Political statements don't belong in the submission text, regardless of whether readers agree with it or not. Most people on this site would not tolerate seeing far right-wing rhetoric in submission text, and the same standard should be applied no matter where the statement falls on the political spectrum. It should be categorized as abuse of the submission mechanism.
Kinda hilarious how the ones who want to talk about the movie and not politics, are the ones who choose to talk about politics and not the movie. Weird how that works.
[14:15] <feos> WinDOES what DOSn't
12:33:44 PM <Mothrayas> "I got an oof with my game!"
Mothrayas Today at 12:22: <Colin> thank you for supporting noble causes such as my feet
MemoryTAS Today at 11:55 AM: you wouldn't know beauty if it slapped you in the face with a giant fish
[Today at 4:51 PM] Mothrayas: although if you like your own tweets that's the online equivalent of sniffing your own farts and probably tells a lot about you as a person
MemoryTAS Today at 7:01 PM: But I exert big staff energy honestly lol
Samsara Today at 1:20 PM: wouldn't ACE in a real life TAS just stand for Actually Cease Existing
Joined: 4/17/2010
Posts: 11472
Location: Lake Chargoggagoggmanchauggagoggchaubunagungamaugg
Arc wrote:
It should be categorized as abuse of the submission mechanism.
What rule does it go against, or what loophole in the rules does it abuse?
Warning: When making decisions, I try to collect as much data as possible before actually deciding. I try to abstract away and see the principles behind real world events and people's opinions. I try to generalize them and turn into something clear and reusable. I hate depending on unpredictable and having to make lottery guesses. Any problem can be solved by systems thinking and acting.
I wouldn't be surprised if people have in the past filled submission texts with random humorous nonsense, talking about current events isn't much different.
[16:36:31] <Mothrayas> I have to say this argument about robot drug usage is a lot more fun than whatever else we have been doing in the past two+ hours
[16:08:10] <BenLubar> a TAS is just the limit of a segmented speedrun as the segment length approaches zero
I'll say the obligatory "human rights are not political". Some kind of police reform for better transparency and restrictions on use of force is supported by nearly everybody regardless of political affiliation.
It's not exactly what I'd expect to read in submission notes but what was said here is not left wing or right wing.
I'll also say Ecco is a very very complicated game to play, to control, and to speedrun, so thank you for making this run.
It should be categorized as abuse of the submission mechanism.
What rule does it go against, or what loophole in the rules does it abuse?
"It is very important that you describe your movie in the following ways."
"A “submission” is a candidate for a movie that will be published on this site."
A political statement is not a description of the movie or the process involved in making the movie. It has no relation to the movie. There is an Off Topic forum for political statements.
[14:15] <feos> WinDOES what DOSn't
12:33:44 PM <Mothrayas> "I got an oof with my game!"
Mothrayas Today at 12:22: <Colin> thank you for supporting noble causes such as my feet
MemoryTAS Today at 11:55 AM: you wouldn't know beauty if it slapped you in the face with a giant fish
[Today at 4:51 PM] Mothrayas: although if you like your own tweets that's the online equivalent of sniffing your own farts and probably tells a lot about you as a person
MemoryTAS Today at 7:01 PM: But I exert big staff energy honestly lol
Samsara Today at 1:20 PM: wouldn't ACE in a real life TAS just stand for Actually Cease Existing
"It is very important that you describe your movie in the following ways."
"A “submission” is a candidate for a movie that will be published on this site."
A political statement is not a description of the movie or the process involved in making the movie. It has no relation to the movie. There is an Off Topic forum for political statements.
That's not remotely a clear "no political statements in submissions" rule. I'm fairly sure several april fools submissions also do not stay entirely on topic.
[16:36:31] <Mothrayas> I have to say this argument about robot drug usage is a lot more fun than whatever else we have been doing in the past two+ hours
[16:08:10] <BenLubar> a TAS is just the limit of a segmented speedrun as the segment length approaches zero
The eventual movie description should be free of anything off-topic (political or no).
But in the submission text anything that's not against general site rules for posting should be acceptable. Especially if you still have all the game details in the text, in addition to your personal statement.
I agree with Blazephlozard in which as long as a submission covers what it should cover for the movie in question, there is no problem in putting personal statements, weither political or not.
