Quoting SpaceFreakMicha:

Quote:
Btw: "bob9000" made it correct for the canadian version of this release. 

Hey, leave me outa this. 

I would vote for the inclusion of Steelbook as the edition.... but I'm pretty free with my use of the edition field. I personally like having it and like using it. I do find some of the answers on this thread a bit bizarre though...


@Skip - please make up your mind. Every other time this was brought up you refused to accept anything but what was written on the cover. Now you want to add something that isn't there 


Quoting skipnet50:

Quote:
I am seeing all kinds of crap beginning to be included in the Edition field, including stuff from the back cover, we have to draw a line SOMEWHERE, this is simply getting RIDICULOUS.Don't ask me where to draw the line, but we have to draw one.

Quoting skipnet50:

Quote:
Andy that would be because the edition , as you noted was on the back cover and not the front. And the Rules say WHAT? Hmmmmm..

Quoting skipnet50:

Quote:
There is NO Edition listed on Twister for DTS, therefor there is none in the Profile.

Three separate quotes from three separate thread as recent as a few weeks ago... all of them saying the same thing. But now, I guess since you like the use of "steelbook" it is OK 

Does HD-DVD and BD ring a bell, Rick. There was never ANY rule about that either, but we did to accomodate the issue and make it easy for ken to make the conversion. How many have we had to change manually.

Skip

Quoting skipnet50:

Quote:
Does HD-DVD and BD ring a bell, Rick. There was never ANY rule about that either, but we did to accomodate the issue and make it easy for ken to make the conversion. How many have we had to change manually.

Skip

I beg to differ.  The words 'HD DVD' & 'Blu-ray' are printed on the FRONT of the case.  Because of that, they followed the rule which says to take the 'non-standard description' from the case. 

Sorry to continue the off topic, but we are there...

I was against the few cents/pence rules from the start - if it is wrong, it is wrong and a change should be allowed imo. How is that small difference to any other small change. 

It is also my recollection that the intent of the rules was to eliminate contributions of just that change, and not banning making that change as part of a wider profile update as in this case.* I can see no harm at all in making a change such as this as part of a general update - if it is correct.

Of course if the change is incorrect, it should be voted down - but that was certainly not the argument when this off topic red herring grenade was thrown into the thread to try and discredit a user in typical fashion of the culptit. 

* Before I get jumped on, I know that is not what is specifically written, and my recollection of the intent is irrelevant.

Quoting Unicus69:

Quote:
Quoting skipnet50:

Quote:

Well allow me to also remind, unicus, that the $34.99 SRP came fromParamounts own press release, while $34.95 came from retailers, now just who do you think is more correct.

Now that is a fish of a different color.  Of course I would go by the Paramount press release.  But you quoted the rule and I was just pointing out that it is, unfortunately, a tad ambiguous.   

Quote:
And you aren't seriously going to try to tell that 4 cents is significant. Or do you remember the bad old days when this was a major problem. Tigi violated the Rules plain and simple and needst to fix that part opf it and resubmit.

No, I am not saying it is 'significant'.  I am simply pointing out that the word 'few' is open to interpretation.  Come on Skip.  You have known me long enough to know that it's what I do. 

Unicus:

I mentioned right here

"Posted: July 6, 2007 10:53 AM
Email this user View this user's DVD collection Edit post Reply with quote
Tigi:

I dare to vote no for any data that does not follow the Rules. Which state very simply NOT to change the SRP for a few pennies, you could resubmit with rteh correction but you would prefer to flagranytly ignore the Rules. I don't care how much you added YOUR SRP is WRONG and it should be voted NO or YOU should recontribute WITHOUT changing SRP. I even provided you the data from the ORIGINAL press release from Paramount Studios showing you that despite what your etailers claimed the correct SRP was $34.99. Your response....not change the data that you should not be changing and to pitch a tantrum and block PM's. FOLLOW THE RULES, SIR.

Sorry Tigi, there is no justification or rationalization for your behavior you have violated the Rules and refuse to do anything to rectify the situation. I have corrected smaller problems than that, some of them pointed out by you. But I want my data to be accurate and per the Rules, you apparently could care less.

The Rules state simply
"Do not make contributions with changes of a few cents/pence to the SRP." They do not say  you can do it IF, they simply say DO NOT DO IT.


Skip"<shakes head>

I repeat my call to Tigi to FOLLOW THE RULES and remove your ERRONEOUS SRP data.

Skip

To me that Rule is perfectly clear, Unicus. Now maybe its because I am very familiar with the retail environment. While a Distributor creates the SRP, that can vary by as much as 25 cents from retailer to retailer as each one has its own policies in exactly how they deal with the SRP. I actually try and give and give people credit for having a rational intelligence level...then things like this crop up.

I have said it before and I will say it again, if we try to sew the Rules up so that they don't leak at all, they will look like the IRS Tax Code and I don't want to go there. Though when things like this come up, I must confess it makes me wonder.

Skip

Generally speaking.. most SRP's are set ending at .99

Stores try to undercut each other so you'll see some at .98, some at .97, others will drop to .95 to the most I have seen at .88

However, 99.9% of the tru SRP will end in .99 from what I have seen in press releases thoguhout the years.