I voted for #2 because I don't care what's on the cover.  If I want to know what's on the cover, I'll look at the cover.  Or the scan of the cover in the program.

While I'm not 100% sold on this solution (especially for direct to video material), I do prefer option #2.  There is content that is unrated that is harmless (i.e. could show to kindergarten children) and content that is unrated that most people wouldn't show to young children.  Having two terms to describe radically different content isn't a bad thing in my eyes.  To me having both types of content described with NR is like having a single word for both blue and yellow.

Option #1 seems to just randomly divide profiles into one of two categories without any thought of the actual content.  In my mind that's like having two words that both mean either blue or yellow.  It's just profiling the marketing terms printed on a cover.

I don't care that option #1 is easier and will lead to less arguments.  Useless data isn't make more useful to me based on the ease with which it is acquired.

I don't know if this is the absolute best solution to the problem, but I honestly don't have any better ideas at this time.

Skip, I think you're too caught up on the Dora thing.  It really boils down to the fact that some unrated content would get a G rating if it were to be rated and some falls into the PG-13+ or R+ category.

While I'm not convinced this is the best solution, it's very clear to me that today NR describes content which falls into two very distinct categories.  So having two different terms to describe them more accurately isn't a bad thing.  I really don't care that one term is made up.

And there isn't, nor will there ever be, a perfect solution to this problem.  There will be arguments about how things should be classified I think.  And I also think some people will disagree with the decision in some cases.  But I think it will be bring value to better categorize things.

Quoting Mark Harrison:

Quote:
Skip, I think you're too caught up on the Dora thing.  It really boils down to the fact that some unrated content would get a G rating if it were to be rated and some falls into the PG-13+ or R+ category.

While I'm not convinced this is the best solution, it's very clear to me that today NR describes content which falls into two very distinct categories.  So having two different terms to describe them more accurately isn't a bad thing.  I really don't care that one term is made up.

And there isn't, nor will there ever be, a perfect solution to this problem.  There will be arguments about how things should be classified I think.  And I also think some people will disagree with the decision in some cases.  But I think it will be bring value to better categorize things.

Yeh , I am pretty sure there will be arguments, and I never have seen any argument before that rule change came up today, this is what puzzles me. Who is the big mysterious guy in the dark who addressed Ken to change the working system 

Donnie

Quoting TheMadMartian:

Quote:
I am still amazed by a lot of posts in this, as well as the other thread.  Here is what has hapened:

Prior to Ken's rule change, most of us in the forum used the 'NR' rating for any release that included an unrated version of the film.  We did that because that is what the rule told us to do.

Ken changed the rule because some people were doing the exact opposite.

The problem is that's not what the rule said. The rule said to use the highest rating. Many people assumed NR was the highest, but the program considers it the lowest. Ken considered the change a clarification, not a real change.

After reading the six pages of this thread, plus the 27 pages of the original thread, I think it would behoove you Ken to reconsider this for the time being.

Just look at how many people are confused about this and how many people are already going into lock down mode.

With something so clearly divisive, why not table this rather trivial matter until another time?

Quoting Ken Cole:

Quote:
Quoting Antares:

Quote:
With something so clearly divisive, why not table this rather trivial matter until another time?

I'd be happy to table this if that's the consensus. However, we would still need to address the current rule. I don't think that leaving the rule how it now stands is what people are after.

You said that people were submitting both possibilities before the updated Rule.

Do you know roughly how many on both sides?

I don't mind solutions, but I have to ask?

What problem are we trying to solve?

what are the parameters, that define this problem?

Until we know the answer to these, it is really hard to envision a solution.

Charlie

(Sorry Ken, you type faster than I)

Quoting Ken Cole:

Quote:
Quoting Antares:

Quote:
With something so clearly divisive, why not table this rather trivial matter until another time?

I'd be happy to table this if that's the consensus. However, we would still need to address the current rule. I don't think that leaving the rule how it now stands is what people are after.

NOOOOOOO!!!!!!! I been waiting for years to have both ratings... and have these filter right per the ratings. I have asked for this more then once in the past... going all the way back to Inetervocative days!!!