"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 to me... how does that wording
sit with you?
> A package that's had coffee spilled on it, been accidentally set on fire,
> then dropped from a 6th-story floor, left out in the rain, and finally
> walked over by your friend Bob while wearing his golf shoes.
I severely hope you don't have anything in this condition ;-) The only stuff I
have in this condition is flattened boxes only, and is old and rare, so I'll
take what I can get.
> (I should probably mention that I wouldn't be protesting this quite so
> vocally if I hadn't just spent 3 days of my life scoring packages, only
> to have the description change ex-post-facto... or if the word "Fair"
> had never been there to begin with.)
Hey, it's understandable.
> Anyway, let me know your thoughts, and sorry to be a total pain in the @$$.
Hardly! It's this kind of debate that makes the scale better. You are *not*
being a pain in the ass.
Undesireable Defects? Anyone?
--
http://www.MobyGames.com/
The world's most comprehensive historical PC gaming database project.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This message was sent to you because you are currently subscribed to
the swcollect mailing list. To unsubscribe, send mail to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of 'unsubscribe swcollect'
Archives are available at: http://www.mail-archive.com/swcollect@oldskool.org/
