I agree, but beating a dead horse isn't useful either.

Quoting sugarjoe:

Quote:
There is not more to say other than some of the conflicts or different opinions could easily solved by one short statement from Ken or a moderator. I don't understand why it isn't done

I agree. If I understand your point correctly there should be some of referee who could weigh the opinions and give a binding ruling, to be incorporated into the rules or an easy to access FAQ.
That should be Ken, one of his staff or maybe someone (or a small group) he appointed from the userbase.

This referee could jump in if threads got out of hand or to prevent things from going around and around (and around again) like in the thread that was the inspiration for the OP. Hopefully we'd then at least have consistency. If this referee were to make some decision that really went against someone's own particular views there would always be the possibility of doing things your own way locally.

While I think that locking the thread in question was a good call because all had been already said (and there was no way consensus was going to be reached) all it effectively did was stop the discussion at that particular time in that particular thread. A referee could have stopped it (more or less) indefinitely.

Steve

I agree.  I was hoping the moderation was going to include resolution to these sorts of debates.

In the case of the locked thread, the fact that the debate continued so long tells us that the rules are not as clear as some people believe.  A member stating the same opinion multiple times in a thread does not clarify anything.  Without clarification from Invelos, the argument will continue in the next thread where a similar issue comes up.

I have to agree with this 100%, while locking some threads is necessary, I really don't understand why no official words are ever given about all these issues we see time and time again. Some issues will require a program change which I understand takes time, but a simple statement about what is right or wrong or a slight change in a rule shouldn't be so rare considering all the arguing that goes on.

And it wouldn't be so bad if we could trust a contribution acceptance or declining as an indication of an official statement, but this isn't the case. Sometimes things get accepted, sometimes not. For example the Dividers question that has been going on in the Feature Request forum. Some of Pantheon's contributions have been accepted, some of them not. And it seems to be solely based off of how many "No" votes he got on each respective contribution. This leads me to believe whether something gets into the database is highly dependant on the votes rather than whether it's actually following the rules or not. While I understand the screeners heavily rely on voters to give input because they can't possibly own every DVD, a lot of these issues are something that don't require ownership of said DVD and only clarity in the rules.

I think we just need more input from Ken and Gerri, and some quicker responses to rule clarity issues. There are far too many parts of the rules that are too ambiguous for everyone to be on the same page. And as far as I'm conserned, no one member's "opinion" is more valid than another's in regards to their interpretation.  They are both each other's opinions, and the fact that it can be interpreted two or three or ten different ways, means we need more clarity.

Just my 2 cents... 

Quoting goodguy:

Quote:
As for locking threads: I assume the OP was referring to the Fifth Element thread. Once the screeners decided on the contribution in question, there wasn't anything more to discuss. Obviously screeners decide on a case by case basis, and obviously the acceptance/rejection isn't meant to create some kind of precedent.

I agree.  We had our discussion.  I assume it was looked over by the screeners.  And they decided.  I see no point in keeping it open.  Especially since it looks like it was getting geared up for the same people to make the same arguments that have already been made.

It would have been nice to have had official input on this, but all my years on these forums have taught me not to expect it.

Quoting northbloke:

Quote:
(***)
To give an analogy: you know someone is going round punching people in the nose at random, but at the moment all you can do is go around and wipe the blood off the floor. Does this stop the person doing the punching, or protect other people who haven't been punched yet? No. Only letting people know: this person punches, will protect the other people. And maybe when the puncher sees the others avoiding him maybe he'll stop punching... 

But, isn't this already common knowledge?  Don't you already know which people you believe to be 'punchers'?  I know I do.  Do you really need the forum equivalent of the stocks?  I sure don't. 

When a thread had run for more than 2 pages usually the answer is already given. The rest is just non usefull argument between always the same users. The moderators just think like me, but they are more patient that I am. You want to argument about little nothing, this is something that can be done by PM.

This post is not directed at anyone who had posted before me, it's just my opinion on this subject in particullar.

Quoting Forget_the_Rest:

Quote:
Quoting AESP_pres:

Quote:
When a thread had run for more than 2 pages usually the answer is already given.

In this case (& many others) it wasn't answered. There was no official statement so the same issue will almost certainly happen again. Just because the contribution was declined shouldn't be taken for gospel. If a different screener had processed it, we could've had a completely different outcome.

I agree.  We've seen a large number of profiles declined that when submitted again with no changes get accepted.  We can't trust the accept/decline as a declaration of what SHOULD happen in the future.  We need that stated explicitly.