Theory11 Exposed... Again!

[Mark]

I would like to add that Theory11 is definitely hiding the credits. Reviews that include the fact that Ernest Earick has anything to do with 'HighRise', whether it is in an extremely positive context or not, won't be approved or will have that part edited out (which is one of the troubling things of how Theory11 approves those comments and uses them merely as overly positive testimonials). On Facebook such comments have been deleted from their wall too.

A DVD or book isn't all that different. If you promote such with one or two video performances of whatever trick or routine is on or in it, you need to put credits to the video. If you only use snippets from multiple tricks, then no one knows what the effects and routines actually look like and giving credits to the video would not make a lot of sense.

That said, you can actually hide public credits in a proper way (deleting them is a different story though, and that is what T11 has been doing). For instance, I allow anyone to credit the creators to the videos only instead of directly on the product page. In case you sell a book and there are no public performances to be seen, there is no need to credit publicly. But if someone makes a video on one of the things from the book, he still needs to give proper credits as taken from the book, assuming that the book includes proper credits.

But it's why tons of people nowadays think that Wayne Houchin invented the 'Invisible Palm' and why Tabias Pashia's 'P.S Pass' is often called the 'Pullback Pass' while in both cases absolutely nothing was done to the originals. Sure, Houchin gave credits on his release, but the majority of people who watch trailers doesn't purchase the releases and for many of them Wayne is the creator.

As for classics, it's difficult if not impossible to give proper credits, but these basics and their names are (if not should be) well-known. It'd be a whole different story if Jason England would have called his 'Classic Pass' release 'The Super Shift' without saying it's a 'Classic Pass', which is similar to what Laurence Miller has been doing and absolutely no sane person agreed with that.

Also, I guess that you could actually compare it to movies as well. When you make a movie based on a book, a short story, a true story or another movie, whether it is an original film version, your own take on the story or a remake, you will have to credit the original source publicly as well, especially if the title of the movie is different than that of the original source, else it could be seen as credits on its own.

[TommySteal]

In light of what I've just read, here's my 2p.
Okay, I believe that changing the name of something just because it's a slight variation of the original is out of order.
And as for an effective video advertisement for I product, I'd have to say that only the bear essentials should be included, because unfortunately in this day and age, you'd risk potential customers losing interest if what they want to know isn't fed to them in at least 3 seconds. Therefore intricate details should be left til the end.

[la0o9]

Originally Posted by Fin

If you buy a dvd the credits are at the end, included on the dvd, but you usually still have to buy it to watch them all. Same with a book; all the credits are in there. Should they also be included on every poster or advertisement?

the thing is Fin, sure, you don't need credits in the adverts, but Mark was talking about the product page, where you are given details to actually know what you're buying, which is necessary for credits to be given.

[Fin]

Albert, I was certainly not comparing magic products to Hollywood movies and if I ever do you may slap me. I was talking about the use of trailers in advertising, I was talking about why trailers are used and what is expected of them. Sorry, I must have missed the part where Mark was mentioned the product page; I was only talking about trailers in my little rant

You say Rick knew that this is the "Bow-to-Stern Control" by Ernest Erich and I think you are jumping the gun a little. Did you somehow read his mind? Aren't there other ways he could have come across this idea? Maybe this is why my opinion differs from yours - you see, I have bought "High Rise", and I have a wonderful friend who sent me the part of "By Forces Unseen" which describes the "Bow-to-Stern", and although the concept is the same (as Rick explains in the tutorial) the handling is very, very different. I prefer Rick's handling by a long way, as it brings the move up to date. The "Bow-to-stern" uses some very different finger positions, a totally different way of "setting up" the card, and it is broken into sections, whereas Rick's handling flows as one. As he said himself on a forum somewhere I just found by googling "Rick Lax High Rise review"..

"That's one reason I like it. The move is similar to the Ernest Earick move, but that move seems to have like 3 phases; this move reads as all one."

