Quoting Prof. Kingsfield:

Quote:
and will vote yes if I see the CLT results

Reality check: no you don't. Facts and figures readily available on request.

Quote:
unless I feel there is a NameA=NameB issue which doesn't happen all that often.

Not all that often? For you, it seems to be ALWAYS. Standard, non-specific, generic no-votes, copy-pasted from one no-vote to the next: exactly what Ken meant when he referred to "general demands for specific documentation". That's what you're consistently demanding, over and over and over again. Here as well, I'm more than happy to provide proof of this voting behaviour of yours.

Look, do as you please, but don't come here painting a pretty picture about your voting behaviour. It's nothing like you would have us believe. Just for once, I'd like to see a no-vote from you with something actually worth addressing. I'm at the receiving end of no-votes from you virtually every single day, but I honestly can't remember the last one that actually pointed out an error that I could fix - I'm not even sure that ever happened.

Quoting Forget_the_Rest:

Quote:
Hmm, I've just had a thought (always dangerous  ), would it be possible, when contributing cast/crew that include new Credited As data, for the system to automatically add, in a non-editable field, the CLT figures for the relevant entries?

That would then make everyone happy in that regard.

Just a thought, I'm not a programmer so don't know how hard that would be to do.

Very nice thought. 

Quoting T!M:

Quote:
Quoting m.cellophane:

Quote:
Very nice thought. 

And then we'd need exceptions for the results established by common-name finding threads, we'd need it to deal with Invelos standards such as those for suffixes and initials, and ideally we'd have the feature ignore the batch of IMDb-mined data still in the database. I wish Ken the the best of luck with al that! 

Of course, if you want to provide links as to why the CLT shouldn't be followed, you'd be free to do so the same as you already are.

Quoting Forum Moderator:

Quote:
If every time a member made a declarative statement out of their position we labeled that an impersonation of Invelos, we would be down to very few users.  So, enough accusations along these lines.

I wish we could give moderators green. This whole fight made no sense to me. The way iit was settle seems to be the only remotely sensible way.

Quoting Addicted2DVD:

Quote:
I can't find the post to swear to it... but I thought I remembered a post where Ken or Gerri said that it was ok to vote no (not voting abuse) if they do not provide the CLT results. And basically said it may or may not go through without the CLT results.

Think it had something to do with previous contribution record and such.

This sound familiar to anyone?

I think you mean this post.

We are not going to continue to hash this out. If a user chooses to submit without specific CLT results, they may do so and their contribution may still be accepted depending on a variety of factors, including contribution history.

Voting users may choose to request further details and a "No" vote if the details aren't provided is not an abuse of the voting system. 

Further discussion on this will only lead to argument.

So, yes, you can vote 'no' if CLT results are not included, but they don't have to be.

It may be good to point out that Skip has withdrawn his "no"-vote on Kluge's 'Terminator 2: Judgment Day' contribution.
Concluding (and coming back the original question): we do indeed use a person's common name for any (uncredited) entries. As far as I'm concerned, there was never anything more to it than that. It's a tad baffling that we needed nine pages for something as elementary as that, but still, at least we got there in the end.

Forget:

I am for anything that improves documentation, I cannot support anything that allows "it is because I say so, I checked but I am not going to tell you." That's is just too weird and too easy  to exploit and abuse.

Skip

Quoting Pantheon:

Quote:
Quoting TheMadMartian:

Quote:


We are not going to continue to hash this out. If a user chooses to submit without specific CLT results, they may do so and their contribution may still be accepted depending on a variety of factors, including contribution history.

Voting users may choose to request further details and a "No" vote if the details aren't provided is not an abuse of the voting system. 

Further discussion on this will only lead to argument.

So, yes, you can vote 'no' if CLT results are not included, but they don't have to be.

This has got to be the all-time worst ruling from Ken.

It's one of those 'sit-on-the-fence' rulings that actually doesn't mean very much.

A. You don't have to include CLT results in your notes.
B. People can vote NO if you don't.
C. Either way the contribution may go through.

It leaves the contributor with no clear idea on what they should do.

If Ken had stated - include the CLT results or you contribution will be automatically declined everyone would know where they stand and abide by it.

Likewise if he'd said: 'voting NO because someone hasn't included CLT results in their notes will simply be ignored' would have the same effect.

I can't stand wishy-washy decision making.