Quoting Dan W:

Quote:
Quoting lyonsden5:

Quote:
Quoting TheMadMartian:

Quote:
Quoting Prof. Kingsfield:

Quote:
WE DID.

I must have missed it.

    (You know it was a secret! )

What was argued for was limited crew roles based on academy awards categories and listed as credited. Total and complete open credits were not pushed. Not in any of the chats I was involved in or have archived (and I do have them all  ). 

When you are writing rules for credits it is senseless to argue about something that is not on the table. The arguments for open credits were in the forum.

If that is the case I'll take your word for it.

It's a shame it wasn't accepted then. It would certainly have made things easier over the years.

I just don't see how making that change now is a practical move though, especially if Ken was opposed to it back then as well (as he seems to have been).


BTW - it's nice to see you pop in Dan. We didn't always agree but I know I valued your opinion and typically respected  the way you presented your arguments. I even learned a thing or two. 


Quoting Prof. Kingsfield:

Quote:
Dan:

The first thing you have to recognize is that Rick is "the man behind the curtain."  

Yea, that's me. The guy trying to run the whole place and control everything... 

I don't usually like to be confrontational so please forgive me because I want to get something off my chest.

It seems to me, and correct me if I am wrong, that those arguing for a complete overhaul of the system are the ones that have stated they no longer contribute and will not do so in the future. I don't think it is right or fair to those of us that would end up doing all the work.

Over the last few months I have fixed thousands and thousands of errors in my collection, contributing as I go...and I am only up to the "h"s.

There is enough mistakes and improvement that currently need to be addressed in the database. My opinion is that we work on those first.

Until the current database is fixed and reaches a higher degree of accuracy I feel these other issues are inappropriate.

Edit: I would also like to point out the results of the poll. This just illustrates the futility of some of the issues that are debated endlessly in these forums.

Quoting CharlieM:

Quote:
Quoting Prof. Kingsfield:

Quote:

Very good poin, Dan. I don't hear the Martian crying about the changes he is advocationg that also require editing

But he is not advocating a position of editing everything.  He is advocating the middle ground, keep what we have (for the most part) and allow for the "extended credits" on top of it.  Then the people that want them can have them.  The people that want to stay the same can have that too.

Charlie,

I understand where you are coming from but look at it from my side for just a second. The arguments and hard feelings in this forum largely stem from the credit system in place. With shoehorning of this and that and forcing definitions and rewriting the rules to allow for some shift in hollywood terminology and the inevitable exceptions to the rule......it just goes on. The current system is only functional with a lengthy set of rules. These are rules that have to be modified every time Ken makes a change in the program. Then there are the "accepted" changes that aren't in the rules.

With open credits you have what is in the film (if someone chooses to enter it all). Ken has already decided that is not necessary to contribute all of the credits and partial contributions/corrections are allowed. So, the folks that do not want to add them won't. the few who do, will. with a click of a button Ken could make it possible for the user to "show" only "limited credits" while those who want them can have them if they want. Who's harmed?

Yes, re-editing the profiles will be necessary, but that will be the end of the credits re-edits, and a subsequent re-edit a year later, and another the year after that and so on until open credits are finally done.

Do them now and once or re-edit them every year or so in perpetuity like we have been doing.

Keep in mind that Ken can be swayed occasionally.

Quoting Kathy:

Quote:
I don't usually like to be confrontational so please forgive me because I want to get something off my chest.

It seems to me, and correct me if I am wrong, that those arguing for a complete overhaul of the system are the ones that have stated they no longer contribute and will not do so in the future. I don't think it is right or fair to those of us that would end up doing all the work.

Over the last few months I have fixed thousands and thousands of errors in my collection, contributing as I go...and I am only up to the "h"s.

There is enough mistakes and improvement that currently need to be addressed in the database. My opinion is that we work on those first.

Until the current database is fixed and reaches a higher degree of accuracy I feel these other issues are inappropriate.

Edit: I would also like to point out the results of the poll. This just illustrates the futility of some of the issues that are debated endlessly in these forums.

Is it an overhaul or a simplification? You seem to look at "open credits" as a complication and a distraction from fixing some of the bad data you are fixing in your local DB. I feel that going to "open credits" removes a great deal of the hassle of entering the credits data because once it's done correctly it's done. No re-edit a year later and no rehashing which shoehorn is the right one to use that year.

