@ZedZed___ said:

The mental gymnastics you are going through to defend this nonsense is crazy my guy 💀

Would you care to explain how I did?

You side-stepped every single thing I said.

No I directly responded to almost everything you said.

And yes TADC is no longer breaking the rules. But for the first year of its existence it was. Which perfectly highlights the stupidity of this rule as absolutely nothing about the content changed, just that it was also suddenly available on Netflix.

Again, if you would put some effort in researching, that series was created on the 11th of August 2024 if you check the change history: https://www.themoviedb.org/tv/261290-murder-drones/changes?page=2. The news about it being on Netflix seems to have been written on the 23rd of September 2024: https://www.netflix.com/tudum/articles/the-amazing-digital-circus-netflix-date-cast-details.

So NO, it wasn't around for a "first year of existence". It was around for a month. And so it was only breaking the rules for about a month. This is why its relevant to show you that your examples are no good. It helps illustrate that your perception of the content on the site might actually be very innaccurate because of your lack of research. It reveals that you might just assuming the worst and then just making up false claims you just believe to be true without actually looking into it.

And of course it does show something about the content changing. It is now professionally released. You complain that there is nothing to differentiate the series from Helluva Boss, but when presented with something that objectively differntiates it you just write it off as "absolutely nothing".

Doesn't change the fact that seemingly a majority of users think they do not make sense and are frankly inappropriate for this modern age of content.

There are claims by users on this site that a "majority of users" want the rules to change. How do you know that? As I've already said there are like 10 people voicing their desire for the change on this thread. I'm pretty sure this site has thousands of users both on this site directly and on other sites/apps that directly use this site. Can you really say a majority or another user said something like almost everyone is wanting the rules changed?

What do you want from the mods anyway? What do you want them to directly address? They've explained the rules, explained how the series breaks the rules, they've explained the logic behind the rules, and theyve explained the issues with potentially changing the rules? If you brought up that some people want the rules changed but the mod just responds with explaining why the rules exist, etc. Obviously theyre saying the reasons for not changing the rules are more important in their assessment to reasons you bring up of changing them. imo this is directly addressing the situation:

Each user just want their specific "professionally produced YouTube channel / video" and does not care if 10 million others also get added because of a rule change.

What theyre saying is they see that specific users want this series to exist on here as a reason to change the rules without actually caring about the rules themselves.

One mod also seemed to state that they agree with us but no other mods do.

Just because one mod may agree with you obviously doesnt mean they get to overpower the rest of the mods?

They didn't respond to any of the actual criticisms, all they did was reiterate the rules and the reason for their creation.

Yes they did, the reason for their creation is a criticism. And they also explain what changing the rules in their opinion, how it would negatively impact the site.

Youre an example of what I was talking about prior, perhaps if the users can actually be helpful, like you who seem to know what the rules are, and are aware of series that break the rules, yet dont seem to care enough to report them, then maybe the issue you bring up about the rules not being equally enforced wouldnt exist.

@mrmelon54 said:

@softpillow said:

@ZedZed___ said:

@softpillow said:

If you can see both sides then it means other people can too. Having an option to add so called "non-professional" shows to a separate database (or the same one with some sort of "this is professional" flag) would be highly useful for many users. Due to the number of discussions on this issue you would think the mods would come up with a solution to resolve this, instead of just blindly sticking to their interpretation if the clearly disliked rules.

Seeing both sides of a situation doesnt mean that your side is correct, it doesnt mean that if you see both sides of a situation you have to now inact both sides? It simply means you understand what the other side is saying, not that overall as a judgement your side is stronger than the other. And no the number of discussions on an issue shouldnt directly result in the issue being resolved because just because there are a number of people wanting to change something doesnt mean it should happen?

And no its not "blindly sticking to their interpretation". Its not an interpretation, its what the rules are. If you can read and if you can comprehend the rules, the rules are the rules. And the mods have described the rules as they exist. Theres no interpretations. And theyve explained their logical reasons for why the rules are the rules and why they dont want to change it, and theyve responded to users wanting to change the rules so there's nothing "blind" about it.

