Quoting ya_shin:

Quote:
Quoting hal9g:

Quote:
Is this nonsense still going on four pages after Ken made his ruling? 

I am sorry if I reignited it. I just want to know the result.

That certainly wasn't directed at you Achim!

I would have to agree with Unicus on this matter. Ken even said in another thread about it that contributing on DVDs you do not own is not a rules violation before closing the thread.

Here is Ken's decision on it Achim. At least I think it is what you are looking for. From Page 3...

Quoting Ken Cole:

Quote:
If the audio tracks are selectable from either the menu OR via the standard audio buttons on a standard player, they should be included as regular audio tracks.  For the purposes of this, a "standard player" is one regionally coded to the profile's locality, set to the locality's default language.

If they are not selectable via either of the above options, next to determine is whether they are selectable through an alternate button press method or alternative player configuration (not via hardware changes).  If so, enter them as an easter egg, with applicable instructions.  If not, exclude them.

Just because the user unfortunately mis-worded his contribution is no reason to vote no. I looked at that image you provided and knew exactly what he was trying to say... as obviously did several others that voted yes.

Now I may not agree with everything that particular user has said... as there been more then once we disagreed... but I also find the rest of what you said is not true. As a member of the Rules Committee forum since day one I have seen a several times over rules not go his way.(I.E Possessives) and I have seen many of his posts edited or removed.

Sure I have seen remarks from this user I wouldn't have said myself... but I seen just as much (if not more lately) from other people here about him.

I am just calling it as I see it here... and to be completely honest I am embarrassed for both sides.

Quoting Taro:

Quote:

In the mean time, I see that half of the Matrix submissions I had made have been accepted and immediately following that, Skip made a new submission to remove that data, which I find rather petty, since he doesn't even own the discs and as such can't provide a verification method.

If another user who actually owns the discs wishes to add the info in the Easter Eggs and submit that, I'll gladly vote YES. Users who submit without having the discs get a NO vote from me.

For the verification issue I think it has been covered in the forums enough that people can understand the issue, that they are on the disc, and Ken's decision on them.

The only issue I have with the submissions is that they remove them, in the notes quote that that they should be in Easter eggs but then fail to actually add them to Easter eggs which will require yet another submission to fix.

Edit: Didn't mean to post!

Quoting Taro:

Quote:
Unicus, I admit I didn't remove the contributions because they had more NO votes than the previous time (when they were also rejected). I honestly didn't think they had a chance in hell of being accepted. I was wrong in not withdrawing them after Ken's message, I openly admit that.

As for users making submissions on profiles they do not own, you are again correct in that Ken has now clearly ruled that anyone can contribute on any profile. So in that regard, he can go ahead and post a submission.

However, my NO vote stands and I will not change it. Him not owning the discs means he is incapable of verifying his own submission and his submission contains inaccuracies. I am not talking about the 'house' issue, I am talking about how to access the audio track and subtitles. His Easter Egg is not only incomplete but inaccurate as well. Him not owning the disc isn't against the rules but it poses a problem in reality, as he's incapable of submitting a correct explanation. For that reason, I'll keep my NO vote. When I see a contribution that is wrong, I vote NO. I also won't put effort anymore in explaining where the submission is wrong and incomplete. Enough people voted YES on that submission so it means nobody cares anyway.

As for Surfeur's post, it's indeed clear that a double standard is upheld here and Invelos protects a certain user, allowing him more leaniance than other users, most likely because they have a long history together. That much has become clear to me as well now.

I find your comment almost laughable. You claim that you see a double standard that for me. I see it exactly the opposite and therein lies the problem. If anything I think ken holds me to a higher standard, as I see many posts, even from you which should be edited, removed or otherwise moderated but are not. The bad part for me is that every time i see those kind of posts, I have to grit my teeth to try to keep from going off like a rocket. I don't see people here interested in civil discussion, I see a b unch of users who want to do things the way they WANT regardles of what it might mean for the program, and as when my children were young they want it their way NOW, they aren't willing to sit back and say, Okay this can't be accomodated exactly as I want it to be now, but, in this case, there IS a way, not ideal...granted, but it works NOW and we hope for a program mod that will improve it. From my point of view because of the attitudes of some...the program mod can't come soon enough.

I also agree with Unicus vis a vis the no votes on this, and all too sadly it speaks directly to the character of the users involved.

Skip

Skip

Quoting Unicus69:

Quote:
Quoting Addicted2DVD:

Quote:
Just because the user unfortunately mis-worded his contribution is no reason to vote no. I looked at that image you provided and knew exactly what he was trying to say... as obviously did several others that voted yes.

Now I may not agree with everything that particular user has said... as there been more then once we disagreed... but I also find the rest of what you said is not true. As a member of the Rules Committee forum since day one I have seen a several times over rules not go his way.(I.E Possessives) and I have seen many of his posts edited or removed.

Sure I have seen remarks from this user I wouldn't have said myself... but I seen just as much (if not more lately) from other people here about him.

I am just calling it as I see it here... and to be completely honest I am embarrassed for both sides.

Quoted for truth.  I couldn't agree more.

As do I. In all fairness, I do not always agree with me...you think these fights are tough...you should those.

Sometimes, as in this case, I am obliged to take a stance which would not be the one I might like to take, I would have liked very much to have agreed with Taro vis a vis the Japanese checbox for language, but due to the special circumstances surrounding it, it simply isn't viable at this time. There are liots of things that i would prefer not to feel I have to say, I would prefer to not feel i must defend myself all the time, but there are some users here, who in my view have so poisoned the atmosphere of these Forums that i have little choice. I have said before many times, lots of people like to popint at me, but i suggest those that so enjoy doing this look to their own behavior. This is a two way street, all the time, there is just not YOUR point of view nor is there mine. I try very hard to see opposing points of view, that doesn't mean i will agree with them, I can't formuylate my own opinion properly unless i understand YOURS, do you do me the same honor...the answer as I see it all too often is a resounding NO you do not. I also find some users here to be unbelievably cruel and almost sadistic, I have a thick skin, but that doesn't mean i don't feel the barbs and i am not likely to respond very favorably.

I hope that one day either by attrition or by taking a long hard look at their own behavior, that perhaps one day we will get back to where we can discuss things rationally.

Skip