Theory11 Exposed... Again!

[Albert]

There have been previous discussions on the kind of unethical and other bad things Theory11 has done in the past, but that was coupled together with Andrei Jikh here (http://magiciansthegathering.com/community/showthread.php?t=364) and in a news update thread here (http://magiciansthegathering.com/community/showthread.php?t=99).

Now, I want to discuss purely on Theory11, in this forum section because the current Theory11 conditions are much worse than I thought. A discussion was born on the Facebook page of Theory11 on a picture of Vertigo, their upcoming new product on October 14th, 2011 here (http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10150311826292143&set=a.128525087142.114974.7163962142&type=1&cmntid=10150312713197143).

During the discussion, a topic was brought up to the members of Theory11 that they shouldn't delete/ignore all negative comments about their teasers, as can be seen at this video here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Cr_hVqRqoo), the teaser for Vertigo.

Here's a screenshot below of Vertigo on YouTube with the likes to dislikes ratio, as well as the all comments as of October 12th/2011 @ 6:22PM EST:
http://i55.tinypic.com/29o3hwy.jpg
http://i54.tinypic.com/2qs0wnd.jpg

So... 1,047 views, 92 votes [21 Likes : 71 Dislikes => 21/92 = 22.83% likes] ... 11 comments by 9 different people including themselves - none of the comments are negative... although Zronxziq's "-.-" actually looks negative to me and one of the comments was posted for the sake of being "First" saying it's an awesome effect while there is no effect to be seen in the teaser, so that leaves 7 actual supporters in the comment section, 6 without Theory11 (whatistheory11) themselves.

I think you can do the math, but let me clarify:

How could all of the comments be positive or non-negative while 77.17% of the votes are negative? This shows the rate at which rate they deleted comments to Vertigo. There should have been at least 30 negative or non-positive (and possibly some constructive) comments to the video.

So, what's wrong with this you may ask? Well, let me tell you what's wrong:

http://i55.tinypic.com/k320bq.jpg

Theory11 claims that they welcome all feedbacks and comments, yet they don't show all of the comments and most are positive comments (if not all on their products). Really? I highly doubt that every single person who sees the product would like it, unless it's some ultimate trick where you only need to wear a pair of boxers and can still make a whole helicopter disappear with a click of the fingers, live. <= Even that would probably get dislikes due to many reasons, such as the dislike for a half-naked guy, the-apparently-know-it-all expert claiming it's fake, jealousy, etc.

If you also see the last comment Theory11 made, between the 2 Theory11 comments there used to be a comment of me saying they lied to their customers, since they never approved of my comment on Scribble. Guess what, my Facebook comment is gone as well, in which they deleted it and then put that last comment about anything not related to Vertigo will be deleted.

The point of this thread is to tell you that Theory11 isn't being very honest with themselves and with us, the customers. Honestly, watch out for the things you buy from there; the comments and the product description may not be all that reliable; not as much as you think it is.

Theory11, if that isn't censorship, especially with my facebook comment deletion, then what do you call it?


:: EDIT ::

I also want to include something else now, after a bit of thinking. Another thing Theory11 successfully does properly (and very much so) is ignoring or turning a blind eye on the suggestions people make that would benefit them oh-so-much. Now, what I'm about to say has nothing to do with them being unethical. What they are doing is fine, but they are being just really stupid, in my opinion.

Here's a screenshot for MiRAGE's so-called 'short-teaser' video; not even a teaser, found here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F0FQSQNvvDc).

http://i51.tinypic.com/2870ux5.jpg

Really? A teaser for a magic trick. This isn't some kind of a Hollywood movie starring Leonardo DiCaprio. If this isn't overly-commercial, I don't know what is...

Also, Theory11 thinks that their marketing tactics/strategies are gold... well at least it seems like the marketing/communications team does... On a side note, very disappointed with the tone of voice I can interpret from the comment below on Vertigo's facebook comments section - it's implying that we are retards for not understanding what a teaser is. Nothing that is directed to a customer should ever be worded so that they interpret it offensively. That's the basic rule of thumb when communicating with customers, even if you are frustrated with them. They failed at that here too.

http://i52.tinypic.com/9h8f2v.jpg

Dear staff of Theory11, when you read this, and I know you do, I hope you realize that it's not just one or two people who are unimpressed or simply disgusted at your marketing tactic. There may be some emotional bias in this post, in which I admit. But the level of ignorance towards your customers' suggestions + censoring objective and fair negative comments + misleading product information + poor marketing tactics (which I think is killing the art as well, which hopefully you can make the connection) = Theory11 going down, down, down, down, down... Oh, and did I mention, you are killing the art, not keeping it alive?

If you are smart enough, you should understand what I'm trying to say. Customers surprisingly know well what a business's problem is, so the least you could do is at least attempt to fix your errors instead of saying you welcome all feedback but already threw everything in the garbage can next to your desk. This is not a matter of killing your pride as a business. It's knowing how to fix your errors, admitting your mistakes, and knowing how to apologize to the customers. Just because magicians can get away with lying in performances, doesn't mean you can get away lying to your customers, especially fellow magicians.

[Kelan]

Thanks for the wonderful exposure thread Albert! It's always appreciated =))

Nawh lol, but I was talking to Mark about this too. Gawsh, what idiots. Magiczack24 tried saying "GPS" was not impromptu, but they deleted his review. Selfish fools. I feel bad for anyone associated with that joke of a magic business.

[TheMisdirectingHand]

Filthy monkeys..

[Albert]

Filthy monkeys..

Woah.... Someone is utterly upset... :thinking:

Theory11, look at what you have done to David! :mad:

[Travmang]

I respect grimy, rotten, fecal eating porcupines more than I respect T11. I would rather bellyflop onto said porcupine than to buy their products.

Okay, maybe a little to far, but I really wanted to use the porcupine for this one! ;)

[KGaborMagic]

One serious question left:
Are you Albert V. or Albert P.?
I'm so confused:thinking:

[Mark]

They obviously try to keep a name high, and their way of doing that is very... odd... to say at least. Everyone who disagrees with whatever they do is said to be dead wrong and even when the most obvious facts are thrown on the table they think that simply saying it are lies is the most proper way of handling that, basically saying they are always right and anyone else is always wrong and lying. If what Albert and I did was coming up with a conspiracy theory regarding the comment and review approval, what they continuously do is coming up with conspiracies with a much bigger team (the whole T11 crew) to wipe our statements away. It's absolutely disgusting.

