| |
Rough
Account closed
Registered: Feb 2002
Posts: 1829 |
Handle id #6826 : The Arrogance
this entry should be divided into two persons and merged with the other nicks of those, TJ and Reptil. |
|
| |
bugjam
Registered: Apr 2003
Posts: 2583 |
Hmmm, I would rather leave it as "2 person handle", so that the credits can stay. Otherwise it would be extremely tricky to attribute the credits properly, especially in the beginning, before Thorsten quit.
But another thing: the trivia mentions that they also shared the handle "The Gangstar" while in Brainbombs - but there is already Gangstar ?! Or was this handle shared even by 3 people? |
| |
bugjam
Registered: Apr 2003
Posts: 2583 |
OK, this was finally sorted: there is already the other entry for the single scener The Arrogance (Thorsten, before he used the handle together with Thomas). I have now merged Thorsten's former handles with this entry.
The reference to "Gangstar" has been removed in the meantime by Thomas himself, so it probably was just some error by deceived memories or sth. |
| |
chatGPZ
Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 11377 |
Or he just doesnt wants to be associated with it? We had some fun with Tyree and his old handles too :)
PS: The Brainbombs entry gives some hints about this :) |
| |
chancer
Registered: Apr 2003
Posts: 346 |
some people don't want to be linked to other handles they use ;-) for a few reasons.
if *THEY* want to change that, then down to them...
not some nosey curtain twitchers with nothing better to do. |
| |
bugjam
Registered: Apr 2003
Posts: 2583 |
Well, it has been publically visible for 17 years and added by The Arrogance himself, so it can't be THAT secret, can it?
Exactly ZERO curtains needed to be twitched to get that information. |
| |
chatGPZ
Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 11377 |
Quote:if *THEY* want to change that, then down to them...
not some nosey curtain twitchers with nothing better to do.
No. csdb is about documenting facts, not what someone likes it to be. Editing out those facts is a reason for ban (which happened to Tyree, for example)
If you don't want to be associated with some handle you use, make sure noone else knows that is the case - its that simple :) |
| |
Krill
Registered: Apr 2002
Posts: 2971 |
Quoting chatGPZIf you don't want to be associated with some handle you use, make sure noone else knows that is the case - its that simple :) I still don't understand why it different handles MUST link back to the individual using them - especially when said people are still active and against this practice.
The handles are usually the only thing that any random person can know about the creators of productions, via those productions. Why go beyond that?
It seems kind of arbitrary and possibly dubious w/r/t privacy protection laws. |
| |
chatGPZ
Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 11377 |
If a handle is known to belong to a certain individual, the db will reflect that, no more no less. If we'd leave it to that very individual then we'd have a nice chaos right there, and a lot of the interesting research wouldn't be possible either. Don't see what so hard to understand about that.
Why ppl like Didi don't get linked to all their crap handles is a different question :) (It's probably just not as interesting - and plain obvious anyway. We'll link it in some years, like we did with Tyree.)
(Feel free to link handles i have used to my entry. I'll do the same with others.) |
| |
bugjam
Registered: Apr 2003
Posts: 2583 |
If you want to hide it, you have to be good at hiding.
Adding it and leaving it in the trivia for 17 years is just not a very good hiding strategy I assume.
I am sure there are many undetected fake handles floating around here, including from gpz. ;-)
Database integrity, however, is trying to link it down to individuals where possible. 1 scener with 50 handles != 50 sceners. |
| |
Krill
Registered: Apr 2002
Posts: 2971 |
Doesn't answer my question why there must be a link from handle to actual person in the first place. =)
Handles are like a brand. Different handle, different kind of product, possibly different quality as well.
Knowing who's behind this handle or that is trivia, but i still don't see just why it's so relevant as to ignore people's express wishes.
Not maintaining those aggregations is not the same as leaving that to the unwashed masses.
And it's not like there are significantly more handles than actual people floating around, i guess. Plus there'll always be a non-zero portion of yet-unknown multiple-handles-one-person links. |
| |
TheRyk
Registered: Mar 2009
Posts: 2226 |
Not every new or additional handle is a fake handle, however. The latter of course are usually meant to release something under false flag, e.g. rants, poor silly cracks and whatnot. Whereas in other cases someone just didn't like his old handle anymore, wanted to start a new career in a new group or whatever.
That some peeps openly flag their own fake handles THEMSELVES here on CSDb as fake or lamer label of their main label XYZ is another story. Not much stealth in that, but probably THEY WANT users to associate their fake label releases with the main label - might make no sense to me or you but it's _their_ decision.
@Krill: More than once I found the common practice of merging multi-handle sceners in one CSDb entry quite useful when looking for information such as which group(s) were the root(s) of another group etc. |
| |
Krill
Registered: Apr 2002
Posts: 2971 |
Quoting TheRyk@Krill: More than once I found the common practice of merging multi-handle sceners in one CSDb entry quite useful when looking for information such as which group(s) were the root(s) of another group etc. So, were you able to debunk that old myth that demoscene somehow was spawned from cracking scene, rather than co-evolving with some overlap pretty much at the same time? =) |
| |
TheRyk
Registered: Mar 2009
Posts: 2226 |
Personally, I'd say there's evidence for both, a demoscene evolving (more or less) independently from cracking (compunet) and demo groups directly emerging from cracking (crack intro) scene. But that's only my 2 cents, based on my experience aka what I (not) know. Anyway, there were groups starting with legal stuff and later doing cracks and the other way round, never did any deeper research on what was the case more often.
I guess your question would need someone writing his doctoral thesis evaluating all the data here... and in the end, I bet 5 quatloos that even that 'Doctor of Scene' will only come to some vague conclusion that both is true and there is not only one 'root' of demoscene. |
| |
chatGPZ
Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 11377 |
Quote:So, were you able to debunk that old myth that demoscene somehow was spawned from cracking scene, rather than co-evolving with some overlap pretty much at the same time? =)
Not sure how this is related - but any sane person knows that it was like this :) |
| |
Frantic
Registered: Mar 2003
Posts: 1647 |
Quote: Quote:So, were you able to debunk that old myth that demoscene somehow was spawned from cracking scene, rather than co-evolving with some overlap pretty much at the same time? =)
Not sure how this is related - but any sane person knows that it was like this :)
Did "it was like this" refer to the first or the second scenario, as described in Krill's post? |
| |
chatGPZ
Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 11377 |
Demos and crack intros appeared at about the same time. |
| |
Krill
Registered: Apr 2002
Posts: 2971 |
Quoting chatGPZNot sure how this is related - but any sane person knows that it was like this :)
Demos and crack intros appeared at about the same time.
Then... quite a sizeable chunk of the demoscene is not sane? :)
I keep hearing (stage talks) and reading (forums, books, UNESCO) the same old myth time and again.
Kind of a pet peeve of mine. =) |
| |
chatGPZ
Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 11377 |
I know. I have given up on it :) It's still better than the "Demoscene started on Amiga" nonsense some ppl keep telling :) |
