| Author |
Message |
| Registered: July 31, 2008 | Reputation:  |  Posts: 2,506 |
| | Posted: | | | | The other issue is that it depends on the Screener reviewing the submission. I've just seen a submission that was declined a few months ago resubmitted & accepted this time. The rules haven't changed but just like us, they'll have personal opinions of a contribution as well. |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | Reputation:  |  Posts: 13,202 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting surfeur51: Quote:
Quoting Berak:
Quote:
Mixing apples and oranges again are we? 
Not at all. This example, taken on a subject that has been widely discussed here, shows that screeners often accept data that are not exactly per the rules. So when something is accepted , you cannot say that it is "The Truth". surfeur51 is correct. I can get just about anything accepted...as long as I word the contribution notes properly and don't get any informed voters voting. Acceptance should not be considered validation. In this case, the screeners probably went with the 'no' votes that quoted the CLT results. They aren't going to do the research themselves, so I don't blame them. | | | No dictator, no invader can hold an imprisoned population by force of arms forever.
There is no greater power in the universe than the need for freedom.
Against this power, governments and tyrants and armies cannot stand.
The Centauri learned this lesson once.
We will teach it to them again.
Though it take a thousand years, we will be free.
- Citizen G'Kar | | | | Last edited: by TheMadMartian |
|
| Registered: February 23, 2009 | | Reputation: |  Posts: 1,580 |
| | Posted: | | | | I have to agree with Surfeur that screeners won't always accept or decline submissions in a consistent way.
I remember the issue of whether or not the Japanese audio tracks could be entered in the Matrix discs. Many people voted pro, but also many voted against. Ken ruled in the forums against it but due to me being busy at work that time, I couldn't retract the submissions in time. The screeners let 2 into the database and declined the other 2.
Later of course, I rectified this and resubmitted in accordance to Ken's ruling but it just goes to show that we can't always expect screeners to be in the known of what the latest rules of Ken are or of what's being discussed in these forums. | | | Blu-ray collection
DVD collection
My Games
My Trophies |
|
  | Berak | | Bibamus morieundum est! |
| Registered: May 10, 2007 |  Posts: 1,059 |
| | Posted: | | | | OK then - the screeners are wrong all the time, even when given an extensive explanation in the contribution notes. So we should all ignore their every decision and re-contribute if we disagree...  And, yes, I am being sarcastic.... | | | Berak
It's better to burn out than to fade away!
True love conquers all! |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 13,202 |
| | Posted: | | | | No, they are only right when they agree with me. Other than that, boy are they ever wrong.  Just kidding. While I believe the screeners do get it right most of the time, an approval should not be taken as validation as Ken has stated that they will accept some bad data if the rest of the profile is correct. I would prefer that it be more black and white, but, it is what it is.  | | | No dictator, no invader can hold an imprisoned population by force of arms forever.
There is no greater power in the universe than the need for freedom.
Against this power, governments and tyrants and armies cannot stand.
The Centauri learned this lesson once.
We will teach it to them again.
Though it take a thousand years, we will be free.
- Citizen G'Kar | | | | Last edited: by TheMadMartian |
|
| Registered: March 29, 2007 | Reputation:  |  Posts: 4,479 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting TheMadMartian: Quote:
.... an approval should not be taken as validation as Ken has stated that they will accept some bad data if the rest of the profile is correct. ... This is exactly the point... and probably the best decision Ken ever took about profile acceptance, knowing that bad data per the rules are generally correct data per normal life... | | | | Images from movies | | | | Last edited: by surfeur51 |
|
| Registered: March 29, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 4,479 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Berak: Quote:
And, yes, I am being sarcastic.... Not more than when you ask me to shut up... | | | | Images from movies | | | | Last edited: by surfeur51 |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 2,394 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting surfeur51: Quote:
This is exactly the point... and probably the best decision Ken ever took about profile acceptance, knowing that bad data per the rules are generally correct data per normal life... If that isn't an overstatement, I don't know what one looks like. | | | Another Ken (not Ken Cole)
Badges? We ain't got no badges. We don't need no badges. I don't have to show you any stinking badges.
DVD Profiler user since June 15, 2001 |
|
| Berak | | Bibamus morieundum est! |
| Registered: May 10, 2007 | | Posts: 1,059 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting TheMadMartian: Quote:
, an approval should not be taken as validation as Ken has stated that they will accept some bad data if the rest of the profile is correct Well - in this case the only change made to the profile was to try and change the common name from "Kan" to Kan...  So to claim an error from the screeners in this particular case is a bit far-fetched me thinks....  | | | Berak
It's better to burn out than to fade away!
