| |
Sander
Registered: Jan 2002
Posts: 496 |
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....
|
| |
spider-j
Registered: Oct 2004
Posts: 498 |
Quoting LManIt is the argument of every oppressive police state: if you got nothing to hide, why shoud you be worried about surveillance?
WAT? Come on. This is about being transparent about your inspirations, implementing original works by others etc... That is not "surveillance" and some fellow artists wanting to know / learn about your workflow is no police state.
We should leave the parables to Jesus ;-) In discussions like this they often fail to get the point right. |
| |
LMan
Registered: Jun 2010
Posts: 83 |
I said it is the same invalid argument used to justify the prying. Not that it is the same thing. |
| |
Deev
Registered: Feb 2002
Posts: 206 |
Quote: It is the argument of every oppressive police state: if you got nothing to hide, why shoud you be worried about surveillance?
This isn't about governence or demanding compliance. It's simply that in a scene where one person's work is compared to another's, it's good to be open about your processes. I don't see why this is a problem |
| |
LMan
Registered: Jun 2010
Posts: 83 |
I fully agree, and I love sharing and seeing workstages. but not in an atmosphere that would lead to repercussions if you don't want to.
The document should be rewritten in an encouraging tone, that would work much better. It's the point NiM is trying to get across, too. Encouragement to participate in learning and teaching by sharing. But as it is, it rather feels like "workstages or didn't happen"
And I have seen enough c64 pixel workstages where I suspect reverse engineering, that I stand by the opinion that workstages can never serve as proof. |
| |
PAL
Registered: Mar 2009
Posts: 292 |
When no pixel ever change in workstages it is sure a con, just to say so. |
| |
Deev
Registered: Feb 2002
Posts: 206 |
Quote: I fully agree, and I love sharing and seeing workstages. but not in an atmosphere that would lead to repercussions if you don't want to.
The document should be rewritten in an encouraging tone, that would work much better. It's the point NiM is trying to get across, too. Encouragement to participate in learning and teaching by sharing. But as it is, it rather feels like "workstages or didn't happen"
And I have seen enough c64 pixel workstages where I suspect reverse engineering, that I stand by the opinion that workstages can never serve as proof.
I do completely agree with you on this. I've mentioned myself I think it needs a far more welcoming and friendly tone.
And I think we've all seen clearly faked workstages.
My own personal view is that nothing should be defined as "wrong" (AI, conversion etc etc), but there should be some openness about the process (happy for this to be brief), so everyone can judge for themselves. Some people will still only ever care about the end result and that is also fine. |
| |
spider-j
Registered: Oct 2004
Posts: 498 |
Quoting LManEncouragement to participate in learning and teaching by sharing. But as it is, it rather feels like "workstages or didn't happen"
Reading through the document once again I have to say: doesn't feel to me like "workstages or didn't happen".
True, there is a strong emphasis on "workstages" in the document – what I also find the rather silly aspect of this discussion – as I demonstrated in some of my recent comments and releases here. BUT the main focus still reads for me like "give credit where credit is due" and this is for me totally okay. |
| |
Copyfault
Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 478 |
Ok, seems this topic gets everyone involved sooner or later. So I dare to add my point of view. Interesting that once a document tackling the topic of ethics in our demoscene exists, it causes *that* much discussion...
Maybe I've been reading it (again and again) with the wrong eye, but for me it reads like a plea for transparency - not more, but also not less.
Taking it over to coding, I guess a similar debate could arise if e.g. someone releases a brand new effect or some really hard thing improved - let's say that UFLImax with 187 lines (just in order to have something in mind). Now if that someone who releases it did not do any line of code by him/herself, but just fed an AI again and again with clever phrases until this AI-tool spits out the complete code - I *do* think everyone here'd consider that someone lame right away - unless the reference to that AI tool was given.
Not being a graphics guys at all, I can just faintly try to imagine how complex such kind of "trickery" can become in the field of graphics. Thus, the persons who created that Guide of Ethics-document tried to go into detail here and there, but, well, it's a well-meant proposal trying to sensitise for being honest ("true to the game" as was written in quite some demos back then).
Workstages were discussed here, too. While they can serve as transparency token for the workflow of some artist and at the same time as a blueprint others might be able to learn from, they can also be faked already today - and I'm no prophet of doom when saying that workstages will be faked more easily in the very near future. Still, the very moment some aritst tries to learn from someone else's workstages and starts to struggle, fake will become evident. Ofcourse, there's no flood of artist getting their hands on workstages every time they get released, but the point is: workstages might be fake-able, but when created honestly, they prove a point and share goodness.
It was also said before that a very similar debate was led (and is still led every now and then) when the powerful pcs became standard and converting "took over". Well, I think it never really did "take over" the field of pixel gfx if you ask me - it just added a bit to it, but in almost all cases, the WIRED-tag was given by viewers instantly. As lame as it was (and for sure not art-related in any way!), I also do think it was a necessary phase that somehow helped the C64-scene to overcome the early 90ies. But that's a completely different discussion, let's not go that way now...
What really makes me sad is when people consider heading away from the c64. The people that created the ethics document seem to be at a crossing - and I f**king do not want any of them (or any other one still around here) to leave due to some "odd feeling" that honesty does not play an important role anymore. Ofcourse, good behaviour cannot just be implemented by setting up "rules" - it can only be asked for in the most polite way, but... I think that "Guide of Ethics" does exactly this. The name is a bit dramatic in a way, but I guess it says more about the feeling (some of) its authors have rather than it sheds light on the contents.
In the end, everyone of us has to decide it for him/herself: is there any reason for not being honest? Well, it's still christmas, so I tend to hope noone really favors that...
And (coming back to the constructed coding example): it's so much more valuable to go through something and solve things with the own mind, that -at least for me- doing the work oneself will always win over involving fancy AI algorithms. And somehow I think that's valid for most of the still active c64 people and let's me look positively into the future...
Sorry for the long blah...
CF |
| |
PAL
Registered: Mar 2009
Posts: 292 |
In today's software, we have AI integrated into many applications. One can use AI in real-time painting, similar to how Painter used to work its magic. However, with AI, you can alter the representation and behavior of each stroke. The question is, how should one credit that? Is it the artist, the AI, or just pure magic? |
| |
LMan
Registered: Jun 2010
Posts: 83 |
Quoting spider-jTrue, there is a strong emphasis on "workstages" in the document – what I also find the rather silly aspect of this discussion – as I demonstrated in some of my recent comments and releases here. BUT the main focus still reads for me like "give credit where credit is due" and this is for me totally okay.
Yes there is the problem, emphasis on workstages. It's the question, do we want it as proof? Or to learn from each other? In the latter case it does not belong into an ethics codex. |
| Previous - 1 | ... | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 - Next |