It makes me think of Apple and Steve Jobs (RIP). Unlike Theory11, Apple had (and still has) a pretty good customer support system but whenever Steve himself would reply to issues, things got on a loose. But Apple could never admit to be wrong and thus had to support Steve whenever, wherever, even if he would be bashing every other company and human being on this planet. When the iPhone 4 antenna issue got discovered, Jobs took every other smart phone on the market and showed how all of them had the same issue, and he said that unlike the other brands, he even marked the weak spot for the users. "Just don't hold it that way."

That being said, please don't have emotions take over when posting anything on the board. At least let us have class, and class goes as far as making this thread to warn the world and hopefully getting through at T11 for once because such behavior from a whole group of people who managed to get on top of our art is absolutely not tolerated. But yeah, don't call them names. It doesn't make this go anywhere.

One serious question left:
Are you Albert V. or Albert P.?
I'm so confused:thinking:
He is Hyunick P. or Albert V. :)

[Albert]

Yup, there was a bit of emotions sway in the post, but that was near the end of the post just on the opinion part. The first part about their unethical behaviour is completely objective, so no worries. :)

And...

Bad Mark! You no give names of da Truth of Albert the Mighty. ;)

[Travmang]

Alby the Insignificant. :p

[MeandmagiC]

nice post albert!
what they are doin is pretty stupid. I am amazed they are actually still alive. with 70 dislikes...

[MysteryHand]

They are going to be down :D
P/S: I just know you Albert. You are Korean :D

[Mark]

I have been e-mailing with one of their staff members for the past few days and there are some conclusions that could be pulled from that. I was asked to not make the mails or details public, so I won't, but I will state things I think should be shared and cleared up.

I was told that the review approval process is much more than just filtering exposure, and I am very thankful for that. That said, we are still said to have made false statements and to have wrong ideas, but I think Albert would agree that the only (and really the only) reason that we said they were dishonest as for that is because they said they only censor exposure, I quote:
Hi Mark, while we disagree, we do not in any way censor comments on the theory11 site (except for exposure). You are entitled to your opinion and we respect it. To each his own - no worries. Thank you.
At least we can say that we were correct (which was rather obvious anyways), and if they don't want to see that themselves, who cares? And why they think the tone of voice in the message as mentioned by Albert is acceptable? This hasn't been cleared up, but I must say the tone of voice of this particular, mailing staff member was quite excellent so I don't worry about that all that much anymore.

As for the term 'impromptu', as we all think (and know) is misused on the product page of Chris Kenner's 'GPS', it's said that "it comes down to a matter of opinions on the definition of this term". Since there is a way to secretely do a full deck set-up on the spot, they think it's fine to say that it's impromptu. I couldn't disagree more because there wasn't any teaching on this kind of setting-up-the-deck-in-an-impromptu-manner involved in the product and if it comes down to a matter of opinions, we could as well stop using the term completely because then it doesn't mean anything anymore. Oddly enough, they do use the term correctly when answering the question whether Rick Lax his 'Vertigo' is impromptu. That doesn't make up for the lie on 'GPS' but at least it seems like they know better now.

Also, I have been told that the teasers are indeed used to hype upcoming products and to create a little more content specifically for those who have been waiting for something new for a while. Bravo, that clears up a whole lot (and that is absolutely not sarcastic, I mean it). Pity this fact had to be shared in an e-mail.

Thanks again to the T11 staff member for clearing things up and I hope this post stays within the lines of what you think could be shared publicly. I appreciate it.

[MeandmagiC]

ah it is very nice to hear most of the stuff is cleared up :)
I am glad!

I still think there teasers are too short, but that is just a matter of taste I guess.

[Mark]

Well, although I'm happy that those things has been cleared up as for the motivation behind them, I don't think they would do good by not changing anything.

We now know why they make teasers and that they will propably keep making those despite any negative feedback, fine, and we now know that the review approval is more than getting rid of exposure, fine as well, but.. we now also know how distorted their usage of the term 'impromptu' is and that they have trouble saying sorry or that they were wrong, holding on to saying we actually made false statements while that is simply not true.

That said, it seems like that whenever something has been cleared up, something else appears, like the whole "unethical to perform tricks you have figured out" thing now. I really hope there is a time that we just could stop pointing out bad things without needing to worry that the art is going to be (possibly) damaged in any way. :(

UPDATE
This may be a little late but I only just found out that Theory11 corrected their mistake on 'GPS' a couple of days ago. Someone posted about it not being impromptu in their own forums (the non-impromptuness had been brought up years ago at its release already) and this is what was said by one of their interactives, three days ago from when I posted this update:
GPS is impromptu, depending on your definition of the word. I have been around the circle several times on this one recently with those that say this is not. In my opinion, it most certainly is. This trick is impromptu in that you can pick up someone else's normal deck of playing cards and do this trick. The down side is that it does take a moment to get ready, though with a little tiny bit of experience the setup is no problem and can be done in no time flat without anyone noticing anything fishy. There are no gimmicks, just a deck of playing cards and a cunning secret.

Sadly, no, you probably couldn't do this if you had ZERO time to prepare between the moment someone hands you a deck and the moment you need to do this, but you can pick up a deck at a friends house, look through it for a couple of moments, and then ask if they want to see a trick.

I hope that clears things for you.

And one day later.. two days ago.. the same interactive posted this:
I discussed this with JB today and we came to the determination that we need to change the description to more clearly represent GPS. It has been changed on the product page. I hope we have answered any questions you may have.

Keep on rockin'!

Pity that no apologies were made, but at least it seems like a step in the right direction. ^_^

[TheMisdirectingHand]

After a while I remembered the name Rick Lax...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TXvwJM_AYyo&feature=mfu_in_order&list=UL
This video is not available anymore.

[Mark]

Posted 10-21-2011
Yeeaah, you shouldn't judge him by his YouTube videos. He's a really cool guy but he's an übercheesy non-magician in those videos. I know he actually is a pretty decent magician and thinker, but that just can't be seen in those clips. :hm:

Posted 11-17-2011
Update
I don't know why, but this thread ended with Rick Lax and it will continue with Rick Lax. I don't necessarily blame him on this (although I guess he could do something about it... if he would've wanted to), but Theory11 is definitely the responsible party. I really don't know how they can keep coming up with things we disagree with. I tried really hard looking for errors at other magic companies, but Theory11 took this lead by far.