(http://www.learnmagictricks.org/foru...ad.php?t=31793)

Has anyone who's saying they are the same move actually read the original move (in By Forces Unseen) or seen Rick's tutorial, or better, BOTH? Because honestly the differences are clear, obvious and Rick's take on the idea is a definite improvement, in my humble and uneducated opinion. So despite any disagreements about the ethics of how trailers should be produced, we need to be clear on this.. IT IS NOT THE SAME HANDLING AT ALL. Just as with the wonderful Repulse Control, where you, Albert, have changed things and added things which have turned the DPS into something a hell of a lot better, Rick has made his own improvements to the "Bow-to-stern" which, in my humble opinion, do indeed make it a much superior, much more accessible move, and similarly to the Repulse involves such different finger positions and handling details that I think it deserves its own label. Is it possible Albert, that just as you came up with the Repulse "after failing to figure out the 'Diagonal Palm Shift' from other people's performances", Rick Lax also saw someone else performing the "bow-to-stern" or something very similar, maybe a fellow magician shared their take on it (as he explains in the tutorial), then Rick worked out his own handling? Is that not possible? Is that not comparable with your journey with the DPS and the Repulse? So the question then becomes; is the handling/finger positioning different enough to warrant it being called it's own name? And if the Repulse aint the DPS, which we all know it isn't, then I'm sorry, but High Rise is not the Bow-to-stern, there are too many differences which make it better.

And it's worth noting that in the "trailer" for the Repulse it said nothing about the credits, nothing about the DPS. Just a performance and a link to purchase the move. The credits and talk of the DPS being the foundation for the move came later, DURING the tutorial or in discussions on this forum, which is fine, right?

I think people should actually look carefully (a) at both moves in detail (b) at the "brief history" section in the tutorial before making sweeping statements about this new take on a classic move.

Just my two cents, and I acknowledge the fact that I'm a relative noob to magic so please be gentle.. This is only my opinion

[Albert]

The reason i know is because Rick
msged me on youtube and we
talked for a bit.
I'm drunk so sorry for my short response.

[Fin]

Ok so you're saying that Rick knew OF the bow-to-stern control? Or are you saying he actually told you that this release, High Rise, IS the bow-to-stern control, and that the two are one in the same? Sorry you've lost me.

But really, that makes no difference to my argument. The two moves are sufficiently different enough to warrant a new name, in my opinion, and I stand by it, having tried out BOTH moves. I would quote the details of the Bow-to-stern explanation alongside the details of High Rise explanation to help prove my point, but that would be exposure. Suffice to say, that anyone who seriously thinks the two controls are the same after actually researching them BOTH needs to get an eye test. Several MAJOR differences in finger positions, what I'd call "justifying movements" and general overall handling set the two moves wide apart. The Bow to stern is fiddly, unrefined, and far from smooth; whereas High Rise is clearly a move forward. The handling of High Rise makes more sense and is easier to perform well than the Bow to Stern. Let's compare the Hurricane vs the Erdnase change. Both achieve the same, both look quite similar in mechanics, but in fact they are two different animals. Being able to do one flawlessly would certainly NOT mean you would be able to do the other just as well but with no practise... And that's because there are subtleties in handling that make the two quite different despite their heredity. This is a fact.

[Mark]

Fin, I think you are missing something. The 'DPS' is one of the classic techniques and principles like a 'DL', 'Pass', and many more, that the actual creator is certainly unknown of. For all we know Erdnase is not its creator (half of the moves he published were his, or his own take on these principles, the other half aren't and the 'DPS' belongs to the latter one). And you would never have to publicly credit a technique for the reason that would give too much away about the mechanics.

In case of 'HighRise' and the 'Bow-to-Stern', Rick knew the move and principle was out there already and that it was by Ernest Earick so he should have credited Earick (not the 'Bow-to-Stern' though). There is nothing wrong with renaming it (I see some people here said so but I don't agree with that at all since this is a variation and not the same thing). It's why I had no problem with Bizau calling it the 'Blind Square' either. That said, they both would have to credit Ernest Earick, and Rick would have to credit Bizau for the reason he came up with and published this exact variation much earlier.

That is just how the magic community rolls. Back when I made 'Smooth-It' and Bill Perkins published it as the 'In Your Face' change with Vinny Marini while I was first (whether he knew about it or not, although he probably did) the very least they could have done was putting that "A similar change was also independently created by Mark Hilkemeijer" in the performance description or on the product page, which they did.

