Quoting Pantheon:

Quote:
Ken primarily cares about money I would think. After all he probably didn't create Profiler just to nice to us OCD DVD collectors.

He wants to make money and I would think he's achieved that goal.

Also, with the whole one-time-fee thing he never has to meet the exacting standards of users. After all, it's not like we can demand a refund.

Since I bought my registration the program has improved hugely, to the point where is barely recognisable as the same program.....BUT....had it stayed exactly the same I would have been happy. I paid for that old version and that's what I got. Everything that has happened to the program since is just gravy.

Don't get me wrong I'd like to take a cattle prod to Ken's privates and get him to interact more, change the rules, update this and that and generally meet all the demands of his users....but I'd also like to win the lottery and we all know the odds of that happening.

With the exception of the 'cattle prod to Ken's privates', this pretty much sums it up for me.

Quoting RHo:

Quote:
Keep in mind though that the last time we heard, this is not his hobby project, but he makes a living out of it. Therefore support to some degree may be expected from his customer base.

"Some degree," yes. But the issue hasn't been whether or not we are making the right choices. It's that we are asking for validation for these choices and for the most part it never comes.

Quote:
As of today we have no authorization to clarify the rules in any binding way. We can discuss and explain our interpretation of the rules. We can do polls as long as we like. Only the written rules and Invelos' statements are binding.

I agree to a certain extent. But again, it's we do this already. They would be "unofficial rules," but at least they could possibly keep the same answers and situations from popping up and/or receiving contradictory answers.


An example, the rules say to always turn right... but then we come to a road where you can only turn left, what do you do? Do we sit here and do nothing for several weeks or months until Ken tells us which way to go because the rules don't tell us in their current form. The only answer to keep things flowing smoothly is to make a choice and stick with that so that each person who asks isn't pointed in a different direction. That, in itself, is creating a situational rule.

Quote:
And in order to make the live easier for the screeners, Invelos should have every interest in clarifying the rules themselves.

I agree entirely, but they haven't in quite a while which is the majority of the problem and why this topic was started.

None of what I am proposing is an attempt to shut Ken out. I would love for Ken to step in (or appoint someone who will step in.) to resolve so many of these issues, but until that happens we are on our own in trying to decide whether to turn left, go back, or stay put. I see nothing wrong with noting for others the choices that have been already made through previous topics.

Quoting Danae Cassandra:

Quote:
Quoting No_Name_Needed:

Quote:
Quoting hal9g:

Quote:
I gave up caring, long ago! 

You aren't the only one.

I'm pretty much in the same place.

Ditto that.

Quoting Winston Smith:

Quote:
try to see it from ken's viewpoint, updating the Rules would be a full-time job in and of itself and constant or relatively so.

I disagree. If Ken spent no more than 5 minutes a day on finetuning the rules based on the things that are being discussed in the forums, I'm convinced that things would improve immensely. Just five minutes.

I want my money back 

.

.

.
Kidding... but I would really like to see updates on a regular basis rather than "once in a while" so to speak .

Quoting T!M:

Quote:
Quoting Winston Smith:

Quote:
try to see it from ken's viewpoint, updating the Rules would be a full-time job in and of itself and constant or relatively so.

I disagree. If Ken spent no more than 5 minutes a day on finetuning the rules based on the things that are being discussed in the forums, I'm convinced that things would improve immensely. Just five minutes.

I totally agree Tim.

Quoting T!M:

Quote:

Quote:
try to see it from ken's viewpoint, updating the Rules would be a full-time job in and of itself and constant or relatively so.

I disagree. If Ken spent no more than 5 minutes a day on finetuning the rules based on the things that are being discussed in the forums, I'm convinced that things would improve immensely. Just five minutes.

I disagree. It would take much more time than "just five minutes" to evaluate every posting in every topic.

Damned, just reading the daily LOLcats/doglovers already takes longer than five minutes.

Some of you people clearly have little comprehension about time and how it is spent. It takes far more than 5 minutes just to evaluate a given poost and digest the arguments, then deide what, if anything, to do about it, thenm you have to factor in the impact of a given change relative to the screeners. You are talking about several hours for any given Rule modification.  And as i said from my own viewpoint and I would suspect ken's as well not that I am trying to speak for him, but weekly Rules changes, while the users might like it, the screeners would go NUTS and it would be unacceptable. Per haps quarterly Rules updates would be the best thing for all concerned and what I would be willing to experiment with personally. Anything else would just be way too much to cope with. I have a complete plan on how this could all work out but that is something i will not discuss here, but it would improve the system tremendously, a quantum leap forward and should make the users much happier, at least in some respects, there are some users that would not be happy but they would not be happy no matter what happened. Ken if you read this you know how to reach me.