True love conquers all! |
|
 | T!M | | Profiling since Dec. 2000 |
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: |  Posts: 8,736 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Berak: Quote:
So to claim an error from the screeners in this particular case is a bit far-fetched me thinks.... Yet it was. The screeners must have mistaken yours and Skip's misguided ramblings for something worth taking into consideration - let's hope they never make that mistake again. You were both just trying to keep bad data in the database. By shouting loudly, you managed to throw off the screeners. Well, congratulations.  | | | | Last edited: by T!M |
|
| Berak | | Bibamus morieundum est! |
| Registered: May 10, 2007 | | Posts: 1,059 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting T!M: Quote:
Quoting Berak:
Quote:
So to claim an error from the screeners in this particular case is a bit far-fetched me thinks....
Yet it was. The screeners must have mistaken yours and Skip's misguided ramblings for something worth taking into consideration - let's hope they never make that mistake again.
You were both just trying to keep bad data in the database. By shouting loudly, you managed to throw off the screeners. Well, congratulations. Why am I not surprised T!M? When the screeners decide in your favour, they are absolutely correct. But when they decide against you, they are just misguided by the ones who disagree with you. Your arrogance knows no boundaries... | | | Berak
It's better to burn out than to fade away!
True love conquers all! |
|
| T!M | | Profiling since Dec. 2000 |
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 8,736 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Berak: Quote:
Why am I not surprised T!M? I wouldn't know. Why am I not surprised either? Quote:
When the screeners decide in your favour, they are absolutely correct. But when they decide against you, they are just misguided by the ones who disagree with you. I assume you understand that you're describing yourself here? Have I ever gleefully quoted a specific screener decision as "proof" of my point of view? No, I have not: that was you. Quote:
Your arrogance knows no boundaries... Again you seem to be describing yourself. To a tee, I might add. All in all, that really wasn't a helpful post, now was it? The bottom line is that you are flat-out wrong, period. Again, you may get away with incorrectly propagating the incorrect common name as long as the flawed CLT numbers mask the truth, but at some point in the future, that'll change. It may take weeks, months, or years, but you WILL be proven wrong. I happen to choose to have the correct data right now: while your data will need correcting later on, mine won't. | | | | Last edited: by T!M |
|
| Berak | | Bibamus morieundum est! |
| Registered: May 10, 2007 | | Posts: 1,059 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting T!M: Quote:
Quoting Berak:
Quote:
Why am I not surprised T!M?
I wouldn't know. Why am I not surprised either?
Quote:
When the screeners decide in your favour, they are absolutely correct. But when they decide against you, they are just misguided by the ones who disagree with you.
I assume you understand that you're describing yourself here? Have I ever gleefully quoted a specific screener decision as "proof" of my point of view? No, I have not: that was you.
Quote:
Your arrogance knows no boundaries...
Again you seem to be describing yourself. To a tee, I might add. All in all, that really wasn't a helpful post, now was it?
The bottom line is that you are flat-out wrong, period. Again, you may get away with incorrectly propagating the incorrect common name as long as the flawed CLT numbers mask the truth, but at some point in the future, that'll change. It may take weeks, months, or years, but you WILL be proven wrong. I happen to choose to have the correct data right now: while your data will need correcting later on, mine won't. And this post was useful, how?  I didn't gleefully quote anything - I commented on the decision of the screener to inform everyone debating in this thread what their decision was. In my eyes that is helpful information. Your arrogance is shown by the fact that you still persist on your interpretation of the rules as the ONLY RIGHT WAY. I have never put myself above Invelos' decisions, but you seem to do so all the time. You also make frequent comments as to what Ken's statements are meant as - again interpreting them your way as the only right way. I get tired of your childish behaviour T!M, and frankly couldn't care less who is right and who is wrong. I simply call it like I see it. But thanks for playing - have a nice day.  | | | Berak
It's better to burn out than to fade away!
True love conquers all! |
|
| T!M | | Profiling since Dec. 2000 |
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 8,736 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Berak: Quote:
You also make frequent comments as to what Ken's statements are meant as - again interpreting them your way as the only right way. Wrong. I try extremely hard never to interpret anything around here - I try to deal with facts: whatever's written in the rules, and whatever statements Ken has made here in the forums. Of course, I can see that if you don't like the facts, you'd like to write them off as "interpretation". Please, tell me what giant "interpreting" leap I've made in this particular debate? I won't be holding my breath. Quote:
I get tired of your childish behaviour T!M Likewise! | | | | Last edited: by T!M |
|
| Registered: May 19, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 5,917 |
| | Posted: | | | | Usefulness: Adj. What this thread lacks. |
|
| T!M | | Profiling since Dec. 2000 |
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 8,736 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Dr. Killpatient: Quote:
Usefulness: Adj. What this thread lacks. Yeah, that pretty much ended after post #1...  |
|