Hereby the ethics on it as copied from the Ethics of Magic thread. I think it was and still is clearly explained and it could easily be adjusted to this situation:

Give credit where credit is due
Credits need to be given in products and to video performances. It also means that you cannot blatantly rename effects and routines. In case the original name involves a specific prop and you use another prop in your performance, you are allowed to change this part of the name so that it would suit your performance. In case the original differs from your take, you can rename it as well, but you will still have to give credits to the original creator.

Credits usually include those who came up with the techniques you use. Classic techniques without any known creators could obviously be skipped. In case it is a fully independent creation, you are allowed to say that, although doing some research is much more appreciated. If research has been done and it still appears to be an original creation, there is nothing wrong by giving credits to just yourself. However, if an earlier publication has been overlooked, a correction has to be made.

[Albert]

Yes, Rick knew of the Bow-to-Stern Control, and although he didn't explicitly say it to me, I am quite sure he knew of it before he came up with the variations for it. However, that's not important. What is important is the significance of crediting someone where it is due on the product page. Is that really that difficult? The fact that they knew of the Bow-to-Stern control and Cris's Blind Square before the release upsets me, especially because no "f**ks were given that day" (as my friend would put it ) regarding credits. If it is different, clearly stating that should be more than enough, while crediting someone. Rick agreed that the core principles of the move were the same and I have the message to prove it. That's more than enough to at least publicly show where the core principle came from.

Theory11 does this so that they could get more sales. If some people knew that it was just a simple variation to an old move already published, the sales won't be as high. It's a marketing tactic, which I don't agree with. Magic shouldn't be about money. It's about maintaining the secrets of the art-form, while keeping its history pure and untainted.

[BCardician]

Sooo....Heya to all of you guys ! I'm Bizau, for those who don't know. I thought about stopping by and expressing my opinion regarding the entire matter.

First of all let's talk about "HighRise". I have talked with Rick about this weeks ago and I trust him when he tells me he came up with the move himself. There are quite some differences between my move and his move. I won't be telling in detail because that would be exposing the method but, I can say this: the finger positioning is different, in my move the card can still be seen in the middle after the card has been shown and also the illusion. He is correct when saying that this is an improvement on an existing principle (which I can't tell because I will be exposing the method). JB told be that weeks before even thinking about releasing the effect Rick consulted a number of magicians regarding the move(people like Jason England, Daniel Garcia, Apollo Robbins and also other great magicians which I can't remember because of my bad memory). I have watched the video and Rick gives about 2-3 minutes of Crediting and talks about the principle being old as hell(which is true), he does credit Ernest Earick and tells where the "Bow to Stern" Control can be found ("By Forces Unseen"). So basicly the guy did his job, you can't blame him for anything. You know, many times it happens that two minds think of the same idea, two minds from different parts of the world. You can't blame one for not knowing of the other.

Secondly, I would like to express my opinion regarding the all T11 matter. I have not read all of the posts entirely but I have skimmed them all. I think Mark was saying something about Steve helping out people from now and then when problems occurred. I have seen JB and Jason many times posting on the forums and helping out people. Also, their speed of responding to an email is amazing in comparative with other companies whom I won't mention. Yes, they do make mistakes. They're humans. The difference here is that they try and fix the mistakes they make. Sometimes it takes a little longer than other times I can't deny that.

Now I want to say some things from an T11 artist's point of view. I am very satisfied with how T11 treats their artists. There were some problems with me getting the check for the first month, so me and JB exchanged about 10 emails until we fixed the problem. He tried a lot of things to get the money to me and eventually we found the best method. When producing "Balean Twist" I was asked how much would I like the effect do go for, how to do the teaching, what to remove and what to add from the video and so on. Also, until now, they have sent the royalties no further than the 10th of the month( just as they promise ). I respect them for doing so. It shows that they are serious.

Regarding what Albert said(hey man ! we have to ketchup on things dude! ) about HighRise being a SLIGHT variation of the Bow to Stern move, i have to disagree. I personally hate the Bow to Stern control. It's unnatural( no one shows the card like that), it's angly and to top it off it's difficult as well. Once you've improved the handling,the angles and also made it more natural, don't you agree that it can't really be called a SLIGHT improvement? I'm just saying...

