michthro wrote:Admitting that I did wrong doesn't mean I'm saying two wrongs make a right.
Of course not. Trying to justify it by claiming you were sniping people who sniped you does. People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. If you're going to base your argument around the idea that anyone who disagrees is an amoral cheat, you had better be expect to be called on any hypocrisy.
Whether it's move-for-move or an idea, it's plagiarism. Plagiarism is about stealing ideas. In literature, for instance, it doesn't mean copying word-for-word, you know.
Of course I'm aware of that; but it doesn't mean simply borrowing ideas either. Roger Zelazny's Amber Chronicles is a fantasy classic; most of the themes are lifted from Phillip Jose Farmer's World of Tiers. Terry Brook's Shannarra series is another classic series; Sword of Shannarra is practically a note for note rewrite of Lord of the Rings. Authors are expected to be familiar with the work of other authors in their genre. Musicians are expected to listen to other musicians and draw inspiration.
Flat out copying is always plagiarism. Beyond that what constitutes plagiarism is entirely a grey area. Since demos are freely available for download, it's implied that it's alright to watch and learn from them. Without further clarification, you simply can't make a legitimate case that it's unequivically morally wrong to borrow from them. Of course, that's what's wrong with the current system; it muddies the water about what is or isn't acceptable.
Note that all this talk of morality is misplaced in the first place. It's a game; the rules are whatever the designer's say they are. If Erik decided it was alright for people to do anything they wanted with demos including flatout copying it would completely destroy the highscore system; but, it wouldn't be morally wrong.
Yeah, I thought about the athletic analogy myself, and I wasn't convinced it was a strong enough analogy in this case, where we're talking about it being much, much easier to implement someone else's idea than in the long jump. I mean, look, no matter how much time I spend watching Dick Fosbury, I can guarantee you that I'm just plain not going to come close to matching him at the long jump. On the other hand, my five-year-old nephew, with a little bit of training, could match michthro's demo just by watching it.
(Put another way: the athletic analogy covers the case where I download and watch and memorize all of michthro's JtRH demos, and then start beating his high scores in other holds. Then I've genuinely learned from his technique.)
I think eytanz just posted a nicely succinct summary of what I wanted to say about plagiarism. Although my thoughts about copying to get #2 demos may be the case where "plagiarism" applies. If a student submits a paper to me in which she writes, "Here's the theory that M. Ichthro (2006) devised; but note that it's flawed in a few places, and here are my improvements," I'll happily give her an A (aka "#1"). If she submits a paper to me in which she writes, "Here's the theory that M. Ichthro (2006) devised", she's not getting a B for copying someone else's theory without adding anything new of her own.
michthro wrote:
Legitimate reusing of an idea, such as quoting someone, always, always, always goes with giving credit. With the scoring system the way it is, with it being a competition (even if there's no prize, with which there's nothing wrong) copying is clearly wrong.
No, I disagree that it is clearly wrong. It may be right or wrong, but it doesn't seem clear at all to me.
There is a difference between creative ideas and ideas used to solve tasks. There is a reason there is a difference between copyright and patents - there is an inherent difference here in the kind of idea, and in the rules that apply. In my view, DROD demos are not on par with academic/literary ideas, and thus subject to different rules.
It's not that I don't think you have a valid argument here - you do, and it's a good one. I'm taking objection to the assumption that it's *obvious* that you are right, since, good argument as it is, I also believe it is wrong.
____________________________
I got my avatar back! Yay! [Last edited by eytanz at 02-27-2007 03:55 PM]
KevG wrote:
Flat out copying is always plagiarism. Beyond that what constitutes plagiarism is entirely a grey area.
Let's actually be a little clearer here. Copying is 100% legitimate when you put it in quotes and put a citation after it; it's not the mere act of writing down someone else's words that makes it plagiarism.
Plagiarism is the taking of someone else's work, either word-for-word (move-for-move?) or otherwise, and presenting it as your own. If you go through the entirety of Steven Pinker's "The Language Instinct" and paraphrase each sentence and try to publish it as your own work, there's no gray area there, I don't think.
I think in going through someone's demo and improving on it--i.e., "sniping"--you've added ideas of your own, and thus whether it's "plagiarism" or not can be debated. (Note "debated": I agree that it's not as clear-cut as michthro suggests.) On the other hand, going through someone's demo and copying it to get the #2...well, anyway, I should go face actual students who're paying to hear my ideas. :-)
Tahnan wrote:
Yeah, I thought about the athletic analogy myself, and I wasn't convinced it was a strong enough analogy in this case, where we're talking about it being much, much easier to implement someone else's idea than in the long jump. I mean, look, no matter how much time I spend watching Dick Fosbury, I can guarantee you that I'm just plain not going to come close to matching him at the long jump. On the other hand, my five-year-old nephew, with a little bit of training, could match michthro's demo just by watching it.
