Jump to content


Photo

Public discussion: Video content rules


  • Please log in to reply
210 replies to this topic

#41 rgillis783

rgillis783

    Lieutenant

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 747 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Sergeant

Posted 29 December 2018 - 11:33 PM

 I just noticed for those interested that Antsi has a new series road to Platinum out. The video shows Antsi asking permission to post video. The opponent it seems is Spanish and only knows their native tongue. This did not dis-wad Antsi from posting. I guess the opponent falls into that 5% that Oracle mentioned. I am sure that 5% was a guess-tament  .



#42 KissMyCookie

KissMyCookie

    Major

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,107 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Spy

Posted 29 December 2018 - 11:59 PM

Oh Gary...oh Daniel...you guys so funny. Hahahahaha! So so funny...I'm gonna laugh myself into a heart-attack 'cause you so funny!  :lol:  :lol:  :lol:  :lol:



#43 KissMyCookie

KissMyCookie

    Major

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,107 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Spy

Posted 30 December 2018 - 12:06 AM

 I just noticed for those interested that Antsi has a new series road to Platinum out. The video shows Antsi asking permission to post video. The opponent it seems is Spanish and only knows their native tongue. This did not dis-wad Antsi from posting. I guess the opponent falls into that 5% that Oracle mentioned. I am sure that 5% was a guess-tament  .

 

Antsi is the one asking...if the opponent doesn't speak (or want to speak) English...GOOGLE TRANSLATE is very useful.

 

"Por favor ... me gustaría hacer un video de nuestro juego. ¿Me das tu permiso?"

 

It ain't so difficult...and one should not be dissuaded by foreign language...the sentiments are still the same. :)


  • rgillis783 likes this

#44 Don_Homer

Don_Homer

    Captain

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 860 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Marshal

Posted 30 December 2018 - 12:18 AM

Another problem can be that players are not able to chat. I had that problem in the past. It costed me minutes just to type one word. After I changed browser the problem didnt occured in this intensity but I can imagine some players have this problem. 

 

I think that the expansion of the stratego community is less important than protecting people's privacy and property inside it. What's more, enabling players to post every game they play won't attract that much extra players. You can watch hundreds of stratego games now if you want and that number is still growing. There are more than 20 stratego channels available. Stratego is being promoted on YouTube, you don't have to change the rules for it.

This is what I was thinking. Great reaction.

 

Why is it so important to have video's online of players where it is not sure if they would like it? There are enough players who do like it and give permission.


  • GaryLShelton likes this

Molto Bene, Thats a nica Donut !


#45 TemplateRex

TemplateRex

    Lieutenant

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 663 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Sergeant

Posted 30 December 2018 - 12:49 AM

 

Another problem can be that players are not able to chat. I had that problem in the past. It costed me minutes just to type one word. After I changed browser the problem didnt occured in this intensity but I can imagine some players have this problem. 

 

This is what I was thinking. Great reaction.

 

Why is it so important to have video's online of players where it is not sure if they would like it? There are enough players who do like it and give permission.

 

 

It's not about whether someone likes it or not. I understand people don't like it. It's about ownership. Where do you draw the line? Can I post a 30 second fragment of a game without permission? Post a diagram with analysis? Can I discuss the full video in private with another player/coach? In private with a small club of players?


I hereby grant explicit permission to all my opponents to record and publish my games as they see fit.


#46 Nortrom

Nortrom

    General

  • WC Online Team
  • 2,544 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Marshal

Posted 30 December 2018 - 02:10 AM

 ... in that particular case Yellowhat needed authorization of both players and knowing Playa1 is not one who likes his games beeing published

 

There are several games of Playa1 playing on YT, even from his point of view. #Fakenews.

 

Also in general it is a pity that " What we would like to have here, is players stating their opinion about the matter. We kindly request players make one post explaining their own view on this topic, hopefully that'll give us some other insights that we hadn't thought of before. We heavily prefer reading several thoughts over players trying to convince each other, so please keep it to that " isn't being honoured well.


  • texaspete09 likes this
"Rock is overpowered, paper is fine" - scissors

See this thread for live gaming updates

#47 Napoleon 2ème

Napoleon 2ème

    Sergeant

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 472 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Marshal

Posted 30 December 2018 - 09:13 AM

I would like to keep going on a point I said, maybe not really good :

 

Even without recording, player A can take notes from setups of player B, and check his style.. then player A could explain to player C all those things and share "secretly" a recorded game... is that better? 

 

I guess it's just more "normal" to share it on youtube, at least there is no surprise for player B who knows what has been shared and what hasn't been.

 

I also think that share videos on youtube is a source of motivation for some players, maybe for some very well expereinced : for example, someone, watching my videos may not like my style at all because, I don't know, I put the flag in first row, but other will maybe love it, copy my setup in a first time and personalize it in a second time...

 

If the problem concerns the fact to make new setups, there are million and million of possible combinations... so it's pretty easy to make new one...

 

Séba


Edited by Napoleon 2ème, 30 December 2018 - 09:55 AM.