[Albert]

Thanks for the input Cris

Regardless of the matter, what I wanted to highlight was the lack of crediting on the products page. It's all fine and dandy that they provide credits in the actual video itself. I still believe that at least Ernest Earick should have been mentioned in the products page, not just saying that it's a modern take on an underground move. It's misleading. Not to us who has been into magic for longer, but for the new age magicians coming to be. Is that so bad? It's practically saying that one has to purchase the product to learn about the influences.

Yes, me calling it a slight variation may have been a little off board, and so I admit my fault there. I just don't like how Theory11 isn't so transparent with people that it's frustrating. Maybe it's just me and my style of thinking obtained from studying to be an auditor (someone who analyzes companies for mistakes or fraud in their $$$ figures). But in all honesty, is what I'm asking too much to ask of a company? It's not something that will kill their business, and in fact, more people just may be respectful of Theory11 if that happened. Just my two cents.

[Mark]

Hey Cris, welcome back.

It seems like you forgot what your 'Blind Square' originally looked like and what we have been playing around with. We definitely came across the 'HighRise' way and 'Blind Square' originally didn't have any part you described with "the card can still be seen in the middle after the card has been shown" (which I personally hate because it turns a great magic sleight into a seemingly cardist sleight with an unnecessary convincer, as I have told you before, but well, I suppose that's just because you're a cardist and I'm a magician).

I'm sure that internally, behind the scenes, Theory11 indeed does whatever it takes to solve anything to keep their staff and artists satisfied and I would never doubt that. But if you see how long it takes them to correct obvious mistakes like on 'GPS', saying it was impromptu and giving their whole own meaning to a very important term like that (even using it differently in different cases), I guess that input from anyone externally isn't taken serious by them at all. It was only when a member from their own board read our discussion on it and posted it in their forums (even though their staff had already read it and had contact with us about it)... that they figured they may as well have been wrong, and even then it was rejected to begin with.

Other than that, Albert said it all as for the crediting, also because Theory11 and their community go hard on people leaving out public credits on the Wire. They really can't make it to leave out such credits themselves.

As for the 'Balean Twist', seeing what you posted, is the final product the way you personally thought it was finished, done, all clear for whoever would see it, or was this up to T11? Just wondering.

[BCardician]

Thanks for the welcome ^^ ! Albert, I didn't know you were studying to become an auditor! Great for you man and I wish you good luck !

Maybe you are right that they should have mentioned him but,in my opinion, the reason they may have said that it's an "underground move" may be because Ernest Earick wasn't the only one who was using this principle. He is just the one who popularized it, that's all.

Also,regarding the way I do Blind Square. Yes, you are right that I was in that early state as well and you gave me the idea of improving it and I thank you for that. Won't omit on crediting you if I release that sleight.

Mainly I am happy with how the effect came out. The only thing is that people who are taking up the sleight and trying to learn it quit early because they either don't have the patience to practice it or are doing the spread wrong. Either way I did help anyone who reached me and asked me to help them(via Skype, forums and emails).

Putting this aside, I watched your latest video Mark. The "Globe" thingy. I like the coin vanish. Good work! Ohhh...and I almost forget. Dope vanish Albert! Did a splendid job I may say !

B.

[Mark]

Hey now, you skipped my last question.

But thanks!
And I'll claim the compliment you gave Albert too if you don't mind. Hehe, nah, Albert definitely did a splendid job on it himself.

[Fin]

Originally Posted by BCardician

There are quite some differences between my move and his move...... He is correct when saying that this is an improvement on an existing principle...... Rick gives about 2-3 minutes of Crediting and talks about the principle being old as hell(which is true), he does credit Ernest Earick and tells where the "Bow to Stern" Control can be found ("By Forces Unseen"). So basicly the guy did his job

Good to hear from someone who really knows their stuff concerning this move and agrees with me. No Mark, I wasn't missing a thing, and that's the point I know the DPS is very different to the Bow-to-stern for various and important reasons. My point was clear enough but I'll make it again: Rick and Albert have added enough of their own adjustments to the originals to warrant a new name; the moves were both very nicely updated. Again, I was never talking about the product page, only the tutorial itself, in which everything is done VERY well. I saw the product page, bought the tutorial, and by the end of it I knew where to do more research thanks to the extensive crediting. I was a happy customer and think this constant T11-bash-athon is getting boring.. But I'm not trying to stop anyone; I'll just avoid threads like this in future where possible.