@softpillow said:

@mrmelon54 said:

@softpillow said:

@ZedZed___ said:

@softpillow said:

If you can see both sides then it means other people can too. Having an option to add so called "non-professional" shows to a separate database (or the same one with some sort of "this is professional" flag) would be highly useful for many users. Due to the number of discussions on this issue you would think the mods would come up with a solution to resolve this, instead of just blindly sticking to their interpretation if the clearly disliked rules.

Seeing both sides of a situation doesnt mean that your side is correct, it doesnt mean that if you see both sides of a situation you have to now inact both sides? It simply means you understand what the other side is saying, not that overall as a judgement your side is stronger than the other. And no the number of discussions on an issue shouldnt directly result in the issue being resolved because just because there are a number of people wanting to change something doesnt mean it should happen?

And no its not "blindly sticking to their interpretation". Its not an interpretation, its what the rules are. If you can read and if you can comprehend the rules, the rules are the rules. And the mods have described the rules as they exist. Theres no interpretations. And theyve explained their logical reasons for why the rules are the rules and why they dont want to change it, and theyve responded to users wanting to change the rules so there's nothing "blind" about it.

So I was reading the amateur content rules again

Should you wish to contest the deletion of your entry, please provide us with the following information: a clear explanation of why the entry qualify based on one of our exceptions and at least one reference to an independent online source (e.g. a professional newspaper, the official website of a festival, the verified social media accounts of a broadcaster).

So does this rule mean that any reference to the "amateur content" in a newspaper suddenly makes it "professional"?

How am I meant to interpret this rule? Could the rule be rewritten so I can make sense of it?

@mrmelon54 said:

So I was reading the amateur content rules again

Should you wish to contest the deletion of your entry, please provide us with the following information: a clear explanation of why the entry qualify based on one of our exceptions and at least one reference to an independent online source (e.g. a professional newspaper, the official website of a festival, the verified social media accounts of a broadcaster).

So does this rule mean that any reference to the "amateur content" in a newspaper suddenly makes it "professional"?

How am I meant to interpret this rule? Could the rule be rewritten so I can make sense of it?

That means that there should be an official source that provides evidence about this (evidence that it satisfies the amateur content guidelines):

Should an amateur project be screened at a selective and relevant film festival (e.g. a small town festival, a youth film festival or the Cannes Short Film Corner do not qualify), have a proper theatre release (e.g. a private/rented screening do not qualify), be on national TV in a country (e.g. small, local channels do not qualify), be on Netflix or an equivalent (e.g. content uploaded to your own YouTube channel, Vimeo or website, or Amazon Prime do not qualify), or picked up and sold by a proper distributor (e.g. local stores do not qualify), it might be allowed.

I feel like I understand it just fine. Maybe it could be written better but I dont personally have any issues understanding part of the rules.

In other words if youre gonna say "yes this amateur content does meet the requirements of the amateur content guidelines" you also need to say "see here in this official source, like this professional newspaper, it says that this content was screened at X festival/sold on dvd by this distributer/etc."

@mrmelon54 said:

So I was reading the amateur content rules again

Should you wish to contest the deletion of your entry, please provide us with the following information: a clear explanation of why the entry qualify based on one of our exceptions and at least one reference to an independent online source (e.g. a professional newspaper, the official website of a festival, the verified social media accounts of a broadcaster).

So does this rule mean that any reference to the "amateur content" in a newspaper suddenly makes it "professional"?

How am I meant to interpret this rule? Could the rule be rewritten so I can make sense of it?

This rule explain the different possibility to prove that the content get a professional release. It can be:

• A newspaper advertising the broadcast
• The official site of a festival
• The official Facebook, Twitter, ... of the broadcaster

@softpillow said: Again, if you would put some effort in researching, that series was created on the 11th of August 2024 if you check the change history: https://www.themoviedb.org/tv/261290-murder-drones/changes?page=2. The news about it being on Netflix seems to have been written on the 23rd of September 2024: https://www.netflix.com/tudum/articles/the-amazing-digital-circus-netflix-date-cast-details.

