| Author |
Message |
| Registered: May 20, 2007 | Reputation:  |  Posts: 2,934 |
| | Posted: | | | | There is an effort to remove what has been determined as invalid BY's. They are invalid, not because they are wrong, but according to Invelos's rules are not necessary to differentiate between 2 people.
Even when a contribution is submitted to remove said invalid BY, it does not propogate through the DB correctly, nor update personal DB's correctly
Is it maybe time to petition a change in this policy? After all a correct BY is correct...
Just asking for opinions
Charlie |
|
| Registered: March 20, 2007 | Reputation:  | | Posts: 2,850 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting CharlieM: Quote:
Is it maybe time to petition a change in this policy? After all a correct BY is correct... Unnecessary birth years don't bother me, but I think you'll be facing an uphill battle. --------------- |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | Reputation:  | | Posts: 13,201 |
| | Posted: | | | | I strip all BYs, so don't really care one way or the other. If I recall correctly, Skip was the biggest opponent to entering all valid BYs. With him gone, you might have a better chance. | | | 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 |
|
| Registered: May 29, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 3,475 |
| | Posted: | | | | Birth years don't change so they would only need to be documented and entered once.
Since we are already using them, I would prefer we not restrict them as we do presently. |
|
| Registered: July 31, 2008 | | Reputation: |  Posts: 2,506 |
| | Posted: | | | | I never saw a reason to exclude birth years. In the long run it will save time. |
|
| Registered: October 30, 2011 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 1,870 |
| | Posted: | | | | Some of the BY's in the invalid list are actually because they are wrong. Some BY's have in fact changed.
I would say that probably most in the Invalid BY list are invalid because they were not needed based on the Invelos need. But it is not 100% of them.
With the current rules the way they are you cannot stop people from removing them. Nor can you stop a NO vote when you are adding an Invalid BY. IMO It would really take a rule change. Now personally I would be OK with keeping them in the case where they are considered invalid because of a common name change. But unless the rule is changed people would be fighting dealing with NO votes when adding the BY. | | | | Last edited: by Scooter1836 |
|
| Registered: May 20, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 2,934 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Scooter1836: Quote:
Some of the BY's in the invalid list are actually because they are wrong. Some BY's have in fact changed.
I would say that probably most in the Invalid BY list are invalid because they were not needed based on the Invelos need. But it is not 100% of them.
With the current rules the way they are you cannot stop people from removing them. Nor can you stop a NO vote when you are adding an Invalid BY. IMO It would really take a rule change. Now personally I would be OK with keeping them in the case where they are considered invalid because of a common name change. But unless the rule is changed people would be fighting dealing with NO votes when adding the BY. First, I never meant to imply that all BY's were correct, just the point that they are being removed due to Invelos Policy. I put this forward, because of the problems with propagating BY's (A problem with the program). That is why I also said to petition for a policy change, and am asking for opinions.. |
|
| Registered: March 29, 2007 | | Reputation: |  Posts: 4,479 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting CharlieM: Quote:
Is it maybe time to petition a change in this policy? After all a correct BY is correct.. I totally agree with that. | | | | Images from movies |
|
| Registered: May 29, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 3,475 |
| | Posted: | | | | I have brought this issue to the Rules Committee. |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 17,330 |
| | Posted: | | | | I just posted against the idea in the other forum... just see it to be too easy to make a mess out of it. expanded on the reason in the other thread. | | | | Pete |
|