Quoting Prof. Kingsfield:

Quote:
Quoting VirusPil:

Quote:
Quoting northbloke:

Quote:
Quoting VirusPil:

Quote:
If I did understand the question correct, all 3 movies are in one Digipack. These Digipack is in a Slip Cover. Why should I remove the Slip Cover on the Child profiles? Can't see the sense in this. 

If there were 3 Keep Cases in a Slip Cover* it would look different, because the child have their own casing.

Edit: *changed Slip Case to Slip Cover.

The way I look at it, and I think the way Ken looks at it as well is that the parent profile as a whole is a digipak with a slip cover over it, but on the disc level (the child profile) each disc doesn't have it's own slip cover, they're simply stored in a digipak.
By ticking the slip cover box on the child profiles you're suggesting that there are 3 slip covers each over an individual disc before a final 4th slip cover is put over the full digipak.
Does that make sense?

I would agree if the slip cover would include 3 digipaks, but until it is just one digipak that contains three disc, it is different.
The housing of this three disc is still one digipak with one slip cover.

I understand that Virus, but the logic of it completely escapes me. It would still be a Slip Case not a Slip Cover due to content. I see two different definition for the same thing depending ...that's not logical or rational. I would really like to understand what sort of logic Ken was applying.

This is something I can understand. I can follow the logic a slip case contains more than one other case in it and a slip cover is a cover for a single included case.
One is a casing for something and the other is just a cover.

Quoting Addicted2DVD:

Quote:
Quoting Kathy:

Quote:
Quoting hal9g:

Quote:
Quoting Kathy:

Quote:
Hal,

When I go to the rules regarding the issue of Case Types I am directed to: http://invelos.com/Forums.aspx?task=viewtopic&topicID=373552.

I thought that, because the rules specifically send me there, that Ken considers that a part of the rules.

The link from the Rules goes to a different thread than the one that Northbloke posted earlier in this thread.

Quoting northbloke:

Quote:
Just a reminder that this thread still exists, and was signed off by Ken when it was created.

Since the tread above from northbloke (thank you!) contains a definitive answer from Ken, would it be possible to add this link to the rules?

Agree... and this is far... FAR from the only time we take posts from Ken as part of or over the rules.

If Ken had specifically posted that we are not to use the "Slip Cover" checkbox for the child profiles, I would agree.

However, that verbiage is embedded in a very, very long post with tons of pictures AND was posted by a user, not by Ken.  It would have been very easy for him to have missed this minor detail, and still said "OK" to the post.

Personally, I'd like to see a specific statement on this very specific issue from Ken, or better yet, an update to the Rules.

Like I said, for the on-line database I would leave the "Slip Cover" off the child profiles, but locally I would add it, because it makes no sense to me to use the cover image from the "Slip Cover" and then deny that there is a "Slip Cover" by not ticking the checkbox.

Quoting northbloke:

Quote:
Quoting VirusPil:

Quote:
So a question from me: If I don't tick the Slip Cover, my scans have to be also from the included digipak? 

No. I see nothing in the rules that say the cover type chosen and the source of the cover scans have to be the same thing.

I can't speak for anyone else, but I personally never said it was in the Rules.  I only said it seems logical to me that if you are using the image from the "Slip Cover" for the child profiles, that you would actually acknowledge the existence of that "Slip Cover" in the case type for those same child profiles.

My apologies Hal.. that post didn't come out the way I had it in my head while typing. I been doing that a bit here lately... I must remember to proofread much more. I meant it a lot more general then the way it came out. And while a post in response to what you said... it wasn't meant to be directed at you...Once again... my apologies.

Very interesting,

I have always used the Digipack + Slip Cover because that's where I take the front and back cover illustrations from for the child profiles and usually it provides some of the child data as well.

Quoting ninehours:

Quote:
Quoting Unclejumpy:

Quote:
Very interesting,

I have always used the Digipack + Slip Cover because that's where I take the front and back cover illustrations from for the child profiles and usually it provides some of the child data as well.

Yes, it would be allot simpler if the parent and child profiles had the same case type but going by this poll people don't want it done that way and for consistency's sake it is better that everyone does it the same way

Agreed, we purist may not like it but for the sake of consistency I will bow to the will of the masses !! lol