Quote:
Quoting hal9g:

Quote:

But that is not the argument.  The argument is that they are not in the "allowed list".

So which argument are we making now?

The argument is that supervising producer is not the same job as a producer. They don't perform the same job function. Crediting a supervising producer as a producer would wrong because they are not equivalent. The other examples you gave are equivalent

Hal, please answer me this: If we include supervising producers what's stopping us from including line producers or consultant producers?

Quote:

It's not in the "Credited As" list.

Let's stick to a single argument.

Quote:
Who is the arbiter of what "equal roles" are?  That path leads to the dark side!!!!! 

Quote:
No, but it says that supervising producer and producer is two different jobs and that they don't perform the same work. Why should we then shoehorn it into one? And if we are to shoehorn it into a role, why not into Executive producer? The job description is closer to being executive producer than producer

As one said earlier in this thread. Garbage in, garbage out.

Quote:
Quoting reybr:

Quote:
No, but it says that supervising producer and producer is two different jobs and that they don't perform the same work. Why should we then shoehorn it into one? And if we are to shoehorn it into a role, why not into Executive producer? The job description is closer to being executive producer than producer

As one said earlier in this thread. Garbage in, garbage out.

And why do we shoehorn "Theme By" into Composer, or "Created By" into OCB or "Story By" into OMB?

You either enter only what is listed in the table or you have opened Pandora's Box.  There's no way to open it half way.

Quote:

Quote:
None of these are listed as acceptable.  Are you suggesting that they all be excluded?

Some of them, yes. But there is simply no valid case for including Supervising Producer since it's a job description we don't have. It's not equivalent to anything in our available job credits, which means you are deliberatly fabricating false data based on your personal preferences by shoehorning it into the present categories. That only makes it bad data and totally useless because it destroyes the integrity of the database which we have worked so hard to maintain. What are the benefits you see in that?

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

Quote:
Quoting hal9g:

Quote:
Please show me in the Rules where the criteria exists to determine which ones are included and which ones aren't.

I don't need to show you anything. Look up the rules yourself, you're the smart one. The burden of proof in this case lies entirely upon you. You want to include something that is not covered by the present job descriptions, you have to prove that it belongs there. Right now, you are failing miserably.

Quote:
Quoting Hal9g

Quote:
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.

I'm not saying they are OK by the rules. I'm saying some of them might be credited if they are equivalent to the jobs we do have a description for. You know just as well as I that sometimes forum consensus does trump the rules. Story By is a perfect example. I don't necessarily have to agree (I would prefer if Story By got its own credit) but people seem to have accepted that it (may) get an OMB credit. The OMB credit is vague enough to allow for this kind of flexibility, Producer does not. It might be close enough in your opinion, but not close enough to be generally acceptable.

Quote:
Quoting Hal9g

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

My personal preferences do not belong anymore in the database than yours. That's why I said I prefer not to credit some of the jobs which we don't cover. Some people do, based on various criteria, but that doesn't make them right by the rules. Thankfully, the rules don't force me to enter all credits, partial contributions are perfectly fine. I'm willing to accept them if there is a consensus though. However, no such consensus exists in this case, which should be blatantly obvious to anyone by now.

Quote:
Once again, we're faced with about five users trying to ruin things for thousands of others who do all understand the glaringly obvious. Well, I'll just leave you to it.

Quote:
Oh, just more thing: we do enter "created by": it's OCB. There's been a consensus about this for years (see here; even Skip says: "You are right on OCB").