Quoting mdnitoil:

Quote:

Oh god, let's not open this can of worms.  I just accept his no votes when I submit these profiles and don't take it personally.  They get approved and all but one is happy.  It seems to work.

I did make mention of some behavioral inconsistencies in other threads but I don't think it's worth getting into...at least not in this forum.  Probably best left for PM.

PMs will get you nowhere with him. Rick, I  just saw it too. He's jumping up and down to block correct SRP data from getting into the database while voting 'no' against box sets from dual sided discs which are clearly spelled out in the box set rules. Yes, it's off topic, but it's really frustrating.

Quoting skipnet50:

Quote:
You guys can rationalize your, ILLEGAL Contributions and vopting against the Rules...so can I.

It also appears that some users are numerically challenged, 4 Disc Ids=4 Discs...NOT. There are PHYSICALLY two discs in the set.  

Some of us also refuse to ACCEPT thayt Ken and Gerri want DOCUMENTATION even for Common names and are willing to accept  such data just because a users says so. There are a whole bunch oif users around here who are hypocritical and have absolutely NO or very little credibility.

Skip

Per chance, would you be speaking of yourself?

Unicus:

Nobody else around here follows the Rules, and they spin their interpretation to be able to insert their personal preferences, at least I am honest about it. And I won't change my attitude until I see an end to this garbage.

This includes SOME users who when they ar caught making a very human mistake in the vote, instead of correcting it to No, they aren't man or woman enough to say whoops, instead they change their vote to a meaningless neutral.

I guess what it comes down to is that I am fed up with the dual standard around here. Let's beat Skip into submission, while when others misbehave or break the Rules a la Lopek to name ONLY one, are given a pass.

And for those that delight in spin and word games, I leave you with THIS

"All voting should be based on support of these Rules." I didn't start this garbage, i don't enjoy it, but if we are going to play then by ALL means let's play.

Skip

Quoting Lopek:

Quote:
Well, 28 Votes Later  it now stands at:

Yes:  27
No:  1


PS. Skip, get over yourself you are the biggest Skipocrite in these forums. 

I remember this discussion during the rules rewrite and I opposed the wording that is currently in place for just this reason. If memory serves, I was a minority of only 1 or 2.

The end ruling was that in order to stop the flood of SRP ping-pong updates, we need to disallow all updates which contained an SRP change be it right or wrong. We also discussed the hypothetical this contribution illustrates where all information is correct yet includes a (correct) change to the SRP.

After discussing all of this, the group (Ken included) decided that any update which included a change to the SRP field should be rejected.

In light of this, I am forced to give this contribution a "No" vote.

On a personal level, I agree with the contribution and still feel that this type of contribution should be allowed and the rule be reworded as I argued a couple of years ago.

Quoting northbloke:

Quote:
Thanks for the clarification Dan. It's good to know what the actual intention was behind that rule.
It certainly looks at the very least that a minor rewrite of that sentence is needed just so we don't have to go through all of this again!

Don't misunderstand, I would still vote "No" to an update which, right or wrong, did nothing but change an SRP by a few pennies. The reason is that different sites give different SRP's; usually, with a variation of no more than 4 cents. There simply is no way to decide which is correct if the releasing studio/company does not list it on their site.

The problem comes from the fact that regardless of the Manufacturers Suggested Retail Price, some retail/e-tail companies change it to their "company policy" SRP of:

**.95
**.96
**.97
**.98
**.99.

Quoting skipnet50:

Quote:
I agree, Dan and I have explained all this. The bottom line is that despite all the rationalization and spin, Lopek is violating the Rules. I evven said that my data is exactly the same as Lopeks, but withdrew my contribution on the basis of a duplicate entry AND the FACT that the SRP change violated the Rules.

Skip

I have read the thread, Skip. You explained none of what I said. All you did was give a "because I was there I know what was intended" argument.

Quoting skipnet50:

Quote:
The bottom line is that despite all the rationalization and spin, Lopek is violating the Rules.

No rationalisation, no spin, just an opinion of what the rule allows, and a contribution that meets that. Simple.

This should have been a non-event, a simple no vote, and let Ken or Gerri decide the issue. But, as usual, you decided to have a hissy fit, drag it into the forum, and cause a huge ruckuss. 

And then you ask why people in this forum have a problem with you? 

Quoting Dan W:

Quote:
You're no better than Skip in this so you might want to reconsider as well.

Oh, forgive me for defending a contribution that I think is correct, and that the majority of voters support.