Sometimes, a submission can mark a certain event going on, and it is okay to describe it in very few lines, so when someone reads through it, he founds that the movie was made during the time that event was happening, and that makes sense in my opinion.
I didn't watch the run entirely, but from what I saw, it is so damn good!! Yes vote!!! Glad you're back to TASing, Upthorn!!!
That's not remotely a clear "no political statements in submissions" rule. I'm fairly sure several april fools submissions also do not stay entirely on topic.
The harm that comes is that the site is an international retro-gaming community, not an American far-left political activist site. People do not come here to hear political opinions, whether they agree with them or not.
I also believe that this political statement, which is undeniably left-wing, is being given a pass because it is a popular opinion here. I doubt that the same standard would be applied to unpopular political statements. Do you want to invite unpopular political opinions as well as popular statements in submissions, or do you want to simply read about the movie?
If we are going to say that there is no rule against saying whatever you want in submissions, then you are inviting illicit imagery, advertising, referral links, and whatever else is not illegal. What purpose other than self-interest does it serve to force these unrelated things into movie submission text?
The author of this particular submission openly confesses that his statement has nothing to do with the movie and that he wrote it only because he believes submissions attract more views than regular posts. You can believe whatever you want, you can post whatever views you want, but do it in the proper place (on the forum). It's fine to liven up submission text with jokes or whatever, but the point of the submission page is to explain your movie.
I also believe that this political statement, which is undeniably left-wing, is being given a pass because it is a popular opinion here. I doubt that the same standard would be applied to unpopular political statements.
What’s an example of an unpopular political statement?
[14:15] <feos> WinDOES what DOSn't
12:33:44 PM <Mothrayas> "I got an oof with my game!"
Mothrayas Today at 12:22: <Colin> thank you for supporting noble causes such as my feet
MemoryTAS Today at 11:55 AM: you wouldn't know beauty if it slapped you in the face with a giant fish
[Today at 4:51 PM] Mothrayas: although if you like your own tweets that's the online equivalent of sniffing your own farts and probably tells a lot about you as a person
MemoryTAS Today at 7:01 PM: But I exert big staff energy honestly lol
Samsara Today at 1:20 PM: wouldn't ACE in a real life TAS just stand for Actually Cease Existing
Illicit imagery, advertising, etc are more directly banned by site rules. Now if you are proposing a more direct rule, that can be addressed separately, but currently this submission doesn't break any rules.
[16:36:31] <Mothrayas> I have to say this argument about robot drug usage is a lot more fun than whatever else we have been doing in the past two+ hours
[16:08:10] <BenLubar> a TAS is just the limit of a segmented speedrun as the segment length approaches zero
I support the message and agree that things in the US really need to change.
However, a few parts rub me the wrong way, because they feel like an attack on any reader who doesn't agree. Specifically, the paragraph about "refusal to speak is implicit support of the status quo" and the final "Silence is Violence". I think the statement would be perfectly fine if those were removed. A possible site rule could be: submission texts may contain any extraneous/personal information or opinions, as long as they don't make anyone feel unwelcome.
I read those quotes as more upthorn defending why they felt a need to make their statement, rather than telling everyone else that they should be doing something too or else they're bad people.
I would assume that police officers and police supporters could take offense to the statement made here and feel unwelcome... But nearly any non-game-related statement could make SOMEONE feel unwelcome or offended. I do think TAS creators should be able to express themselves and the things they care about in submission notes, if following the site rules of civility. But how far does that go? There's a lot of civil statements that could offend a lot of people but matter a great deal to the person saying them. (One example I thought of that has good reasonings on both sides is pro-life/pro-choice...)
I get that there could be a precedent here that could be dangerous. But at the same time really, really do not want to support the censoring of upthorn's generally positive message. I don't know...
Also RetroEdit suggested all this be split into "a thread like "Allowing political content in submissions"" and that'd probably be smart.
EDIT:
This post was originally the first post in a new thread which I made to discuss including political messages in submission notes. That thread has been merged with the posts from the Ecco TAS on the workbench concerning the inclusion of political messages in submission notes.
