Quoting Merrik:

Quote:
Quoting Prof. Kingsfield:

Quote:
The point is that if this is going to be done, then Ken needs to mod the Rules immediately, otherwise the Rules have been eliminated to allow for some new piece of data that has, in this case, for several months been not consistent with the Rules. I have no problem with ken making such allowances as long as the Rules are updated upon the decision and not wait for MONTHS, while we look at illegal data and try to figure out what to do with it.

As we have discussed many times, when ken or the screeners ignore the Rules, it usually will open up the floodgates, but we have no way of knowing whether they intended to or simply made a mistake, this is why when such things happen then Ken needs to mod the Rules or make statement here immediately...so we know what is going on.

You mean kind of basically what a ton of us were asking for in this thread?

And to which you asked for that thread to be locked on the second page because it was nonsense?

Kind of like what we were asking for there?

 

Something I have noticed, if you want something updated, you need to be very specific.

You cannot just ask for the rules to be updated in a general sense.  If you want something updated, come up with the phrasing to update.  Or definitions or something. 

Ken will update the rules, but we need to do the leg work.  WE need to start with a concept, on part of the rules, then debate and come up with wording that people can agree on.

Once debate gets, then poll it in the rules forum, debate some more, then put poll in contributions forum, debate some more.

Once we get to an agreement, and polling tends to agree, then we can call on the Zombie master.  If the stars are aligned and we are worthy, he will appear and make judgment.

At least this is what I see..  

Charlie

EDIT-  In all seriousness though, I do not think Ken is going to do the leg work.  We need to take a small section to change, then work on it amongst ourselves, until we can come to some sort of agreement.  It needs to be specific, not a general "Please update the rules".


Charlie

Quoting Prof. Kingsfield:

Quote:
Merrik:

NO that was nonsense then and it is still nonsense. AS Charlie nooted, focused . My comment is focused on a specific action that was taken by Ken or somebody that was contrary to the Rules and remained contrary to them until just recently. I am glad that it has been changed, but we have another user trying break the rules right now, what he wants to do is rational although it would weaken the VE category even further, but the fact is it is not within the Rules and people should NOTb be voting YES, and despite people voting YES, Ken or the screeners should not approve the Contributions, unless he either modifies the Rules immediately and/or makes a comment in the forums. If the he does as was done with PSE and others that have been done over the years, then we have no Rules, becauuse they are not enforced.

And WORSE as Neill, noted in another thread, we have a user that even commented that it was against the Rules but voted Yes ANYWAY. I am beginning to wonder why I even bothered. Ken would care to explain this.

Yes, it's complete and utter nonsense to ask for rules that (at the time) were a year old to be updated to include changes that are buried in threads. 

By asking?

INSANE!!!1!11!1

Quoting hal9g:

Quote:
Quoting Prof. Kingsfield:

Quote:
Hal:

I don't care if they have the stomach for it, oce it's done then if don't want to follow it your contributuions won't be acceprted PERIOD, no exceptions.

If only this were true!  People do not pay attention to the Rule as it is written today.  Shoehorning of credits that are not in the crew table happens all the time and gets accepted all the time.

And should NOT. That it does is not the question, the question is we have Rules why does it happen, even IF only one user catches the violation. All that does is encourage users to ignore the Rules and do whatever they want.

Just like another user that right now has a Contribution that he claims the movie is Anamorphic, he offers NO support beyond his statement, the Rules require sources, people are voting YES, one user has voted NO, why should he bother to correct his notes, the screeners will no doubt accept an erroneous Contribution, he has NO reason to FOLLOW the Rules.

Well, I agree with you. But I do check it against my own data.

But that doesn't excuse people voting yes when a user does not provide documentation, only his own claim that the movie is anamorphic. There are plent of tools available to check this data easily and quickly, the Rules say to provide the source for the claim, Yes votes are wrong votes.