Tuesday, February 20, 2007

Call for Judgment: Chronology

Not a valid CfJ.  Regardless, there is major disagreement as to what voting for or against means on this post.
Comments have been left open.

Adminned at 21 Feb 2007 09:32:42 UTC

It seems that many Actors (e.g. Josh) are violating a clause in Rule 2.1:

Any Actor may add a new film and role to his Filmography, if e has not already done so that day or on any of the previous three days, with the following restrictions:-
A role of “Nth Minor Character” may only be added if the Actor has been an Extra in three earlier films.
A named role may only be added if the Actor has been an Nth Minor Character in three earlier films.

He appears as an Extra in three films to be sure, but they are not earlier than the film in which he appears as the Nth Generic Character. Is this legal?

Comments

ChronosPhaenon:

20-02-2007 21:51:29 UTC

for This does nothing, though.

spikebrennan:

20-02-2007 22:30:00 UTC

Are you interpreting the word “earlier” to refer to the release of the film, or to the time that the role is added to the Filmography?

Hix:

20-02-2007 22:42:24 UTC

When a CfJ is made, “The post shall go on to describe the issue, and measures that shall be taken to resolve it.”  That does not seem to have been done here, so this isn’t really a CfJ.  There’s gotta be something in the CfJ that says what happens if the CfJ passes.  Do people agree with me on this?  I’d like to mark this post as “not a CfJ”, but I don’t think it’s worth making another CfJ over—objections?

We’re required to report the year of a film on the wiki, right?  “earlier” should mean an earlier year.  For the sake of keeping the game moving along, though, we should probably remove the (admitedly ambiguous) requirement:  A role of “Nth Minor Character” may only be added if that Actor has 3 “Extra” roles in eir Filmography.

Josh: Observer he/they

20-02-2007 22:53:55 UTC

Difference in interpretation, but whatever. I’ll just change it, it’s not like it’s the end of the world.

Tiberias:

21-02-2007 00:41:41 UTC

I remember this being explicitly stated somewhere in the proposal to add Filmographies.  I want to look at what the proposal actually said, but I can’t figure out how to get to the archives.

viewtyjoe:

21-02-2007 01:02:33 UTC

against

Seebo:

21-02-2007 02:47:31 UTC

for I think voting for means “Yes,I think that is legal”? I don’t really think it matters, since no one is objecting to people putting in movies that were made before the could possibly have been alive, and that seems like a lot more annoying issue. It seems to me that the actual movie info doesn’t matter. People just put in movies they like! >_>

Amnistar: he/him

21-02-2007 03:24:21 UTC

against I agree with hix.  I don’t like being limited by choices I made when I first started.

Tesla4D:

21-02-2007 05:00:01 UTC

against I agree with Hix and Amnistar. Removing the requirement is the way to go. I’d like to see the films in order, but it’s too late now; retconning the filmographies would be a pain, and punishing Josh for (possibly) misinterpreting a rule is silly.

Tesla4D:

21-02-2007 05:04:09 UTC

hmmm…
Seebo voted yes, meaning that film order shouldn’t matter, and Amnistar voted no, meaning the same thing.
I think we have a problem.

Josh: Observer he/they

21-02-2007 09:36:48 UTC

Two things:

1. Voting for this CfJ is pretty arbitrary, as it actually doesn’t do anything,

2. If you must vote for the CfJ, you’re voting for whether you agree the CfJ, not the legality of that it’s talking about. So that’s for if you agree with Snowball that an illegality has taken place, or against if you think that the status quo can prevail.

Tiberias:

21-02-2007 15:36:52 UTC

for Because I actually thought about my choices, and deliberately chose movies with an early year so that I could keep my options open.  I probably would’ve chosen differently if the restriction hadn’t been there.

snowballinhell7001:

21-02-2007 16:47:16 UTC

I’ll probably re-do this later but I want to see the results of my straw poll.