Hereby the trailer of their latest release this is based on:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bB0sesOGevQ

In the video you will find the statement "A modern take on an underground move". Good marketing, semi-cliché-ish but well, all fine, but what is this underground move, are the name and creator unknown, is it Rick's and is that why Rick seems to get all credits, seeing the video beginning with "From the creator of Vertigo" and not with "From the creator of Vertigo and the creator of Claptrap"? And on the product page it says exactly the same.

Since Theory11 released the Wire, there have been a lot of discussions on crediting. Whenever someone didn't give correct or complete credits to their accepted submission, the T11 forums got heated up by people complaining about this, and even I thought it sometimes went a little too far (not saying the people complaining weren't correct, especially when realizing that this one person who submitted the trick was told about the proper credits before his trick was filmed and submitted, but the way they worded things was kind of inappropriate).

So why are there no credits on the 'HighRise' product page or in the video to the person who deserves them the most: Ernest Earick? Apparently Rick does give credits in the tutorial but why would you have to pay money to get to know who came up with the original idea? And why are corrections made when people don't give (proper) credits to their submissions at the Wire, but could T11 themselves can get away with not crediting anyone at the proper places at all?

Obviously this is part of their dirty marketing stategy. They think less people would buy the control if they would've publicly stated it is based on something by Ernest Earick, let alone if they would have said it's based on Ernest's 'Bow-to-Stern' control from Stephen Minch's 'By Forces Unseen', but just crediting the creator would do. In the end this is a true shame to the art and Theory11 not showing the slightest bit of respect to the creator. What if I would make a video on a trick and say that for proper crediting you will have to pay me $6.95 first? That's basically what they are doing. E. Earick deserves credits on the product page at least, preferably in or at the trailer though.

That said, it has been proven that Bizau Cristian, who happens to be an artist at T11 like Rick too, came up and started working on this idea earlier, calling it the 'Blind Square'. Albert and I were the first to get to know about this, over a year ago and we even planned on releasing it with DSZ but that idea eventually got cancelled before the release of 'HighRise'. Anyhow, the original 'Blind Square' looks and works exactly like Rick's take on the same principle... in detail.

Since not even Ernest Earick got public credits, credits to Bizau are absolutely nowhere to be found. And of course Theory11 won't do anything to correct this, meaning that from now on Rick Lax is the original inventor of the 'Blind Square' and 'HighRise', and Ernest and Bizau could go s**** themselves, although Ernest could maybe satisfy himself by paying $6.95, if the poor man is still alive.

[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? Of course not. The trailer's sole purpose is to get attention for the product. The role of an advertisement has never been to give credit to all creators involved. Sure, if Spielberg directed the film you'll make a big deal of it, but this is not the main push of most adverts and I think it is unreasonable and unrealistic to expect let alone insist on crediting in a video trailer, whatever it may be for. If someone really wants to find out as much as they can about the credits BEFORE they buy the trick then a bit of homework is not a difficult thing.

Honestly, I think most people who actually buy this will be doing so because they love the look of the move and they simply want to learn it. The history lessons can be kept for later, and they are; included in the video there is a "brief history" segment where Mr Lax gives a long list of people who have worked on the idea before him. He isn't trying to hide anything and neither are Theory 11 who have done similar releases before. Dan White presents "Card to Mouth". Jason England teaching classic sleights like the "classic pass", "cover pass", "overhand shuffle".. etc. Sure, if you knew little about card magic you could be forgiven for thinking Jason invented all those! :eek: But this doesn't mean the trailer needs to babysit you and make everything crystal clear before you've even bought the video! :rolleyes:

The move is quite difficult to do well; I'm just glad someone has finally filmed a relatively detailed tutorial on it :)

---------- Post added at 03:21 AM ---------- Previous post was at 03:08 AM ----------

A quick quote from someone who's purchased this and posted their comments on the Theory11 website..

"Geraint Clarke • South Wales, UK • 11/13/11
So much more than I was expecting. Rick really has improved on a classic here. The mechanics of it are much more fun to perform, and he covers every little movement in a professional step by step download. Great crediting, great move, great download. Get it!"

Notice his use of the words "improved on a classic", and "great crediting". Yes, he's not talking about the trailer, but I think it's worth noting, that this customer at least, is under no illusions as to the origin of this move.

[Albert]

Of course not. The trailer's sole purpose is to get attention for the product. The role of an advertisement has never been to give credit to all creators involved. Sure, if Spielberg directed the film you'll make a big deal of it, but this is not the main push of most adverts and I think it is unreasonable and unrealistic to expect let alone insist on crediting in a video trailer, whatever it may be for. If someone really wants to find out as much as they can about the credits BEFORE they buy the trick then a bit of homework is not a difficult thing.

Fin, you are missing out on a huge point here. It may be that Mark and I have been performing magic for a longer time that we are more sensitive to credits and history. Regardless, magic products can't be compared to Hollywood movies.

Mark mentioned before "... meaning that from now on Rick Lax is the original inventor of the 'Blind Square' and 'HighRise'". There are so many young magicians out there who loses the concept of crediting correctly all for the reason that existing moves are renamed, and more so due to big magic companies releasing like that. When authorities (or so assumed to be one) claim something, people take it as the truth. Why? Because they are authorities.

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 - by the new generation of magicians. Ernest's contribution to the original move will die out eventually, slowly, but surely. That's no respect for the original creator. It's not about specifically crediting. It's about respect for those who took the time to came up with it, not just make improvements on it. That's why it's important to credit it in the product's page. For those who don't buy, but simply see the trailers, they will say "Oh, It's Rick's new move." For those who know Ernest's control, we can say "Oh, Rick made some improvements on Ernest's Move." You don't see Jason England renaming the classic pass just because he made improvements on it because you can clearly tell he values history and respects those who came up with the idea. Theory11 doesn't show that anymore, which is badly influencing the new generation of magicians.

Fin, imagine someone took a song of yours you composed, switched a few notes around, put it up or down an octave, and switched your Rondo form of ABCBA and turned it into a Ternary form of ABA. Then renamed it, claiming it as his. That would probably make it a pretty different song for those with untrained ears and would think that it's that punk arse bastard's composition, not yours. That's the situation here.

As magician's we really have to value history because that's what keeps the art truly on the right path. I don't know how to express it in words clearly, but that's what I feel. I also think that such an act plays around with morality of who created it and who takes credit for it.

