There are many instances in which data is entered that is not exactly on the Rules. For those who would adhere strictly by the Crew chart consider the following.

Crew chart data:

Direction: Only Crew with the credits of "Director" or "Directed by" are on the chart. What if there are more than 1 Director? "Directors" is not listed.

Along the same vein, ANY Crew member whose credits are listed as plurals (Producers, Cinematographers, Composers, Sound Designers etc.) would not be allowed for the same reason - they are not on the chart.

Film Editing: Only Crew credited as "Film Editor" or "Edited by" would be allowed. If the credits read "Editor" should we exclude them too?

This area is not the only one that invelos has allowed for leeway in regards to "the rules".

For example, look at the section detailing how to credit the DVD Title and Edition.

Despite detailed explanation and attempting to cover all areas, here too data is allowed that is not specifically addressed. 

No where does it outline the use of the colon (US profile) or dash (non US Profiles) in the contribution process.

Yet, this information is frequently used and accepted by the community and the invelos screeners.

There is no way that rules can be written that will cover every single issue. Not only that but people read, understand and apply things differently.

Submitting Directors, Producers, Screenwriters etc. or the use of a colon in the Title or Edition field is, in my opinion, entering data that is legitimate.

I have over 5,000 profile and 1,500 image contributions accepted into the database. I contributed this data based on my understanding of the rules, guidelines and standards which invelos has in place.

Whenever I contribute something and I receive a "no" vote, I carefully assess the situation. Most times I am wrong and I correct any errors I have made.

Other times I might feel I am right or the issue is not clear cut. It is those times that I often bring the discussion to the forum.

The community seldom, if ever, reaches a unanimous consensus though. So, I edit my contribution notes to include my rationale, point out the forum post and let the screeners decide.

I do not consider thoughtful contemplation of the issue, irregardless of which side one takes, to be grasping at straws in order to justify behavior.

Quoting Kathy:

Quote:

There is no way that rules can be written that will cover every single issue.

OK, I agree with that. That is why I proposed, in the past, when we are in front of a case where some common sense is needed, to allow the contributor to propose an intelligent solution, and explain the problem in notes so that screeners can say yes or not.

But this has always been refused by a majority of users who prefer following blindly rules than the "common sense" solution. After that, we cannot choose among rules which ones can be interpreted, and which ones cannot.

If you go to edit mode and select for example screenwriter there is a clarification below "Screenwriter: adapted screenplays" for writer you get "Writer: written directly for the screen".

Quoting Kathy:

Quote:
I see the answer was right in front of us all the time - thank you!

So now everyone agrees that the correct answer is Writer?

Yves,

We take information from other places besides the "rules" such as Ken's postings in the forums.

The information pointed out by Kulju came directly from invelos since they are the only ones who have access to entering that data.

I believe that is no different than us taking guidance from the rules or Ken's forum posts.

If you still feel that this is incorrect, then you should express that by your vote. Others might read it differently and will vote "yes".

Sometimes there is more than one answer. It is then up to Ken, Gerri and the screeners to make the final decision.

I have learned over the years that official declaration with rule updates come few and far between.

Anger or frustration will not have any impact in changing things.

The only thing we can only control is the way we react. My reaction is to contribute doing so to the best of my ability.

I use the rules, standards and guidelines based on my comprehension of them. When I am unsure I ask the community for help.

What I will not do is get angry, frustrated or lash out at others who are only doing the exact same thing I am.

I have found this works quite well for me.

Quoting Kathy:

Quote:
Yves,

We take information from other places besides the "rules" such as Ken's postings in the forums.

Ken's postings in the forums are NOT rule changes and should not be interpreted as such.  Ken could eliminate 90% of these discussions if he would simply update the Rules as needed instead of letting us just muck about constantly.

Quoting Kathy:

Quote:
The information pointed out by Kulju came directly from invelos since they are the only ones who have access to entering that data.

The information pointed out by Kulju is not helpful in that it only tells us that Screenwriter is to be used for adapted screenplays vs. original screenplays....something that has been commonly ignored for years.  All Screenplay creits are entered as Screenwriter.