A final point or two before I exit the world of ethics and expose's to get on with the much more fun hobby of learning and creating magic:

In all seriousness, the fact that some of the people who only watch the trailer and look at the product page but don't buy the tutorial are not going to get a thorough history lesson and crediting on this move is just not a big deal and I don't believe its a reason to be making Theory 11 out to be dishonest! Anyone who really want's to know about it's crediting/history will either buy the move or read up on it. If someone watches a trailer and then bases their whole knowledge of that move on that trailer alone, then more fool them! They will of course have a limited education

If you go all out to "expose" some product or piece of advertising you better get your facts straight first. In this case several things had been said about Rick's move that were simply not true. I should not have had to wait for BCardician to come in and back me up regarding the glaringly obvious differences between the moves, but thank god he did. I fear had he not chimed in we would have a generation of Mark and Albert fans who were indeed completely misinformed about the details of the move and Mr. Lax himself!! How ironic since their goal is to make everything as clear as possible In the process of doing this they have smeared Mr. Lax's character and misnamed the move as being the BTS when it clearly is not. I know you wanted to highlight the problems you see with the product page Albert, but you did also say

Originally Posted by Albert

Rick Lax knew very well that this is called the Bow-to-Stern Control. Knowing that, it has been renamed HighRise and from now on, it will be known as HighRise by 99% of the people.......they will say "Oh, It's Rick's new move."
........
Fin, imagine someone took a song of yours you composed, switched a few notes around......That's the situation here.

You know as well as anyone that a few differences in finger positioning are no small thing in card magic. Saying two moves with different names are the same when they clearly are not is hardly just a slight error in judgement. If we are going to be exposing others we really should get everything straight FIRST should we not? And with all due respect to yourself Albert, you didn't here. Yes, you and Mark do have the respect of many people, so getting things accurate is a must if you are going to be having a dig at other people/companies in such a public way as this.

For the benefit of anyone who has been confused by some of the things said by Mark and Albert in this thread about "High Rise", I think we can now be clear that:

- The major differences between High Rise and Earicks move are blindingly obvious, not slight at all. The overall effect is the same; the handling is quite different!
- The move is not a copy of "Blind Square" either!
- Rick is completely justified in releasing this under a new name
- He did not just steal the move and rename it AT ALL
- He thoroughly credited Ernest Earick and others during the tutorial
- In several respected magicians opinions there are problems with the lack of crediting on the product page that should be resolved

[Albert]

Originally Posted by Fin

For the benefit of anyone who has been confused by some of the things said by Mark and Albert in this thread about "High Rise", I think we can now be clear that:

- The major differences between High Rise and Earicks move are blindingly obvious, not slight at all. The overall effect is the same; the handling is quite different!
- The move is not a copy of "Blind Square" either!
- Rick is completely justified in releasing this under a new name
- He did not just steal the move and rename it AT ALL
- He thoroughly credited Ernest Earick and others during the tutorial
- In several respected magicians opinions there are problems with the lack of crediting on the product page that should be resolved

Thank you for making that clear Fin

Yes, as I've told Cris in my previous post, my biggest (and possibly only) concern regarding this matter was the fact that there was a lack of crediting on the products page. I agree with what you have said above, but I still believe that open and publicized crediting is very important regardless what others may think. I don't believe I said that Theory11 was being dishonest because of that (maybe I did, I don't remember ). I do know for a fact that I said and meant that they were misleading, which could give false information to people, especially new magicians.

That's that for my part of this discussion about crediting.

Originally Posted by Fin

I fear had he not chimed in we would have a generation of Mark and Albert fans who were indeed completely misinformed about the details of the move and Mr. Lax himself!!

Yup, my statement about "slight variation" is my mistake . But, other than that, the only thing I believe I said directly about the move was that the core principles were the same

[TommySteal]

Originally Posted by Fin

I was a happy customer and think this constant T11-bash-athon is getting boring.. But I'm not trying to stop anyone; I'll just avoid threads like this in future where possible.

