| Author |
 Topic  |
|
|
Demisemicenturian 
"Four ever European"
|
 Posted - 10/14/2008 : 01:53:31
|
Benj, it would be very helpful if you could provide some information on the following issue. I have raised it several times without seeing any progress.
It seems to me that review approval ought to follow the precedent of previous MERP decisions. Affected reviews fall into two types:
(1) Reviews that have been approved and then edited in a minor way that objectively does not affect their validity. I have mentioned this category recently and, while an area of concern, it's not the focus of this post.
(2) Reviews which feature a level of inaccuracy or 'genericism' (etc.) that is within the bounds of that in other approved reviews. Equivalent 'genericism' is hard to gauge, but equivalent inaccuracy frequently isn't. Examples include the interchange of rabbit/hare and mouse/rat for numerous films, and the convention that any country can be used for things like Naked World, any foodstuff for Cooking with Porn Stars and any fruit/vegetable for VeggieTales films.
Benj, please could you inform us whether it is correct that precedent should be followed or whether each MERP may require as much precision as they like regardless of any hundreds of older approvals? Thanks. |
Edited by - Demisemicenturian on 10/15/2008 09:15:19 |
|
|
Larry 
"Larry's time / sat merrily"
|
Posted - 10/14/2008 : 11:52:42
|
Thank you, Salopian, for trying to keep Benj honest.
Good luck getting satisfactory answers to your questions.
|
 |
|
|
Demisemicenturian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 10/14/2008 : 12:00:47
|
quote:
Originally posted by Larry
Thank you, Salopian, for trying to keep Benj honest.
I've never thought Benj dishonest (in the intentional sense -- everyone sometimes misstates things accidentally). I just think it's only to fair to know what the rules are if we are to play the game. |
Edited by - Demisemicenturian on 10/15/2008 09:15:58 |
|
|
|
benj clews 
"...."
|
Posted - 10/18/2008 : 19:13:25
|
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
Reviews which feature a level of inaccuracy or 'genericism' (etc.) that is within the bounds of that in other approved reviews. Equivalent 'genericism' is hard to gauge, but equivalent inaccuracy frequently isn't. Examples include the interchange of rabbit/hare and mouse/rat for numerous films, and the convention that any country can be used for things like Naked World, any foodstuff for Cooking with Porn Stars and any fruit/vegetable for VeggieTales films.
I'm curious how you can compare one review's inaccuracy against that of another? For example, how does one guage if hare/ rabbit is equally as inaccurate for describing Bugs Bunny as rounders/ softball would be for baseball?
I don't believe there's any scientific and therefore consistent way you can define what is a too inaccurate- it's up to the MERPs to make that call and the reviewer to counter reasonably if they believe otherwise.
Even greater leeway is given for films such as Naked World, since little fact about the plot is known about them. Obviously, if we later found out Naked World was about streakers in Poland, then non-Polish references would have to go. |
|
|
| |
Topic |
|
|
|
Query for Benj over precedent