[thetophatfirm]

^ I may be an a magician of young ignorance here, but as a combative artist I can put my hands down and nod to Alberts statement. There is nothing more sad than watching people rename techniques and time just to promote themselves, without taking into consideration [I dont know specifically about card tricks] but for combat in truth thousands of years of text.

and I for one value that.

[ouncesmusic]

...imagine someone took a song of yours you composed, switched a few notes around, put it up or down an octave, and switched your Rondo form of ABCBA and turned it into a Ternary form of ABA. Then renamed it, claiming it as his. That would probably make it a pretty different song for those with untrained ears and would think that it's that punk arse bastard's composition, not yours. That's the situation here.


Well put.

When I am sampling music, I always make it very clear that the rightful artist gets the credit they deserve. Their music inspired my improvisation over there original. I appreciated it enough that I used it as if it were mine (I had wished). In this 'al mighty dollar' driven world, people are strictly marketing for profits and from here on out we will more than likely see less and less honors towards the rightful people of inspiration, whatever it may be for.

[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]

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/forum/showthread.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. :cool:

[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 (http://magiciansthegathering.com/community/showthread.php?t=457) 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:D ! 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 ! :D

B.

[Mark]

Hey now, you skipped my last question. :p:rolleyes:

But thanks! :D
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]

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 :rolleyes: 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 :thinking:

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

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]

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 :confused:). 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. ;)

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 :blush:. But, other than that, the only thing I believe I said directly about the move was that the core principles were the same ;)

[TommySteal]

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.

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 :thinking:
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]

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! :rolleyes: 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! :rolleyes:

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?! :mad: 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]

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?! :mad: 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?

[Fin]

No Albert, that's not arguable at all. I have always understood how important crediting is; I've made that pretty darn clear, in fact it was my eye for detail in the crediting of this move and the differences between it and similar moves that helped cause this whole debacle! I agree that Theory 11 needs to do more on the product page and I have never suggested otherwise, but I also think that if we have problems with what they do or how they do it, our time is better spent writing THEM an email rather than discussing our qualms in forums, because, as we have seen, if someone gets their facts wrong when making a strong criticism, specially a respected magician such as yourself, the results can be ugly. Yes, of course it is incredibly important that an influential company such as T11 "should make sure their products are not misleading, including the addition of credits", and similarly, if we are going to lead by example, then when criticising their practises we should be sure to get our facts straight. It's incredibly easy to mistakenly peddle in misinformation, as we have discovered in this little exercise!

Look at it this way.. When all was said and done, in these "T11 exposed" threads you are trying to help consumers make an informed choice, right? And to teach them about ethics along the way hopefully. Isn't this the point of these threads? A warning to possible purchasers that they should know what they're getting into when they buy with Theory 11? So now, for example, we have two innocent, uneducated noobs to magic. One sees the trailer and goes to the site, the other comes here. I think the one who just went to the site and saw the trailer would be much better off than someone who read this thread first, despite the problems that exist with crediting on the product page. The first person makes their decision based on the move, what it looks like, the price, etc, but doesn't get to see good crediting on the product page.. but hey, they get it in the tutorial. The second person is worried, angry, then confused by all the arguing in this thread and the actual importance of the move goes out the window, because its all about credits, ethics, who said what, where did it originate, who stole what? etc. My point? I'd rather be the first person and just get on with making my own choices and judgements, rather than the second guy, who came to this thread, and got a very blurry picture painted for him about the origin of the move. I know this wasn't done on purpose but it has happened nonetheless. The point is that the thread did more damage than good, whether you like it or not!! On that note, I think I've said more than enough on this subject so I'll leave it there.

Peace and love to all

[Albert]

No Albert, that's not arguable at all. I have always understood how important crediting is; I've made that pretty darn clear, in fact it was my eye for detail in the crediting of this move and the differences between it and similar moves that helped cause this whole debacle!

Okay, I'm going to break down what you said so I don't get confused. This we agree upon, that crediting is important, so Theory11 shouldn't leave it out, or delete it, like Mark has said. This was the purpose of the thread. I have no idea how this deviated to the crazy concept of "the move is similar to previous creations, so it's unethical to release it without credits" because that is is no way the purpose of the thread and that doesn't even make any sense at all! :confused:

I agree that Theory 11 needs to do more on the product page and I have never suggested otherwise, but I also think that if we have problems with what they do or how they do it, our time is better spent writing THEM an email rather than discussing our qualms in forums, because, as we have seen, if someone gets their facts wrong when making a strong criticism, specially a respected magician such as yourself, the results can be ugly.

Well, Theory11 doesn't listen to use. Isn't that why we are so heated up in the conversation? Mark, I believe, has done tons to try and tell Theory11 what they are doing wrong. We barely see any changes. That's why we post them here.

Yes, of course it is incredibly important that an influential company such as T11 "should make sure their products are not misleading, including the addition of credits", and similarly, if we are going to lead by example, then when criticising their practises we should be sure to get our facts straight. It's incredibly easy to mistakenly peddle in misinformation, as we have discovered in this little exercise!

We sure have. That was the whole point of this thread and I believe my mistake has done a pretty damn decent job to prove it. ;)

Look at it this way.. When all was said and done, in these "T11 exposed" threads you are trying to help consumers make an informed choice, right? And to teach them about ethics along the way hopefully. Isn't this the point of these threads? A warning to possible purchasers that they should know what they're getting into when they buy with Theory 11?

Yes, we agree on this.


So now, for example, we have two innocent, uneducated noobs to magic. One sees the trailer and goes to the site, the other comes here. I think the one who just went to the site and saw the trailer would be much better off than someone who read this thread first, despite the problems that exist with crediting on the product page. The first person makes their decision based on the move, what it looks like, the price, etc, but doesn't get to see good crediting on the product page.. but hey, they get it in the tutorial.

Damn right! I completely see your point and have since the beginning. It seems like our debate has evolved into some quite different an issue we debated about before with GPS as the example. But remember, we didn't have issues with people who saw and bought the trick. They get the required in the purchase. Our concern is for those who don't buy it after they see the trailer. They are more prone to leaving with the wrong idea on the original creator after seeing no credits at all on the products page, except for Rick Lax as the instructor and 'creator' of the technique. That's where they possibly receive misinformation!