  • TemplateRex likes this

I  never lose, I win or I learn…


#48 KissMyCookie

KissMyCookie

    Major

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,107 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Spy

Posted 30 December 2018 - 10:37 AM

On topic opinion to the question

 

TheOptician has stated perfectly well the very thing i would have liked to write about this matter:

 

http://forum.strateg...e-2#entry468708

 

My preference is also for the second choice, however, I disagree (not entirely) that a lack of reply is tacit approval. I must admit to teeter-tottering on this detail. It feels as though by not answering your front door, and having left your home with the front door unlocked, can be viewed as an invitation to enter...even if you do not touch or take anything from inside. On the other hand, by making the request in Battlechat seems fair enough as it is the only way to determine if there is support or objection. Many of the videos I viewed as uploaded by Antsi demonstrates that many non-Forum members have no problem having a match recorded and uploaded to YouTube. (Does this mean that those players who are non-Forum members, who do not reply, may fall into the category of, "What they don't know won't hurt them"?). I don't know...

 

Once again, I am for option number two.



#49 Napoleon 2ème

Napoleon 2ème

    Sergeant

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 472 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Marshal

Posted 30 December 2018 - 10:44 AM

It seems more or less 10% option 1, 45% numer 2 and 45% number 3


I  never lose, I win or I learn…


#50 Napoleon 1er

Napoleon 1er

    General

  • Honorary members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,781 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum General

Posted 30 December 2018 - 10:56 AM

There are several games of Playa1 playing on YT, even from his point of view. #Fakenews.

 

Also in general it is a pity that " What we would like to have here, is players stating their opinion about the matter. We kindly request players make one post explaining their own view on this topic, hopefully that'll give us some other insights that we hadn't thought of before. We heavily prefer reading several thoughts over players trying to convince each other, so please keep it to that " isn't being honoured well.

Title is explicit 

Public discussion: Video content rules

 

so it means the initiators want a "public discussion" in order to define more appropriate rules. So the debate on that topic is welcome, right?


  • GaryLShelton likes this
If you don't know where you go ... you have a lot of chance to arrive elsewhere ...

#51 KissMyCookie

KissMyCookie

    Major

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,107 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Spy

Posted 30 December 2018 - 12:33 PM

 

Dear players,

What we would like to have here, is players stating their opinion about the matter. We kindly request players make one post explaining their own view on this topic, hopefully that'll give us some other insights that we hadn't thought of before. We heavily prefer reading several thoughts over players trying to convince each other, so please keep it to that.

 

Daniel, I believe that the MT was very clear about this thread being a place for members to post their opinion on the three options offered. The reason as I understand it is that they want to do research through polling–not have a discussion or debate.

 

I think it would be very helpful if you, or someone interested, started a fresh thread for discussion and debate on this topic specifically.

 

Again, Nortrom spelled it out, "We heavily prefer reading several thoughts over players trying to convince each other..."

 

So, to answer your question: No, there should be no discussion or debate within this thread...please start a new one for such content.



#52 TemplateRex

TemplateRex

    Lieutenant

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 663 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Sergeant

Posted 30 December 2018 - 12:41 PM

To summarize the arguments so far, I think there are several issues that are not yet clearly spelled out. I think we need to distinguish the following

 

1) What are the current rules? Permission required for public video posting seems to be the case. But what about other, more incomplete, forms of sharing?

  • smaller audiences (friends, trainers, private clubs) and
  • less content (small video fragments, analysis, diagrams),
  • less permanent (streaming without permission but deleted afterwards and no permanent record on YouTube) and
  • with less personal info (e.g. username/battlechat/victory screen blocked out with video editing software).

Regardless of changing the full video sharing rules, I'd like to get a clear MT opinion on the above points.

 

2) Who needs protection? It seems to me that only top players (say platinum and higher) have something at stake. With bronze/silver/gold the number of players in these ranges seems so great that you hardly ever meet someone twice and the gain from scouring videos is very small. 

 

3) Ownership of games and legal framework. I would like to know what legal basis there is for a player to force me not to publicly share information on a game. And what do ISF rules say about this? I doubt that a blanket gag order on game content for either live or online games is legal. Certainly a ban for online tournaments or a ban for this site based on posting videos would constitute a tort. If e.g. Sniper would take the WCO committee to court, I'd expect him to win.


  • NTactical-Reboot likes this

I hereby grant explicit permission to all my opponents to record and publish my games as they see fit.


#53 TemplateRex

TemplateRex

    Lieutenant

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 663 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Sergeant

Posted 30 December 2018 - 12:44 PM

Daniel, I believe that the MT was very clear about this thread being a place for members to post their opinion on the three options offered. The reason as I understand it is that they want to do research through polling–not have a discussion or debate.

 

I think it would be very helpful if you, or someone interested, started a fresh thread for discussion and debate on this topic specifically.

 

Again, Nortrom spelled it out, "We heavily prefer reading several thoughts over players trying to convince each other..."

 

So, to answer your question: No, there should be no discussion or debate within this thread...please start a new one for such content.

 

Other people's post raised arguments that I didn't think about before and I think it's perfectly reasonable to ask more clarifying questions or offer new arguments. If MT wants to have as much info as possible, the format should not be taken too rigidly.


