Quoting bob9000:

Quote:
The voter in question just decided to up the vitriol level in his comments:

I just watched that movie and it lasts 2hrs and 8 min noT 1 hr and 28 min and there's not any bd live in the menu you are a XXXXXXX liar.

While your data is probably correct, I have given you a for your contribution comments.
There is no reason to get personal in your comments. The following quote was not necessary (and may have been the trigger for the updated voting comment, which of course also warrants a ):

Quote:
As usual username is lying in his votes.

No, Rho is saying I should get the red arrow because I called userX out, but the fact is is this guy votes no to every single contribution I make, and always lies while doing it. He becomes especially rude when I am correcting a previous contribution of his. Its like he takes it personally or something and his version of the profile is more important than accurate data. And I have dealing with him reasonably via PM, but as I said, that resulted in an insta-block.

Quoting bob9000:

Quote:
the fact is is this guy votes no to every single contribution I make, and always lies while doing it. He becomes especially rude when I am correcting a previous contribution of his. Its like he takes it personally or something and his version of the profile is more important than accurate data. And I have dealing with him reasonably via PM, but as I said, that resulted in an insta-block.

I know the user - votes against virtually every contribution to "his" profiles using unfounded statements of which he hopes they will convince the screeners. If this behaviour keeps going on and on, I don't understand why such a user's voting rights aren't revoked.

Quoting TheDarkKnight:

Quote:
Quoting RHo:

Quote:
Quoting bob9000:

Quote:
The voter in question just decided to up the vitriol level in his comments:

I just watched that movie and it lasts 2hrs and 8 min noT 1 hr and 28 min and there's not any bd live in the menu you are a XXXXXXX liar.

While your data is probably correct, I have given you a for your contribution comments.
There is no reason to get personal in your comments. The following quote was not necessary (and may have been the trigger for the updated voting comment, which of course also warrants a ):

Quote:
As usual username is lying in his votes.

I am not sure I get what your are saying here. Almost sounds like you gave Bob a red zinger for what the other user said. Maybe I am misunderstanding your post, can you clarify please.

You should not address any other user directly in your contribution notes. You should instead document your contributed data and the screeners will decide accordingly.

Remember that your notes will become part of the permanent documentation of the profile.

Quoting RHo:

Quote:
You should not address any other user directly in your contribution notes. You should instead document your contributed data and the screeners will decide accordingly.

Remember that your notes will become part of the permanent documentation of the profile.

If Bob is telling the truth, then I see no problem with his notes.  You may not like it, but as long as it isn't an insulting personal attack, the rules don't prohibit it.

Quoting VirusPil:

Quote:
Quoting T!M:

Quote:
Quoting bob9000:

Quote:
the fact is is this guy votes no to every single contribution I make, and always lies while doing it. He becomes especially rude when I am correcting a previous contribution of his. Its like he takes it personally or something and his version of the profile is more important than accurate data. And I have dealing with him reasonably via PM, but as I said, that resulted in an insta-block.

I know the user - votes against virtually every contribution to "his" profiles using unfounded statements of which he hopes they will convince the screeners. If this behaviour keeps going on and on, I don't understand why such a user's voting rights aren't revoked.

Perhaps this doesn't directly result in a revoke of the users voting rights, but I think it gets in the users voting reputation, so that his votes "are less worthy". (Sorry, didn't know how to translate the last words better, hope it still can be understood)

How about has "less validity"?

UserX has changed their vote without further comment or explanation. I wish taking this to the forums had not been necessary, if only he would respond reasonably to PMs. But I thank everyone who took the time to reply. I guess the screenshots are not really necessary now, unless someone REALLY wants to see them. 

cheers to all

Please I beg of you to link us to where I said the so-called insults. You can't because they never happened. And as for this time around, this was what you said when you originally (and wrongly) voted no:

It actually lasts 2hrs08min. and doesn't have BDlive, what exactly is your game.

Do you think that is an appropriate comment? And also, while I admit that my very first notes had the typo (which I mention in the first post in this thread), the data I contributed was ALWAYS 129. And in vote after vote you insulted me apparently without checking the actual data being contributed or even checking to see if there was indeed BD-live on the disc. Right in the middle of my notes I plainly said:

although not listed on the back cover, this title has BD-Live, both verified with arcsoft totalmedia theatre

and then you further claimed that you checked the menu and BD-live was not there

I just watched that movie and it lasts 2hrs and 8 min noT 1 hr and 28 min and there's not any bd live in the menu you are a XXXXXXX liar.

How can that be anything, BUT a lie. You said you checked the menu in your vote, but now you are telling us that you relied on the cover:

As far as the bd-live I made the big mistake of relying on the cover

Which is it aircan? Which one is the lie? Did you look in the menu, or did you only rely on the cover? Further, by this time I had long-since fixed the typo in my notes, but the no votes and insults continued. And you wonder why I took it personally. It was also not the first time you have behaved in this manner, but rather every single time I contribute something to a title you own or dare to vote no on a contribution of yours. Even in this short thread I am not the only one to note this behaviour. For a recent example how you deal with no votes, when I asked you very simply for a source to your change and removal of some of the tracks in the Prince Caspian audio, this is what you modified your contribution notes to:

http://www.invelos.com/Forums.aspx?task=viewtopic&topicID=324499&PageNum=LAST

For bob9000 ,  I don't know what you mean by program but if you look on the back cover of this upc , there's English 7.1 DTS, french and spanish 5.1 dolby digital I don't see anything else on my cover or the one on the database, but I know I'm dealing with MR. BOB9000 and you'll find a way to happy funtime up this profile.

But lo and behold, when you got around to actually checking the audio tacks with your PS3, it turns out I was right and you had to withdraw your contribution and restrict it to updating the audio to 7.1... which I voted yes on by the way. So don't you dare come in here and try to drag my name in the mud. I won't call you a liar, but you are not telling the truth.