Quoting Alien Redrum:

Quote:


But for you to say that the topic was opened to argue is misleading at best.

Argue may have been strong, and I did state in my first post here that Skip was wrong for doing it.

But this turned into a "lynch Mob".  Every time I tried to ask a question concerning the level of documentation, it always had to comeback to "What a bad contribution".  I tried to have a serious discussion, as an appropriate extension of what was started, but most did not want to get out of the "Hang Skip" mode.  That argument was over, before I got started.

Now if you want to criticize my posting, you are welcome to do that, but I am not the one that continued the hate mentality that permeates some of these discussions.

Charlie

Quoting hal9g:

Quote:
Quoting Grendell:

Quote:
Quoting hal9g:

Quote:
Tell me Skip, how do you defend this out and out lie in your contribution notes?

Quote:
DvddECRYPTER, dvdsHRIN and POWERDVD all see this as 16X9 anamorphic

Is this the kind of substantiation we should accept in order to vote "yes" to a contribution?

Wow, very crazy and disruptive user. The fact that Invelos does not remove this user must mean that they support this type of treatment to their customers. If they don't do anything about it and don't care, why should anyone want to contribute if they are going to be subjected to this?

What treatment is that, Grendell?  Do you mean the fact that I pointed out that Skip placed a bald-faced lie in his contribution Notes in order to change good data to bad data.  NONE of those tools say that this film is "16X9 anamorphic"!!!!

Lying in your contribution notes is an excellent reason for revoking contribution privileges.

Of course, when you are blinded by your avid defense of a certain user regardless of what they do, it is hard to tell fact from fiction!

I was talking about Skip.

Quoting CharlieM:

Quote:

A contribution was made
Voters voted
A topic opened to argue about anamorphic v Non anamorphic about this title
argument ensues about how bad this contribution was
the contribution was declined
Argument still goes on about how bad a contribution is
valid questions asked and points brought up
Argument still continues about how bad this was
more valid questions and discussion tried
Argument still continues about how bad this was.

That's nice. Here's my version:

- Skip makes a contribution which changes Non Anamorphic (Correct) to Anamorphic (Incorrect)
- A polite topic was opened asking people to check their discs to insure something wasn't being missed
- It was quickly ascertained that Non Anamorphic is correct
- Skip comes in and says Anamorphic is correct and Non Anamorphic is incorrect because the contributer didn't give good notes
- "Good notes" are provided in the thread, so Skip is asked to withdraw his contribution because it contains incorrect data
- Skip refuses and leaves his contribution up
- Contribution is declined
- It is brought up why Skip should be allowed to contribute since he knowingly submitted incorrect data and refused to withdraw it even after clear and proper documentation was posted showing it was incorrect

Add to this that all of Skip's posts were made in his usual manner of name calling, insisting that he is correct and everyone else is wrong, and generally being rude to everyone.

The point is valid that the notes in the original contribution were too terse and should have been more like the original post of this thread. However, Skip chose to make that point by leaving a contribution up that was shown beyond any doubt to be incorrect. That is a flagrant abuse of contribution and voting privileges and needs to be dealt with by Invelos if they want their database to continue to have any integrity.

Everytime I read a piece of this thread, I feel like I've just stepped into the Twilight Zone   

Quoting m.cellophane:

Quote:
This isn't about what documentation we accept or don't accept. I disagree that its an extension of the original topic. What happened here says nothing about loosening standards of documentation or rules vs. guidelines.

This is about whether a contribution can be made to reverse a prior contribution on the sole basis that the prior contribuition is undocumented or inadequately documented. The answer to that is no.

Each contribution stands on its own and must adhere to the rules for accuracy and documentation of its own.

There is no free pass to undo a prior contribution in such a way that you are absolved of expectations of good faith, accuracy and documentation. It doesn't matter if the prior contribution was undocumented, incorrect, flawed, under-documented or whatever. If you want to undo it, you must document your own contribution to be accurate.

The decline of Skip's contribution says nothing about whether the previous documentation was sufficient nor does it lessen documentation requirements in the future. The decline is only related to the merits and documentation of Skip's contribution.

This is a situation where two wrongs don't make a right. If a "wrong" has made it into the database, it can only be corrected with a "right". There is no "undo".

You are wrong, this post originally was about whether a particular film was Anamorphic or not.  The OP never questioned whether skip's contribution was proper or not, just whether it was accurate. 

In all realism, talking about whether Skip's contribution was proper or not was off topic to begin with..

Quoting Grendell:

Quote:
- "Good notes" are provided in the thread, so Skip is asked to withdraw his contribution because it contains incorrect data
- Skip refuses and leaves his contribution up

No, he should have pulled it when he realized he was chasing good data with bad (2 wrongs don't make a right)

Whether or not good sources were provided in the forums is really irrelavant.

Quoting m.cellophane:

Quote:
This is about whether a contribution can be made to reverse a prior contribution on the sole basis that the prior contribuition is undocumented or inadequately documented.

I'm not sure I can agree with this, since everyone knows that adequate documentation is not paramount...



---------------

Quoting hal9g:

Quote:
Quoting Alien Redrum:

Quote:
This thread would have been over and done with if the submission was retracted and handled appropriately.

It's very hard to argue that point!

No it's not> Had both you, Alien and the prior Contributor followed the Rules to begin with this discussion would not be necessary because it never would have happened. But all of you and otbhers chose to completely ignore the Rules and just accept whatever. For once hal just say you screwed up , which you did, BIG TIME.

Quoting Ace_of_Sevens:

Quote:
Quoting CharlieM:

Quote:

But this turned into a "lynch Mob".  Every time I tried to ask a question concerning the level of documentation, it always had to comeback to "What a bad contribution".  I tried to have a serious discussion, as an appropriate extension of what was started, but most did not want to get out of the "Hang Skip" mode.  That argument was over, before I got started.

If someone insists in acting like the local monster, you can hardly blame the villagers for getting their torches and pitchforks. Skip went on the attack because people dared question his bad contribution. I don't like the implication that if you don't quietly tolerate abuse on the forums and fraudulent data to make a point, you are part of the problem. I would think it's the other way around.

Ace:

I didn't attack anyone. I pointed out the simple fact that users and Contributors had totally violated the rules. It was I that was attacked repeatedly