 |
|
|
|
Welcome to the Invelos forums. Please read the forum
rules before posting.
Read access to our public forums is open to everyone. To post messages, a free
registration is required.
If you have an Invelos account, sign in to post.
|
|
|
|
|
Invelos Forums->DVD Profiler: Contribution Discussion |
Page:
1... 6 7 8 9 10  Previous Next
|
|
Creative Make-up |
|
|
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
| Registered: March 13, 2007 |  Posts: 21,610 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Kathy: Quote:
Quoting Winston Smith:
Quote:
There was no intent to eliminate plurals, while uncommon, they are used and frankly I didn't think anyone would stoop to such a nonsensical statement or concept. But then again most of such arguments aaare silly or specious.
Intent is irrelevant and can not be evaluated by the community.
It is the "uncommon" Crew that we are specifically addressing.
If the Crew Chart must be followed exactly, plurals are not allowed - no exceptions.
Advocating the inclusion of plurals while criticizing those who advocate similar "silly", "nonsensical", "specious" concepts seems hypocritical to me. It is exactly that sort of attitude that leads to so many problems here. Intent is NOT irrelevant here or in law. Constitutional lawyers and the USSC always try to determine the intent behind any given law. The difference here is that you have the person and in some cases persons who are willing and able to try and help explain the intent and the premise behind the Rules. The problem being that we have several users which had no involvement in the Rule develiopment process who believe that they can determine the intent, allways incorrectly, or some others who believe intent is irrelevant also some much crap. | | | ASSUME NOTHING!!!!!!
CBE, MBE, MoA and proud of it.
Outta here
Billy Video |
| | Registered: March 14, 2007 | | Posts: 762 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting TheMadMartian: Quote:
While that may not have been the intent, your binary approach would do just that. A binary approach, unless I am missing something, means it either is or it isn't...basically 'on' or 'off'. Like it or not, because the plural form isn't in the list, the binary approach prevents them from being entered. Quoting Kathy: Quote:
Intent is irrelevant and can not be evaluated by the community.
It is the "uncommon" Crew that we are specifically addressing.
If the Crew Chart must be followed exactly, plurals are not allowed - no exceptions.
Advocating the inclusion of plurals while criticizing those who advocate similar "silly", "nonsensical", "specious" concepts seems hypocritical to me. That's how I see it. It's the same old story exceptions can be made if they were "intended" when the rules were written. I call that .......no I better don't say. | | | | Last edited: by TheDarkKnight |
| | Registered: December 27, 2009 | Reputation:  | | Posts: 5,131 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Winston Smith: Quote:
Quoting Kathy:
Quote:
Quoting Winston Smith:
Quote:
There was no intent to eliminate plurals, while uncommon, they are used and frankly I didn't think anyone would stoop to such a nonsensical statement or concept. But then again most of such arguments aaare silly or specious.
Intent is irrelevant and can not be evaluated by the community.
It is the "uncommon" Crew that we are specifically addressing.
If the Crew Chart must be followed exactly, plurals are not allowed - no exceptions.
Advocating the inclusion of plurals while criticizing those who advocate similar "silly", "nonsensical", "specious" concepts seems hypocritical to me.
It is exactly that sort of attitude that leads to so many problems here. Intent is NOT irrelevant here or in law. Constitutional lawyers and the USSC always try to determine the intent behind any given law. The difference here is that you have the person and in some cases persons who are willing and able to try and help explain the intent and the premise behind the Rules. The problem being that we have several users which had no involvement in the Rule develiopment process who believe that they can determine the intent, allways incorrectly, or some others who believe intent is irrelevant also some much crap. So it would be better if everyone that wasn't involved when the contribution rules were conceived, were not allowed to vote on contributions because we don't know what the select few were thinking and meant with thier wording of the rules and crew sections. Just like all laws and rules, they become outdated and it takes new creative input and fresh minds and ideas or the community becomes stagnant. |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | Reputation:  | | Posts: 6,635 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting GSyren: Quote:
If I understand correctly, the argumentation goes something like this:
- You must follow the rules exactly to the letter
- But that would exclude plurals...
- Don't be silly, not as exactly to the letter as that!
To me, that makes about as much sense as 99% binary...  I don't believe for a minute that you really believe this! | | | | Hal |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 6,635 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Kathy: Quote:
My ability to read and comprehend is as good as anyone else. If fact I might argue that I see things a bit more clearly since I do not have a personal bias that impacts ones impartiality. If this is true, then why do you think that this part of the Rules can be ignored? Quoting the Rules: Quote:
The table below gives each of the crew roles available within DVD Profiler. For each category, include only those people credited with the roles listed in the "Role" and "Credited As" columns. If someone is not credited with one of these roles (or direct translations of these roles), do not include them in the Crew section. I can see no way to "comprehend" this part of the Rules except the plain and clear meaning of the words as presented. I can only conclude that you do, in fact, comprehend the meaning, and have simply decided not to abide by what the Rules say because you do not like the consequences of doing so. | | | | Hal | | | | Last edited: by hal9g |
| | Registered: May 20, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 2,934 |
| | Posted: | | | | This discussion is getting nowhere (pretty darn fast)
Most credits have been addressed. I don't think too many people have issues with Director/Producer/Executive Producer/Film Editing.
