Quoting TheMadMartian:

Quote:
I know I am going to come off sounding like a horses patoot but, if that's the case, let's just scrap all the rules and let each user submit what he/she thinks is good.  Either we follow the rules or we don't.

Please note, while I understand making accommodations when the rules are unclear, as we had to do for OMB, the rules are quite clear in this instance.  We really need to stop all this 'wishy-washy' "But it's this famous pioneer that we have to track" crap. 

It's not a black and white case of either following the rules or not. That's sort of like the Best Boy argument whenever anyone suggests a new role to track. I'm not suggesting to not follow the rules. Rather than snap and immediately delete the information that some obviously want, it would be better to come up with a solution for how to track the information. Riding in on a white horse to save us all from an errant Harryhausen credit doesn't seem productive to me. Visual Effects is one area where we could spend some more time identifying the proper historical credits (I think we're ok on the modern credits) so that we can track what we want to track. Removing a credit just because one can is not productive as it doesn't solve the greater issue. We really need to stop that kind of crap.

Quoting m.cellophane:

Quote:
Quoting TheMadMartian:

Quote:
I know I am going to come off sounding like a horses patoot but, if that's the case, let's just scrap all the rules and let each user submit what he/she thinks is good.  Either we follow the rules or we don't.

Please note, while I understand making accommodations when the rules are unclear, as we had to do for OMB, the rules are quite clear in this instance.  We really need to stop all this 'wishy-washy' "But it's this famous pioneer that we have to track" crap. 

It's not a black and white case of either following the rules or not. That's sort of like the Best Boy argument whenever anyone suggests a new role to track. I'm not suggesting to not follow the rules. Rather than snap and immediately delete the information that some obviously want, it would be better to come up with a solution for how to track the information. Riding in on a white horse to save us all from an errant Harryhausen credit doesn't seem productive to me. Visual Effects is one area where we could spend some more time identifying the proper historical credits (I think we're ok on the modern credits) so that we can track what we want to track. Removing a credit just because one can is not productive as it doesn't solve the greater issue. We really need to stop that kind of crap.

I have heard you claim this before, MANY times when you want to ignore the Rules. But it is that simple.

Quoting TheMadMartian:

Quote:
Quoting m.cellophane:

Quote:
It's not a black and white case of either following the rules or not. That's sort of like the Best Boy argument whenever anyone suggests a new role to track. I'm not suggesting to not follow the rules. Rather than snap and immediately delete the information that some obviously want, it would be better to come up with a solution for how to track the information. Riding in on a white horse to save us all from an errant Harryhausen credit doesn't seem productive to me. Visual Effects is one area where we could spend some more time identifying the proper historical credits (I think we're ok on the modern credits) so that we can track what we want to track. Removing a credit just because one can is not productive as it doesn't solve the greater issue. We really need to stop that kind of crap.

I understand what you are saying but, allowing data that doesn't comply with the rules, simply because it is "information that some obviously want" doesn't make much sense to me.  Say I want to track the ADR Mixer, can I add that as Sound Mixer simply because it is information I want?  I mean ADR is sound, right? 

  Exactly right.

Do you remember another famous time when you used the black/white argument to ignore the Rules, James and worse got away with it. Actually I could point to MANY such occurrences. You are very liberal with such interpretations when it is something that YOU want to do, despite the Rules being very black and white in many cases.

And as of THIS moment Ken still has not made any change to the Rules to allow Technical Effects By. As I said, there is a CORRECT way to handle such data but it is not by forcing it in against the Rules.

Discussion does NOT change the Rules, Rick.

Years ago we had a big DISCUSSION because James wanted to ignore the rules. He got away with it, the Rule was black & White and guess what the Rule today says exactly the same thing it did back then and it is still just as black & white as it was then. Discussion is good, Rick but it does NOT change anything in the here and now. The RULE is. Ken can change the Rule and watching to make sure that he does or doesn't, IF he does then I can withdraw the Contribution, if he doesn;t then the data which was added is invalid and was submitted and approved in spite of the rules. The choice is Ken's, not mine or the Contributor and the voters who ignored the Rules, but ken's, I follow the Rules, I don't llok for ways to subvert them or bend them to what I want. If it says don't change for a penny, then i don't change for a penny. If Technical Effects By is not listed then we don't use it...cery simple. Rick you sghould try it sometime.

