Quoting skipnet50:

Quote:
I am asking as politely as I can...get off my back....all of you.

With reference to this thread's topic, that could have been achieved pages ago if you only had been able to repeat what you did in September, that is accept a ruling by Ken that's not to your liking and keep your personal preference local. Your refusal to retrace your steps from the past kept this one going on for longer than necessary, ultimately leading to the situation at hand (again), which, btw, is as certain as the sun rising in the East. All you guys need is some four pages until whatever discussion was started unevitabely starts going down the drain and you go at each other again.

Retracing your steps from September would actually have avoided this off topic discussion about negative votes and the rising of deragatory remarks, personal attacks, inflammatory posts and all the other BS so many in this community seem to be all to happy and eager to engage in.

And I'm not in the least interested to engage in these childish "He said it first" arguments our well known usual suspects are so very fond of, so please, spare me any remarks referring to the way all of you involved conduct your "discussions". Rather use the time you'd spend typing to sit back and think about this matter for another couple of minutes you'd normally invest in conjuring up another off topic reply.

Nice to see at least one person understand, John. Thank you.

Skip

Well, regarding this topic, I think that the approach Ken uses is preferrable to that which is preferred by you, John.

While you rely on a set of definitions for the terms Slip Case and Slip Cover that focuses on the number and location of openings, stating that a certain combination calls for either one term only, without any proof for correctness (at least I haven't seen any documentation on either definition, be it in this here thread or the one from last autumn) and thus demand that the community takes your word to be true beyond doubt,

Ken uses an approach that relys on the set up of the DVD at hand, i.e. an object everyone using the profile should have in his hands or can get his hands on fairly easily. If there's one item holding DVD(s) inside the outer sleeve, it's called a Slip Cover and the according check-box is ticked in addition to the description of the case type actually holding the DVD(s). If there's more than one item inside the outer sleeve holding DVD(s), it's called a Slip Case.

(Note: If this were my program, this case type "Slip Case" would be called "Box Set" and the definition of multiple individual cases of whatever type holding discs inside this sleeve would be in the rules by now).

IMO, the latter (Ken's definition, not my note) is easier to handle, as it relys on the actual DVDs to determine what term to use and not some abstract definition set up by who-knows-who, that probably could be argued to death by the community. You can't debate over counting to one or beyond, at least my guess would be such "discussions" to be very brief.

Your claim that the terminology currently used is used in a wrong context may be true, it may also be false. I am not an authority in determining when a sleeve actually is called a Slip Cover or a Slip Case. I don't think you are any more than me or the next community member.

However, the diction by Ken to focus on the items inside a sleeve is something that can be easily understood (if someone is willing to look at this subject open minded, i.e. willing to think about new ideas), easily followed and applied to all possible packing variants the industry might throw at us in the future to come. For once, there's a set up that won't need finetuning in the future, as the numbers one and two (or more) and their definition and perception will not change (they haven't done so for thousands of years, I don't think DVDP will lead to that).

Since I don't know for sure if a Slip Case is actually what you say it is or if that is actually a Slip Cover, I'm all for the current set up. And if you differ, so be it. Nothing wrong with that.

Voice your doubts, prove the current rule to be wrong, discuss the matter in the contribution rules forum, draft a new rule, get poll votes for your suggested rule change, redo them again, get another vote and ultimately give it to Ken and ask for the rule to be changed. If it happens, fine, then I and others will keep their data local and you can submit yours. If not, everything stays the way it is, but you tried your best.

However, and that's abig NO, NO and was what actually started this here thread:

until you do so and Ken reacts, don't cast NO-votes on correct (i. e. rule conform) contributions trying to push your (at this time) personal preference into the online db. I think everyone agrees on this being completely wrong and inacceptable, and it doesn't make a difference if the voter only thinks that he knows better or actually does.

Because if that were the case and Skip's vote had been justified, this would apply to any user and any rule and any piece of data, effecively eliminating the rules and leading to anarchy. I'm sure nobody wants that, so let's work with what we have rulewise and try to change it using the proper provided ways and means.

Quoting Darxon:

Quote:
Well, regarding this topic, I think that the approach Ken uses is preferrable to that which is preferred by you, John.