There are still some questions concerning some sound credits, but even those are getting fewer.
So that leaves us with the art department. Most are pretty easy to dea lwith, except
Make Up
Make-up Effects
Creature Designer.
Make-Up artist, seem fairly routine.
Make-up effects, leave a lot to be desired. There are not many that actually say Make-up Effects or Special Make-up Effects [by]. I do not see a lot of credits that these would cover. Why would people want to limit it to these two descriptors, when a lot of time it is described as prosthetic make-up or effects(and other descriptors). There are other examples.
As far as "Creature Designer"; If it doesn't say this specifically, then it doesn't get entered at all. How many movies actually say "Creature Designer". Usually it says something like [pick your creature] Designed by. If the binary is applied strictly to this one, there would be very few entries.
This Idea of binary, doesn't work in all cases. It is a wonderful idea, but in all realism, it would limit a lot of entries. There are some that are OK with that. I personally feel that there needs to be some discretion (or common sense) applied from the community.
** I know common sense isn't so common.
Charlie |
| | Registered: March 29, 2007 | Reputation:  |  Posts: 4,479 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting CharlieM: Quote:
I personally feel that there needs to be some discretion (or common sense) applied from the community. I totally agree with that. But can you explain why you accept common sense for this part of the rules (crew roles) and refuse common sense for other parts (I think you do not need examples  ) ? | | | | Images from movies |
| | Registered: March 14, 2007 | | Reputation: |  Posts: 4,652 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Winston Smith: Quote:
Not a personal attack at all Gunnar, except in your view. You provided with me a laugh nothing more or less. "Nothing ever makes sense to you" is not a personal attack? Are you serious?  | | | My freeware tools for DVD Profiler users.
Gunnar |
| | Registered: March 14, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 4,652 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Winston Smith: Quote:
Quoting Kathy:
Quote:
Quoting Winston Smith:
Quote:
There was no intent to eliminate plurals, while uncommon, they are used and frankly I didn't think anyone would stoop to such a nonsensical statement or concept. But then again most of such arguments aaare silly or specious.
Intent is irrelevant and can not be evaluated by the community.
It is the "uncommon" Crew that we are specifically addressing.
If the Crew Chart must be followed exactly, plurals are not allowed - no exceptions.
Advocating the inclusion of plurals while criticizing those who advocate similar "silly", "nonsensical", "specious" concepts seems hypocritical to me.
It is exactly that sort of attitude that leads to so many problems here. Intent is NOT irrelevant here or in law. Constitutional lawyers and the USSC always try to determine the intent behind any given law. The difference here is that you have the person and in some cases persons who are willing and able to try and help explain the intent and the premise behind the Rules. The problem being that we have several users which had no involvement in the Rule develiopment process who believe that they can determine the intent, allways incorrectly, or some others who believe intent is irrelevant also some much crap. The only intent that is relevant is Ken's. It's his "constitution", not yours. And even in law you can't enforce intent that goes against the actual word of the law. - You were driving 39 MPH in a 30 zone! - But the sign says 40! - Well, we intended it to say 30. And furthermore "Do exactly what it says" and "Follow the intent" are two contradictory commands. You just can't do both. "Follow the intent" means that you have to make an interpretation. You have to use (gasp!) your common sense. Which I'm all for, by the way, in case anyone thought differently. | | | My freeware tools for DVD Profiler users.
Gunnar |
| | Registered: May 29, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 3,475 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting hal9g: Quote:
If this is true, then why do you think that this part of the Rules can be ignored?
Quoting the Rules:
Quote:
The table below gives each of the crew roles available within DVD Profiler. For each category, include only those people credited with the roles listed in the "Role" and "Credited As" columns. If someone is not credited with one of these roles (or direct translations of these roles), do not include them in the Crew section.