I made it pretty explicit that I was talking about two roughly equally skilled competitors, one of whom had hit upon a new technique, so I think this objection has little force. I think the essential element is the same in both cases - I "stole" an idea and used it to benefit myself at the originator's expense.
(Put another way: the athletic analogy covers the case where I download and watch and memorize all of michthro's JtRH demos, and then start beating his high scores in other holds. Then I've genuinely learned from his technique.)
Sure. I wasn't intending to address the issue of "should people snipe?", but rather whether it's plagiarism/stealing/cheating to do so. I think that question is much less clear. [Last edited by kzc at 02-27-2007 04:04 PM]
Tahnan wrote:
If a student submits a paper to me in which she writes, "Here's the theory that M. Ichthro (2006) devised; but note that it's flawed in a few places, and here are my improvements," I'll happily give her an A (aka "#1"). If she submits a paper to me in which she writes, "Here's the theory that M. Ichthro (2006) devised", she's not getting a B for copying someone else's theory without adding anything new of her own.
Note how Ichthro is cited. Sniping is the equivalent of a student coming across a theory of, say, one E.Y. Tanz, finding a flaw, and submitting to you a paper in which she writes:"Here's a theory that I devised". What does she get? E for expulsion?
Well, as I've said, we could try and devise a system that takes contributions into account, but how? It's actually been considered, and was dropped as too complicated.
Look, there are various competitions going on at once. Some people play for points, some play for #1s, some go for # of rooms, some for average, some for various combinations. I think we do all pretty much agree that demo-watching for #1 ties, i.e. points, is bad. When it comes to #1s, it's an all-or-nothing business. You have the #1 or you don't. The sniper gets full credit, while those who contributed most of the work get no credit.
I fail to see what's wrong with a level playing field where the sensitive issue of copying doesn't come up, and uncompetitive players who like watching demos aren't affected. The closest thing to a down side that has been mentioned is how sniping supposedly promotes optimising and the big communal effort and that. I think I already pointed out that "Optimise this!" was very short-lived. Sniping promotes *streamlining* - as in optimising a given approach, but it suppresses *optimising* - as in finding the best approach and streamlining that. Why? Because everyone's waiting for everyone else to find new and interesting approaches they can snipe.
Actually it's the other way around. Sniping promotes finding new ways, because even in its basic form it's trimming all the bad leaves until the branch becomes optimized. Hence, the last "sniped" player, be it the originator or the sniper himself has all the motivation to find new branches that may get a better solution. Eliminating sniping as a whole will reduce the stimuli to optimize greatly.
Also, please don't assume that the quest for optimizing, or as you call it "Optimise this!" is not present. I believe in it and in competitive collaboration, and according to both polls, so do many many other people. Don't try to wave it away like a non-existent trend while it is very much alive.
____________________________
Slay the living! Raise the dead!
Paint the sky in crimson red!
You're assuming that everyone does some sniping and some looking for new branches. The problem is those who only snipe, and never take their turn at finding new branches.
"Optimise this!" was an effort to get players actively involved in co-operative optimising. Nothing came of it. That's evidence. Where's your evidence? A bunch of non-competitive players voting that they think it would be good doesn't mean it is happening.
Yes, but that guy left of his own volition once he was caught.
Is there any way to link a download of a demo with earning either a rank point or a room point? This way, if somebody is "sniped", they get a point because their demo was downloaded.
The idea may throw a touch of havoc into the score system. Heck, it'll probably throw a lot. But there has to be a better way than what has been discussed.
____________________________
Click here to view the secret text
×
First Delver! (I was the first non-tester/dev
to conquer TCB.)
d/dy
No, that would be bad because it's pretty much unlimited (read: prone to abuse). Even if you give it only the first time a specific demo is downloaded, it still looks waaay off.
____________________________
Slay the living! Raise the dead!
Paint the sky in crimson red!
Yeah, I agree with Maurog. I can't think of any way to modify that (take points from the downloader, point limit per demo, etc.) that doesn't have massive problems.
____________________________
The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way it treats its animals.