The second person is worried, angry, then confused by all the arguing in this thread and the actual importance of the move goes out the window, because its all about credits, ethics, who said what, where did it originate, who stole what? etc. My point? I'd rather be the first person and just get on with making my own choices and judgements, rather than the second guy, who came to this thread, and got a very blurry picture painted for him about the origin of the move.

Sure, this person will be confused and upset at the differences between the Bow-to-Stern, Blind Square, and HighRise in terms of technicalities. But I believe this thread has done more than enough to explain that HighRise is not an original move and that crediting should be done on the products page for the sake of those who DON'T buy the move. Regarding credits, this thread should have done more than enough. This debate evolved into something bigger after I mistakenly said 'slight variation', which I admitted several times and apologized for. That should be pretty clear, even to you. ;)

I know this wasn't done on purpose but it has happened nonetheless. The point is that the thread did more damage than good, whether you like it or not!! On that note, I think I've said more than enough on this subject so I'll leave it there.

Peace and love to all

I don't completely agree with the more damage than good, but I can definitely see the damage.

I'll also leave it at that. At least now, we know what the real problem is since it's been broken down. Whew~ :p

[TommySteal]

@ Albert. Can I ask why you should be so concerned about somebody deciding to buy or not to buy something from Theory11 or any other company? Don't you think Therory11 or any other company should be more concerned since it's their business, not yours?

A simple question...

[Albert]

@ Albert. Can I ask why you should be so concerned about somebody deciding to buy or not to buy something from Theory11 or any other company? Don't you think Therory11 or any other company should be more concerned since it's their business, not yours?

A simple question...

I don't have any concern for it. I'm not sure whether I sounded like that or you understood it like that, but definitely not. ;)

I'm concerned about people obtaining improper knowledge through misinformation, in which that happens through people seeing trailers, not buying the product, thus not obtaining the proper credits, and then learning falsely that a move is an original creation by another when it isn't.

Mark's example of the Invisible Palm was the perfect example. Up until Mark told me around last year, I thought the invisible palm was Wayne Houchin's as well. I never bought the product because I figured it out, thus, not obtaining proper credits into my knowledge bank (given that they do provide it in the video, which I have no idea if they do or not).

I hope that answers the questions. :)

If you are wondering why I'm concerned about people learning things correctly, I don't know why I do it. I just want people to not learn things incorrectly when they should be and have the capability to. For example, that's what my whole channel was about when I created it and it still is. I want people to learn all the small details that helped me when learning things, which others usually don't teach in a YouTube tutorial video. This way, people don't perform things stupidly and expose it in performances through failing. I'm starting to go off topic again... :thinking:

[Mark]

I think 'GPS' is an excellent example for that too. Until very recently, Theory11 said the term 'impromptu' is completely based on a personal definition of the word. I can tell you that whoever bought 'GPS' when it still said it was impromptu (which it has for over two years till the statement was removed) and who would demand a refund and wouldn't get it, could sue Theory11 and win the case without a single doubt.

We are concerned about the art, not about who buys what and where. We strive to a clean and ethical art. If anyone would be non-crediting or be crediting whoever and use terms in whatever way they want, there is no meaning to either crediting or using such terms at all. They merely do it because it looks and sounds cool (or it doesn't, apparently, in case of credits).

And yes, Fin, I have had contact with Theory11 personally before posting anything.

[TommySteal]

I kind of understand what idea you are trying to put across but it's a very twisted logic. The part where you say: "people seeing the trailer, not buying the product", should stop right there. I thinks it more likely that the person not buying the product doesn't like the look of the move, not because of the lack of crediting.

I think it's important too that people learn their sleights correctly - and I'm sure that by what Fin says, when someone buys the method to "High Rise", they will learn it correctly.

Another question.
Out of the following, which would you say is more important or more of a concern to your future personal success as a magician, not to the history of magic as an art form:

[1] Magic companies giving the right credit where it is due and where necessary.
[2] Cheap exposure in general.

I know it's kind of off topic but still relative nonetheless.

[Albert]

I kind of understand what idea you are trying to put across but it's a very twisted logic. The part where you say: "people seeing the trailer, not buying the product", should stop right there. I thinks it more likely that the person not buying the product doesn't like the look of the move, not because of the lack of crediting.

I'm extremely confused at your question because I'm NOT saying that one shouldn't buy tricks because they don't put credits on the product page. I never said and never will say that because that's stupid. :hm:

Just so that you won't be confused, I'll try to make it as clear as possible: I'm saying that credits due should be given on the products page, not hidden or deleted. This has NOTHING to do with one buying the product or not. I'm concerned for people who mistakenly learn the credits of a move with an older origin wrongly and this happens for those who don't buy the product because they don't have access to the credits (at least for most people). There's no twisted logic there. Crediting someone due and teaching people the correct history of it is respect towards the original creators or contributors.

The "people seeing the trailer, not buying the product" is a scenario where misinformation is commonly occurred. That's why I gave that example.

I think it's important too that people learn their sleights correctly - and I'm sure that by what Fin says, when someone buys the method to "High Rise", they will learn it correctly.

Going off track again ;)
I never disagreed with this and me doing so will be hypocritical and stupid. Learning moves correctly is what my whole channel is about. There is a humongous confusion right now on what the real topic of concern is. This is a completely different matter that entered the thread here for some reason.

Another question.
Out of the following, which would you say is more important or more of a concern to your future personal success as a magician, not to the history of magic as an art form:

[1] Magic companies giving the right credit where it is due and where necessary.
[2] Cheap exposure in general.

I know it's kind of off topic but still relative nonetheless.

For my personal success as a magician, I would say number 1: right credits.

With the correct credits readily available, it does 3 things beneficial to me:
(1) I would be able to find the correct sources of origin if I was really interested, it would provide me with correct and better knowledge for future references to help people out, and learn the moves from the original sources, which could be an extremely valuable learning experience.
(2) Only those who are ready to spend time and effort into learning the secrets of a trick will search for the sources. In other words, laymen wouldn't bother further into going into the history of magic because that's boring for them. That way, exposure isn't as readily available and the art would still be relatively well hidden from laymen.
(3) If people learn the correct sources, I could learn about it from another if I know it differently. For example, I recently purchased Shin Lim's Splice from Vanishing Inc. to see the various applications he had come up with the move. In there, he gives references to the wrong moves/credits regarding Splice, and the most commonly mistaken credits at that. Even through video purchases, wrong credits were given, which was terrible in my opinion in one's learning experience. If I was new at magic and learned Splice's credits wrongly, at least someone who knew better could then help me out in the future, right? :)

[Fin]

This debate evolved into something bigger after I mistakenly said 'slight variation', which I admitted several times and apologized for. That should be pretty clear, even to you. ;)

Just to be clear on that, it certainly wasn't a mere suggestion of a "slight variation" that made me feel I had to go "off-topic" in pointing out the differentces between the BTS and High Rise. I was actually only talking about the trailer until you said the following:

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.......Fin, imagine someone took a song of yours you composed, switched a few notes around, put it up or down an octave, and switched your Rondo form of ABCBA and turned it into a Ternary form of ABA. Then renamed it, claiming it as his........ That's the situation here.