While you rely on a set of definitions for the terms Slip Case and Slip Cover that focuses on the number and location of openings, stating that a certain combination calls for either one term only, without any proof for correctness (at least I haven't seen any documentation on either definition, be it in this here thread or the one from last autumn) and thus demand that the community takes your word to be true beyond doubt,

Ken uses an approach that relys on the set up of the DVD at hand, i.e. an object everyone using the profile should have in his hands or can get his hands on fairly easily. If there's one item holding DVD(s) inside the outer sleeve, it's called a Slip Cover and the according check-box is ticked in addition to the description of the case type actually holding the DVD(s). If there's more than one item inside the outer sleeve holding DVD(s), it's called a Slip Case.

(Note: If this were my program, this case type "Slip Case" would be called "Box Set" and the definition of multiple individual cases of whatever type holding discs inside this sleeve would be in the rules by now).

IMO, the latter (Ken's definition, not my note) is easier to handle, as it relys on the actual DVDs to determine what term to use and not some abstract definition set up by who-knows-who, that probably could be argued to death by the community. You can't debate over counting to one or beyond, at least my guess would be such "discussions" to be very brief.

Your claim that the terminology currently used is used in a wrong context may be true, it may also be false. I am not an authority in determining when a sleeve actually is called a Slip Cover or a Slip Case. I don't think you are any more than me or the next community member.

However, the diction by Ken to focus on the items inside a sleeve is something that can be easily understood (if someone is willing to look at this subject open minded, i.e. willing to think about new ideas), easily followed and applied to all possible packing variants the industry might throw at us in the future to come. For once, there's a set up that won't need finetuning in the future, as the numbers one and two (or more) and their definition and perception will not change (they haven't done so for thousands of years, I don't think DVDP will lead to that).

Since I don't know for sure if a Slip Case is actually what you say it is or if that is actually a Slip Cover, I'm all for the current set up. And if you differ, so be it. Nothing wrong with that.

Voice your doubts, prove the current rule to be wrong, discuss the matter in the contribution rules forum, draft a new rule, get poll votes for your suggested rule change, redo them again, get another vote and ultimately give it to Ken and ask for the rule to be changed. If it happens, fine, then I and others will keep their data local and you can submit yours. If not, everything stays the way it is, but you tried your best.

However, and that's abig NO, NO and was what actually started this here thread:

until you do so and Ken reacts, don't cast NO-votes on correct (i. e. rule conform) contributions trying to push your (at this time) personal preference into the online db. I think everyone agrees on this being completely wrong and inacceptable, and it doesn't make a difference if the voter only thinks that he knows better or actually does.

Because if that were the case and Skip's vote had been justified, this would apply to any user and any rule and any piece of data, effecively eliminating the rules and leading to anarchy. I'm sure nobody wants that, so let's work with what we have rulewise and try to change it using the proper provided ways and means.

Yes, I prefer using a single definition for a single item.  What you call that item is immaterial.  It could be Cover A and Cover B, or anything else, as long as it is CONSISTENT across the board, and that my friend, is the problem.  There is no consistency here.  In some cases, its A, but in others its B.  It is little wonder that people get confused, and even less wonder that this issue keeps coming back up.

Now, logically speaking, if somebody casts a NO vote on something based on an inconsistency, then you can't castigate that person for doing so.  Whether or not he agrees with the majority has nothing to do with it.

As far as the contents go, I totally disagree that we call a digipac with 5 discs held in it as 1 unit when its in Cover A, but if there are five discs in individual keep cases in Cover A it is 5 units, therefore we call Cover A, Cover B!  That has to be some of the most twisted logic I've ever come across -- even in politics!

[Note: I did take note of your NOTE in your reply, and from that I can tell we are largely on the same page as a personal matter.] 

This is the sort of nonsense that has led me to the point of no longer voting for contributions of any kind, and largely ending my own contributions.

I've been thinking about Ken's definitions since the start of this thread, and I think I'm starting to see the logic of his decision. Let me know what you think:

When I think of a cover, I think of something that tends to go over one object only (a duvet cover, a radiator cover etc.). But a case tends to hold multiple objects (a briefcase, a pencil case). The dimensions and design of the item are irrelevant, as it's its contents that define what you call it.

This may be an overly simplistic way of looking at things, and I'm sure you can find many exceptions in real life. But it works for me and I'm happy to use Ken's system of defining slip covers and cases.

Quoting northbloke:

Quote:
But a case tends to hold multiple objects (a briefcase, a pencil case).

...a bookcase... 

Quoting EnryWiki:

Quote:
Quoting northbloke:

Quote:
But a case tends to hold multiple objects (a briefcase, a pencil case).

...a bookcase... 

What about a DVD case?

Quoting Mark Harrison:

Quote:
What about a DVD case?

You mean a DVD cover...