[CSDb] - User Forums - Graphics on C64 demoscene: Guide of Ethics

You are not logged in - nap

CSDb User Forums

Forums > C64 Pixeling > Graphics on C64 demoscene: Guide of Ethics – a Proposal

2023-12-22 18:03

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....

2023-12-25 23:52

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.

2023-12-25 23:56

PAL

Registered: Mar 2009
Posts: 292

When no pixel ever change in workstages it is sure a con, just to say so.

2023-12-26 00:03

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.

2023-12-26 00:12

spider-j

Registered: Oct 2004
Posts: 498

Quoting LMan

Encouragement 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.

2023-12-26 00:21

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

2023-12-26 00:27

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?

2023-12-26 00:28

LMan

Registered: Jun 2010
Posts: 83

Quoting spider-j

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.

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.

2023-12-26 00:36

Burglar

Registered: Dec 2004
Posts: 1101

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 chatGPZ

Quote:
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.

2023-12-26 00:42

spider-j

Registered: Oct 2004
Posts: 498

Quoting LMan

Or 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.

2023-12-26 01:48

ws

Registered: Apr 2012
Posts: 251

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.