So NO, it wasn't around for a "first year of existence". It was around for a month. And so it was only breaking the rules for about a month. This is why its relevant to show you that your examples are no good. It helps illustrate that your perception of the content on the site might actually be very innaccurate because of your lack of research. It reveals that you might just assuming the worst and then just making up false claims you just believe to be true without actually looking into it.

Get off your high horse, bud. Firstly, that's the change log for Murder Drones, not TADC. Second, TADC's first episode premiered on YouTube November 19, 2023. So not a year, 11 months or so. My point wasn't about when it was added to TMDB, but when the show premiered in the first place.

And of course it does show something about the content changing. It is now professionally released. You complain that there is nothing to differentiate the series from Helluva Boss, but when presented with something that objectively differntiates it you just write it off as "absolutely nothing".

Yes, I acknowledged the difference, and then explain why this should not be the measurement of jack shit because it's so irrelevant to the content itself, nor it's quality. There is nothing different about the content pre-Netflix and post-Netflix, just that it is on Netflix. That's why it's absurd. Nothing changed besides the platform it can be watched on.

This is precisely one of my arguments against the rule. Not a claim that it was not breaking the rules or whatever.

Just because one mod may agree with you obviously doesnt mean they get to overpower the rest of the mods?

That literally wasn't my point, in fact, the following sentence calls it a pointless statement. I was just addressing each message by mods in this thread. I don't give a fuck about what one mod vs all the mod's opinions on the matter are.

Youre an example of what I was talking about prior, perhaps if the users can actually be helpful, like you who seem to know what the rules are, and are aware of series that break the rules, yet dont seem to care enough to report them, then maybe the issue you bring up about the rules not being equally enforced wouldnt exist.

So because I believe these rules are unjust, too vague, and just inefficient, I'm the problem for trying to protest to make the platform better? That's wild.

I have to ask why the hell you are in such opposition to myself and the others in this thread? Do you believe this rule is just, or do you really just like white knighting for some random moderators on a forum that much?

@ZedZed___ said:

@softpillow said: Again, if you would put some effort in researching, that series was created on the 11th of August 2024 if you check the change history: https://www.themoviedb.org/tv/261290-murder-drones/changes?page=2. The news about it being on Netflix seems to have been written on the 23rd of September 2024: https://www.netflix.com/tudum/articles/the-amazing-digital-circus-netflix-date-cast-details.

So NO, it wasn't around for a "first year of existence". It was around for a month. And so it was only breaking the rules for about a month. This is why its relevant to show you that your examples are no good. It helps illustrate that your perception of the content on the site might actually be very innaccurate because of your lack of research. It reveals that you might just assuming the worst and then just making up false claims you just believe to be true without actually looking into it.

Get off your high horse, bud. Firstly, that's the change log for Murder Drones, not TADC. Second, TADC's first episode premiered on YouTube November 19, 2023. So not a year, 11 months or so. My point wasn't about when it was added to TMDB, but when the show premiered in the first place.

And of course it does show something about the content changing. It is now professionally released. You complain that there is nothing to differentiate the series from Helluva Boss, but when presented with something that objectively differntiates it you just write it off as "absolutely nothing".

Yes, I acknowledged the difference, and then explain why this should not be the measurement of jack shit because it's so irrelevant to the content itself, nor it's quality. There is nothing different about the content pre-Netflix and post-Netflix, just that it is on Netflix. That's why it's absurd. Nothing changed besides the platform it can be watched on.

This is precisely one of my arguments against the rule. Not a claim that it was not breaking the rules or whatever.

Just because one mod may agree with you obviously doesnt mean they get to overpower the rest of the mods?

That literally wasn't my point, in fact, the following sentence calls it a pointless statement. I was just addressing each message by mods in this thread. I don't give a fuck about what one mod vs all the mod's opinions on the matter are.

Youre an example of what I was talking about prior, perhaps if the users can actually be helpful, like you who seem to know what the rules are, and are aware of series that break the rules, yet dont seem to care enough to report them, then maybe the issue you bring up about the rules not being equally enforced wouldnt exist.

So because I believe these rules are unjust, too vague, and just inefficient, I'm the problem for trying to protest to make the platform better? That's wild.

I have to ask why the hell you are in such opposition to myself and the others in this thread? Do you believe this rule is just, or do you really just like white knighting for some random moderators on a forum that much?

