pouët.net

Okkie, why are you then here? Ga buiten spelen.

also you proved my point about you not considering social sciences science lol

Ha! see, there it is ahaha

Okkie and myself agreeing on something? Thats the end of history right there.

ILU dubmood, you fucking weirdo <3

(Did we ever actually have beef? haha, I cant remember tbh)

Also i was kinda baiting Bifat, sorry man, but you showed that your reasoning is so detail oriented man.

You dont need a degree to have STEM brain, social sciences are science, what;s the point you ask? what's the point of this entire discussion. There is clearly no actual start point of the demoscene that anyone will agree on no matter how many weird details you supply. Angelo gave some actual science backed reasoning for picking a certain party as start point for his studies.

This is not a debate, this is people yelling their opinion to eachother lol.

and what doesn't help is that you always seem to argue from some misguided 'higher knowledge' with disdain to other opinions. Same happened in the AI thread. Everybody sees through your dishonest smileys too, it just makes you look pompous.

This are enough words for now, back to work on this dreadfully warm day, I love you all <3

Let's see how well a 1991 party in Poland as a starting point sits with attendees of the Danish Circle Copy Party 1. Especially when it's getting called science.
Ironic? Pompous? Most certainly.

Notice the “copy” in “copy party”. Now I’m waiting for someone to say that “copy” means that they were copying demos.

Further back you go from 1991, more “copy” and “crack” and less “demo”, but do go on.

@bifat:
So, setting the start in 1991 Poland, if anything, actually worked in favor of your arguments.

So what's your point? I'd assume the people attending that party would agree it wasn't a 'demoscene' party as they became known later. Stamping it as a demoscene party in hindsight is ridiculous.

Angelo also clearly stated his paper is about the demoscene, not the crack scene, that's why that party is considered the first 'demoparty' according to his dataset.

4gentE, you could have looked it up: https://csdb.dk/event/?id=541
Note the seven demos that were released there at a single venue in the first half of 1987.
We can be sure that tons of games and all kinds of stuff were copied also.
The number of attendees listed here on CSDB is misleading, the number was so big that the party location had to be moved spontaneously during the event.

The fact that demos were released at a party does not make it a demoparty, these weird details don't cement your theory that the demoscene started then.

That the demoscene's roots started at such parties is undeniable, but those are not the same thing.

4gentE: You're aware of https://csdb.dk/release/?id=30446 ? (Pretty sure they copied EVERYTHING, not just games, but also demos.)

The milestone of 91 and party in Gdynia, I was referring to is obviously the beginnings of demoscene in Poland in particular. Since that is the area I (together with Zenial and couple others at kskpd) have researched in greater detail (mainly for the purpose of unesco application).

Sure, that was a bit of a mental shortcut on my part, but then I fail to see how anyone in their right mind could assume I tried to claim that the global demoscene had its beginnings in a 3rd world eastern-block country that Poland was. You are of course free to question any of my claims by nitpicking details, because even tho I read through this thread as well as the one on AI, observing eristic tactics on myself is... a different animal.

lol, again, this point is moot, but go ahead and keep reiterating it.

Funnily enough, that party in Gdynia was also called Copy Party, if that helps y'all, but it was actually the first one to include proper compos. This goes back to the point made earlier -- nobody called "live music" that, until recordings became a thing.

@Krill:
I know man, I just wanted to express my opinion (which happens to be a mainstream opinion that also appears in almost every research):
The early demoscene can not be separated from the crackerscene. They are one and the same. The crackerscene was there first. It provided a cultural frame and a means of distribution for the rising demoscene. Separating crackerscene from demoscene post factum is wrong, and no amount of nitpicking detail is relevant to this. Artificially separating crackerscene from demoscene comes off as personal exhibitionism. Funny, similar kind of exhibitionism in regard to a certain prod was being expressed a few months ago IMHO.

4gentE: "The early demoscene can not be separated from the crackerscene. They are one and the same. The crackerscene was there first."

We agree on the first and second sentence. But please help me unwrap this. The sentence seems to directly contradict the two. Rest of the post confused me even further.

Maybe the point is that you think the early proto-scene should be called crackerscene, while i think it should not, neither crackerscene nor demoscene?

Who could have thought that a party where demos were released isn't allowed to be called a demoparty. It MUST have been about cracks BECAUSE. That's the science, and I enjoy the parallels being drawn to vaccination here.

I once heard a cracker compare the challenge of removing a copy protection is akin to picking a lock. And he was specific about his motivation being picking the lock another person created.

Through this perspective: how is picking a lock the same as creating a lock?

I know you are not dumb. Then, why are you playing dumb? You provide a link to an event that called itself a “copyparty”. Then you (I guess) “accuse” me of “not allowing” that same event to be called a demoparty. Did I get this right? If I did not, then excuse me for being dense. If I did (get it right) please forgive me for asking, are you BATSHIT CRAZY? You want an existing historical event to be called something else than what the orgas called it. Do you want us to edit CSDb entries and scrolltexts also? So that they coincide with your “alternative facts”? The antivaxx was mentioned before. I don’t care for that subject and I don’t know anything about your stance on that, but your “tactics” sure look like those deployed by those folks.

@Krill: what’s your point? Is there any? The swapper network was built to swap games. Only through that network demos could also be swapped. That coincides with the Wiki definition by which demoscene arose from cracker scene. Or do you perhaps think it was the other way around? That the swapper network was put in place to swap demos, and cracks came later? It seems to me that you want to picture everyone as “lame” for “believing the mainstream conventional knowledge”. Sheep. While you, on the other hand, posess some secret 1337 knowledge. Again, if so, this shows a typical fringe conspiracy theory mentality pattern. Or perhaps you just misunderstood me:


It’s not about what should be called what, it’s about the part of the consensual definition of the demoscene, the part that says it emerged from the crackerscene. You and bifat seem to have a problem with that part. But that’s how cultural sudies work: by arriving at temporal and cultural consensus about the past events. @angelo tried to explain this to you. It seems in vain.

I apologize if I offended you updront, I didn’t doublecheck how this post sounds.