Author |
Message |
Registered: March 13, 2007 | Posts: 465 |
| Posted: | | | | In the rules committee forum we currently have a discussion about the style of the contribution rules in general. While some members like to see the KISS principle applied ("Keep it simple, stupid") and feel that the rules should be as terse as possible, others suggest using more explanations and more extensive descriptions, especially for the newbies. I am interested in the community's opinion about this. Most parts of the current rules use the short style. As an example for the alternative, I'd like to show you a proposal for a combined set of rules for movie box sets and TV series, created by Rifter and Kinematics: See here (please note that this discussion should not be about the proposal itself, as I said it's just a style example). What do you think ? | | | Michael |
|
Registered: March 14, 2007 | Reputation: | Posts: 17,804 |
| Posted: | | | | My opinion: KISS sounds good The rules should be short and concise. Contributions should not be a complicated administrative act. The rules should not end in itself! | | | Thorsten | | | Last edited: by kahless |
|
Registered: March 13, 2007 | Posts: 775 |
| Posted: | | | | I can't stand over-written contribution notes. The worst ones are when someone types out every single change they've made into the notes field. You even see some people who copy out disc IDs... whatever for? They're displayed in their field below. Notes can be concise without losing any information; all that needs to be done is necessary commentary on the changes to be viewed below the notes field, citing sources. Bada-bing. |
|
Registered: March 14, 2007 | Posts: 2,366 |
| |
Registered: March 13, 2007 | Posts: 465 |
| Posted: | | | | Quoting Nadja: Quote: I can't stand over-written contribution notes. The worst ones are when someone types out every single change they've made into the notes field. You even see some people who copy out disc IDs... whatever for? They're displayed in their field below. Notes can be concise without losing any information; all that needs to be done is necessary commentary on the changes to be viewed below the notes field, citing sources. Bada-bing. We're discussing the style of the contibution rules here, Nadja, not the contribution notes. Edit: Oops, to late. | | | Michael | | | Last edited: by TigiHof |
|
Registered: March 13, 2007 | Posts: 775 |
| Posted: | | | | I know, I'm just having a moan. Maybe I should have capitalised that first "notes." | | | Last edited: by Nadja |
|
Registered: March 14, 2007 | Posts: 2,366 |
| Posted: | | | | While I also like the notes to be as brief as possible, I would like the rules to be as long as necessary. | | | Martin Zuidervliet
DVD Profiler Nederlands |
|
Registered: March 20, 2007 | Posts: 78 |
| Posted: | | | | The example rules you give following the "KISS" principle The rules should be as short as possible, but not too simple. Doing a contribution is quiet a complex thing, and the rules should cover as most questions and eventualities as possible to avoid endless discussions. And giving examples is very helpful for people like me, whose native language is not english and/or want to get a quick impression about what is ment. An endless list of rules is deterring when you start contributing, but later it is helpful to have a rules set that's clear (with examples) and covers a lot of eventualities and possibilities. |
|
Registered: March 14, 2007 | Posts: 555 |
| Posted: | | | | I don't see the harm in the rules being as detailed as possible. This way there is less room for interpretation, which will lead to better contributions. If they're kept to a minimum length then some contributors will probably interpret them differently than others, which will only lead to arguing and back-and-forth contributions. IMO. |
|
| Dan W | Registered: May 9, 2002 |
Registered: March 13, 2007 | Posts: 980 |
| Posted: | | | | Quoting TigiHof: Quote: In the rules committee forum we currently have a discussion about the style of the contribution rules in general. While some members like to see the KISS principle applied ("Keep it simple, stupid") and feel that the rules should be as terse as possible, others suggest using more explanations and more extensive descriptions, especially for the newbies. I am interested in the community's opinion about this.
Most parts of the current rules use the short style. As an example for the alternative, I'd like to show you a proposal for a combined set of rules for movie box sets and TV series, created by Rifter and Kinematics: See here (please note that this discussion should not be about the proposal itself, as I said it's just a style example).
What do you think ? PM a link to this conversation, I seem to be missing it. | | | Dan | | | Last edited: by Dan W |
|
Registered: May 9, 2007 | Posts: 254 |
| Posted: | | | | How about the concise KISS rules, but with hot links to further examples or "For more information, click here." or something along those lines. That way, newbies like myself can easily find the detailed info, without bogging down the main rules listing. This more information link might even include things like "While not a rule, the general forum consensus seems to be..." and the like.
Just a thought.
Anyway, in lieu of that, I prefer more detailed rules. I would feel more comfortable making some contributions if I weren't so uncertain about what the proper way to do things is. | | | "I can picture in my mind a world without war, a world without hate. And I can picture us attacking that world because they'd never expect it." - Jack Handey | | | Last edited: by Broven |
|
Registered: March 13, 2007 | Posts: 465 |
| Posted: | | | | Quoting Dan W: Quote: PM a link to this conversation, I seem to be missing it. There isn't a dedicated thread in the committee forum for this, Dan. This discussion comes up frequently in connection with different topics, especially in the latest threads about the box sets/TV series rules. You know who the big supporters for longer explanations are, I'm surprised they haven't participated in this discussion here, yet. Btw, I'm pretty much neutral on this, I can understand the arguments of both sides. I simply wanted to have a decision by the community so we can move on with the rules discussion in detail. | | | Michael |
|
| Dan W | Registered: May 9, 2002 |
Registered: March 13, 2007 | Posts: 980 |
| Posted: | | | | Quoting TigiHof: Quote: Quoting Dan W:Quote: PM a link to this conversation, I seem to be missing it. There isn't a dedicated thread in the committee forum for this, Dan. This discussion comes up frequently in connection with different topics, especially in the latest threads about the box sets/TV series rules.
You know who the big supporters for longer explanations are, I'm surprised they haven't participated in this discussion here, yet. Btw, I'm pretty much neutral on this, I can understand the arguments of both sides. I simply wanted to have a decision by the community so we can move on with the rules discussion in detail. You said it was a current discussion and I haven't seen a post in there in over 3 days. Just thought I was missing it somehow. | | | Dan |
|
Registered: March 13, 2007 | Posts: 465 |
| Posted: | | | | Quoting Dan W: Quote: You said it was a current discussion and I haven't seen a post in there in over 3 days. Just thought I was missing it somehow. Yeah, well, as a member of the committee forum you have to develop a new attitude to the word "current". | | | Michael |
|
| Dan W | Registered: May 9, 2002 |
Registered: March 13, 2007 | Posts: 980 |
| Posted: | | | | Quoting TigiHof: Quote: Quoting Dan W:
Quote: You said it was a current discussion and I haven't seen a post in there in over 3 days. Just thought I was missing it somehow. Yeah, well, as a member of the committee forum you have to develop a new attitude to the word "current". Oh??? Did a few of you new guys change the definition of current while I wasn't looking? | | | Dan |
|
Registered: March 13, 2007 | Posts: 465 |
| Posted: | | | | Quoting Dan W: Quote: Oh??? Did a few of you new guys change the definition of current while I wasn't looking? You know very well that Skip, Rifter, Hal and Unicus couldn't even agree on a definition for "current". Btw. I'm not a new guy. I already participated in the development of the old rules. I just try to stay out of the endless heated discussions that never lead to anything, and thus do not have a record of thousands of posts. | | | Michael |
|