Then what would have been the point of adding that line to the rules at all? We have enough questions without definite answers as it is - here we have a question to which the rules do provide an answer, and you'd choose to ignore it? You really can't compare it with how child profiles are allowed but not required - that's an entirely different thing. This is about a very specific question - "how do we deal with multi-season sets?" - to which the rules provide a very specific answer. Why would you ignore that?

For the record: we've hit on this unfortunate wording time and time again, and the consensus has always been that they should be applied - again, what else would be the point of actually having this line in the rules? Here's the latest poll on the subject - again with a strong support for changing this unfortunate wording to "the Box-set rules are to be applied".

Quoting T!M:

Quote:
For the record: we've hit on this unfortunate wording time and time again, and the consensus has always been that they should be applied - again, what else would be the point of actually having this line in the rules? Here's the latest poll on the subject - again with a strong support for changing this unfortunate wording to "the Box-set rules are to be applied".

Don't matter Tim...

1. Polls do not change how the rules are written... and as per the rules it is not mandatory,
2. Even saying it should be treated one way is still not mandatory.

To make it mandatory one way or another... the only thing you can do is see if Ken wants to change what the rules actually say.

It is there the same reason the disc level option is there! To give the users the choice... no more and no less.

The Rules don't tell us how it is to be handled (and never did) the rule only gives us an option to do so.

You said in your other post....

Quoting T!M:

Quote:
I really don't see you you've reached this conclusion: the rules say to do it exactly the other way around. Per the rules, the parent needs to have child profiles for each season attached to it, not for each disc. Adding grandchildren for each subsequent disc to those child profiles is allowed, but not required, but: if the individual seasons don't have their own UPC/EAN, then you have to use the disc ID of the first disc in the set to create these child profiles - which rules out the possibility of creating grandchildren, because you've already used the disc ID of each first disc. That's unfortunate, but it is what the rules tell us to do (for online purposes at least).

Bold/Italic #1: No the rules do not say to do the exact opposite... they no more then give you the option to do the exact opposite.

Just Bold #1: No the rules do not say that it needs to be have child profiles for the season sets.

Bold/Italic #2: You say once again that you have to use child profiles per season... per Rules you do not HAVE to.

My first post on this subject was to point out that there is a rule demanding this is not true.

Quoting T!M:

Quote:
Yes, we're all waiting for rule updates - on many different subjects. I never said you were breaking the rules - I'm just pointing out that the rules do tell us how to handle multi-season sets. And though you can choose to ignore this particular rule because of a bit of unfortunate wording, I'm just saying that I'm not going to do that. Not just because it doesn't make sense - again, why else would the rules even include this line if we were free to ignore it? - but also because every time this came up, there has always been a strong consensus that "should be applied" was the intent.

And now with what I quoted above you say you it is not breaking the rules to do so... then why did you first post that... "Per the rules, the parent needs to have child profiles for each season attached to it, not for each disc." when as I showed the rules do not say that?

I understand what you are saying. but like you said... you assume. I refuse to assume anything. I go strictly by what the rules actually say. And it is in no way a mandatory statement... it can be followed... it does not have to be done that way per the rules as TIM originally stated.

Pete is 100% correct, Tim

Ace never ASSUME.

Skip

There you go again saying I am ignoring a rule! Once again I am in no way Ignoring that rule! 

That rule gives us a CHOICE on how to do it... whether you like that answer or not!

So I am not ignoring that rule... I am doing exactly what that rule demands... deciding how to handle it! 

Quoting Addicted2DVD:

Quote:
So I am not ignoring that rule...

I disagree. You choose to ignore it because of the word "can". You're reading that one word, and then you decide: ah, none of this is "mandatory". That means you ignore it. The way you read it, the line might as well not have been there at all - for you it serves no purpose whatsoever. Apparently it's only there to take up some space. Now I didn't deny that you can ignore it, due to the (unfortunate) way it's worded, but you certainly ARE ignoring it.

Once again: here's a question - "how do we deal with multi-season sets?" - which the rules provide a specific answer to. You choose to ignore that answer - because you feel the way this particular line is worded, with the word "can" in it, means it's not mandatory. Dismissing it as "not mandatory", even though you can do that, effectively means that you're completely ignoring the specific answer that the rules offer for this problem. Which is all I said.

Yes, due to the unfortunate way it's worded, you can try to dismiss this particular rule as "not mandatory". If that was the intent, though, there'd be no point in having it there. We've come to that same conclusion time and time again. It's very simple: if the question "how do we deal with multi-season sets?" arises, I can't help noticing that the rules specifically answer that question. Instead of dismissing what the rules say as "not mandatory" and inventing a different solution myself, I'm actually glad the rules offer an answer to my question, and I have no reason whatsoever to ignore it.