|
|
Welcome to the Database Correction page. This page is for letting me or the other editors know of corrections that need to be made. Please read the posting instructions carefully.
|
|
| Saturday March 09 00:04:18 2002 Re: Brian R's Post |
| > Da boss had me munge up a few posts dat had some woids
> > dat could might cause some trubble. > > > > "Jay, the scene in question makes my skin crawl; most of > the database entries in question can be cleaned up with a > little judicious editing." > > > > Agreed > > Last while been thinking of a way to put it. > > (-18 Alert)?, etc. > > > Figure we can come up with something to avoid our Buddy > having any hassles over this. Like, Biff, I think a "-18 alert" just draws attention to issue when finesse is called for. As Exhibit 1, I draw your attention to this entry: Record number: 246 Title: Obsession (1976) Medium: Movie Actress: Genevieve Bujold, Wanda Blackman Description: Kidnapped and spend time with their hands tied in front of them, both are gagged. Genevieve is gagged with a thick strip of white cloth tied between her teeth and her daughter, Blackman, is gagged with a thick white cloth tied over her mouth. This entry establishes that the scene includes a mother and a daughter, but does not attempt to define the age of the actresses. |
| Saturday March 09 01:50:49 2002 Re: Brian R's Post |
| >
> Like, Biff, I think a "-18 alert" just draws attention to > issue when finesse is called for. As Exhibit 1, I draw > your attention to this entry: > > Record number: 246 > > Title: Obsession (1976) > Medium: Movie > Actress: Genevieve Bujold, Wanda Blackman > > Description: Kidnapped and spend time with their hands > tied in front of them, both are gagged. Genevieve is > gagged with a thick strip of white cloth tied between her > teeth and her daughter, Blackman, is gagged with a thick > white cloth tied over her mouth. > > This entry establishes that the scene includes a mother > and a daughter, but does not attempt to define the age of the actresses. > That's what I was getting at with "infer" ... good e.g., Masked Man. |
| Biff |
| Saturday March 09 04:47:05 2002 Re: Brian R's Post |
| > (-18 Alert)?, etc. "I think the goal is to not call attention to age matters ... wouldn't that do the opposite?" True, was a suggestion. Thinking was, the Alert part could work in Brian's defence, should someone do an IMDB date and birthday etc, and then hassle Brian over it? You've probably noticed this? When searching (Google) for ID'ing ep: Titles & Actress names, how many posts and such from here are taken to other forums and blown out of context. My favourite: The guys on Brians say/said_______ when it was probably only one or two posters of the bunch here. Figure any trouble Brian warned of, will probably come about due to this. "I think it's up to the individual entrymaker to decide whether to include such scenes" Sort of the situation last night, but iD put in an effort to assist here, so figured should explain why I didn't include the young lady. |
| Jay L |
| kdnpr@yahoo.com |
| Saturday March 09 10:46:08 2002 Re: Brian R's Post |
|
> (-18 Alert)?, etc. > > > > "I think the goal is to not call attention to age matters > ... wouldn't that do the opposite?" > > > > True, > > was a suggestion. > > Thinking was, the Alert part could work in Brian's > defence, > > should someone do an IMDB date and birthday etc, and then > hassle Brian over it? > > > > You've probably noticed this? > > When searching (Google) for ID'ing ep: Titles & Actress > names, how many posts and such from here are taken to > other forums and blown out of context. > I honestly don't know what's said outside the forum ... or care. Folks will make of it what they will, and there's not a blessed thing we can do about it, right? An alert of this sort would just seem to call attention to the fact ... either we eliminate all such items or we keep 'em in without any allusion to age, other than obliquely. I don't see any other alternatives, and I favor the latter. > > "I think it's up to the individual entrymaker to decide > whether to include such scenes" > > > > Sort of the situation last night, > > but iD put in an effort to assist here, > > so figured should explain why I didn't include the young lady. > Well, no ... ID included the scene, which wasn't sexual or vicious in nature, as I recall, and you deleted it, rather than simply removing the age ref. You're an editor, as am I ... I suppose that's your perogative ... but I'd say if you were uncomfortable with adding it, you could ask another editor to deal with it. I'm not so much advocating for restoring this particular scene, as ID seems to have no objection to its deletion, as for the general principle of leaving these types in entries and removing any age identification. Make sense? |