Hi everybody. I've created this thread in response to the recent submission text for the new ecco movie, which can be found here: http://tasvideos.org/6789S.html
A lot of effort has been made to use existing rules to interpret whether the inclusion of political messages in movie submission notes should be allowed. However, the reality is that this sort of situation hasn't really occurred before, so the current rules neither explicitly allow nor prohibit such inclusion of political messages.
As such, I have made this thread so that we can all have a debate about what we believe should be the norm going forwards.
Feel free to post your opinions about this topic below.
I'll start the discussion off by posting my views on this topic:
I believe that people should be able to include whatever political message they want in their movie submission threads, with the caveat that the political statement can't take up a substantial portion of the submission text or include any personal attacks against another TASer (naming another specific TASer to denigrate their views or character).
However, if anybody wants to debate the views in the submission thread, they should make a thread in the off topic section for the purpose of discussing these views (ex. for the current Ecco submission, all debating messages could be put in a thread called "Ecco Dolphin Workbench: Black Lives Matter Debate").
Moreover, I believe that once a series of possible ideas to handle political messages are identified in this thread, a poll should be made of all the possible options. Then, a user vote should decide what course of action will be taken going forwards.
Ambassador, Moderator, Site Developer, Player
(154)
Joined: 3/17/2018
Posts: 357
Location: Holland, MI
I would not say that submission texts or authors should be regulated in any way directly as to political speech, even directly in that submission. However, I would say that accusing people of committing violence by not endorsing positions stated in text is a bridge too far. Assuming ill faith on the part of people who disagree with you is at the least not a great way to convince people of anything, and at worst damaging to the site (ie if I as an ambassador refer people to a submission and the first thing they read is a paragraph accusing them of violence)
Hi everybody. I've created this thread in response to the recent submission text for the new ecco movie, which can be found here: http://tasvideos.org/6789S.html
A lot of effort has been made to use existing rules to interpret whether the inclusion of political messages in movie submission notes should be allowed. However, the reality is that this sort of situation hasn't really occurred before, so the current rules neither explicitly allow nor prohibit such inclusion of political messages.
As such, I have made this thread so that we can all have a debate about what we believe should be the norm going forwards.
Feel free to post your opinions about this topic below.
First: thank you for making this thread. I agree that the two topics are very different, and merit different threads for discussion.
I do also recognize that constant exposure to the harsh realities of present-day politics is exhausting, and everyone needs to have times and places where they can retreat and recharge, and that this site is one place people reasonably do use for that purpose. To which end I do not actually oppose that discussion of current events mainly be kept in the "offtopic" (or a hypothetical "politics") forum.
However, I also recognize that refusing to discuss politics is inherently supporting of the status quo, whether the reason you refuse to discuss politics is for fear of reprisals, or because of total agreement with all of the decisions of the people and systems currently placed in power.
Because of this, I believe that when certain types of abuses occur, it is also important that no individual in society simply be allowed to ignore "politics" and current events, either, which is why I chose in this instance to make a statement in what I believe to be a more visible location.
So basically, I think that the previously existing norm that submissions be reserved for entertainment and technical discussion should continue. However, I believe that it is important that there not be any site enforcement of this norm, the only consequences should be the social consequences of making a statement on a potentially divisive subject, so that authors are free to do this when they believe the situation merits it.
Lobsterzelda wrote:
However, if anybody wants to debate the views in the submission thread, they should make a thread in the off topic section for the purpose of discussing these views (ex. for the current Ecco submission, all debating messages could be put in a thread called "Ecco Dolphin Workbench: Black Lives Matter Debate").
I think that the currently existing 2020 politics thread in offtopic is of a sufficiently similar nature that it can also be used for debating the content of my statement without the need to create a new thread.
How fleeting are all human passions compared with the massive continuity of ducks.
However, I would say that accusing people of committing violence by not endorsing positions stated in text is a bridge too far. Assuming ill faith on the part of people who disagree with you is at the least not a great way to convince people of anything
I did not make any statements ascribing intentions to the decision not to speak up. There are many, wide-ranging, possible reasons that a person might decide not to speak up in a situation like this. A non-exhaustive list includes:
Fear of being targeted for reprisals by the people involved.
Fear of damaging relationships by subsequent passionate disagreement.
