Rules 2.0

The new set of Rules has been put online. Feel free to start picking them apart.


Kevin

First, in your sub-rule sections, I'd either not list the master rule at all, or list it above the descriptive paragraph, as sometimes the whole sub-rule section is dealing with a particular case of a much broader main rule (for example, rule 3).

Now here's my exhaustive list:


* Prime Directive *
"It is the intent of this website to include as many unique bands as possible to our family tree." First, this should be "...in our family tree". Second, passive voice is poor... perhaps "This website intends to include as many unique bands as possible in our family tree."

"While the concept may be simplistic" should be "...may be simple".

"...strict guidelines that must be adhered to when judging whether or not a band qualifies to be included. The following are the rules which govern a band's eligibility to join the party." Way too wordy, how about just: "...strict guidelines that govern a band's eligibility for inclusion, as follows:"


* Conjunction Junction *
"Two bands connect to one another if they both shared a band member" should be "...they both share a band member".

Given your interpretation of the phrase "solo artist", I'd suggest clarifying rule 4 as follows: "Bands whose name is the full name of a band member are considered solo artists, and treated as single-member bands." Otherwise, even with the clarification section on rule 4, it's very confusing, as "solo artists" and "bands named after a member" aren't at all the same thing in most people's minds -- "solo artists" usually means "bands with one member", so your rule appears to be a truism. In short, I think a modified form of your current "rule 4a" is clearer than "rule 4".


* Rule 2: Who's Who? *
"Difficulty may arise however when defining what exactly a band member's participation on a recording entails so we offer these clarifications." Again far too wordy, how about "The following subrules make clear what we consider 'artist participation' to mean."

"Anyone associated with the recording but is not a direct member of the band: studio musicians, guest appearances, producers, managers, etc. have no place in this family tree." Grammar problems. What about "Anyone associated with the recording who is not a direct member of the band, such as studio musicians, guest musicians, producers, or managers, are not considered 'band members'."

"A member's participation on a recording need not extend to the full extent of the recording, only that the artist was a recognized member of the band and is given credit for participation on a band's release." More grammar problems. How about "A 'band member' need not have played on an entire recording, as long as the member was recognized at the time as a member of the band, and was given credit for participation on a release."

"...credited to different line-ups for the release despite not being in the band at the same time." I would change "despite not being" to "as they were not".


* Rule 3: Blast From The Past *
For length and clarity, I would change the entire descriptive paragraph to the following: "If a band creates at least one official recording but never publicly releases anything (e.g., if before release the band breaks up), and the recordings resurface on later release by another band (e.g., if the original band reforms under a new name), the following criteria govern the band's inclusion in the family tree."


* Rule 4: What's In A Name *
See my comments above regarding rules 4 and 4a (and if you make those changes I'd strip the current rule 4a).

"A nickname or stage name may count as a band if its use identifies the collective whole of the band to the same degree as the individual to whom the nickname is assigned otherwise it is used in the same vein a a solo artist's full name." I think I know what you mean, but the wording here is unclear. Perhaps "A band named for the nickname or stage name of a member will be considered a band, and not a solo artist, if the nickname identifies the band to the same degree as the member." I don't know, honestly this seems like a pretty subjective distinction to make. I'm not sure how to properly enforce it.


* Rule 4f: The Cooper Effect *
"This would clearly fall under Rule 7f" should be "...Rule 4e".

"that contain more than a than the single artist" should be "that contain more than Cooper himself"


* Rule 5: Changing Room *
"Although Rule 5 is clear cut, there are circumstances in which a band name change may or may not qualify the new band as a distinct entity from the first." Well, no, it's not clear cut if we need clarifications. How about "The following criteria determine whether a name change results in a new band entry."


That's all for now, hope that's helpful.

Helpful, noted and incorporated into the Rules. Thanks.


Kevin

Looks better, and I notice you simplified Rule 3 even more, good stuff. A few last comments:

I think you're missing a "not" in Rule 2b: "as they were in the band at the same time" should be "as they were not in the band at the same time", right?

Seems like Rule 2c should be changed from: "Anyone associated with the recording but is not a direct member" to "Anyone who is associated with the recording but is not a direct member"

Things keep getting better all the time. If this continues forever, then eventually the site will inevitably become exactly what I want! Muahahaha.