1,819 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting hal9g: Quote:
Not all, but yes I spot check contributions all the time. Well, I don't see what the problem is then. If I see one of your contributions Hal I don't think immediately "Oh that's Hal, I can trust him". I've learnt by checking your contributions that they can be trusted. But I ONLY learnt that by checking. If I see a contribution from a newbie that states: Cast and Crew added from credits. I don't think: "They're lying, I better double check". I trust that they're telling the truth. Later, when I check that profile myself I will discover if they should have been trusted or not and will change further voting behaviour accordingly. So, I'm not asking anyone to do anything I don't do myself. Either trust my work because you know it's trust worthy, or check it yourself and then decide. To me it seems like some people want their cake and eat it too. They want the Credited As information, but they don't want any work involved in getting it. Likewise, they want their profiles complete but don't want to do anything to get them that way (obviously there are users who don't feel this way). Well, I'm sorry, but the way I feel about it is: If I've taken the time to do the work you couldn't be bothered to do yourself the least you can do is the courtesy of trusting or checking my work yourself. It's not much to ask IMO. |
| | Registered: March 14, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 1,819 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting hal9g: Quote:
Quoting Pantheon:
Quote:
Quoting hal9g:
Quote:
"just trust me basis".....I just can't support that.
Then I assume you check ALL contributions coming through?
'Cast and Crew taken from credits' is just as much of a trust issue and Credited as researched on internet and CLT.
You still have to trust that the cast and crew came from the credits.
If you don't you have to check it.
Same principle IMO.
You keep making this comparison, which I don't believe is valid. In the one case, the contributor has stated that he used the film credits for the data. I can go directly to the source that HE cited and validate that.
If the user provides no source, I cannot validate his source, can I? I can only try to find my own, which is much more time-consuming for me as a voter going through dozens of contributions. And you're missing my point. The fact is you DON'T check every instance of 'taken from credits' submitted. You trust the contributor. But, you expect every instance of 'Credited As' to be documented. Why are the two so mutually separted in the trust department? |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 13,201 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Pantheon: Quote:
It's because they were stating it was a rule. I was seeing NO votes with 'Forum decision states you must list sites as support for your changes' (words to that effect).
Actually it's the fact that people were voting NO based on a forum interpretation. They were stating it was a rule because that is how they interpreted it. As I said, it happens all the time with lots of other rules. Quote:
I never voted NO to a Credited As contribution without documentation UNLESS I checked the entries and they proved to be false. I also wasn't enforcing that process on other people. You, obviously interpreted the rule in a different way and voted accordingly. As to enforcing that process on other people, what do you expect people to do? People are going to vote based on how they interpret the rule. At that point, it is up to the screeners to decide whether or not the 'no' vote, and reason, have merit. Quote:
Surely you can see the distinction between following an interpretation of the rules for personal conduct and attempting (and in this case succeeding) to enforce that interpretation upon the general users? Again, if I believe, based on my reading of the rules, that I have to document everything I contribute, why would I expect anything different from a contribution I am voting on? Let me give you a different example to see if I can explain where I am coming from. The rules say we are not allowed to include data from a third party database. I interpret that to mean that IMDb can't be used for cast and crew data, so I vote accordingly. What I am getting from you is, because it is just my interpretation and the rules don't acutally say 'No IMDb data', I can't do that. Now, that may not be what you mean, but that is how it is coming across to me...though I will admit that I might be missing something here. | | | 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 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 6,635 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Pantheon: Quote:
Quoting hal9g:
Quote:
Quoting Pantheon:
Quote:
Quoting hal9g:
Quote:
"just trust me basis".....I just can't support that.
Then I assume you check ALL contributions coming through?
'Cast and Crew taken from credits' is just as much of a trust issue and Credited as researched on internet and CLT.
You still have to trust that the cast and crew came from the credits.
If you don't you have to check it.
Same principle IMO.
You keep making this comparison, which I don't believe is valid. In the one case, the contributor has stated that he used the film credits for the data. I can go directly to the source that HE cited and validate that.
If the user provides no source, I cannot validate his source, can I? I can only try to find my own, which is much more time-consuming for me as a voter going through dozens of contributions.
And you're missing my point.
The fact is you DON'T check every instance of 'taken from credits' submitted. You trust the contributor.
But, you expect every instance of 'Credited As' to be documented.
Why are the two so mutually separted in the trust department? And you're missing my point. Just because the contributor includes the link, does not mean that I am going to check it every time any more than I check the cast every time. But it's there when I feel the urge/need to do so. | | | | Hal |
|
|
|
Invelos Forums->DVD Profiler: Contribution Discussion |
Page:
1... 8 9 10 11 12 Previous Next
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |