| |
Sander
Registered: Jan 2002
Posts: 491 |
Graphics on C64 demoscene: Guide of Ethics – a Proposal
Dear fellow sceners,
This is an attempt to get more understanding among, and for, C64 demoscene pixel artists. It’s not written to limit anyone, but a prayer for more transparency.
Read the document here: ->Graphics on C64 demoscene: Guide of Ethics – a Proposal<-
We tried to give define and value different processes. Which is a result of discussion, where we saw mutual grounds and felt the need to write these down.
We will update the document periodically, when enough input has been gathered and sorted out.
We’d really love to hear your thoughts on the subjects in the document.
Please post them in this thread.
(Personally I will not always fully comply to these guidelines myself, but I will continue to be transparant about it. However, I do agree with the values communicated in this document.) |
|
... 137 posts hidden. Click here to view all posts....
|
| |
Burglar
Registered: Dec 2004
Posts: 1047 |
Quoting Electric@Burglar: The document does not limit anyone in the ways they do work. It’s just proposing for transparency. We’ll update it for sure basing on the feedback received – especially with feedback from people making graphics for C64 demoscene. I guess the part that’s talking to party orgs is merely due the recent debates and flood with AI and conversions – there has been a lot of faked workstages etc in some big demo party comps. The document proposes just to pay more attention to the rules (which of course can be anything from no rules to something more strict) and see how they are executed in the gfx submitted. We’ll see what happens in the future. There are examples in our sandbox history where wiring for example took over leading to some original artists to disappear from the scene.
When a group of elite c64 artists drop a "Guide of Ethics", the tone was immediately set. Good to hear it was not intended. I hope emphasizing "especially with feedback from people making graphics" only to me (a non-artist) was also not intended.
When a document is causing so much drama and requires constant clarification of intentions, it's a pretty good sign the doc has not been written properly. If it's meant to only propose for transparency, then that's what it should be about.
It is puzzling to me to see people signing *and* claiming they won't always follow the guidelines themselves.
I still read your GoE as a call to action for party organizers to adjust their rules, demand workstages and set up review & disqualification processes with "competent" supervisors (whoever that may be). Because this is what the doc proposes.
These processes require clearly defined rules to be of any use, otherwise they will just turn into what happened now.
For you, as an esteemed artist, it's maybe easy to detect cheaters. For me (besides the obvious), it is impossible, even with workstages.
It is premature to even list a proposal for organizers when the normal discussion has just started.
Archmage put it nicely: "Theory is one thing, but organizing a competition is hard enough as it is without curating the thing in the heat of the moment.". This is the point I'm making again, I would appreciate a response.
I'm still waiting for someone to pm me real examples from recent major compos, so that I can understand the impact through fact and not just by unsubstantiated claims. A tribute demo with a pic based off of a photo reference is not an example, of course he used a reference: it's a tribute pic and he did not enter it in a graphics compo either. I believe Future Ninja was an honest mistake.
So, no change with my preference for relying on the ethical behavior of the artists themselves when they enter compos. I'll gladly increase the input textbox size in votox and encourage people to share something about their creative process. I will also consider optional workstages.zip support that could be published during voting, but not shown on the big screen.
I will happily support transparency, but I don't want to be the pixel police.
Quoting chatGPZQuote:3) "pre-jury" sounds easy on paper, but impossible to properly pull off in a party setting with tight deadlines. Who will be that jury? 97% of people cannot distinguish "proper" pixel art from wirejobs.
I have to oppose the "impossible to properly pull off" - this is common business on the easter parties, for decades, in the music compos. In that case simple because there are way too many entries to be able to show all of them. A similar preselection could surely be implemented for GFX too. And regarding the easter parties, i know for sure that GFX entries are checked for conversions IF they look suspicious (i have disqualified one myself at some breakpoint...). It IS doable. But it is work someone needs to do (on the easter parties the preselect juries are ad hoc recruited from the visitors, similar to how it worked at X years ago).