I am following the very first rule on the chart "Take Crew Credits from the film credits only; list names exactly as they are in the credits." I believe that Directors = Director = Direction by or that a Visual Effects Artist = Visual Effect Crew = Visual Effects. I am, of course, only discussing the rare instances in which this type of situation occurs. Since these Crew, to me, are exactly the same I have no problem if someone contributes them. I seldom contribute Crew data any more - my focus has been on blatant errors and areas I'm actually interested in - but I still feel the rules do allow for these Crew based on the quote above. Quoting surfeur51: Quote:
I totally agree with that. But can you explain why you accept common sense for this part of the rules (crew roles) and refuse common sense for other parts (I think you do not need examples ) ? I understand and empathize with you Yves. But, if you are discussing errors in the Overview then common sense can not be applied since Ken has clarified the issue. I agree with Charlie that this discussion is not going anywhere so I am done with it. | | | | Last edited: by Kathy |
| | Registered: March 29, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 4,479 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Kathy: Quote:
But, if you are discussing errors in the Overview then common sense can not be applied since Ken has clarified the issue. I had not that example in mind, since I do not know Charlie's opinion on this specific case. But concerning this subject, I never saw Ken saying that we must recopy an overview that does not match with the movie on disk. I think that Ken's mind is more in this part of rules for this case: Rule : When there is no overview on the case, add a simple, self-written overview of 1-2 paragraphs. Do not include spoilers and always match the overview language to the profile's locality. Anyway, when this case was discussed, a majority was to reproduce the error. | | | | Images from movies | | | | Last edited: by surfeur51 |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 6,635 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Kathy: Quote:
I am following the very first rule on the chart "Take Crew Credits from the film credits only; list names exactly as they are in the credits." I don't see how this section allows you to ignore the other section, but like you, I am done with this discussion. The damage to the online database is, unfortunately, already extensive. When and if Ken goes to open credits, every single credit will have to be re-examined so that we can get real data. | | | | Hal |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 21,610 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting GSyren: Quote:
Quoting Winston Smith:
Quote:
Not a personal attack at all Gunnar, except in your view. You provided with me a laugh nothing more or less.
"Nothing ever makes sense to you" is not a personal attack? Are you serious? Yes, are you  Thank you for more laughter I need it. | | | ASSUME NOTHING!!!!!!
CBE, MBE, MoA and proud of it.
Outta here
Billy Video |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 21,610 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Kathy: Quote:
Quoting hal9g:
Quote:
If this is true, then why do you think that this part of the Rules can be ignored?
Quoting the Rules:
Quote:
The table below gives each of the crew roles available within DVD Profiler. For each category, include only those people credited with the roles listed in the "Role" and "Credited As" columns. If someone is not credited with one of these roles (or direct translations of these roles), do not include them in the Crew section.
I am following the very first rule on the chart "Take Crew Credits from the film credits only; list names exactly as they are in the credits."
I believe that Directors = Director = Direction by or that a Visual Effects Artist = Visual Effect Crew = Visual Effects.
I am, of course, only discussing the rare instances in which this type of situation occurs.
Since these Crew, to me, are exactly the same I have no problem if someone contributes them.
I seldom contribute Crew data any more - my focus has been on blatant errors and areas I'm actually interested in - but I still feel the rules do allow for these Crew based on the quote above.
Quoting surfeur51:
Quote:
I totally agree with that. But can you explain why you accept common sense for this part of the rules (crew roles) and refuse common sense for other parts (I think you do not need examples ) ?
I understand and empathize with you Yves. But, if you are discussing errors in the Overview then common sense can not be applied since Ken has clarified the issue.
I agree with Charlie that this discussion is not going anywhere so I am done with it. Kathy: Factually as with many users you following only those parts of the Rulers which you find conveniebnt to follow. If you don't like it you don't follow it. just like your image Contribution, Gerri has suggested that we should explain what improvements we believe have been made to an image set. What do you say in your notes, New scans for your consideration; that says absolutely nothing about what you think you improved. You only follow what you want and you do that inconsistently, Kathy, you're a greaty girl, even though you are a Buffalo fan but...most of your arguments hold very little water because you were not involved and therefore don't KNOW. | | | ASSUME NOTHING!!!!!!
CBE, MBE, MoA and proud of it.
Outta here
Billy Video |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 21,610 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting hal9g: Quote:
Quoting Kathy:
Quote:
I am following the very first rule on the chart "Take Crew Credits from the film credits only; list names exactly as they are in the credits."
I don't see how this section allows you to ignore the other section, but like you, I am done with this discussion.
The damage to the online database is, unfortunately, already extensive. When and if Ken goes to open credits, every single credit will have to be re-examined so that we can get real data. Let's hope he does this soon, hal. While it does have it nightmarish aspect, it may be less of a nightmare than this constant of user misinterpretation game that is played | | | ASSUME NOTHING!!!!!!
CBE, MBE, MoA and proud of it.
Outta here
Billy Video | | | | Last edited: by Winston Smith |
| | Registered: March 14, 2007 | | Posts: 762 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Winston Smith: Quote:
Kathy:
Factually as with many users you following only those parts of the Rulers which you find conveniebnt to follow. If you don't like it you don't follow it. just like your image Contribution, Gerri has suggested that we should explain what improvements we believe have been made to an image set. What do you say in your notes, New scans for your consideration; that says absolutely nothing about what you think you improved. You only follow what you want and you do that inconsistently, Kathy, you're a greaty girl, even though you are a Buffalo fan but...most of your arguments hold very little water because you were not involved and therefore don't KNOW. That last part, bolded by me, makes me just want to vomit.  |
|
|
|
Invelos Forums->DVD Profiler: Contribution Discussion |
Page:
1... 6 7 8 9 10 Previous Next
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |