Quote:
This overturns precedent established on other Warner releases (they do this a lot). I'm pretty sure this would have been possible with DVD as well, but I can't think of any examples off-hand.

Quote:
Voting against Skip's contribution is a violation of the rules as his data is accurate, and the contribution replaces data which is inaccurate. 

Quote:
I voted no on those submissions because they were incomplete, inaccurate and contained no verification method. Now, we have somewhat of a verification method but the inacurracies are still there (I'm sorry, Unicus, but I disagree when you write the submission is accurate: there is no clear description on how to activate the Easter Egg nor the exact results it will yield. In fact, in the submission the Easter Egg isn't included at all). As such, I believe my vote isn't a violation of the rules.

The timing is very unfortunate. While the discussion was in full swing in the forums here, it was getting really late in my time zone. Having to go to work early on Monday morning, I left this as they were, planning to write up the Easter Egg text on my notebook on my way to work the next day, which I did. During my coffee break, I noticed (much to my surprise, I must add) that some of my submissions got admitted. I wanted to correct those myself and submit the Easter Egg text I had prepared, but Skip was ahead of me. I am not ashamed to admit that my private life and work take precedence over fast submitting of updates.

As I have said, I would gladly vote yes on the update, but when I compare it with my notes, it just isn't correct or complete. I find it a pity that he insisted on quickly erasing my error but doesn't replace it with a correction (namely, and accurate Easter Egg). Otherwise, I would have voted yes in a heartbeat.

Ace_of_Sevens is also right in that this ruling is an overturn of previews Warner Brothers precedents. Prior to Ken posting on this matter, since I was aware of those precedents, I was initially surprised the submission got declined. As a gesture of good will, I was prepared to make a combination of both Easter Egg explanation + inclusion of the tracks. That wasn't good enough for Skip (as usual, it was his way or the highway).

As for the nitpicking of Surfeur, I agree it is a bit overboard but on the other hand you reap what you sow. Many times have I been lectured by Skip that I should input exact data (WYSIWYT) or correct submission notes. I agree on that. However, when continuously lecturing others, you shouldn't be surprised that when you use notes on your notebook taken from credits in a theater or submitting an Easter Egg which is inaccurate and with a rather weak verification method, that other users pick your words apart to discredit you. The standards for voting should be the same for every user, whether they be a newbie or a veteran who likes to lecture others.

I also agree with Graveworm that rulings from the forums should definitely somehow be included in the rules. As mentioned above my private life and work take precedence over wading through endless threads in search of rulings. I simply do not have the time to do so, even with the best of will.

One note about Easter Eggs in general: I still have quite a few in my local database, gathered from around the net or provided to me by friends who own the same disc. Up to now, many of those I had not submitted because I haven't had time to verify them myself. With what's being said in this thread, am I to understand that I should just have submitted them 'as is'? Without verifying this myself?

In retrospect, I feel I wasted a lot of time uselessly verifying data. I purposely used analyzing tools such as BD Info to get the correct track order, verified on a second BD player, etc. Now I see a submission by a user who doesn't even verify his submission gets more positive replies by members here than when a users takes the time to actually input complete and accurate data. It's a pity but I've detached myself from the online part of DVDP and consider it, as other users have suggested "their loss". I won't grieve over it nor will I resubmit more accurate data. I've reached the point where I've become indifferent to the matter and will instead use that time now to update my local data and spend more time watching instead of profiling. All in all, not a bad decision I think.