The truth makles you vomit, DK. Those are all factual Kathy was not involved in any step of the Rules development process and therefore KNOWS nothing about the Rules or what is behind them other than what she can see bin them. Hal and Pete however were involved, hmm interesting that they are both correct on this and Kathy is deep in left field.<shrugs> The lgitimate discussion is one in which we recognize that it is not part of the current system but should it be, NOT a discussion such as this one which bassically is looking for a way to skirt the Rules, which Kathy fully seems to support

That is not what I wnat at all, DK. But I do wish that people would stop pretending to know or understand more than they do. All I want to do is help when I can and for that...well no need to go there. Intent is very definitely relevant, like it or not. The purpose of thge Rules was to get every user on one page for Contributions so that all data in the Online would be consistently dealt with from one DVD to the next, nothing more difficult  than that at the base. Instead we have geniuses that have no knowledge of the system claiming that they can divine the intent and meaning of the words in which they had no involvement in development. Then when I try to explain the intent and I do KNOW, they dare to tell me that they KNOW what they are talking about and I don't, I have news for you the people whon don't knoiw what they are talking about are people like Kathy and the Martian, even thogugh he was involved in one of the rewrites, he still was not involved at the outset or in the initial writing, so he make guesses and sometimes they are good ones,. but he can't tell me that he KNOWS more about it than I, Dan W or the original writing team members, plain and simple

I understand what you are saying but the problem is that the intend behind the rules is not as  important as the wording of the rule. You can intend the best but if the wording isn't precise all your good intend goes down the drain. We need rules to be re-written to be precise like the cover rules for German & Australian covers and so on. If Ken doesn't help and change the rules to fix the wording your intend will be worthless. Sure there are rules that are clear and people ignore them but I am talking about the ones we talked about in this thread and also in the rating logo thread.

I can only say this again, if rules would be re-written or worded differently to make them precise we wouldn't have all the arguments.

Quoting TheDarkKnight:

Quote:
I understand what you are saying but the problem is that the intend behind the rules is not as  important as the wording of the rule.

I do not need to know anything about intent to understand the quote below.

I ask again, what is not clear about this:

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 have yet to see anyone answer this intelligently.

I have another really dumb question, what do you do if the credits read:

Written & Directed by John Doe

it would not be allowed to contribute this, correct?

or would you enter:

Director: John Doe

Writer: John Doe

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….You only follow what you want and you do that inconsistently, ...most of your arguments hold very little water because you were not involved and therefore don't KNOW.

Since you find it necessary to call me out - I feel I need to respond.

What I KNOW is that you  find it easier to lambaste others and use lies and manipulation in both the forums and your contributions.

Quoting Winston Smith:

Quote:
…Kathy was not involved in any step of the Rules development process and therefore KNOWS nothing about the Rules or what is behind them other than what she can see bin them…

For someone who takes great pride in their involvement of the Rules, their intent and the development process I  wonder why you find it acceptable for you to violate their tenants. 

Want proof?

Let's take a look at Mickey Blue Eyes UPC 053939-256529.

Look at your contribution notes here: http://www.invelos.com/Forums.aspx?task=viewtopic&topicID=9509&PageNum=LAST

You call out the previous contribution stating you are correcting data because the "Existing data is from IMDb".  And we all know how you feel about IMDb:

Quoting Winston Smith:

Quote:
As others have noted just follow the Rules and get the info from it is prescribed. This is not IMDb as we do not pay IMDb a licensing fee for their data, which is why we say take it from the movie itself (DVD) and IMDb already exists and does not need to be cloned.They aren't in the business of making movies any more than we are . Their data is second hand at best in many cases and often far less accurate than if the film credits are used.

Quoting Winston Smith:

Quote:
Be aware also, that IMDb is an extraordinarily inaccurate product. It doesn't take a lot of comparison toa film to find that the large majority of their title data are highly inaccurate, regarding ordering of say cast or Cast roles, which many times are invented  and do NOT match the actual film data at all. Like I said, let IMDb be4 IMDb and let Profiler be Profiler.Yes, you can use them for reference (cited in in your Contribution notes),but with gross inaccuracies present in that Db, I would encourage you and everyone else to NEVER use them as a sole reference source, not ever. We have Rules which spell out where our data is to come from and one the major prohibitions is NO third party databases, that incluides IMDb,our Cast and Crew data must come ONLY from the film itself as spelled out in the Rules.

Quoting Winston Smith:

Quote:
IMDb exists already and does NOT need to duplicated. Not to mention it's illegal. try also reading IMDb's Terms of Service. You can use IMDb for your OWN purposes, but we are a commercial database and we cannot and use their data paying a very hefty licensing fee, which is also spelled out in the terms of Service....minimum $15K per year.

On May 19, 2007 you provided long and detailed documentation on your contribution including "Cast and Crew data edited and Ordered per Actual film credits and per rules-As credited".

The problem? Some of the Cast roles don't actually match the credits.  Some could be an honest mistake such as F.B.I. > FBI, But how in the world did you get the following?

Skip's data: Joe Viterelli as Vinnie 'The Shrimp'
Actual data: Joe Viterelli as Vinnie

Skip's data: Carmine Parisi as Goon in Freezer
Actual data: Carmine Parisi as Luigi

So where does one find the data Skip provided? IMDb.

So, not only did you mine data from IMDb which is in direct violation of the Rules, you lied about where you got the data in your documentation notes.

Need more proof?

http://invelos.com/Forums.aspx?task=viewtopic&topicID=520383&PageNum=1

In this thread you once again admit to deliberately falsify data.

You justifying your actions because, according to you, documentation in contribution notes were lacking.

Maybe that contributor should have followed your example of the best way to document - lie about how and where you got said data.

The most amazing part of this thread is that you not only lie about things you have done, you then refuse to accept responsibility for your actions.

I may read the rules differently but I do so upfront and honestly. Although it seldom, if ever occurs, if I contribute something that might fall in a gray area I specifically outline exactly what that area is so that the voters and screeners are notified and can make their own assessment.

How dare you criticize me or anyone else in regards to following the rules. The only person I know that deliberately violates the rules and guidelines set up by invelos is YOU Skip.

You knowingly lie, harass and belittle any and all that do not kow tow to you and your opinions. I methodically went through your forums posts with the intent of  highlighting some of your more egregious offenses but decided against posting them here.

If anyone is interested in seeing exactly how Skip treats others who express a difference in opinion I urge you to read some of his 31 pages of posts that are still online: http://invelos.com/Forums.aspx?task=byuser&Alias=Winston%20Smith

Of course one can not truly understand the true scope of his posts since many of them were so offensive invelos felt they needed to be deleted.

So are we to start removing plurals and anything not exactly written in the contribution rules, word for word. I've got 3500 so I should get started now. This is going to changed alot of common names for crew members. No more Directors, executive producers, producers, editors, re-recording mixers. It'll cut down on most of the forums also no more common name discussions. It'll be just a bunch of forums of cats and dogs. And what DVD's we've purchased. And who wrote what really doesn't mean anything to me, 7 years of stuffing it in our faces (Me only 1 1/2)  and patting yourself on the back is really getting old.

Thank you - I was just curious.

I won't call you names unless you want me to.