Well I hope all you yes voters are now happy to completely ruin the Rules in regards to pushing to allow hybrid covers into the on-line.

I for one will not allow this crap into my local.

Ken. You best update you Rules to let people know that they can create their own covers for your on-line instead of the covers as supplied with the actual released DVD's.


@Astrakan.

I doubt if this title has gone OP yet, considering its release date, as for amazon.co.uk, I can't vouch for them but one or two shops in my local vicinity still have copies for sale.

@ Astrakan:
The Limited Steelbook edition indeed seems to be largely OOP now. Check here.
However the regular 2-disc edition is still widely available (although not from Amazon UK themselves).

Quoting snarbo:

Quote:
Ken. You best update you Rules to let people know that they can create their own covers for your on-line instead of the covers as supplied with the actual released DVD's.

This case does not open the database for custom covers. The goal is still to get the look of the original cover as close as possible.

Quoting RHo:

Quote:
Bad tip!

But an accurate one, right? Look, I understand where you're coming from, but that really is the only way to force people to judge the images on their merits, instead of grasping at technicalities in order to "justify" a no-vote.

Quote:
You're probably right about the votes.

There you go. I just believe that the contributor has gotten an unjustly amount of flack for going out of his way to provide the community with a set of wonderful images. I feel the way he's treated might not exactly encourage him do submit more of his work, and I feel that would be our loss. Therefore, it seemed appropriate to offer what seems to be an "easy way out".

Quote:
But we should not sacrifice documentation in order to "sneak" in data.

Images shouldn't have to be "documented". As I said: either they're a significant improvement over what was there before, and an accurate representation of the actual cover, or they're not. If they are, they should be welcomed into the database; if they're not, then the current images should prevail. It's no more difficult than that. Keep in mind that not explaining how these images came to be isn't lying, or anything like that. It just forces the voters to judge them on their own merits, and not on anything else. It's not "sneaking in": people get to speak out on whether the images are accurate, and whether they're an improvement. Only if they are, they get in. I don't consider that "sneaking" at all.

Quote:
IMO the discussion and result of this discussion has been worth it.

That I could agree with, if - and here it comes - if this would mean that the people now voted "no" will have actually learned something from this, and not vote "no" for the same reason the next time this occurs. If, however, nobody changes their tune, and the contributor has to go through this ordeal every time he tries to submit significantly better images obtained like this, then it hasn't been worth it, I'm afraid. If that's the case, and I expect so, then I still stand by my earlier suggestion.

Glad I could help, Astrakan!