After many "no" votes and pms, I've learned we only credit the general Supervisors. If they are specific in any way, such as Special Effects Crew, it is not allowed.

It might be the contributor saw the Special Effects Supervisor and added it without realizing that, because the role was elaborated to include a specific area, it was not allowed.

I'm just glad they didn't say "Robotic Special Effects Supervisor," in which case, it would be ambiguous whether they supervised robotic special effects or they were a robot that supervised special effects (and thus should be profiled).

Quoting Dr Pavlov:

Quote:
We also do not accept credits for Special Photographic Effects according to the Credit chart but we have many users who are submitting them and getting them approved, despite No votes calling attention to the Crew chart.

Ok, I am a  little confused here. Are you saying that because some people submit credits that are not on the crew charts you now accept and embrace this? Or are you saying that Robotics Special Effects Supervisor should not be allowed?

So Anything Special Effects Supervisor is ok? Is this something unique for special effects, or is it your contention that any prefix to a job title in the crew column is admissible?

Would that mean that Dialog Director in old films would be ok for a Director credit in Profiler, for example?

I must admit that I am as confused as Gunnar is by your post.  It seems like you are saying that, because they are being accepted, it doesn't matter whether or not they are in the crew chart.  I tried to find the post where you explained this, but I couldn't. 

It is interesting that, although I completely agree with Skip, I am the lone "no" vote on this contribution.

I am voting "no" based on numerous discussions regarding similar contributions I had made that were slightly outside the invelos rules.

Skip, whether I agree with you or not this data is an exception to the rules as written. It might be best to bring it up for discussion in the Rules Committee.

If someone contributes Special Photographic Effects then I will vote "no" to this contribution also. Who was it that said bad data is bad data?   

And, if such data does slip through, even the screeners are not perfect, then I would correct it as needed and resubmit the data with the new, correct information.

Quoting TheMadMartian:

Quote:
Quoting Dr Pavlov:

Quote:
This is not hard, Martian. Gunnar has raised a straw man argument. Robotics SE Supervisor is and SE Supervisor, Robotics only indicates the specific SE Supervisor but an SE Supervisor all the same. It is not based on fiction such as those who are Contributing Special Photographic Effects are doing, SPE is not even close to anythin =g we use it is and invention out of personal preference.

This is an SE Supervisor as the Rules require, just a specific type of SE supervisor. It is not HARD.

Skip

I am still confused.  In the crew chart, there is a role of 'Special Effects' just as there is a role of 'Special Effects Supervisor'.  If the addition of the word 'Robotics' doesn't change anything, how does the addition of the word 'Photographic'?  Special Photographic Effects are still special effects all the same, aren't they? 

Martian:

Your confusion and inability to see the issue properly has me confused quite frankly. The credit does not read Special Robotics Effect Supervisor, THEN you and Kathy would be quite right. The credit however does nto say that, just as if Photographic Special Effects Supervisor would be Ok, a SES is an SES, the prefix simply further defines it, We have no credit however in the list that comes close to reading Special PHOTOGRAPHIC Effects, that is something else entirely. If you REALLY expect to be avble to account for every pssible SES that Hollywood might create, then my friend, I must respectfully say you're nuts, and we might just as well stop entering data right this second. That is an impossibility. this is quite simply an SES, it has a defining prefix, not something stuck in the middle.

Skip

Quoting TheMadMartian:

Quote:
Quoting Dr Pavlov:

Quote:
Your confusion and inability to see the issue properly has me confused quite frankly.

Was this really necessary?  I am trying to understand your position and all get is insult. 

Quote:
The credit does not read Special Robotics Effect Supervisor, THEN you and Kathy would be quite right. The credit however does nto say that, just as if Photographic Special Effects Supervisor would be Ok, a SES is an SES, the prefix simply further defines it, We have no credit however in the list that comes close to reading Special PHOTOGRAPHIC Effects, that is something else entirely. If you REALLY expect to be avble to account for every pssible SES that Hollywood might create, then my friend, I must respectfully say you're nuts, and we might just as well stop entering data right this second. That is an impossibility. this is quite simply an SES, it has a defining prefix, not something stuck in the middle.

So it's the position of the additional word that makes the difference for you.  While I don't agree with your position on this, at least I understand where you are coming from.

For me, however, it doesn't make any difference.  If 'Photographic Special Effects Supervisor' is allowed, 'Special Photographic Effects Supervisor' should be as well.

No, insut, pal. You keep telling me not to read you beyond what you say. I said you have me confused and you do.

BTW we have seen no such thing as a Special Photographic Effects Supervisor, it is simply Special Photographic Effects, they have been contributed numerous times, despite the what the chart says and they have been ACCEPTED by the screeners, numerous times, despite No votes pointing out the chart. This credit does not exist from Profiler's view, at this time but it has been rammed down  our throats by some users, though I do not accept such data, it ghas still been accepted. and a Robotioc Special Effects Suyopervisor is closer to what we want than anything that saya Special Photographic Effects. I am merely responding to what other users have done and gotten approved, and at least my rationale is more consistent with the chart than is SPE is.

Skip

Skip