My apologies, Nadja. I don't mince words, I am very direct and when you are wrong i will call you(generic) on it, especially when a user is blatantly misrepresenting FACTS.

I stand by my assertion that SP should not be included when they are used for film, A MAYBE to TV. But ideally the ONLY way to end ALL of this is with some form of Open Credits. Then we enter what we see.

My concern relative to limited open credits is that, there are likely going to be credits that will have us saying things like "Is this in the Writing Category?" And unlimited open credits of course just gives me nightmares even though it is absolutely the best answer.

Skip

Quoting Daddy DVD:

Quote:
Quoting cmaeditor:

Quote:
There is no Supervising Producer role for Films according to the Producers Guild at all. It appears to only apply to Television.

The role is used for a movie, so I still do not understand why that guild mambo-jumbo would explain us why we could not use it in that case.

Because Martin, as I have already explained in film the SP credit is no higher than third on the org chart and the only thing he Supervises are roles which we currently do NOT use.

Exec Producer>>>>Co-Exec
Producer>>>Co_prod
SP
Assitant P
Associate P
Line P

And in some films depending on the film and the EP, SP may rank below the Assistant P. In short, we don't list SP...yet.

Skip

Quoting skipnet50:

Quote:

Tim:

I am sorry, It is the only to stop people like you from imposing your will on the database and dragging in data that was not intended at this time. And to prevent you from trying to apply definitions that we have not used, I don't care what the PGA says. This system will not stop you from bringing up the SAME discussions over and over and over again. You don't even pay attention to polls that have been taken such as the one on SP. So the ONLY answer is some form of Open credits, either in limited form or unlimited. You enjoy these arguments, tim? I DON't and i want to stop them that is why i developed the rules to begin with, in hopes of stopping not only the garbage data and endless ping-ponging but the arguments. This a hobby I used to enjoy, but becoming less so by the day, due to the behavior of many users ar,  I have already ceased Contributing, do you really believe that is beneficial to the community, the people that might say yes are people who don't Contribute very much anyway and you know who you are.

Whatever needs to be done to end this garbage is what Ken needs to do, and Limited Open Credits is the Answer

I want the BS to STOP. ENOUGH ALREADY.

Pot meet kettle.

Shall we talk about "Theme By"?

Hal allow me to ne very blunt. I am NOT interested in any kind of discussion with you at any time on any subject. You stepped over the line one too many times and as far as I am concerned you have absolutely nothing of value to bring to a discussion...OK.

Skip

Quoting nolesrule:

Quote:
Quoting Unicus69:

Quote:
Entering "Story By" into OMB, on the other hand, is not shoehorning.  The notes for OMB say, "Adapted from another medium."  If there is a screenwriter credit, in addition to the story by credit, it meets the criteria for OMB.

Actually, it is shoe-horning based on real world usage of the "Story by" credit. As I discussed in another thread, the "Story by" credit is not used for original material, but part of the movie-making process (as much as building sets and casting actors are).
(...)

Please don't misunderstand what I am saying.  When I talk about entering data into profiles, I am speaking from a Profiler point of view only.  I do understand where you are coming from, but we (and by 'we' I mean Profiler) removed ourselves from real world usage a long time ago. 

Quoting skipnet50:

Quote:
I am NOT interested in any kind of discussion with you at any time on any subject.
Skip

Fine by me.  Feel free to block me at any time!

Quoting hal9g:

Quote:
Quoting m.cellophane:

Quote:
Intevocative threads:

Poll: Do we enter 'Supervising Producer'? by T!M.
Results: Yes = 6; No = 16

Thread which asked the same question and no one said 'yes'. 

EDIT: I recreated the poll here so we don't have to search Intervocative next time.

Very interesting, but not part of the Rules.

You are correct. I looked up the old threads to see if I could figure out where the supposed agreement to contribute Supervising Producers originated, if there was agreement (based on Tim's comment of "Once again, we're faced with about five users trying to ruin things for thousands of others who do all understand the glaringly obvious.") I never thought it was sanctioned formally or informally by IVS/Invelos and with what I've found, it seems it hasn't been.

Since I can no longer follow which side of this argument you are on (or are only on sarcastically  ), I have to move on. Moving on means providing some quantitative data so that should Ken decide to clarify this situation in the rules, he'll have some concise input from forum users rather than having to slag though 10 or 15 pages worth.

I'm following your comments from here:
Quoting hal9g:

Quote:
Quoting Patsa:

Quote:
If it's not listed as acceptable, we don't credit them, simple as that

then you say some are OK.  Based on whose judgment?  Forum consensus does not trump the Rules, BTW.  It only provides guidance to Ken as to where we would like him to modify the Rules. Until he does so, it is meaningless.

My personal preferences have no place in the database, but yours and others do.  Just how does that work?

Quoting hal9g:

Quote:
Quoting Berak:

Quote:

You can't seriously debate that when screeners approve what's in your mind wrong contributions, they are simply "slipping up". While in the same breath advocate that when they approve what is to others a wrong contribution (but in your mind right), they do the right thing? Or can you?!   

Approval by the screener is meaningless on any contribution.

Fortunately they have you to tell them what's right and what's wrong... 

I give up - keep corrupting the database with your meaningless additions and interpretations - I will continue contributiong what I feel conform to the rules (fortunately you don't own many of my titles), and I will continue to vote NO if I feel the rules are being broken (even by your standards).

But by all means - if you feel there are so many of us not conforming to your standards, why don't you send a job application to Invelos - maybe you could get a job as Screener Extraordinaire....