It was that which prompted this. The only thing that lead this thread astray was your improper crediting. And I know you have admitted and apologised to that, and I wish I didn't have to bring it up again, but this did not happen because all you said was that it was a "slight variation", and that should be pretty clear, even to you. ;)

I hope nobody think's this is about me just picking on Albert. I love Albert,.. :cry: Albert, I hope you can see this; I have as much respect for you as ever. This is not a personal thing. This is, indeed, about getting the credit's right, and I saw the wrong picture being painted of Mr Lax and the move so I saw the need to correct that, regardless of who may have been saying it.

[Albert]

Just to be clear on that, it certainly wasn't a mere suggestion of a "slight variation" that made me feel I had to go "off-topic" in pointing out the differentces between the BTS and High Rise.



Finny Finny Fin Fin~ ;)

Yes, I did suggest a mere slight variation. When I said that Rick Lax knew that it was the Bow-to-Stern Control and that it was renamed to HighRise, I called that inappropriate because I assumed only a slight variation. From the trailer, the positioning of the fingers looked pretty damn similar to the original BtS from what I could remember. I'll check my book again now. But regardless, yes, through that, I did suggest a mere slight variation. If it was very different, I wouldn't have called the renaming inappropriate, now would I? ;)

Quite funny how we are arguing about why I am wrong! :grin:

[TommySteal]

You misunderstood me, i never said that either. I was only making the point that most people care more about esthetics than bad crediting when purchasing something.

I also never said you disagreed with me on people learning their sleights correctly. On the contrary, I was agreeing with you about this, only I was also trying to convey, without actually saying because I didn't want to appear rude, that this is in fact probably more worthy of debate.

Interesting you chose number [1], personally I would have gone for number [2].

What I mean by cheap exposure is people in any public domain, claiming to be magicians and revealing methods for reasons that I can't answer. These people no nothing about the magicians oath, whereby one should never reveal the method either outright or through lack of practice etc.
Okay, maybe "personal success" is fairly strong, but look at the MASKED MAGICIAN giving away secrets for nothing. Surely this has an effect on a magicians success, maybe not you personally, but if everyone knew the secrets there would be no magic and much worse, if magic was how you made a living... That's why I'd go for number [2].

[Fin]

Just highlighting what I reacted to Albert, the sentences I put in bold being the main bits. I never suggested you didn't say "slight variation", but briefly looking back I can't actually see where you did use those words.. did you use those words? However thats not my point. Whether you did or not I'm just talking about what parts you did say which I thought was way off the mark, and which is what took me off-topic, away from the trailer and product page debate :) Had you only said it was a slight variation I would have totally understood but we all know you went further than that and THAT is what I was reacting to.
When anyone says "Rick Lax knew that it was the Bow-to-Stern Control and that it was renamed to HighRise", and "renamed it, claiming it as his........ That's the situation here", those are very black & white claims. They don't look like that person is "assuming" anything. They look like he knows, yet they are not correct. The BTS IS NOT the High Rise. And Rick has NOT renamed it, claiming it as his. "Slight variation"? Whatever! I have made it clear several times what prompted this, and it wasn't talk of a slight anything.

[Albert]

Just highlighting what I reacted to Albert, the sentences I put in bold being the main bits. I never suggested you didn't say "slight variation", but briefly looking back I can't actually see where you did use those words.. did you use those words? However thats not my point. Whether you did or not I'm just talking about what parts you did say which I thought was way off the mark, and which is what took me off-topic, away from the trailer and product page debate :) Had you only said it was a slight variation I would have totally understood but we all know you went further than that and THAT is what I was reacting to.
When anyone says "Rick Lax knew that it was the Bow-to-Stern Control and that it was renamed to HighRise", and "renamed it, claiming it as his........ That's the situation here", those are very black & white claims. They don't look like that person is "assuming" anything. They look like he knows, yet they are not correct. The BTS IS NOT the High Rise. And Rick has NOT renamed it, claiming it as his. "Slight variation"? Whatever! I have made it clear several times what prompted this, and it wasn't talk of a slight anything.

Fin, I'm sorry, but this is getting really irritating. For one, I didn't explicitly say the word, but I described it enough to communicate that and even Cris understood it that way (in the last paragraph of his 1st post).

Secondly, I clearly said 'For those who know Ernest's control, we can say "Oh, Rick made some improvements on Ernest's Move."' That is pretty much true. That suggests I implied 'slight variation'. I even purchased HighRise yesterday for the sake of this thread and to compare it with the BTS. Honestly, I personally think there isn't as excessive of a difference as you claimed for the fact that the secret move is more exaggerated than the original. The core principle is kept the same and the finger positioning of the right hand for the first bit is the main difference. Sure, it's enough to allow him to rename it as something quite different, but the difference isn't so big. :hm:

Lastly, the use of the music situation to say "renamed it, claiming it as his" was explicit to that certain situation. That can be clearly understood by the fact that I knew Rick gave credits in the actual video, which proves that he didn't claim it as his. I'm not stupid enough to not realize that. It was to exemplify that people who don't purchase the products and see the credits will understand it like that.

Seriously, I thought that this topic on the matter of me saying slight variation or not has been quite solved and I didn't bother expanding on it to keep things on track as well. Well, is it now? :confused:

[Fin]

This debate evolved into something bigger after I mistakenly said 'slight variation', which I admitted several times and apologized for. That should be pretty clear, even to you. ;)

see, you really wanna try to be accurate, especially when quoting yourself! Or else it looks like you're confusing things yet again. You even put 'slight variation' in quotations, strongly implying that you actually said that, and that this is all it was that started the drama, just one innocent mention of a "slight variation"; not really misleading at all, if that were the case, but it wasn't..