--Mahatma Gandhi [Last edited by Schik at 02-27-2007 10:20 PM]
I agree that it shouldn't be tied to the moderation system (beside the glaring exploitation problems, demo downloads has nothing to do with comment quality), but what about a new "mindshare" type metric? Sort of a ratio of downloaded-to-downloading?
____________________________
I was charged with conspiracy to commit jay-walking, and accessory to changing lanes without signaling after the fact .
michthro wrote:
The problem is those who only snipe, and never take their turn at finding new branches.
Whereas I'm not sure I'm convinced that this is a significant problem. Do such people exist in droves? Do they exist at all?
We know of at least one that has existed. The one that Erik talked about.
How many #1s did that guy get? 11? I thought he was more about the out and out copying rather than streamlining (that's a neat pro-sniping word btw ;) )
I am liking the current solution less and less the more I think about it. Part of the joy of CaravelNet for me was both the competitive nature and being able to see how you have been beaten. If I can't do that without scuttling my future chance of being competitive, the value I get from CaravelNet is greatly diminished.
Nothing came of Optimise This! because it's too hard to pick a good room - one that is going to be interesting without being too obvious or annoying, and one that isn't really optimised already.
If you want to compare CaravelNet with less colaborative ventures, there is
* Least Number of Turns contest (results vs current scores), Movecount extremes in KDD ("probably can't be bettered." haha you suck 2005-Rabscuttle!) Level Demos (even with the lack of restore/undo and forced entry/exit points for rooms, solutions now are much better than solutions then.)
==
The karma system for holds is tied to the mod system, a karma system for demos could be done similarly (but shouldn't because there are a zillion demos vs relatively few holds)
Hmm.. Just to throw an idea out, how about karma points for players. And show the snipe data somewhere.
There are records of who has downloaded what when as well as who has uploaded what when, right? If so, one thing that I think could easily be done (but whether or not it can/should be tied to some form of penalization, I can't say) might be to show what demos (if any) were downloaded by a player before their demo was made. That way, we would have a better shot at figuring out what's been borrowed and what is actually new in a new high score.
I'm with Rabscuttle all the way on this. I never thought anything needed changing. If people think it should be, then I'll gladly consider and accept a lot of different ideas... but yeah. The original solution works.
I enjoyed seeing jemann for example get a #1 in a trapdoor room in the 101 hold. It's almost depressing how few #1s aren't eitber michthro's, Rabscuttle,s or mine. I enjoy seeing newer players pull off some excellent moves and get a chance to get their own #1s.
If I may also speak on behalf on VodkaAndCoke (who ain't here right now), I would say that she agrees with the fact that the original system seems to make the playing field equal. I will say that we were both loving the fact jemann got that #1.
In the same way, I like to recognise up and coming players and this is mainly through noticing high scoring ability amongst newer players. Recently Noma caught my attention, and before that it was Dolan42. Either way, any attempt to further shield the top scoring demos would lessen my enjoyment of the game utterly.
I believe strongly that VodkaAndCoke would agree with the above.
michthro wrote:
Legitimate reusing of an idea, such as quoting someone, always, always, always goes with giving credit. With the scoring system the way it is, with it being a competition (even if there's no prize, with which there's nothing wrong) copying is clearly wrong. We can debate about whether, and how, to implement a system that allows sniping and is fair towards those whose ideas are being reused, but with the current system, which is just another competitive scoring system where the ultimate holder of a top score gets full points, there's nothing to debate.
You cannot patent DROD solutions, any more than you can patent strategies for winning at chess. If I went up to the US Patent Office and said I'd like to patent a way of winning a chess game in 4 moves, they might laugh or sigh, but I wouldn't get my patent. And like a chess game, you can't use the strategy without revealing it.
Syntax wrote:
I enjoyed seeing jemann for example get a #1 in a trapdoor room in the 101 hold. It's almost depressing how few #1s aren't eitber michthro's, Rabscuttle,s or mine. I enjoy seeing newer players pull off some excellent moves and get a chance to get their own #1s.
Cheers. It's a thrill for me to playing through a new hold at the same time as everyone else - one in which the #1s haven't been established for months or years. I've also missed out on the dispiriting 'My Used-to-be-#1 Scores' before now, but that's another story... (I am a little worried that michthro doesn't seem to have done the challenge level yet).
An easier solution to all this seems, to me, to only allow the downloading of demos that are at least a week old - regardless of rank. This gives people, regardless of their initial score, the chance to optimise a demo based on any 'trick' they've found before other people can copy it. And if you can keep improving your own demo, the trick will stay private until you're done (barring week-long holidays). This solution isn't much good for someone like larrymurk, though, who just wants to see how people go about solving rooms (possibly from his own hold!).
