| Author |
Message |
 | Dan W | | Registered: May 9, 2002 |
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 980 |
| | Posted: | | | | Everybody gets your point, Skip. Let it go and wait to see what Ken/Gerri decide. | | | | Dan |
|
| Registered: March 14, 2007 | Reputation:  |  Posts: 820 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting skipnet50: Quote:
Noi it is not really telecine. There are ONLY two instances for changing an SRP, one is if there is a reduction prior to release, or correcting an invalid SRP reduction (post-release). If your argument is valid then the DO NOT change p[hrase is totally invalid for all purposes.
Even IF the SRP is 28.99 on the day of release, then it is still illegal to change it for a penny.
Skip Skip, I believe that the rule as currently drafted catches changes post-release. It doesn't seem to apply at all to pre-release titles to me. | | | | Last edited: by Telecine |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 |  Posts: 21,610 |
| | Posted: | | | | Telecine:
As I have also noted the Rule has functioned in precisely the described manner for TWO years, UNTIL a user decided he wanted to violate the rule, and he has been spinning ever since.
He could have and should have chosen to do the RIGHT thing, its why I withdrew my Contribution, but he decided that violating the rules and his oiwn ego were more important.
Skip | | | ASSUME NOTHING!!!!!!
CBE, MBE, MoA and proud of it.
Outta here
Billy Video | | | | Last edited: by Winston Smith |
|
| Registered: March 14, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 820 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting skipnet50: Quote:
Telecine:
As I have also noted the Rule has functioned in precisely the described manner for TWO years, UNTIL a user decided he wanted to violate the rule, and he has been spinning ever since.
He could have and should have chosen to do the RIGHT thing, its why I withdrew my Contribution, but he decided that violating the rules and his oiwn ego were more important.
Skip Skip, I accept that the rule has operated this way for two years and I even accept that I may be the only one arguing this interpretation of the rule. I don't for example, accept the argument that it is ok if it is part of a wider contribution. That said however, I think that my interpretation of the rule is open, albeit the interpretation of a wording pedant. |
|
| Registered: March 15, 2007 | | Reputation: |  Posts: 5,459 |
| | Posted: | | | | It's certainly an interesting interpretation Telecine, and one I hadn't considered before.
By having that sentence at the start of the paragraph, and having the minor change sentence in the same paragraph does infer a connection between the two.
I'm not sure if I agree with you yet, I need more time to read the rule again, but you are right that it only shows even more that the rule is open to interpretation.
What a lot of people don't realise is how vague english is as a language. The reason our laws are so long and pedantic is because they have to be to avoid any kind of false interpretation.
But what I don't understand is some people's insistence that only their reading of the rule is the right way, and not only that but that the people who disagree with them are doing it deliberately. I find this, frankly, insulting! |
|
| Registered: March 14, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 820 |
| | Posted: | | | | Skip,
I have had a bit more of a think on the subject......I have been applying a literal interpretation of the rule. I am happy to approach my interpretation on the "mischief" that the rule wasn't trying to prevent. Can you tell me this, was one of the issues that was occurring before the rules was put in place the ping-ponging of SRP for pre-release as well as post-release titles? |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 21,610 |
| | Posted: | | | | Like I said before telecine. There are two reasons to change SRP. If your interpretation is correct then why have that final sentence at all.
Skip | | | ASSUME NOTHING!!!!!!
CBE, MBE, MoA and proud of it.
Outta here
Billy Video |
|
| Registered: March 14, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 820 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting skipnet50: Quote:
Like I said before telecine. There are two reasons to change SRP. If your interpretation is correct then why have that final sentence at all.
Skip Skip, That sentence would stop the ping-ponging on post-release titles that would be 99% of the problem. What I want to know is was one of the reasons to enact the rule to stop ping-ponging on pre-release titles? If you have a look here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mischief_rule you will see why I ask. | | | | Last edited: by Telecine |
|
| Dan W | | Registered: May 9, 2002 |
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 980 |
| | Posted: | | | | As I remember it, there wasn't as much trouble with the pre-release profiles because so few did them. This is still the case.
Occasionally the SRP changes before a release but after a certain point, it tends not to. | | | | Dan |
|
| Registered: March 14, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 820 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Dan W: Quote:
As I remember it, there wasn't as much trouble with the pre-release profiles because so few did them. This is still the case.
Occasionally the SRP changes before a release but after a certain point, it tends not to. Well if it wasn't one of the "mischiefs" that the rule was trying to solve, it would be hard for me to change my interpretation. Skip? | | | | Last edited: by Telecine |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 21,610 |
| | Posted: | | | | It was a mischief Rule and whether pre-release or not, changes of pennies are indeed mischief and ping-ponging of data, hence covered by the rule. And remains a violation of the rule. As I explained there are only two reasons to change SRP at ALL. Your logic, if correct negates the Rule relative to insignificant changes. What the time frame is is totally irrelevant. Changes for pennies are WRONG and are not to be made.
Skip<shakes head> | | | ASSUME NOTHING!!!!!!
CBE, MBE, MoA and proud of it.
Outta here
Billy Video |
|
| Registered: March 14, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 820 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting skipnet50: Quote:
It was a mischief Rule and whether pre-release or not, changes of pennies are indeed mischief and ping-ponging of data, hence covered by the rule. And remains a violation of the rule. As I explained there are only two reasons to change SRP at ALL. Your logic, if correct negates the Rule relative to insignificant changes. What the time frame is is totally irrelevant. Changes for pennies are WRONG and are not to be made.
Skip<shakes head> Ok Skip, you've convinced me. |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 |  Posts: 404 |
| |
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 404 |
| |
| Dan W | | Registered: May 9, 2002 |
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 980 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting skipnet50: Quote:
........Changes for pennies ... are not to be made.
Skip... That's the intent I remember. Ken had a few comments on this as well but it's been long enough I wont attempt a quote. Maybe one of the other guys will go through the chat logs and find it. I mean really, a change for one cent? | | | | Dan |
|
| Registered: March 14, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 820 |
| | Posted: | | | | Suggested rule change:
"SRP
Use the SRP (Manufacturer’s Suggested Retail Price) at the time of the DVD’s original release using the currency type matching the locality of the DVD. Do not change the SRP in DVD Profiler to reflect reductions in SRP that distributors make in continually over time following release. Ensure the currency type matches the locality of the DVD. Do not make contributions with changes of a few cents/pence to the SRP at any time. " |
|