Quoting Voltaire53:

Quote:
Quoting Rifter:

Quote:
Quoting Bodi:

Quote:
4 of them have already been documented in this thread.

That doesn't matter.  They were not documented at the time of submission, which makes them illegal.
You can't weasel your way around that fact.

Not necessarily true.

They could all have been fully documented under Invelos but then submitted to the Intervocative database with no documentation (as thousands of profiles were) losing all the previous info (one of the biggest losses in the transfer IMO)

... and FWIW if they were submitted when no documentation was required they are still legal. If you build an extension on your house small enough that doesn't require building permissions then two years later they change the law so that all sizes of extension now require building permissions you don't have to apply retrospectively...

The Intervocative contribution rules were given in June 2005. I quote from these rules:

Quote:
The authoritative source for information submitted should be the DVD itself.  Please don't make a correction to an existing profile based on the content of a third party database or the specifications printed on the cover.  In both cases, errors abound, so always verify the information directly from the DVD whenever possible.

This DVD was released in March 2006. The cast/crew "updates" done for this profile have not supplied any sort of documentation (neither at Intervocative nor at Invelos), and they obviously are not taken from the actual credits, so it's pretty self-evident that they have been taken from a 3rd party database.

Quoting Bodi:

Quote:
4 of them have already been documented in this thread.

This thread is not the place to document anything!

I received a very nice private message from someone who's opinion is different than mine. I thought I'd share my response:

The problem I have voting yes on this particular film is that there is no documentation that proves previously accepted data was ripped from a third party. I compared the list to several third party data bases and they are not the same.

It is my understanding that since the data does not match exactly (or nearly so) a third party, and has been accepted, then it is a legitimate profile. If this is true (and I recognize I may be wrong) then I believe the new contribution should identify and document the third party so I can see for myself that it has been in fact ripped off.

Personally I seldom use this kind of data. I don't even use locks; whatever the screeners decide is fine with me. If there is something I'm curious about I research it and DVDP is not only one source I use.
But, saying that, I do feel my vote should reflect my understanding of the rules and guidelines that are in place and that is why I voted no.

I recognize the time and effort that goes into contributing to the data base and I do thank you for taking the time to try and improve this wonderful program. I hope I have clearly explained my rationale in my vote and hope that you realize that there is nothing personal in my decision.    Kathy

I am with you, behemot, that is absolutely the correct procedure. i am saddened though not surprised at the users who believe that illegal data that sneaks its way in then becomes the word of god and it dares not be touched. That is simply unbeliievable, illogical and totally irrational. In short to these people the Rules mean next to nothing.

Skip

The decision whether or not to keep the uncredited cast has already been made by the screeners with the denial of this profile contribution and yet you persist in wasting the screeners time by submitting it yet again?

Let us see if I can comprehend this logic.

1) There is data on the film that was never properly included and is being included pre the Rules, this is because the data was clearly garnered from somewhere OTHER than the film credits, in other words the data was illegal to begin with.

2) There is (uncredited) data, previously undocumented and unsupported and therefore also illegal which is being removed

3) Because the data now LEGALLY conforms to our Rules per the film credits, but user is removin aforementioned illegally data, which has, by virtue of its improper previous acceptance has now achieved the status of written by the hand of God and cannot be removed.

    Sorry I ain't buying it.

The credited data is now CORRECT and verified, the previously accepoted data which was illegally submitted and erroneously accepted was not written by the hand of God and should be unceremoniously REMOVED. If someone wishes to come back with documented (uncredited) data, that in my opinion would be the ADULT response.

Skip

Illegal/illegally ...I'm sorry...but that cracks me up every time I read it .

Lets find the original profile submitter and string'em up

Quoting AiAustria:

Quote:
Quoting Ken Cole:

Quote:
Uncredited should only be removed where they are a match with a third party database.  Note that they do not have to be an exact match.  If they are a close match with any third party database, and there is no listed justification, it's safe to remove them.

Does Ken's word mean anything in this community?

Regards, AA

About four pages backwards I dared to ask this question. - Nothing happened...

AA