Quoting Kathy:

Quote:
I believe that is no different than us taking guidance from the rules or Ken's forum posts.

The Rules are the only official guidance.  As has been said ad nauseum here, you cannot expect every contributor to ferret out every statement Ken has made in these forums to decide if his/her contribution is correct.  It is completely impracticable.

Quoting Kathy:

Quote:
If you still feel that this is incorrect, then you should express that by your vote. Others might read it differently and will vote "yes".

That's fine, but neither voting nor acceptance/rejection of votes has anything to do with the validity of a contribution per the Rules.

Quoting Kathy:

Quote:
Sometimes there is more than one answer. It is then up to Ken, Gerri and the screeners to make the final decision.

As I said above, just because the screeners accept or reject a contribution, should not be interpreted to be an affirmation that it conforms with the Rules.  Stuff is accepted all the time, which is in direct violation of the Rules.

Quoting Kathy:

Quote:
I have learned over the years that official declaration with rule updates come few and far between.

And THERE lies the crux of the problem!

Quoting Kathy:

Quote:
Anger or frustration will not have any impact in changing things.

Agreed!  Nor will apathy.  But for some, the years of frustration has turned into exactly that.

Quoting Kathy:

Quote:
The only thing we can only control is the way we react. My reaction is to contribute doing so to the best of my ability.

I use the rules, standards and guidelines based on my comprehension of them. When I am unsure I ask the community for help.

What I will not do is get angry, frustrated or lash out at others who are only doing the exact same thing I am.

I have found this works quite well for me.

Everyone deals with frustration with Invelos differently.  There is no right or wrong way to do so, although I agree lashing out at others on this forum is totally inappropriate.  I realized a long time ago that things at Invelos were never going to change, so I've accepted that.  I use the program for what I want to get out of it and rarely contribute anymore.  I decided that I did not need the added frustration, nor the extra work of having to put things back the way I wanted them.  That's what works for me.

For what it's worth, here's a quote from WGA's Television Credits Manual:

“Written by”
The term “Written by” is used when the writer(s) is entitled to both the “Story by” credit and the “Teleplay by” credit.
This credit shall not be granted where there is source material of a story nature. However, biographical, newspaper and other factual sources may not necessarily deprive the writer of such credit.

So I think we can be fairly sure that "Written for Television by" means that it is written directly for the (television) screen and should therefore be credited as Writer in Profiler (if at all). At least if we are to follow the directions given that Kulju pointed out.

But it's interesting that out of 34 people that have voted that this can be contributed (at this time), 31 have voted for Screenwriter and only 3 for Writer (and then another 3 have voted that it should not be contributed).

Again, is there any wonder that users get confused and stop contributing...? 

Hal,

You believe, and correct me if I'm wrong, that the rules are the only place we are to get contribution data from. These rules must also be strictly followed as they are exactly written?

If this is true, what is your stance on the issues I brought up here:

"Crew chart data:

Direction: Only Crew with the credits of "Director" or "Directed by" are on the chart. What if there are more than 1 Director? "Directors" is not listed.

Along the same vein, ANY Crew member whose credits are listed as plurals (Producers, Cinematographers, Composers, Sound Designers etc.) would not be allowed for the same reason - they are not on the chart.

Film Editing: Only Crew credited as "Film Editor" or "Edited by" would be allowed. If the credits read "Editor" should we exclude them too?

This area is not the only one that invelos has allowed for leeway in regards to "the rules".

For example, look at the section detailing how to credit the DVD Title and Edition.

Despite detailed explanation and attempting to cover all areas, here too data is allowed that is not specifically addressed.

No where does it outline the use of the colon (US profile) or dash (non US Profiles) in the contribution process."


Would you credit Crew if they were listed as Directors, Producers, etc. Or, since those Crew members are listed in the plural on the Crew chart, would you leave them out?

What about Editor? Credit or not?

Finally, do you add a colon to data when there is not one on the Front cover?