Clearly rules based on arbitrary metadata about a project is a good way to measure the quality and "amateur-ness" of a produced piece of media.

@ZedZed___ said:

Get off your high horse, bud. Firstly, that's the change log for Murder Drones, not TADC. Second, TADC's first episode premiered on YouTube November 19, 2023. So not a year, 11 months or so. My point wasn't about when it was added to TMDB, but when the show premiered in the first place.

I linked the wrong change log here is the one for TADC https://www.themoviedb.org/tv/261145-the-amazing-digital-circus/changes?page=4

So not 1 month but six weeks. Not one year. And your point shouldnt be about when the show first premiered?? That doesnt make sense. Your point is that the series has been around on this site for 1 year prior to the news about it being professionally released without being removed. That was your point. That fact is false. It was only around for six weeks.

Im just pointing out what you said is incorrect and that that fact might show your perception of the current state of the site is wrong. So if theres a high horse its you who cant admit when youre wrong?

Just to be clear here is what you said:

"I didn't intentionally seek out any other examples because it stands to reason that if such a popular piece of content could still be undiscovered by the mods, then theres gotta be way more less popular content breaking the rules as well. And yes TADC is no longer breaking the rules. But for the first year of its existence it was."

So the content was undiscovered by mods for six weeks. And it was breaking the rules for six weeks. Not for a year?

How could the mods delete content if it wasnt on the site? They cant delete the entry prior to it existing? Your whole argument is about how the mods arent applying the rules equally across all content on the site. Here is you making that point:

Besides that, no, the mods absolutely do not treat all content across the site equally. There is plenty of content that is as or more popular than Helluva Boss on the site that has never been taken down a single time, let alone a dozen times like this. One example being the various series from GLITCH: Murder Drones, The Amazing Digital Circus, etc.

So you want the mods to delete the entry for TADC months before it existed? The entry was added on August, it was breaking the rules for six weeks. Why would you describe that as the mods failing to apply the rules for 11 months? I know thats not what youre directly saying verbatim...but thats what youre implying? Your point was that the mods let that content sit on the site for a year without getting rid of it...but they didnt? What is your point about the 11 months thing? Why wouldnt your point be about how long the entry was actually on the site instead of how long the series has existed?

Do you want the mods to delete the content from YouTube? Cause thats what youre implying when you say both that the series has existed for a year and that is proof that the mods dont apply the rules eqaully to all content. The moderators are mods of this site, theyre not mods of YouTube??

And of course it does show something about the content changing. It is now professionally released. You complain that there is nothing to differentiate the series from Helluva Boss, but when presented with something that objectively differntiates it you just write it off as "absolutely nothing".

Yes, I acknowledged the difference, and then explain why this should not be the measurement of jack shit because it's so irrelevant to the content itself, nor it's quality. There is nothing different about the content pre-Netflix and post-Netflix, just that it is on Netflix. That's why it's absurd. Nothing changed besides the platform it can be watched on.

As already explained, the reason why the rule exists is to have a way to determine which content gets added to the database and which content doesnt. Its not really about making subjective judgements about the quality of content. The reason the rule exists is so that there isnt a huge issue on the site of people arguing and mods having a difficult time of assessing the "quality" of content. Thats already been explained here by a mod.

It is a good rule to have as it can be much more easily understood and applied equally to all content. Obviously there has to be a rule because there are obvious things that shouldnt be on the database. The issue is whether or not you want the rule to be as efficient as possible (but strict), or as inclusive as possible (but subjective), and the mods have described why theyve chosen something that is more efficient as it doesnt come with the problems of having a much more subjective rule.

Just because one mod may agree with you obviously doesnt mean they get to overpower the rest of the mods?

That literally wasn't my point, in fact, the following sentence calls it a pointless statement. I was just addressing each message by mods in this thread. I don't give a fuck about what one mod vs all the mod's opinions on the matter are.