A final point or two before I exit the world of ethics and expose's to get on with the much more fun hobby of learning and creating magic:

For the benefit of anyone who has been confused by some of the things said by Mark and Albert in this thread about "High Rise", I think we can now be clear that:

- The major differences between High Rise and Earicks move are blindingly obvious, not slight at all. The overall effect is the same; the handling is quite different!
- The move is not a copy of "Blind Square" either!
- Rick is completely justified in releasing this under a new name
- He did not just steal the move and rename it AT ALL
- He thoroughly credited Ernest Earick and others during the tutorial
- In several respected magicians opinions there are problems with the lack of crediting on the product page that should be resolved

Hoorah, finally someone talking sense.
Seems I was misinformed by certain members on this board, because up until now after reading all the posts in this thread I was under the impression that "High Rise" was only a very slight variation of a much older concept - hence my original post on this matter. Now, after hearing the truth from someone who has actually purchased the effect, maybe certain people will see sense and ditch this thread in the trash, because so far all that it has achieved in my eyes is the passing on of misinformation and confusion.

Thanks Fin for clearing this up for me.

[Mark]

I'm not satisfied yet, so my apologies for this post in advance.

Originally Posted by Fin

In all seriousness, the fact that some of the people who only watch the trailer and look at the product page but don't buy the tutorial are not going to get a thorough history lesson and crediting on this move is just not a big deal and I don't believe its a reason to be making Theory 11 out to be dishonest! Anyone who really want's to know about it's crediting/history will either buy the move or read up on it. If someone watches a trailer and then bases their whole knowledge of that move on that trailer alone, then more fool them! They will of course have a limited education

That is exactly Albert's and my concern. For instance, see how many people think Wayne Houchin is the inventor of the 'Invisible Palm' for that exact reason, while Wayne didn't do anything original with it nor did he ever say out loud it was his own creation. He even kept the original name.

People can release and unintentionally claim whatever they want these days, all and only caused by the lack of proper, public credits to their video performances. Most people don't buy the releases and in case they don't know the originals, they couldn't possibly know better. There are a lot of people who think that whatever one releases through a magic company must be completely his own unless stated different so you can't blame them for passing on wrong credits.

Not only did Theory11 and Rick hide these credits, they have deleted them too. That is why I am making a much bigger deal out of this than I should have, or than I would in case of for instance Wayne Houchin's 'Invisible Palm' release. Even if you agree with having the credits put in the purchase, deleting them publicly goes far beyond. What if others start to work on the same principle and end up finding out that it is somewhat similar to 'HighRise' because of its performance? They may very well end up crediting just Rick and not Ernest.

If you go all out to "expose" some product or piece of advertising you better get your facts straight first. In this case several things had been said about Rick's move that were simply not true. I should not have had to wait for BCardician to come in and back me up regarding the glaringly obvious differences between the moves, but thank god he did. I fear had he not chimed in we would have a generation of Mark and Albert fans who were indeed completely misinformed about the details of the move and Mr. Lax himself!! How ironic since their goal is to make everything as clear as possible

Albert and I were the first ones who got to see the 'Blind Square'. The 'Blind Square' Cris talked about in his first post in here is nothing like the way it was, and yes, it has been similar to 'HighRise' as confirmed, so we definitely knew what we were talking about. I practiced, played around with, and performed 'Blind Square' myself and I know how close (in detail) it was to 'HighRise' (and I have had Toine who bought 'HighRise' and knows the 'Blind Square' too confirm all of that as well). Sure it may be Rick's independent creation and an unintentional copy, but it is a copy nonetheless.

There is nothing wrong with the release, with Rick and his character, or with the move whatsoever. It is just that I can't possibly agree with the way Theory11 deals with this. If they would've said 'HighRise' was an entire independent creation it would've been more acceptable, but it wasn't.

So to clear up the list, if Rick indeed came up with this himself which is what I believe and have always believed:

- The major differences between 'HighRise' and 'Bow-to-Stern' are blindingly obvious, not slight at all. The core principle is the same; the handling is quite different;
- The move is similar to an earlier (original) version of 'Blind Square' but is a totally independent take on the same idea;
- Rick is completely justified in releasing this under a new name;
- He did not just steal the move and rename it;
- He thoroughly credited Ernest Earick and others during the tutorial;
- In several respected magicians their opinions there are problems with the lack of public credits that should be resolved.

