Quoting Prof. Kingsfield:

Quote:
Then stop insulting me. You don't understand why that is an insult. I suggest that you think about it awhile. Ego issues I wasn't aware of. Where is that needke, i have a balloon to pop.

Wow, you really need to get a grip.  I did not insult you.  Some of the rules are poorly written.  That is a fact.  Could I have written them better, maybe not at the time, but I certainly can now and have done so several times.

Quote:
The Rules aren't perfect and never will be, Martian, and wouldn't be if you had written them. But that is no reason to disparage them or the people that worked on them.

First, I know the rules aren't perfect...that was kinda my point.  Second, you have no idea how they would look had I written them.  Third, I did not disparage the people that worked on them.  I made a true statement...one I know many of the people who worked on the rules would agree with.

Quote:
However I still wonder about your majority Rules premise in acase lie this. Clearly after 5 years the majority never had a problem with this, which makes Merrik a minority, should he not sit down and be quiet, by your standard, yes he should, by mine no he should not.

I don't believe Merrik has a problem with anything.  He asked a question, I gave him an answer, and he seemed satisfied with it.  T!M brought up another question, one I had not considered at the time, that could cause problems.  Because the rule can be read in a way that would cause the data to be entered in a way that wasn't intended, it is poorly written and needs to be fixed.  If you want to take that as an insult, that is certainly your choice, and there is nothing I can do about it. 

Quoting Prof. Kingsfield:

Quote:
Perhaps you did not intend to disparage the work of the people who went before, Martian. But in one user's eyes you most certainly did. Then you compounded it by saying that you could have done better, that is just arrogant.

That's because one user is far to sensitive.  As for my saying that I could have done better, that's not quite what I said.  I said I could, and have, done better...which is true...and even then, only in response to your claim that I couldn't.

Quote:
As I said your advice to Merrik was sound. But according to your own stand that the majority should Rule, then Merrik should not have said anything, since the majority clearly has not had any problem with this, making him the minority. In short I am pointing out one of the many inconsistencies in Majority Rules, as I have said the Online database should serve ALL, not the some, not the majority, not most, but ALL, and in that regard Merrik had a perfect right to peak up.

I have no idea what you are talking about here.  Merrik wasn't sure how to enter the credits, so he asked, and I answered.  In doing so, a flaw, in the wording of the rule, was discovered.  What that has to do with this 'majority/minority' thing you are suddenly fixated on is beyond me. 

Quote:
But more importantly, you may jhave not intended insult, but the fact is you did. And at the moment you are compounding it because I don't think you understand. because you don't understand, you are making the issue worse by defending your arrogance as is apparent from your own posts. It was you who said As to my doing any better, of course I could and have done so, with very little effort, not I.

I don't understand because there was no insult.  The rules are not sacrosanct.  Stating that some of them are worded badly, which is a fact, is not an insult.  Again, if you want to be insulted, there is nothing I can do about it. 

Quoting T!M:

Quote:
Quoting TheMadMartian:

Quote:
The rule sates, "Group names of crew members together within each role available and list in exactly the same order credited."

That's actually a nice reminder - does anyone actually apply that rule? I mean, for instance, if the end credits show a "Make-up Department Head" credit, then some other contributable art crew, and then later on a bunch of regular "Make-up Artist" credits, should I then group all the make-up credits them together, rather than sticking with the crew order as I see them on-screen? I don't believe I've ever seen that method applied... Am I doing something wrong?

I usually solve thie "problem" by listing the leading role, and ignoring the assistents. Enough is enough.

The above comment is unnecessary, incitement and inflammatory.

Quoting T!M:

Quote:
Quoting TheMadMartian:

Quote:
The rule sates, "Group names of crew members together within each role available and list in exactly the same order credited."

That's actually a nice reminder - does anyone actually apply that rule? I mean, for instance, if the end credits show a "Make-up Department Head" credit, then some other contributable art crew, and then later on a bunch of regular "Make-up Artist" credits, should I then group all the make-up credits them together, rather than sticking with the crew order as I see them on-screen? I don't believe I've ever seen that method applied... Am I doing something wrong?

Yes. If you do not "group crew members together within each role available" in the first place, your contribution is against the rules.

However, I have to say that I'm the only one taking that position:

Contradiction in the Contribution Rules

Quoting CalebAndCo:

Quote:

The Martian's comment was on point and accurate.  It was also stated in probably the most non-offensive way it could have been.

Time to let it go Skip. I think whatever you felt Martian meant by what he said has been quite clear that it wasn't meant as offensive. 

Recently it's really seemed like you've been looking for reasons to get on Martian's case...people criticize the rules all the time, I'm not sure why this particular case set you off so much.