Quoting TheMadMartian:

Quote:
Quoting GSyren:

Quote:
Whatever. My point is that we take the numbers that the CLT gives us and we use it to determine the common name. There is no need to overthink it.

From what I have seen, you are correct.

I'm very sorry, but you're flat out wrong, period. Of course the CLT numbers serve as a base, but the key is that on top of that, Ken has explicitly allowed, over and over again (as I've just shown), the results of common name-finding threads to overrule the raw CLT numbers. The definite and unmistakeable proof of that is just a few posts up. So it's not "go with the highest number no matter what". Never has been. If that isn't convenient for you, you can keep ignoring it all you want - but that doesn't make it less true.

This thread is just one more fine example of why the "Common Name" linking system and the CLT need to be eliminated and a proper linking system developed for this program.

These cat fights will go on ad nauseum, with no resolution, until that happens. 

Quoting T!M:

Quote:
Quoting TheMadMartian:

Quote:
Quoting GSyren:

Quote:
Whatever. My point is that we take the numbers that the CLT gives us and we use it to determine the common name. There is no need to overthink it.

From what I have seen, you are correct.

I'm very sorry, but you're flat out wrong, period.

Please be so kind as to point to the portion of my post that is "flat out wrong, period."

Quote:
Of course the CLT numbers serve as a base, but the key is that on top of that, Ken has explicitly allowed, over and over again (as I've just shown), the results of common name-finding threads to overrule the raw CLT numbers. The definite and unmistakeable proof of that is just a few posts up. So it's not "go with the highest number no matter what". Never has been.

Where, exactly, did I claim otherwise? 

Quote:
If that isn't convenient for you, you can keep ignoring it all you want - but that doesn't make it less true.

As I mentioned Ken's statement earlier in this thread, I don't see how I am ignoring anything. 

Oh, wait, I think I see the problem...let me try and explain it again.

From what I have seen, in the contributions I have voted on and chosen not to vote on, most people are using raw CLT numbers.  While it is true that Ken allows us to ignore those numbers, when there is an error in the credits, most people aren't doing that.  You and a few others are, yes, but the vast majority of the ones I have seen, are not.  They simply quote the CLT numbers and are done.  I have yet to a single person vote 'no' nor have I seen a single on get declined.

I am simply pointing out what I have seen, not what is allowed.  Either you didn't understand, or you're calling me a liar...I certainly hope it is the former and not the latter. 

Quoting T!M:

Quote:
Quoting TheMadMartian:

Quote:
Please be so kind as to point to the portion of my post that is "flat out wrong, period."

The part where you agreed with GSyren (quote: "you are correct") when he claimed that we go by the CLT no matter what. That was indeed "flat-out wrong, period".

I think you are confusing what 'we' are allowed to do rather than what 'we' actually do.  Easy mistake to make, but a mistake none the less.

Quote:
Of course, you now claim that you actually agree with my assessment, that you never said otherwise. Smart move, because it's correct, obviously. As usual, you're hiding yourself behind semantics. Terribly amusing, no doubt, but if you actually want to add something of any value to a discussion, I suggest you try it without the cheap theatrics, for once. Let's stick to the facts. There was only one little statement that I was addressing, and that was: "do we always go with the highest number no matter what?" Someone claimed that we did, which was an incorrect statement, so I pointed that out. No semantics, no cheap theatrics, no creative interpreting, just pointing out a plain and simple fact. But hey: let's not confuse the issue with facts, eh?

You replied to one little statement, out of context, which allowed you to imply that I said something that I didn't...your typical cheap 'smoke and mirrors' trick.  But, as you said, let's not confuse the issue with facts.

Quoting T!M:

Quote:
So all smoke and mirrors aside, you agree with the one little thing I've been saying, which is that per the standing rules and rulings, our common name system is not just "go with the highest CLT number no matter what".

In theory, yes, I agree.  In practice, from what I have seen, not even close.  Your mileage, of course, will vary.

Quote:
Well then: end of story. While I don't understand the need to turn that agreement into such a big production number - as long as that bottom line is clear, it's fine by me.

Funny how you don't "understand the need" yet you always seem to accomplish that goal. 

Quoting the Rules:

Quote:
To determine whether to enter the name directly as credited, or to use the "Credited As" field, use the Credit Lookup tool.

It is not necessary to document the source of the common name, outside the use of the CLT. If there is a dispute over whether the credit references the same person, documentation may be necessary. However, in most cases it is not required.

The inclusion of CLT results in contribution notes is strongly desired but not required. Note: In the case of uncertainty, leaving this out may cause the contribution to be declined.

As noted above, the only direction provided by the Rules is to use the CLT.  Since not every contributor has as much fun thrashing around in these forums as certain other contributors, and there is no reference to the "sacred" Common Names thread nor to Ken's forum postings on the subject in the Rules, it's just possible that many contributors simply use the CLT to determine a Common Name.  If Ken wants to provide an "official" dispensation from using the CLT results, then he really ought to include it in the Rules, otherwise it just might get overlooked (which actually happens all the time).

First let me make a clarification. My statement "We take the CLT numbers..." was meant as a suggestion, not as a definitive description of how it is done today. Perhaps I ought to have said "We should take...".

That said, I have two problems with the way you want to do it, T!M.

First, there is nothing in the rules to say that's how it should be done. And despite all your protestations, Ken's statements really do not say that it's the way it should be done. He merely commented on incorrect credits. Allowing the Common Name threads doesn't really mean anything, either.

Secondly, I fail to see the usefulness of your way of doing things. As you yourself admit, 99% of the users probably never visit the forums. So we end up with two different ways of establishing the common name. The one that you prefer, and the one that the overwhelming majority of users will apply.

What exactly is to be gained by this?

Quoting TheMadMartian:

Quote:
I am not sure where you are getting this, that studios deal with them in seasons.  I can point to quite a few where the director will change from episode to episode.  Writers can change from episode to episode.  Cast can change from episode to episode.  DoP, editor, makeup, production designer, costume designer, producer...they can all change on a per episode basis.

The reality is, the studios treat each episode as a single production.

The reality is, companies never market their series DVDs as episodes, they always come as "Seasons".