[Fin]

Originally Posted by TommySteal

Hoorah, finally someone talking sense.
Seems I was misinformed by certain members on this board, because up until now after reading all the posts in this thread I was under the impression that "High Rise" was only a very slight variation of a much older concept - hence my original post on this matter. Now, after hearing the truth from someone who has actually purchased the effect, maybe certain people will see sense and ditch this thread in the trash, because so far all that it has achieved in my eyes is the passing on of misinformation and confusion.

Thanks Fin for clearing this up for me.

It's a pleasure Tommy. I just hope people bother to read this far! This is the problem with "exposing" people. It's a great, until you get a few details wrong, and then you just look like you had an axe to grind. Mark's core point stands, and I agree T11 could make a better effort on the product page. But it should have been left at that. I fear it is already too late and many a reader of this thread will have been left with the very impression you were. This is not good!

David, who I have the utmost respect for, just posted in a different thread yesterday, saying "Rick selling the move like his own also does not seem right..... High Rise was "taken" from someone you know, ideally Cris". Do you see what you guys have created? It's called "misinformation" or "disinformation". Unfortunately David clearly has not read the more recent posts in this thread, including the one from Chris, and thanks to this thread is under a false impression about the move and about Rick. I wonder how many other people have not read the full thread and hence have been left with completely the wrong impression about High Rise and about Mr Lax!! This is a lesson learnt, I hope, gentlemen?! And a serious one at that.

[Mark]

Agreed, although if he would have left out "ideally Cris" I couldn't disagree with the statement.

I actually started the discussion on 'HighRise' because some people (some from this forum and some externally on YouTube and on MSN) seemed very upset and bothered by the fact that 'HighRise' looked so much like 'Blind Square'. They were already under the impression that Rick took it from Cris so as for that I don't think much changes.

But I fully agree that flat out claiming he took it wasn't the best thing to do.

[Albert]

Originally Posted by Fin

David, who I have the utmost respect for, just posted in a different thread yesterday, saying "Rick selling the move like his own also does not seem right..... High Rise was "taken" from someone you know, ideally Cris". Do you see what you guys have created? It's called "misinformation" or "disinformation". Unfortunately David clearly has not read the more recent posts in this thread, including the one from Chris, and thanks to this thread is under a false impression about the move and about Rick. I wonder how many other people have not read the full thread and hence have been left with completely the wrong impression about High Rise and about Mr Lax!! This is a lesson learnt, I hope, gentlemen?! And a serious one at that.

For one thing, David's conclusion on the move being 'taken from Cris' was his own. I explicitly said (I believe Mark did as well) that the move was from Ernest Earick right from the beginning. Sure, there are other older sources, but that is one of the more popular sources. David knew Blind Square before the release of HighRise, so it's natural to assume that Cris came up with the move if he doesn't know any other sources of credit. So would it be fair to still assume that we are the sources of misinformation? I don't think so. Take for example the older sources that Rick gives. I was under the impression that the Bow-to-Stern was the original source. That's why I would obviously credit that and that only as the original. Guess what? There's older ones. Thus, I make mistakes because of my lack of knowledge. Then the whole argument starts about wrong credits and what not. Now then, I can only blame the person who told me about the Bow-to-Stern Control that there are older moves of similar kind and blame him for not telling me the older ones. Of course, that would be plain stupid and nonsensical. Now do you understand how important crediting and sourcing is?

And, good! That's the whole point of this thread. I am in no way what someone would call an authority in magic. I may have more experience, but like that, if people are so open to trusting what others claim, guess how much damage Theory11 has done if I actually did much damage?

Maybe it was a good thing that I made that obvious mistake since it clearly shows you how a single word can have so much effect on people. I hope you do realize the seriousness of this Fin. If I can do this much damage (if I did do any noticeable amounts that is), then Theory11, a company much more influential than me can do so much more through misinformation like you said. That's why it's so important to make sure your products are not misleading, including the addition of credits.

I don't think that's totally arguable, is it?