The reason why the mod says they might agree with changing the rules but the other mods disagree is to let you in on the fact that they personally do understand and agree with the idea of changing the rules. But that other mods have to be convinced as of yet. So if youre saying the mod saying they agree but the other mods dont agree is pointless, its not?? They say this to let you know that the mods do listen to the complaints and there have been discussion amongst them about it. if you actually care about changing the rules, why would you not "give a fuck about what one mod vs all the mod's opinions on the matter are"?

Do you even care about this issue or do you just want to argue? Cause imo if you cared about the issue you should care what the opinions are of the mods- hearing about whether mods agree or disagree. I mean if theres anything to care about it should be hearing what the mods of the sites opinions are. What else could you care about if you want things to change on a site with moderators?

So because I believe these rules are unjust, too vague, and just inefficient, I'm the problem for trying to protest to make the platform better? That's wild.

You may be an example of what a mod means prior when they say each user just wants their specific content on the site without actually caring about the site itself. I'm just bringing up that the issue you bring up with the rules not being enforced equally across all content is an issue that the users and mods need to work on together. And I talked about how the issue imo is largely because users arent helping out, and that imo even people that know what the rules are dont seem to bother actually helping out.

You say so yourself Murder Drones is a series you watch yourself, and a series you've obviously been aware of breaking the rules, and it also happens to be that you havent reported the issue to be removed? I'm just seeing a pattern that people tend to know what the rules are, see content that breaks the rules, not help out, and then complain about there being content that breaks the rules on the site. imo, Im just pointing out a bit of hypocrisy and a bigger pattern/issue with users not helping out/blaming issues on the mods when the issue is something they dont help with themselves or when they actually contribute to the problem.

I have to ask why the hell you are in such opposition to myself and the others in this thread? Do you believe this rule is just, or do you really just like white knighting for some random moderators on a forum that much?

Because what youre saying is incorrect and youre mischaracterising the things that the mods have said and also the things I am saying. Just read my comments and see how I provide reasons and explanations pointing out the things that are wrong about the logic being used by the people I am responding to.

Also dont pretend like the other people on here arent also somewhat aggressive/rude like you calling me a "white knight" which as far as I'm aware is basically an insult. Not to mention you saying Im on a high horse when I just said that you are incorrect and how that may show that you havent researched properly. So who really is "in such opposition" to someone? I feel like I should be the one asking you "why the hell you are in such opposition to myself". The people on here think what theyre saying is correct and so theyre describing it with a lot of conviction. And Im doing the same?

And yes I believe the rule is just, if you would read the words Im typing? Is there reason why you did not gather that from what I've said? And as I've already described yes I dont just argue on here I report a lot of other content that doesnt belong on this site because I actually do care about this database of movies and shows.

@mrmelon54 said:

Clearly rules based on arbitrary metadata about a project is a good way to measure the quality and "amateur-ness" of a produced piece of media.

Its not arbitrary- that data is about when the entry was created. I think you just didnt follow the conversation. The point about when the entry was created is to show that someone's assessment that the content was undiscovered and breaking the rules for a year is incorrect.

I think thats what youre talking about anyway, right?

@softpillow said:

@mrmelon54 said:

Clearly rules based on arbitrary metadata about a project is a good way to measure the quality and "amateur-ness" of a produced piece of media.

Its not arbitrary- that data is about when the entry was created. I think you just didnt follow the conversation. The point about when the entry was created is to show that someone's assessment that the content was undiscovered and breaking the rules for a year is incorrect.

I think thats what youre talking about anyway, right?

I'm referring to Helluva Boss, which this whole discussion is meant to be about. Along with the discussion about the show which was turned into "professional" media after a whole year of being published.

I want to hear from all the moderators on their personal opinions of Helluva Boss being allowed/disallowed. I don't care what the rules say. I just want their opinions.

That's the only true way to judge the mods' reasonings.

@softpillow said:

@mrmelon54 said:

@softpillow said:

@ZedZed___ said:

@softpillow said:

If you can see both sides then it means other people can too. Having an option to add so called "non-professional" shows to a separate database (or the same one with some sort of "this is professional" flag) would be highly useful for many users. Due to the number of discussions on this issue you would think the mods would come up with a solution to resolve this, instead of just blindly sticking to their interpretation if the clearly disliked rules.