Edited by TemplateRex, 30 December 2018 - 12:45 PM.

I hereby grant explicit permission to all my opponents to record and publish my games as they see fit.


#54 KissMyCookie

KissMyCookie

    Major

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,107 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Spy

Posted 30 December 2018 - 01:49 PM

The questions raised, and the concerns of the Forum community may be argued here so as to follow MT's instructions and request regarding proposed video content rules.


  • Nortrom likes this

#55 KissMyCookie

KissMyCookie

    Major

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,107 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Spy

Posted 30 December 2018 - 01:50 PM

If the MT would like, please move all debate and argument posts here:

 

http://forum.strateg...rules/?p=468796

 

Or...MT may remove my suggested thread. It will simply remove the clutter from what was published by Nortrom.

 

Thanks! :)



#56 TheOptician

TheOptician

    Marshal

  • Tournament Manager
  • 3,349 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Marshal

Posted 30 December 2018 - 02:17 PM

There are a couple of assertions/assumptions floating around that I would question.

1. The producer of the video should be able to do what they want with their recorded game.

This is not a one-way street. As some have already said, filming your computer screen does not give you any rights to publish. You do not have the right to come into my house and film without my consent. I would be within my rights to confiscate your camera at the door. A virtual battlefield raises more complex issues concerning ownership, but there are two players (not just one) who have equal claim.

If one player does not want a particular set-up revealed to an unquantified and unknown audience, then they should have the option to opt-out of a published recording. Otherwise they are only getting one ‘use’ where they could have expected many uses.

As there is no ‘opt-out’ option available, then the next best thing is to be given notification of recording. This gives the opponent a chance to use a set-up that they do not mind being published.


———-

I would choose:

Permission to record must be asked for in the video (and no reply is considered as no objection)

 

I would ask how can you arrive at the position that it's okay for a video to be published without permission after saying that permission should be required? The path you start on does not seem to allow for such a sharp turn in the road. How do you arrive at the destination you do? I feel almost wrecked in a ditch over this conclusion.

 

How do you balance "You do not have the right to come into my house and film without my permission." with a conclusion that says permission must only be requested but not necessarily responded to?

Can a non-response equate with the granting of permission? How many people don't chat, they don't even say 'gl'? And though we're just talking basic English, how many don't speak English as a first language and would find the matter too complicated for them, linguistically?

How many will be confused by the question? Should we just say "too bad, so sad, you had your chance to respond and say no" to these people? What kind of chance is that?

We do require all players to speak a modicum of English to arrange games in a tournament, that is true, but surely that cannot transfer to the opposing players here in this other issue. Their main burden shouldn't be to speak English in BattleChat but to play games civilly.

So I say again, permission not granted is not permission.

 

I feel that both parties of a game (ignoring the Third party for now - Jumbo) should have equal say, as opposed to the recorder of the game being able to do as they please. The conclusion I arrived at was not that permission should be required, but that objections should be listened to. This seems (to me at least) a fair compromise. 


  • KissMyCookie likes this

#57 Napoleon 1er

Napoleon 1er

    General

  • Honorary members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,781 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum General

Posted 30 December 2018 - 03:15 PM

Soccer has mega contracts. If you pay me, say, € 1000 per game, you can publish all you want.

... when stratego will be as popular as soccer you and me will be millionaires ... but we have to start humble and accept to post video for free :)


If you don't know where you go ... you have a lot of chance to arrive elsewhere ...

#58 Nortrom

Nortrom

    General

  • WC Online Team
  • 2,544 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Marshal

Posted 30 December 2018 - 03:17 PM

... when stratego will be as popular as soccer you and me will be millionaires ... but we have to start humble and accept to post video for free :)

Fixed that for you.  :P


  • GaryLShelton likes this
"Rock is overpowered, paper is fine" - scissors

See this thread for live gaming updates

#59 Fairway

Fairway

    Marshal

  • Moderators
  • 3,022 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Captain

Posted 30 December 2018 - 03:17 PM

.GOOGLE TRANSLATE is very useful.

 

It ain't so difficult...and one should not be dissuaded by foreign language...the sentiments are still the same. :)

I don't know how to type Greek on my keyboard...lol


WINNER of the first ever Astros Stratego Series! :D

#60 GaryLShelton

GaryLShelton

    Flagbearer

  • Moderators
  • 6,049 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Major

Posted 30 December 2018 - 03:21 PM

Thanks for that well-focused response, TheO. To want to hear objections is fair compromise, I'll agree. I would just restate my position that the BattleChat window during the game cannot adequately guarantee that those objections are heard. That's the reason we must step up the permission requirement to express permission required.

Reason one is that it's the solution that's least muddied by linguistic problems inherent in the BattleChat between parties from all over the world. Reason two is that it's the ONLY solution that shows the BattleChat was not unused, ignored, or muted. (In the new app the conversation box can be muted.)

i77rs4m.jpg

The complete GS&F Rules can be found here: http://forum.strateg...rum-rules-2016/

Draw Refusal Rules, specifically, can be read here: http://forum.strateg...604#entry339604





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users