The fact that some want to track this data is not relevant, the Rules are relevant Rick. Polls do not the rules make, Ken makes the Rules, if he chooses to change it FINE, if not FINE. Sheesh, I can't do it, do you get that. If it were up to me and i won't reveal my own opinion on if I could have done it, because that is not relevant or possible, but whatever I would have done, I would have done a week ago.

You and james both seem to confuse the difference between a discussion and what the Rules ARE at any given point in time.

James:

We have rules, Ok, they need to be followed or we go to where we were years ago. Which I know you would really prefer.The data (1) should never have been Contributed to begin with and (2) should never have been approved per the Rules. it has nothing to do with remaoval because someone can, it is about removal because it is against the Rules. That simple and discussion has NOTHING to do with it.

Let me remind you james of the discussion that was had here some years ago and others like it but this one was and is disgusting.  The ruel said and still says exactly the same thing, it is a very simple prohibtion

"Do not make contributions with changes of a few cents/pence to the SRP."

We had a big discussion over it because you wanted to ignore that prohibition and you twisted and spun and ultimately were allowed to get away with supporting a $.01 change to SRP despite what the Rule said. We DISCUSSED it heatedly, and today you are still just as much in violation of that Rule as you were years ago. in short the discussion achievede nothing. We are NOT allowed to make decisions ourselves, Technical Effects By are NOT currently part of the approved Crew Roles, james. It is cut and dried. We can discuss it all we want here, but that changes NOTHING, the time that you have ignored the rules remain your ignoring of the Rules for your own purposes, nothing has changed on  those instances, and most of the changes you have supported have been proven to be very poor changes, don't make me list them.

At the moment we do not track Technical Effects By, if Ken does nothing that remains the status quo PERIOD. If he chooses to add it then that changes the status quo.

As I have told you numerous, James, this is very simple, just follow the Rules. How many times did I used to you that privately while i would watch you spin for pages, just like here. just follow the Rules. When they change they change.

What I really find amusing is that you really personally care and get you nose all twisted out of shape. I don't care most of the time, I only care what the Rule says and this is a fine case in point. I don't care, if the rule says Ok then fine, if it does not say OK, then data should NOT be submitted and if it is it should NOT be approved, if approved it should be removed. Simple. I get my nose twisted when the Rules are ignored or spun and I get twisted badly.

The community has questions and requests input on issues. In order to gain an understanding and see what others think they bring these issues to the forums.

It is only after looking at all aspects of an issue and getting input from many people should the topic of rules be brought up.

No one is advocating violating the rules but to bring them up too early in the process will only inhibit people from contributing their ideas.

So, I would like to encourage the community to continue to discuss these types of issues. I am interested in making the database better and it might be that the rules will need to be updated or changed.

Quoting Kathy:

Quote:
The community has questions and requests input on issues. In order to gain an understanding and see what others think they bring these issues to the forums.

It is only after looking at all aspects of an issue and getting input from many people should the topic of rules be brought up.

No one is advocating violating the rules but to bring them up too early in the process will only inhibit people from contributing their ideas.

So, I would like to encourage the community to continue to discuss these types of issues. I am interested in making the database better and it might be that the rules will need to be updated or changed.

I agree, kathy 100%. But don't get the cart before the horse. And the bottom line is that this is a very simple a case of a user who got the cart before the horse and submitted and got approved data which does not comply with the Rules. So the data must go away for now, that or we have no rules.

Skip

Discussions don't change the Rules, Rick. Your flippant responses are insulting. Only ken changes the Rules and you obviouskly have missed the entire point of it, or ignored it so you could make tyouer insulting post.