Quote:
Big green arrow for you Kathy.

I've made a concerted effort for more than a couple of months now to refrain from commenting on this never ending cycle of unprovoked, negative comments made by you Skip, towards people just trying to be helpful, followed by a mostly united front of users coming to that persons defense, soon followed by you losing your temper to the point where you make truly offensive remarks that then lead to a ban for you, followed by a month (or more) of serenity in a friendly forum. Then you return where it appears that for at least a few days to a week, that you might have changed and then the whole ugly process repeats itself.

I am completely astonished at your continued, incredulous, elitist attitude. Even more astounding is your obvious inability to learn from your repeated punishments or bans. I mean really, how is your iron clad refusal to change and lighten up working out for you?!

As for the current situation here... this is how I see it. The question was raised as to the relative merits of including the Developed By credit or if it was possibly already covered by a similar entry. It was quickly established by a small consensus that 'Developed By' is not currently an accepted category and would require a rule change in the future to be included.

James kindly provided some information from the Writers Guild which I believe is an accredited and more than acceptable source of information on the credit in question, to provide a definition about the credit... provide some clarity. At no point did he say it should or shouldn't be included, he merely gave us some information as food for thought. You see what generally happens before a rule is changed or a new one is implemented is information is gathered from a variety or sources, then compiled and discussed. Once a consensus is reached then the rule change will go forth. Now while no one is suggesting that anybody other than Ken has final say on a rule change, there is absolutely no reason whatsoever why people cannot discuss the topic, perhaps come to some sort of agreement on their own as to what they would like to see happen and then present their findings to Ken for his review. After all, most good software developers stay in business by listening to their subscriber base and giving them the features they want.

But then there you come swooping in to denounce James post as being irrelevant, unnecessary and pointless. Just who do you think you are Skip? Everyone is entitled to an opinion and should be able to make suggestions and/or recommendations without fear of being attacked. No one persons opinions are more important or valid than than the next person... not even yours Skip. You don't have to agree or even like that opinion Skip but you should at least respect it... and that's where you fail. Your reflex action every time a post does not jive with your own way of thinking is to label it as meaningless and to chastise the author. You do it every single time and it accomplishes nothing except to incite the users whom you may have noticed are relatively protective of one another, and to get yourself into trouble. Debating a topic is natural and often necessary to reach a satisfying end result but if you can't do it without disparaging the person you are debating with then you should quietly withdraw.

Personally, if I were Ken, I would have refunded you your subscription fee to you long ago and completely abolished you from these boards. No amount of money, let alone the pittance of one subscription fee, is worth the amount of consternation and internal strife that you cause on a near daily basis in these forums which are largely the face of the product to incoming new users. I'm not Ken however, and he is apparently taking a different, more drawn out approach to dealing with you. Everyone has a limit though... and if you continue with your indifference towards the feelings of other users on these forums and towards your own continued presence here then I believe you will inevitably find out what Ken's limit is.

Quote:
Quoting Ace_of_Sevens:

Quote:
It seems to me the current system has a number of problems with TV credits. Maybe a program change is in order. For now, created by is the closest thing we have.

I think most problems are caused because the system seems to have been designed for films, and when TV series on DVD became more popular, rather than creating a new system for TV credits, they've been sandwiched into the film credit system instead.
You're right in that "created by" is the closest we currently have, but I don't think it's close enough to consider it a "functional equivalent", in fact I saw last night an episode that had both credits.
I think at the minute a rule or program change is needed to allow them to be included - to which I have no objection.

Quote:
I think most problems are caused because the system seems to have been designed for films, and when TV series on DVD became more popular, rather than creating a new system for TV credits, they've been sandwiched into the film credit system instead.