I suppose I'm guilty of copying - certainly for rooms where players have gotten through with an impossibly low move count (say, the Metroid Echoes crossbow room). If the trick is easy to pull off, it's hard to resist copying. If copying the trick involves mimicking an exact move sequence without understanding why, well - that seems questionable to me. Perhaps some people need to take the high scores less seriously? Play a little Progress Quest until the lesson sinks in?
Jatopian wrote:
You cannot patent DROD solutions, any more than you can patent strategies for winning at chess. If I went up to the US Patent Office and said I'd like to patent a way of winning a chess game in 4 moves, they might laugh or sigh, but I wouldn't get my patent. And like a chess game, you can't use the strategy without revealing it.
That's a terrible analogy. The equivalent of a chess strategy would be general DROD techniques. You don't actually believe that anyone has anything against players learning techniques from some demos, and applying them in other rooms, do you?
The chess equivalent of the current DROD system would be that architects design chess puzzles, and players solve them. It would make no sense if players could submit solutions after seeing the solutions of others, now would it?.
Also, please don't try to make people look ridiculous by implying that they're making absurd suggestions such as patenting solutions.
BTW, someone can complain about his copyright on demos, and drod client not having clarification about applying license to uploading demos. Fortunately, there aren't such peoples yet.
Syntax wrote:
I enjoyed seeing jemann for example get a #1 in a trapdoor room in the 101 hold. It's almost depressing how few #1s aren't eitber michthro's, Rabscuttle,s or mine. I enjoy seeing newer players pull off some excellent moves and get a chance to get their own #1s.
So michthro claims to not snipe #1s, while Rabscuttle and Syntax do snipe #1s. Unless you *only* snipe #1s from Rabs or michthro, then aren't you causing your own depression? And if you are only sniping from those two, then I guess I'm not sure what your point is.
____________________________
The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way it treats its animals.
--Mahatma Gandhi
Syntax wrote:
I enjoyed seeing jemann for example get a #1 in a trapdoor room in the 101 hold. It's almost depressing how few #1s aren't eitber michthro's, Rabscuttle,s or mine. I enjoy seeing newer players pull off some excellent moves and get a chance to get their own #1s.
So michthro claims to not snipe #1s, while Rabscuttle and Syntax do snipe #1s. Unless you *only* snipe #1s from Rabs or michthro, then aren't you causing your own depression? And if you are only sniping from those two, then I guess I'm not sure what your point is.
My point was more along the lines of... With sniping, there's very little variety in those who get #1s. Without sniping, I feel this gap would widen. Sniping adds a bit of luck factor to the whole thing I guess.
Syntax wrote:
My point was more along the lines of... With sniping, there's very little variety in those who get #1s. Without sniping, I feel this gap would widen. Sniping adds a bit of luck factor to the whole thing I guess.
Last night I actually thought of something that would increase the variety, allow for sniping and in some cases even encourage sniping, but make it an inherently risky strategy.
My thought is this. If you download a demo from any given room, you can no longer submit a new demo unless it has fewer rooms than the shortest demo you downloaded. So if you took 125 moves to do a room, then downloaded a 60 move demo, unless you can make a 59 move demo, you can't improve your rank.
The gamble a sniper would take is that they will in fact be able to improve on the room they just watched the demo for. And in the case of downloading a #1 score, you could be potentially frozen forever out of improving your rank, if the room was already fully optimized. However, if you take the risk and win, it can't really be held against you the way it is now. Its just a more risky, gambling sort of strategem, which I think would move sniping firmly into the realm of real competition, AND encourage better optimization, from both sniping and non-sniping players.
Essentially, downloading a demo would be the equivalent of wagering that you can beat it.
The only issue I see would be that the penalty might be too harsh for someone downloading a demo just out of curiousity.
____________________________
"Now I will repeatedly apply the happy-face rule"
Beef Row wrote:
The only issue I see would be that the penalty might be too harsh for someone downloading a demo just out of curiousity.
But if they are downloading a demo out of curiousity, they aren't going to try and tie it, they just want to watch it.
Right, but say someone is curious about how the #1 looks, but they're a pretty new player and still just trying to work their way up from #25 to #10 or so, and now they can't improve their rank short of beating the #1.
____________________________
"Now I will repeatedly apply the happy-face rule"
/dy
.
