According to the rules he does not get credited at all. Can't see how that could be misinterpreted in any way...   

No Credit.

When you move to 3.5, you can enter whatever you want in the custom fields.

Why continue to garbage up the main database fields any more than they already are?

Quoting T!M:

Quote:
Quoting Berak:

Quote:
Can't see how that could be misinterpreted in any way...   

Unfortunately, things aren't always as black and white as we'd like them to be. For instance: I've also encountered "senior sound editor" credits - technically, these wouldn't be allowed either, yet everyone seems happy to enter them, and quite rightly so, IMHO. Hey: should I mention "art directors" again...?    I've also seen several films that don't list a "supervising sound editor", but ONLY two "co-supervising sound editors". There, the "co-" addition seems to only underline their joint status, instead of placing them under a "true" supervising sound editor (there isn't one). Anyway, that's something else entirely - I just mean to show that things aren't always as simple. Here I truly feel that while the "co-" addition rules out a "supervising" credit, the "sound editor" part of his credit still stands. It seems ridiculous to enter four "sound editors", yet leave out the (bigger!) "co-supervising sound editor" credit.

You are correct - things aren't always black and white.

However in this specific case it is as black and white as it possibly can get. No credits for Co-anything. 

I have to agree with the other comments, and wouldn't enter anyone with a co- credit, regardless of how they are ordered in the credits.

Quoting skipnet50:

Quote:
The Rule is very clear, tim, I don't comprehend why this is even a question.

It states under incorrect Roles for Sound
Co-Anything
Assistants
Associates
Interns

There is no if, no and and no but.
What was the purpose of asking a question that is so clearly against the Rules. You like to claim things aren't always black and white, but this one certainly is.

Skip

Have you actually read my posts?! I have quite thoroughly explained why I feel this isn't black and white. I'll repeat it for you: as I see it, this is what the rules say:

1. don't enter a "co-supervising sound editor" as "supervising sound editor"
2. don't enter a "co-sound editor" as "sound editor"

What we have here is decidedly different, and IMHO not addressed by the rules at all. I repeat that I feel that the "co-" addition obviously precludes him from getting the SSE credit, but that the "sound editor" part of his credit still stands. From the above, #1 applies, but #2 doesn't: he isn't credited as "co-sound editor". And it makes sense to include him as well: the forbidden "co", "associates", "interns" and "assistants" are all "lower" jobs - as opposed to this particular person, whose job is actually above the regular sound editors that we do credit. The "co-supervising" oddity precludes him from getting SSE, but he's still a sound editor, even a more important one than the others.

Having said that, I'm perfectly happy to use the forthcoming "custum crew credits" to retain this credit, so that solves the problem. But don't tell me it's black and white, 'cause it's not (I'm glad to see that the poll results show that I'm at least not the only one).

Wrong again... And why is me saying that I gave up and that I'll be perfectly happy to use the new custom crew credits not enough for you? Why the need to keep kicking? 

I asked a question, got an answer, and relented. I then only proceeded to explain why I felt this wasn't exactly black and white. I really don't see how this warrants a batch of negative comments like "I am used to your squirming" and so on. IMHO, it's posts like that that makes these forums such an unfriendly place. Again: I was only asking a question, and after it became apparent that I was in a minority with my point of view, I relented. That's all.

I notice that I actually got a red arrow for my original (first) post!  Please don't tell me that's how the reputation system is to be used?! There's nothing even remotely objectionable there: again, I'm just asking a simple question. This'll be a nice signal: apparently it's better to silently contribute what you think is best rather than going to the forums to ask if you're unsure. Great. 

I agree with, hal and i predicted this long ago and have reported it consistently. Some people don't even like being criticized, or having someone express disappointment in them, or even expressing a political opinion.<shrugs> Like Hal said, get used to it.

Skip