Ignorance that the situation exists
An incorrect assessment that the situation is not really that bad
A correct assessment that the situation is not really that bad
Fear that, even though the situation is that bad, a hyper-correction may occur that makes things even worse.
Active support for the current situation.
I do apologize if my statement gave the impression that anyone who disagrees, or hasn't spoken up, is acting in bad faith. It was not at all my intention to make such a statement.
However, silence, inaction, and "neutrality" in any situation of abuse is inherently supportive to the abuser. People who have a tendency to commit abuse will not stop unless challenged. Institutions that have a tendency to commit abuse will not stop unless challenged. Therefore, from a consequentialist perspective any behavior other than challenging the abuser(s) or directly aiding the victim(s) to escape the abusive situation is complicit in perpetuating the abuse. So, I will not back down from my statement that "silence is violence," because regardless of intention, the consequence is the same: abuse is allowed to continue.
How fleeting are all human passions compared with the massive continuity of ducks.
I basically agree with upthorn's view - if you allow every kind of injustice and failing in the world to be swept under the rug of 'politics', then you equate oppression and the fight for freedom that opposes it as being the categorically same thing, which doesn't seem correct to me.
New civil rights and protections are hard fought and hard earned - LGBTQ rights in many ways owe their current state to events like the Stonewall Riots and the violent and public pushback that arises from it, for example.
To add on a bit to upthorn's post: Not literally every person has enough time and energy in their lives to be well researched and actively engage in every political issue that exists within society. While it is true that inaction in the face of oppression is to side with the oppressor, not literally every person even has any kind of weight or voice or energy left to have any sway from the issue. It's not an indictment of YOU, the reader, on an individual level - more a general structural statement, where people who have power choose to stay silent and do nothing. (Similar to how, say... to combat global warming, it would definitely be good if as many people ate vegetarian as possible - but people who don't read this and immediately go vegetarian aren't Bad People who need to be shunned, it's just not a choice they can invest time and effort in right now, and that's fine.)
Joined: 8/14/2009
Posts: 4089
Location: The Netherlands
Upthorn's message can stay in the submission notes.
A submitter is allowed to write anything they wish in their submission text, as long as it does not break the site rules regarding adult content, hate speech content, other uncivil material, etc. This includes any sort of political content, regardless of whether it's left-wing or right-wing or if it tackles any sort of specific political issue, as long as, again, it does not violate the site rules. TASVideos is not a political arbiter.
That being said, the submission topic is for discussing the submitted movie itself, not politics. Therefore, discussion of the political statement itself should be done in another topic.
http://www.youtube.com/Noxxa
<dwangoAC> This is a TAS (...). Not suitable for all audiences. May cause undesirable side-effects. May contain emulator abuse. Emulator may be abusive. This product contains glitches known to the state of California to cause egg defects.
<Masterjun> I'm just a guy arranging bits in a sequence which could potentially amuse other people looking at these bits
<adelikat> In Oregon Trail, I sacrificed my own family to save time. In Star trek, I killed helpless comrades in escape pods to save time. Here, I kill my allies to save time. I think I need help.
Joined: 4/17/2010
Posts: 11472
Location: Lake Chargoggagoggmanchauggagoggchaubunagungamaugg
qqwref wrote:
However, a few parts rub me the wrong way, because they feel like an attack on any reader who doesn't agree. Specifically, the paragraph about "refusal to speak is implicit support of the status quo" and the final "Silence is Violence". I think the statement would be perfectly fine if those were removed. A possible site rule could be: submission texts may contain any extraneous/personal information or opinions, as long as they don't make anyone feel unwelcome.
<feos> "Silence is Violence" is an accurate description of problems with police, courts, and prison system in russia
<feos> they turn into literal hell if there's no external light peeking inside
Increasing awareness of the problems is a way for the society to try protecting itself from increasing violence. Because for some reason, people who are being (more and more) violent if no one knows about it, or if those who know it support it, suddenly stop feeling so powerful when they appear all over the news.
The more transparent the system is, the more humanistic it is.
Warning: When making decisions, I try to collect as much data as possible before actually deciding. I try to abstract away and see the principles behind real world events and people's opinions. I try to generalize them and turn into something clear and reusable. I hate depending on unpredictable and having to make lottery guesses. Any problem can be solved by systems thinking and acting.