Then...
I didn't explicitly say the word, but I described it enough to communicate that

Surprise, surprise! Well as long as that's cleared up then. You didn't actually say it was a slight variation but we should have known you meant that :rolleyes: Silly me! And when you said something so clear as "Rick Lax knew very well that this is called the Bow-to-Stern Control", why would anyone be confused and think you meant there was no difference between his move and the BTS? :rolleyes:

"That is pretty much true. That suggests I implied 'slight variation'."

Well, that's nice and clear. You wouldn't make a good lawyer. You see, I ain't a mind reader and to me all you communicated was a confusing picture about the move and made a couple of misleading statements. If you don't believe that they were misleading then there's not much more to be said.

----
Ps. I don't want to irritate anyone by holding them to account for what was actually said, (rather than suggested or implied), so I'll leave this mantra as my final contribution to this thread:

"Crediting is very important! Be sure to always get your facts straight when talking about crediting, especially when criticising others, about crediting!!"

[Albert]

Well, if they were misleading, then I apologize. That was definitely not my intention at all. I had a strong belief that the moves were quite similar, so I made statements that implied slight variation. As for me claiming to say "slight variation," that was my mistake as I truly thought I did say that (seems like I didn't! :eek:)

My memory fails me more so than I thought... :thinking: Regardless, your words "Crediting is very important! Be sure to always get your facts straight when talking about crediting, especially when criticising others, about crediting!!" is the whole point of this thread and thank you for saying that. Let's leave this at that. Continuing to argue will benefit no one at this point, especially as the whole point of this thread is clearly stated. :)

Still friends Fin? ;)

[Fin]

You know me.. Any excuse for a group hug dude :) Like I said, this ain't personal. Anyway, that hug ^_^ Trav, honey, where are you?

[Travmang]

Oops my bad I was off hugging my Halo friends. But who are we kidding, I like my magic friends better! :)

[Mark]

This update goes a little back in time but I only just saw this video Theory11 made for the USPCC on Bee playing cards. It TOTALLY misrepresents these cards and I came to realize that all of Theory11's USPCC trailers are basically the same, leaving a very dirty mark at the biggest playing card company in the world:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sGVlc3rNPns

[MysteryHand]

High Rise and GPS i have all. I don't know the method to do Bow-to-Stern Control. GPS is not impromptu like Mark said and High Rise is some thing you can know :D

[theheron]

Weren't Bees made for gambling, and casinos, not cardistry?

[Mark]

Weren't Bees made for gambling, and casinos, not cardistry?
Indeed. This is nuts, and they are getting paid for it too. If I were the USPCC I wouldn't pay them a single dime for a trailer that's this off-topic, no matter how professional it looks. They could and should have asked Jason England for it, and it's a shame they didn't because they got access to him too.

[Fin]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sGVlc3rNPns

Sorry, I really have missed the point here. What's the problem with this advert? It says they are bees, and they are bees! What's the problem? How is the trailer off-topic just because some guy is using them for cardistry? They're adding a bit of glamour to the cards.. no big deal. Again, it's an advert! They can do what they like with the cards, even have them spouting out of an elephant's rear for all I care, as long as it looks cool :cool: And what should they have asked Jason England for? :eek: Yes, I really haven't got a clue what you're problem is. Did I miss something? :( Perhaps a difference in taste? A different idea of how this particular brand should be advertised? As someone commented on the youtube page.. "theory11 should really make gambling demonstrations to promo Bee cards". If that's the case, then it's just a difference of artistic taste/opinion and there's nothing wrong with that at all.

[theheron]

Well, I suppose it's whatever floats your boat, but in this case, Bees were made for casino's and gambling by Bicycle, not T11. Then again, if Bicycle approved of the advert I suppose that's their right. Still... I just don't like seeing Bees used for cardistry, but that's just my opinion.

[la0o9]

well, they ARE one of the best cards used for cardistry( 2 of the world's most expensive flourish decks are blue and brown Bee Wynn, and they have, what is currently one of the stiffest stock and finish there is), so it's fine that they are used like that, but you're right, bees shouldn't be used for performing flourishes.

[Fin]

I agree they look really crap in this vid and don't seem to fit flourishing at all, lol. But still, its just down to taste is it not? And I have impeccable taste, of course ;)

[Mark]

Bee Wynn decks are way different from the ones in the video though. The brown Wynns were actually re-released by T11 for cardistry, and they really suit that purpose thanks to the very simple yet versatile design (and I totally applaud T11 for that re-release). However, Casino Bee decks (and most if not all other borderless decks) don't suit that purpose.

The problem here is that T11's goal is to take over the world. Now, that is the goal of many companies, but I never ever seen a company who did that by ruining other companies from the inside.. by producing ads that are way off and making that whole company 'their own' by doing so.

The embedded Bee trailer, which is totally misrepresenting those cards, now is the official trailer for these cards.. cards that are supposed to be at the card table.. which is why I said they should have asked Jason England since he is T11's master at the card table. These cards and Michael Herp don't go together a slightest bit.

Imagine that someday they will hook up with Disney and produce the official trailer for Disney World, having Mickey, Goofy, Donald and the rest do card flourishes. Yes, it would indeed be cool for us, but not for the world. :hm:

[Fin]

The problem here is that T11's goal is to take over the world...... These cards and Michael Herp don't go together a slightest bit.

That's a slight exaggeration and another question of taste. They can advertise the cards however they like, but a bad choice of setting and person in this video does not mean they are necessarily just "ruining other companies from the inside"; which is again somewhat overstating your point. In fact are they ruining a company from the inside? Or just helping that company to make more money. I'm pretty sure that T11 will have helped increase the USPCC's earnings, as have the other companies who join forces with them, of which there are many. T11 just made a different choice about who they were aiming for with that ad, plain and simple. Maybe they thought it was time to try to get the cardistry crowd into those cards; in fact I think that's exactly why this has been done.

You can't really say those cards are totally the wrong cards for cardistry, because yet again, what cards you use for cardistry comes down to your own personal taste. It's called finding your target audience, and sometimes brands like to try different audiences to widen their customer base. Its common practise and makes sense, even if you don't agree with their taste on this particular advertising push.