Seeing both sides of a situation doesnt mean that your side is correct, it doesnt mean that if you see both sides of a situation you have to now inact both sides? It simply means you understand what the other side is saying, not that overall as a judgement your side is stronger than the other. And no the number of discussions on an issue shouldnt directly result in the issue being resolved because just because there are a number of people wanting to change something doesnt mean it should happen?

And no its not "blindly sticking to their interpretation". Its not an interpretation, its what the rules are. If you can read and if you can comprehend the rules, the rules are the rules. And the mods have described the rules as they exist. Theres no interpretations. And theyve explained their logical reasons for why the rules are the rules and why they dont want to change it, and theyve responded to users wanting to change the rules so there's nothing "blind" about it.

You didn't even respond to my suggestion of having a way to mark media as "non-professional" without having to remove it from the database completely.

@mrmelon54 said:

@softpillow said:

I'm referring to Helluva Boss, which this whole discussion is meant to be about. Along with the discussion about the show which was turned into "professional" media after a whole year of being published.

Yeah so in other words you were wrong. It wasnt arbitrary. And that data wasnt used to show whether or not something was amateur or not. It was used to show that the mods dont unequally enforce the rules like someone in this thread claimed and used that series as an example.

Again Im still not sure what data youre referring to but Im assuming youre talking about the series that was added in August and then put on Netflix in September. Its kinda hard to understand exactly youre referring to since you dont specific what data youre talking about and I think youre intial comment about "arbitrary metadata" is some kind of like sarcastic comment that I think is directed at me/that series that was put on Netflix. But Im not sure.

You can talk about Helluva Boss and the idea of a show being turned "professional" after a whole year of being published without lying and saying I was using the creation date of the entry to determine the quality or amateur-ness of an entry.

You didn't even respond to my suggestion of having a way to mark media as "non-professional" without having to remove it from the database completely.

Well theres like dozens of things I'm responding to and this one I felt I agreed with a little but also not completely so I didnt prioritise it to respond to it Im just one person Im not even a moderator someone else can respond to it. But here I go I guess:

That could be a good idea, but it might still be an issue of still creating the same huge workload for the moderators for broadening the rules for the site. Just because the content would be marked differently....It would still be on the database. And so it would still require the same increased amount of moderating. It still has to be moderated. I could be wrong your suggestion may be different but thats how I see it and how I assume the mods would see it but I could be wrong.

What the... I feel like I just stepped on a hornets' nest. Sorry the most recent deletion is I guess my fault for adding the season 2 content and then asking for the seasons to be properly numbered. Really sours my first experience with this whole site tbh.

I've skimmed most of this thread to get the gist of the debate, but is it really so hard to acknowledge and include an independently produced animated series? Particularly when there's clearly a legitimate userbase looking for it? Spindlehorse is a professional, independent animation studio that simply self-released one of their two series. Is TMDB claiming "independent" is somehow mutually exclusive of "professional"?

Edit: I probably shouldn't even make this argument, but I feel like if it's good enough to have IMDB and Wikipedia pages including robust production credits, it should be good enough for TMDB. Helluva Boss isn't some random fan film or student project, it's a professionally-produced series released on a legitimate broadcasting network.

@ch3rubaelle said:

What the... I feel like I just stepped on a hornets' nest. Sorry the most recent deletion is I guess my fault for adding the season 2 content and then asking for the seasons to be properly numbered. Really sours my first experience with this whole site tbh.

I've skimmed most of this thread to get the gist of the debate, but is it really so hard to acknowledge and include an independently produced animated series? Particularly when there's clearly a legitimate userbase looking for it? Spindlehorse is a professional, independent animation studio that simply self-released one of their two series. Is TMDB claiming "independent" is somehow mutually exclusive of "professional"?

Edit: I probably shouldn't even make this argument, but I feel like if it's good enough to have IMDB and Wikipedia pages including robust production credits, it should be good enough for TMDB. Helluva Boss isn't some random fan film or student project, it's a professionally-produced series released on a legitimate broadcasting network.

Apparently Spindlehorse is not big enough to be "professional" for this database but A24 and Amazon Studios is big enough. So Hazbin Hotel counts, but not Helluva Boss.