Quoting Jubal:

Quote:
Like I said, Rick, i have insight relative to the Rules which is possessed by only one other person. Whether you like that or not is neither relevant nor my problem. I's a factual statement, it's not ego, I don't have one, nor anything else. Unlike you I don't go skulking around the Forums sniping when I get the chance  But, that said also whether you like it or not, you are my friend, let's go have a beer.

and cmaeditor has insight into the extras of Torque that is shared by no other contributor. Why is it that contributors can't site personal knowledge for contributions but you can site personal knowledge on how to interpret the rules?

Quoting lyonsden5:

Quote:
All I can say is.... wow. 

"When the president does it, that means it's not illegal!"

   

Quoting goblinsdoitall:

Quote:
Does anyone expect anything on-topic?

Moderators: I think it's time to close down this thread.

Moderators? Do we still have them? Haven't seen them in a while... But you are correct, thread can be closed since James gave an answer based on rules on the first page.

As the person who started the thread, I am more than happy for the thread to be closed.

Quoting whispering:

Quote:
No, if posts violate the forum rules, they should be removed. If the topic has come to an end, it will fade away naturally. We dont need moderators to interfere with discussions, they are there to enfore forum rules and the topic doesnt violate forum rules.

I agree.  For those that are paying attention, they question has been answered.  In fact, the contribution in question has been accepted.  That being the case, as long as the posts remain civil, there is no reason to lock this thread.  If you don't like what a paricular user is saying, ignore them.

Skip I accept you made a huge contribution to the rules in the pre Invelos days, your insight is valuable as to why that was done. It will be unique; but it's unfair to imply no one else can know that, because during your thousands of posts you have explained it time and time again. Just because you wrote the rules doesn't mean they were perfect or even any good. Otherwise they would not have needed so many changes and so many forum posts to clarify them.

That's where I do have a problem with Invelos often the rules say one thing and Ken or Geri will effectiovely change that through the forums. I think they should change the rules as well since that only affects the tiny number of users who know about and read all the forum posts and indeed who are comfortable in reading English.

The rules have changed a lot since you helped draft them indeed this is a whole new world now. In fact since you were so involved in the original rules it could well disqualify you from dealing with the changes as you could have impartiality issues. In the real world when it comes to interpreting the law the politicians and draughtsmen get no say in it. If the courts rule what the laws say even if it is clearly against the wishes or spirit of the law it's their interpretation that counts. That becomes the law they don't and can't seek any guidance on what the law was meant to mean. If the is rules are defective or insufficient then you get the rules changed. They don't require links or documentaton just sources and the only sources that are not valid are third party databases.

CLT and the Internet are sources anyone making changes with those sources quoted is following the rules. The rules no where require details of what they did. A no vote is against the same rules in those cases.

•If a user is following the Contribution Rules and his/her data is accurate, and the contribution replaces data which is inaccurate or violates these Contribution Rules, a "No" vote is considered an abuse of the voting privilege and should be avoided when possible

Brave:

Just to correct you a little bit. I did not write the Rules alone, we assembled an international to assist in that function. Dan and I spent two years hammering out the foundation that led to the Rules being written. That foundation has not changed. Your comment is invalid as far as I am concerned for a wide variety of reasons, the largest being your last line. In that last line  you reveal an agenda which is completely incompatible with the construction of a solid database. What that tells me is that you rae not at all considered about quality data or or documentation, or even clear communication with other users in your notes.Now whether that means you are only interested in the fewest number of keystrokes you can get away with ot not, I can't tell. But, as usual when someone can't present an argument they reveal their agenda by claiming abuse, or someone be banned or let's hacve reputation and try and stick a ga in his mouth...sorry.

Skip

Grave: and sorryfor the typo:

I can't tell anybody what to do? All I CAN do is provide guidance which I do in the best interests of the database and the Community, and it is based on my knowledge, Ken doesn't have the time to play nursemaid. Apparently the users all know far more about the rules than I do they aren't in any kind of guidance and all want to fly off in their own directions based upon the way they see the rules. That sir, is what the Rules Guidelines.

Skip