[Mark]

Fin, I don't think it comes down to just opinions. Look at the facts:

- The United Playing Card Company produces the highest quality and most versatile decks of cards in the world, for families, for magicians, for cardists, for gamblers, for collectors, they make it all;
- Each of the official ads for the different kinds of playing cards (all of them made by Theory11) contain cardistry, and cardistry only. That is: two for Bicycle cards, one for Tally-Ho's and now this one for Bee cards;
- Those advertisements, that focus merely on cardistry, could make laymen think 1) that those cards are only for cardists, 2) that each of those decks handle and are exactly the same apart from their back design, or 3) that those decks are all meant for in the same situations (whether it is cardisty or anything else).
- Apart from the four playing card ads, the USPCC has a series on the World Series Of Poker, one educational video (how cards are made) and only one other ad.. which is on playing cards with friends.

This is by no means making the customer base wider, it is making it smaller. Any marketer can tell you that the four playing card ads, only containing cardistry, are not making sense, especially not for a company (the USPCC, not Theory11) that produces cards for literally everyone, and thanks to T11 now seems to focus on cardists mainly, which may very well be the smallest customer base they have.

[TommySteal]

I also think a kind of Erdnase-vibe perhaps would've been better suited to show off these BEEs, but the USPCC must know what they are doing, they must have the final say in what gets put out.

[Mark]

I really doubt it.

Theory11 is pleased to announce our partnership with The United States Playing Card Company, makers of Bicycle® Playing Cards, to evolve the company’s playing card product line to appeal to a new generation of consumers.
I think that under those conditions, the USPCC accepted the deal and let Theory11 free in making these ads. But Theory11's "new generation of consumers" is merely based on cardists, which is a big (if not the biggest) part of their own consumer base. On top of that, there is no new market for the USPCC at T11 because cardists are called cardists for a reason.. because they already use playing cards.

The goal of this strategic alliance is to combine theory11′s creativity with USPC’s unrivaled distribution power. Accordingly, under this alliance, we will work together to innovate in the areas of web development, playing card design, marketing, and brand enhancement.
Web development? Top notch!
Playing card design? Great!
Marketing? Started off okay, but went down the drain.
Brand enhancement? Making the USPCC look like Theory11 or a department of them = success. Other than that, not really.. except for on the website.
Creativity? I guess that these playing cards ads, each of them looking exactly the same while shot at different locations = no creativity.

[TommySteal]

You doubt that the leading manufacturers of playing cards know what they are doing. Okay Mark.

[Albert]

Not saying Mark here is right or wrong, because I really don't know myself. But there are times consumers know way better than the producers in terms of what would work and what wouldn't. It's not always right to doubt the company, but it's not always right to fully trust them either. I think gathering of facts are important here, but currently we lack a lot of it to come to a final conclusion :confused:.

[Mark]

Tom, I never said that (even though Albert has a good point, and I guess he thought of T11's *sigh* wonderful and extremely well received *sigh* teasers when saying that).

All I said is that I think that the USPCC gave T11 the freedom to do so. I don't blame the USPCC, I blame T11. Theory11 even puts their logo animation in these ads while no other third party would do or even dare to put their logo in another company's ad video, apart from in a credit section (either a credit section in the video or the video's description). Obviously T11 has quite some freedom in this strategic partnership.

That said, the world's leading card company did make several mistakes not that long ago, and has apologized for these after receiving major complaints, which shows that no company, no matter how big or small, is perfect. Same with Toyota some years ago. In the end they are all run by people too. At least the USPCC (and Toyota) apologized for their mistakes. When T11, one of the leading card artistry producers, admitted to be wrong about saying 'GPS' by Chris Kenner was impromptu which was stated for over two years, no single apology was made. 'Nuff said.

[KGaborMagic]

Bees for cardistry?
This is ridiculous.:ninja:

[TommySteal]

Yes Mark, all I was saying was I'm sure the USPCC had its reasons for letting theory11 make the adverts. And yes, judging by the video footage it seems theory11 did have a lot of freedom, with all the Cardistry.
Not really cause for ALERT though this topic.

[MeandmagiC]

I have to agree with Tommy here this post was posted in the topic.
I don't agree with Bee cards being linked to Cardistry, but hey, what do I have to say about that? I agree they weren't very creative... But again, if they do not want to be, and the video is well received, why bother? The only thing that disturbs me a little bit, is the fact theory11 is promoting their own stuff by showing cardistry in a video. It would have been better if they had shown some poker being played, or maybe poker sleights. By making the same video for every deck of cards, the cards lose their identity in my opinion.

[Des]

This was earlier in the thread, but I felt like something needed to be said about the definition of impromptu. I feel like the definition should be something like this (I welcome people to disagree with any of this):
No gimmicks (meaning nothing the spectator doesn't know about) or setup (even "on the fly" setup) and objects could be borrowed and performed with on the spot.
I'm not trying to make myself some magic god with the final decision on a definition of a word, but this is just something I've been wanting to get off my chest since I saw GPS and Ellusionist's ridiculous video on impromptu magic.

[Mark]

This was earlier in the thread, but I felt like something needed to be said about the definition of impromptu. I feel like the definition should be something like this (I welcome people to disagree with any of this):
No gimmicks (meaning nothing the spectator doesn't know about) or setup (even "on the fly" setup) and objects could be borrowed and performed with on the spot.
I'm not trying to make myself some magic god with the final decision on a definition of a word, but this is just something I've been wanting to get off my chest since I saw GPS and Ellusionist's ridiculous video on impromptu magic.
I'm not to keen on including "no gimmicks or setup" in the definition of the word, mainly because there are many gimmicks and setups that can be utilized in impromptu manners without any problem, like the 'Invisible Deck' for instance. But yeah, usually setups indeed are not impromptu. ;)

I've planned on making magic definition videos so these may clear things up as soon as these will be released. :)

[Des]

I found two more things about Theory11 that ticked me off this morning. On The Wire, there was a review for Zach Mueller and Michael Stern's effect 'The Vintage Holdout' which started off like this:
"It's a brilliant idea, not sure if it's original, but no one really cares about that anyway."
:eek: WHAT!
Theory11 (and commercialized magic in general) has made a new generation of magicians think that crediting doesn't matter. Like, at all. :cry:
Second was the trailer for Andy Nyman's new effect 'Insane'. While it sounds like a good trick, and it's getting good reviews (although what else could you get on Theory11), does any one else find it wrong that it's such a hyped up trailer that he never actually performs the effect? Same thing with a couple of tricks on The Wire, people just camera cut through what the effect "looks like". That just shouldn't happen. It's so wrong.