The problem is not with spotting the obvious, the voters will spot it too. Many voters will spot suspicious entries better than me.
It is also not about pre-selection (thank god I don't have to deal with that at X), removing the crap is easier than to disqualify a possible podium winning picture.
Then there's the pragmatic stuff, 1 person taking care of 100+ compo entries, 1 person on compo hardware/adhoc testing/wifi and 1 person on a/v/beamer/performances/talks/etc. And still they started every single event exactly on time.
I do not have the time to organize and manage juries, decide on 40+ gfx entries, deal with appeals and angry sceners, and still have tight deadlines before compos. |
| |
spider-j
Registered: Oct 2004
Posts: 449 |
Quoting LManOr to learn from each other? In the latter case it does not belong into an ethics codex.
Hm. As I said, I also agree that "ethics" is kind of misleading. In general I also think that some of the wording could have been chosen to sound less "dramatic".
But I do think that some kind of: "it is a plus to share your workflow in whatever way that fits" can be a useful part of such an "inner cirlce sceners" agreement.
I feel "workstages" is just put there because it's the easiest way to get the point across. *shrug*
But afaik "workstages" are already mandatory at many parties. At least I've seen a lot of them shown at the big screen. |
| |
ws
Registered: Apr 2012
Posts: 229 |
Quote:Not nice:
Using someone else’s ideas
Using someone else’s style
Using conversion tools
Keeping it all a secret
seriously? a postulate with such vague definitions is just pointless thought policing and doesn't help anyone. this is the c64 scene. we can and will do whatever we want, everything is free, reshuffle the deck, everbody gets to have their own rules. we don't answer to anyone, except MOS 6510 - who's the boss. |
| |
El Jefe
Registered: Jul 2005
Posts: 69 |
Quoting spider-jHm. As I said, I also agree that "ethics" is kind of misleading. In general I also think that some of the wording could have been chosen to sound less "dramatic".
Spidey, I think you're right about the choice of words on a few points. But that has been emphasized again and again by the creators of the doc. It is meant as a draft and feedback is very welcome in order to adapt the document in the course of the ongoing discussion, so that the best possible agreement can be achieved.
Shocker/sidDivers |
| |
spider-j
Registered: Oct 2004
Posts: 449 |
Quoting wswe can and will do whatever we want
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IpF9O0R873I ;-) |
| |
El Jefe
Registered: Jul 2005
Posts: 69 |
Quoting wsQuote:Not nice:
Using someone else’s ideas
Using someone else’s style
Using conversion tools
Keeping it all a secret
seriously? a postulate with such vague definitions is just pointless thought policing and doesn't help anyone. this is the c64 scene. we can and will do whatever we want, everything is free, reshuffle the deck, everbody gets to have their own rules. we don't answer to anyone, except MOS 6510 - who's the boss.
ffs, is it that hard to read AND comprehend??
@ws: please read my last post (#92)
Edit:
So far you missed your opportunity to contribute in a constructive way to this topic. If it is important to you why not make some suggestions instead of making just negative comments? |
| |
ws
Registered: Apr 2012
Posts: 229 |
Which part of "such vague definitions" did you not understand? And do you really think i'd help with such a pamphlet? I was just trying to make a point. |
| |
Krill
Registered: Apr 2002
Posts: 2854 |
Quoting spider-jBUT the main focus still reads for me like "give credit where credit is due" Yeah, that magical border between due and undue credit is what the discussion should be about. :)
Of course assuming that nobody in their right mind would deny due credit. =) |
| |
El Jefe
Registered: Jul 2005
Posts: 69 |
Quoting wsWhich part of "such vague definitions" did you not understand? And do you really think i'd help with such a pamphlet? I was just trying to make a point.
Why make a point if you are not willing to participate in the discussion? Also Im not sure what you point actually is. |
| |
ws
Registered: Apr 2012
Posts: 229 |
My point is: why should we actively participate in the curtailment of our freedom? |
| Previous - 1 | ... | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 - Next |
