I know who you're talking about and I agree.

When a user submits data of a disc that has already been released, I only vote positively on submissions that:
a) follow the rules
b) I myself own
c) the contributor owns

In this case, the contributor clearly doesn't own neither the discs nor the necessary equipment and it clearly shows in the incomplete contribution notes. Conveniently adding "I checked it at a friend's place" just doesn't fly for me. With such lines, I can also start making random contributions of discs I don't even own.

This only strengthens my resolve that it's not worth contributing anymore, when people not even owning the discs start contributing just because the way the previous contribution was formulated doesn't fit their ideal vision of how the database should be. If such users want to play the database-police, then let them I say.

However, I will continue voting in good conscience, keeping in mind the above-mentioned rules. I voted no on that contribution and will keep that vote, unless a user who actually owns the discs resubmits, in which case I would vote yes, provided the contribution notes are correct of course.

Quoting Taro:

Quote:
... Conveniently adding "I checked it at a friend's place" just doesn't fly for me. ...

In fact, he didn't even added exactly that. He said that he checked his friend's house. This user is very proud of his contribution notes, that are, said by him,  the best of all. So when he writes something, we have to read it exactly. "it" can only be the house, the word disc is even mentioned nowhere in his own text, avoiding any confusion.

Quoting surfeur51:

Quote:
Quoting Taro:

Quote:
... Conveniently adding "I checked it at a friend's place" just doesn't fly for me. ...

In fact, he didn't even added exactly that. He said that he checked his friend's house. This user is very proud of his contribution notes, that are, said by him,  the best of all. So when he writes something, we have to read it exactly. "it" can only be the house, the word disc is even mentioned nowhere in his own text, avoiding any confusion.

LOL I didn't even notice that. Even better.

But hey, we're all 'dolts' with an amazing 'depth of misunderstanding', so it's probably just an elborately smart way to concisely write up contribution notes and we're not smart enough to decipher it 

Some people need to not only stop voting on discs they do not own, but also stop supporting this behavior.

Quoting Forget_the_Rest:

Quote:
I honestly can not believe this. When we have one of the main people who is against contributing to profiles we don't own contributing to a profile he doesn't own you know something is seriously wrong.

Should the profile have been accepted following Ken's ruling, no it shouldn't and I do find it quite ironic that it's previously been declined and now been accepted. However, it most certainly should be someone who owns the profile who "corrects" it.

I agree. It's not so much the content that bothers me but the way how it is being submitted. I perfectly agree that neither my solution nor Ken's is perfect, as the software is not adapted to deal with such issues. So if a user who owns the set and verifies the info himself wants to change the profile according to Ken's suggestion, I don't have a problem with that.

But this is creating a seriously dangerous precedent if you ask me. In the same logic, I can now pump all HDDVD profiles in my wish list, and make tons of unverified submissions, even though I don't even own a HDDVD player, simply because I do not like the way the profiles currently are. That is a total perversion of the submission and voting system and a huge step back in creating a reliable online database.