I would not credit it.  IMHO.

Another of those not in the table credits. I can't say I've ever seen it. I'd add it as a custom role locally and hope for open credits or a revised crew chart in a future rules update.

I agree with, Unicus, at this time. Hopefuilly this will be dealt with.

Skip

Quoting Unicus69:

Quote:
Except that 'Supervising Sound Editor' has it's own credit, it isn't shoehorned into 'Sound Editor'.  As it sits now, for contribution purposes, 'Supervising Sound Designer' does not get entered.

I know, Unicus, but it makes no sense at all. The "Supervising Sound Designer" is to the "Sound Designers" what the "Supervising Sound Editor" is to the "Sound Editors": The boss who tells them what to do and how and who takes the responsibility concerning the results.
"Supervising Film Editor" is also not mentioned but of course he is the one in charge on top of one or more "film editors". The same with "Supervising Art Director", "Supervising Costume Designer" etc. etc. etc.
The easiest satisfying solution would be a rule that allows entering all "Supervising..." jobs into their related categories. Otherwise you have to leave out the most important crew people and enter only their inferiors.
As long as this rule does not exist, let simple logic rule.

Alos, schaumi, what Unicus doesn't point out. He like myself and many others was using Profiler when we had Guidelines, or as you put it "let logic Rule" (in this case YOUR logic) (othere have used "common sense or whatever), they all amount to the same two words user-prreference. We already know what happens on that path, we've been there done that and at least some of us have NO interest in seeing it again...to put it bluntly it is utterly INSANE. The ONLY answer is totally open creds, and i am all too aware of the issues that brings along, but as long as we continue to use the existing we are always going to have these kind of problems and someone or other (and he may be like you an "expert") will argue for one thing or another that is not in the list of accepted roles.

Skip

Well, midnit, while I follow you. I have to go back to what the Rules were attempting to achieve and also the fact thea i had envisiioned the Rules being far miore flexible in terms of responding to issues which I only too well knew were going to arise. Unfortunately three things got in the way. (1) We had some AR users who were only interested in what the Rules SAID and attacked, insulted and belittled anyone who dared try to explain the intent, thus we had for a very long time The Wizard of Oz in Profiler being a SILENT film, because the role was Recording Supervisor which wasn't ijncluded because no one had really noted it.(2) I did not anticipate that it would take soooooo long  to get modifications and updates into the Rules, to be fair to the AR types i don't think they did either. (3) That nobody in this bunch wants to LISTEN.

BTW for the record if people would listen I would say use SSD in the SD slot and use the Custom Role along witth a reference in any Contribution Notes thta the ACTUAL Credit was SSD, and then I would ask Ken to include SSD in the next version of the Program along with SSRM, since we have SSE. But that's just me, and fits with what I had envisioned the way in which the Rules would function.

Skip

Quoting mdnitoil:

Quote:
Quoting Unicus69:

Quote:
While that might be the easiest solution, I don't believe it is the most satisfying one as it makes the data meaningless.  Yes, it allows us to track them, but it doesn't tell us what they do.  If we don't care which are the 'supervisors', then why track them at all?

I can't speak for anyone else, but the folks in charge presumably had the greatest creative input to the final product.  If for no other reason, that's why I'd track them.

I think you misunderstood my post.  I know why people want to track them...well, actually I don't but that's another issue completely.  The point I was making is, if we are going to lump them in with the subordinates, meaning we can't tell the difference between the Supervising Sound Designer and the Sound Designers, what's the point?

Quote:
It's like when we enter all the wardrobe drones but leave out the primary designer because of a role description issue.  I would argue that this method also makes the data "meaningless" as it totally misrepresents the crew.  That's just my opinion.

While it may not be an all inclusive representation of the crew, I wouldn't call the data meaningless as it represents the crew we are allowed to track.

The problem we have, and it is a problem that will never go away, is that we can't anticipate every possible credit variation for the same job.  The best solution, again in my opinion, is to keep the current general categories with a contributable 'custom role' field.  It would work the same way the 'credited as' system works for cast...

John Smith Sound Designer [Supervising Sound Designer]
Joe Blow Sound Designer

Jane Doe Costume Designer
Jay Sanders Costume Designer [Costume Supervisor]

Well, I will say this.  During the last rules update, we were solicited for a list of acceptable descriptions for the new roles.  Now we did our best to be thorough but obviously we were going to come up short.  Had we thought about it at the time, there is every reason to believe that these roles would be in the credit table.  Having had an opportunity to contribute to that list, I feel like I've somehow failed the community because goodness knows it could be years before we see that chart get updated again.