Your mileage may vary.

Charlie,

It seems we agree for the most part. You see, I am not against categories. Most film credits have this anyway. I think that a simple category system would be well accepted with those who are for "open credits" and it would be easy to find the credit group you are looking for. It would probably be easier for Ken to create an "abbreviated" credits area in the view for those who don't want to see the full credits.

Getting there is going to be a problem for ken because he has to write code for it and the initial data entry could be lengthy but the work load would be spread over many. Those who don't want to do a full credits audit do not have to because Ken has already solved that issue.

Contributable Custom Roles is pretty much what I use and all that I'm really interested in tracking.

Add me as another user who does not want open credits.

Quoting lyonsden5:

Quote:
Quoting Dan W:

Quote:
Quoting lyonsden5:

Quote:
Quoting TheMadMartian:

Quote:
Quoting Prof. Kingsfield:

Quote:
WE DID.

I must have missed it.

    (You know it was a secret! )

What was argued for was limited crew roles based on academy awards categories and listed as credited. Total and complete open credits were not pushed. Not in any of the chats I was involved in or have archived (and I do have them all  ). 

When you are writing rules for credits it is senseless to argue about something that is not on the table. The arguments for open credits were in the forum.

If that is the case I'll take your word for it.

It's a shame it wasn't accepted then. It would certainly have made things easier over the years.

I just don't see how making that change now is a practical move though, especially if Ken was opposed to it back then as well (as he seems to have been).


BTW - it's nice to see you pop in Dan. We didn't always agree but I know I valued your opinion and typically respected  the way you presented your arguments. I even learned a thing or two. 


Quoting Prof. Kingsfield:

Quote:
Dan:

The first thing you have to recognize is that Rick is "the man behind the curtain."  

Yea, that's me. The guy trying to run the whole place and control everything... 

Rick:

If I had to guess as to ken's motives. THIS would be my guess. Remember that back then all we had was Director. I would guess that while he wasn't necessarily against more Crew, he wanted to see what would happen and how it would work. If that is a valid reading (which i don't know if it is) and i were Ken my reaction to what I have seen in the intervening years would not be very positive. The constant bickering and argument would turn me off real quick. Remember Rick I had several objectives with the Rules the two most important was to establish a standard data form to stop the ping-ponging we used to see so frequently and to put an end or minimize the arguments, which plagued us even back then. We have been very successful with the first objective, the second...not so much; and that disappoints ME frankly. The discussion and deabte, I like, the endless bickering I hate with a passion.

Skip

Quoting Dan W:

Quote:
Quoting CharlieM:

Quote:
Quoting Prof. Kingsfield:

Quote:

Very good poin, Dan. I don't hear the Martian crying about the changes he is advocationg that also require editing

But he is not advocating a position of editing everything.  He is advocating the middle ground, keep what we have (for the most part) and allow for the "extended credits" on top of it.  Then the people that want them can have them.  The people that want to stay the same can have that too.

Charlie,

I understand where you are coming from but look at it from my side for just a second. The arguments and hard feelings in this forum largely stem from the credit system in place. With shoehorning of this and that and forcing definitions and rewriting the rules to allow for some shift in hollywood terminology and the inevitable exceptions to the rule......it just goes on. The current system is only functional with a lengthy set of rules. These are rules that have to be modified every time Ken makes a change in the program. Then there are the "accepted" changes that aren't in the rules.

With open credits you have what is in the film (if someone chooses to enter it all). Ken has already decided that is not necessary to contribute all of the credits and partial contributions/corrections are allowed. So, the folks that do not want to add them won't. the few who do, will. with a click of a button Ken could make it possible for the user to "show" only "limited credits" while those who want them can have them if they want. Who's harmed?

Yes, re-editing the profiles will be necessary, but that will be the end of the credits re-edits, and a subsequent re-edit a year later, and another the year after that and so on until open credits are finally done.

Do them now and once or re-edit them every year or so in perpetuity like we have been doing.

Keep in mind that Ken can be swayed occasionally.

Precisely correct, Dan and well stated. And at that point, IF it ever happens, Ken and US can move onto some other interesting things that a lot of us have suggested.