"C.E. Forman" wrote:
>
> Can it be abbreviated to "XD" instead of "ED"? We don't want to offend
> people named Ed by associating their name with a negative rating, plus "X"
> is 20 times cooler than "E".
>
> (This is a joke; I'm not serious like I was with the protest against "P".
> B-)
Scaril
serious like I was with the protest against "P".
B-)
- Original Message -
From: Jim Leonard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, September 29, 2000 3:32 PM
Subject: Re: How Fair is Poor? (was: Re: [SWCollect] MobyScale 0.2.6)
> On Fri, Sep 29,
On Fri, Sep 29, 2000 at 12:02:44PM -0500, Lee K. Seitz wrote:
> Jim Leonard boldly stated:
> >
> >If noone has any objections to Undesirable Defects, I'll make the change.
> >Naysayers, you have a couple of days to suggest something better. :-)
>
> I prefer C.E.'s Excess Defects, but I'm gettin
Jim Leonard boldly stated:
>
>If noone has any objections to Undesirable Defects, I'll make the change.
>Naysayers, you have a couple of days to suggest something better. :-)
I prefer C.E.'s Excess Defects, but I'm getting tired of quibbling
over it (as I'm sure you guys are).
--
Lee K. Seitz
Please send out the latest version when ready.
-Original Message-
From: Jim Leonard [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, September 29, 2000 1:13 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject:Re: How Fair is Poor? (was: Re: [SWCollect] MobyScale 0.2.6)
Hugh Falk wrote
Hugh Falk wrote:
>
> Undesirable Defects works for me, but again, I don't find it any more
> palatable (to a consumer) than poor. I also think Undesirable is fine on
> its own (without "Defects).
I'd like to keep the "defects" since otherwise it's an opinion that the entire
item is completely u
"Lee K. Seitz" wrote:
>
> Jim Leonard boldly stated:
> >
> >Undesireable Defects? Anyone?
>
> I dunno. It's not bad, but it begs the question: What's a desirable
> defect? 8)
>
> BTW, I realized a problem with my Inferior suggestions. It might be
> confused with Item Missing. So then I tho
2000 9:11 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject:Re: How Fair is Poor? (was: Re: [SWCollect] MobyScale 0.2.6)
"C.E. Forman" wrote:
>
> Hmm... how about making it "UD" (Unusable Defects)? The current
> definition for "FP" even states this.
Unusable De
>Undesirable Defects is a little more palatable to me... how does that
wording
>sit with you?
This works for me. Lee, if it's redundant... would "Excess Defects" sound
better?
(That one's fun to say three times real fast! B-)
>I severely hope you don't have anything in this condition ;-)
I use
Jim Leonard boldly stated:
>
>Undesireable Defects? Anyone?
I dunno. It's not bad, but it begs the question: What's a desirable
defect? 8)
BTW, I realized a problem with my Inferior suggestions. It might be
confused with Item Missing. So then I thought why not change it to
just Missing, but
"C.E. Forman" wrote:
>
> Hmm... how about making it "UD" (Unusable Defects)? The current
> definition for "FP" even states this.
Unusable Defects implies both an opinion *and* seems just as harsh as Poor.
Hm... I'll give this some more thought.
Undesirable Defects is a little more palatable
- Original Message -
> Another question: Am I correct that MS can apply to things other than
> the box. For example, I have a copy of Star Saga: One that's been
> opened, but there are two sets of manuals inside that are still
> shrinkwrapped. So I could list the box as VG and the manu
>Unusable to Collectors isn't accurate in my opinion, because even a Poor
>package can still be usuable to collectors ("Now I have that reference card
>I've been looking for!", etc.) Unusable to Collectors also implies a bit
of an
>opinion, something I was trying to get away from in suggesting th
"Lee K. Seitz" wrote:
>
> Another question: Am I correct that MS can apply to things other than
> the box. For example, I have a copy of Star Saga: One that's been
> opened, but there are two sets of manuals inside that are still
> shrinkwrapped. So I could list the box as VG and the manuals a
Jim Leonard boldly stated:
>
>2. Think of another word for the final grade, like, um, Mediocre? :-)
How about Bad (or maybe Inferior)?
>3. Keep Fair as the final grade and standardize on 2-letter abbreviations: MS,
>NM, FI, VG, GO, FA
This would work for me as well.
Another question: Am I c
"C.E. Forman" wrote:
>
> I disagree... moving from "Good" to "Poor" feels like quite a gap.
> I have a number of packages that I wouldn't quite call good, since
> they're not in acceptable condition to the average collector, but
> I wouldn't go so far as to label them poor. Having the "Fair" in
"C.E. Forman" wrote:
>
> Just one little modification I'd like to see: Move "IM" (Item Missing) to
> the bottom of the list, as a modifier (alongside "Sealed"). Just seems
> like a logical place for it, since it further describes the condition of
> the game.
Agreed; I've made this modification.
Hugh Falk wrote:
>
> But there isn't a Fair right now anyway. There is only FP. It's not like
> you're getting rid of a grade between Good and Poor. If we need two grades
> below Good (which I don't think we do) then we should have 2, not lump them
> together under FP. Otherwise Poor is good
Hugh Falk wrote:
>
> UC works for me, but I prefer Poor...it's more intuitive, but I wouldn't argue too
>hard for it. Let's take a vote.
Unusable to Collectors isn't accurate in my opinion, because even a Poor
package can still be usuable to collectors ("Now I have that reference card
I've bee
Hugh Falk boldly stated:
>
>UC works for me, but I prefer Poor...it's more intuitive, but I wouldn't argue too
>hard for it. Let's take a vote.
I'm with C.E.
--
Lee K. Seitz * [EMAIL PROTECTED] * http://home.hiwaay.net/~lkseitz/
Wanted: | Visit the Classic Video Game
#x27;t
shake the discomfort of "Good is only one step above Poor".
Make sense? Sort of?
- Original Message -----
From: Hugh Falk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 26, 2000 6:11 PM
Subject: RE: [SWCollect] MobyScale 0.2.6
> But t
fort of "Good is only one step above Poor".
Make sense? Sort of?
- Original Message -----
From: Hugh Falk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 26, 2000 6:11 PM
Subject: RE: [SWCollect] MobyScale 0.2.6
> But there isn't a Fair r
or. Anything below Poor isn't worth mentioning.
Hugh
-Original Message-
From: C.E. Forman [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, September 26, 2000 6:11 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject:Re: [SWCollect] MobyScale 0.2.6
I disagree... moving from "Good" to &quo
a way that would handle both, though I can't think of it
at the moment. Maybe change the "Fair" in FP to something that
starts with another letter?
- Original Message -
From: Hugh Falk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, September 25, 2000 9:50 PM
Sorry for a seriously belated question here. In all of the back and forth,
didn't we change: "Fair to Poor (FP)" to something else? Regardless, I
remember that one change in particular was to change VG+ to F (Fine)
because we didn't want confusion, but now we have 2 that start with F.
I sug
25 matches
Mail list logo