| Biff |
| Saturday March 09 13:48:07 2002 Re: Brian R's Post |
| "I honestly don't know what's said outside the forum ... or care. Folks will make of it what they will, and there's not a blessed thing we can do about it, right?" I took Brian's Post, and the whole editing of posts by the Janitor on AG page/ Deleting by Mr Moderator as Forbidden Topic on Discussion page, etc As alerting us to potential problems with outsiders. Haven't heard word from Brian or David to delete any existing entries, so haven't. Just edited out age reference in them when noticed. "An alert of this sort would just seem to call attention to the fact" Yes, Looking back at it, probably would have the opposite effect as intended. "Well, no ... ID included the scene, which wasn't sexual or vicious in nature, as I recall, and you deleted it, rather than simply removing the age ref." No, didn't intentionally delete anything. Just replaced the original entry description with iD's description. But decided not to include the Sophia addition. "You're an editor, as am I ... I suppose that's your perogative ... but I'd say if you were uncomfortable with adding it, you could ask another editor to deal with it." Posted I hadn't included the Sophia addition, and why. The post is still up, so if Brian said he was okay with it? I could have added it in without age ref myself. I took Brians reply on the matter, to mean he was happy with just replacing the scene descriptions in the entry, with the more detailed ones. Figured then, just to leave it as is. Make sense? Sure, If Brian and the editors all agree that there will be no potential hassles for Brian with this? I'll add in the Sophia addition without the age ref myself. |
| Jay L |
| kdnpr@yahoo.com |
| Saturday March 09 14:28:25 2002 Re: Brian R's Post |
|
> "I honestly don't know what's said outside the forum ... > or care. Folks will make of it what they will, and > there's not a blessed thing we can do about it, right?" > > > > I took Brian's Post, and the whole editing of posts by > the Janitor on AG page/ Deleting by Mr Moderator as > Forbidden Topic on Discussion page, etc > > As alerting us to potential problems with outsiders. > > > > Haven't heard word from Brian or David to delete any > existing entries, so haven't. > > Just edited out age reference in them when noticed. > > > > "An alert of this sort would just seem to call attention > to the fact" > > > > Yes, > > Looking back at it, probably would have the opposite > effect as intended. > > > > "Well, no ... ID included the scene, which wasn't sexual > or vicious in nature, as I recall, and you deleted it, > rather than simply removing the age ref." > > > > No, > > didn't intentionally delete anything. > > Just replaced the original entry description with iD's > description. > > But decided not to include the Sophia addition. > > > > "You're an editor, as am I ... I suppose that's your > perogative ... but I'd say if you were uncomfortable with > adding it, you could ask another editor to deal with it." > > > > Posted I hadn't included the Sophia addition, and why. > > The post is still up, so if Brian said he was okay with > it? > > I could have added it in without age ref myself. > > I took Brians reply on the matter, > > to mean he was happy with just replacing the scene > descriptions in the entry, with the more detailed ones. > > Figured then, just to leave it as is. > > > > Make sense? > > > > Sure, > > If Brian and the editors all agree that there will be no > potential hassles for Brian with this? > > I'll add in the Sophia addition without the age ref myself. Jay, I don't know that we're on the same wavelength here ... it's sometimes difficult to follow you. I was under the impression that ID included the "Sophia" scene in his original entry, and that you removed it. My point is that, barring content that's truly urfsome (and defining that isn't simple, I know ... but I think overtly sexual and/or violent content would be one criterion for these types of scenes), a scene of this nature should be left it, with any age reference deleted (again, if it can be *inferred*, fine). But honestly, this is tiring ... I just wanted to propose what I believe to be a logical rule of thumb. I'll follow it, and you'll do what you'll do. |
| Biff |
| Saturday March 09 14:37:03 2002 Re: Brian R's Post |
|
Oops ... fucked up on the trimming. Mea culpa. I did want to add something about "outsiders". My meaning was that I don't worry about what's said about the forums or DB as far as opinions go. Efforts to close the site are quite obviously a different matter. |
| Biff |
|
|