My apologies - this is what I was referring to... my misinterp!

So, the basic similarities are WORD->PICTURE as a DD as the main method to make things work?

The differences being in ODDS one uses a d**k with an easy m**monic and with SCDD there are no pre-existing target words, they are created and collected as part of the routine, with another form on M**monic to create a wider choice range?

The argument then boiling down to considering:

1) if the issue is about WORD->PICTURE as the CORE and trumping method and that the SCDD techniques are just add on variations that do not add anything significant

2) If the SCDD add-ons in terms of being able to create a free choice (I am not sure if this is so as I don't own it) of words constitutes an innovation and improvement on prexisting routines like ODDS and therefore deserving of being seen as different / innovation

with following sub issues...

a) If R.O. by creating ODDS demonstrated the first published work of using words->pictures as a DD for a mentalism routine

b) Vetting issues - that at least they should be attempted, and if in the end the latest creator still feels after vetting the material he/she wants to release is new, goes for it anyway and lets the community decide

Is that what it boils down to?

Please anyone add any non-vitriol facts or concepts here please...

See, I'm hoping from all the recent issues on 3 different releases, maybe some Best Practice Principles could be boiled down and a sticky made someday somewhere

As I am an optimist

NB: I am not on anyone's side - I am more on the side of creating some community norms acceptable to all to help us go forward!

IMH
oooooOOOOOoooooo

Without taking sides and just adding my thoughts.
If a performer were preparing for a show one evening and included ODDS in his set he would know there and then exactly what his reveal would likely involve, given the restrictions of the ODDS method. (trying not to reveal too much here)
With SCDD the performer would have no way in H*ll of knowing what his reveal is likely to be until he had begun the effect.

Is that not enough to qualify as a substantial addition to something that uses a similar approach?

My ESPy-onage consists of cards with, words, colors, numbers, dates, times etc. on them. They can be put in a stack if the performer wishes. Do I need to pull the product?

And belittling someone's ideas as time wasting and a backward step, even when in an angry frame of mind, but then say I'm going to include them in my update, does sound
a little strange.

Steve

On the other hand (see I'm being as impartial as I can) maybe some contact with Mr Ostrlind earlier on in the proceedings may have avoided this mess.

As well as protecting the original creators creations, we must also not stifle the creativity of newcomers.
As more and more stuff is created it becomes more and more difficult to know just what is already out there.

I have pulled items before they even got to market before now for nothing more than there being a similar "feel" to the effect even though the method was brand new.

I think it needs to be a balance of new creators being diligent in research and older creators not being unduly "precious".


Steve

Stephen, I don't see how one could know one's reveal would likely involve with an ODDS presentation before it actually is happening...unless you're suggesting a f****e. But then, SCDD could also use that - and evidently does. If there is another way to know the reveal before leaving home, I wish you would share it with us.

*jeep!
---Grandpa

So, is this also true..

SCDD didn't mention anything about ODDS and no vetting occurred previous - if so something to consider for the future!

The ODDS is a system I believe - and reviewing the DVDs and the book, R.O. actually mentions the system system can be applied in other ways, such as having the spectator write down their own word or even using it with a book like a dictionary... at least I am seeing that with my own eyes.

Funny enough, I think Richard also did a Prediction effect if you check out his Guidebook #4 - depending if one accept ODDS as the first developed and published system of using Words->Images as a Mentalism effect for DD...in a chapter called "Why Now?" that the ODDS system would somehow be turned into common use concepts without any acknowledgement...

SCDD - has anyone actually used it to see if it works in real life conditions? The reason I ask is there seems to be an undercurrent of people saying its not for them or difficult memory system - the reason I ask is that this could also be part of the importance of vetting - sometimes my own routines and methods make sense to me cuz I have the curse of knowledge of knowing things about them I didn't clearly describe to others - so it didn't work for them - but by getting thad feedback I can fill in gaps, nuances and so on to really hone up something I want to share with the community.

So, what I am taking from all this is - Vetting vetting vetting vetting - can't go wrong.

Don't lose your head in posting anything vitriolic - even if you may be totally in the right...!

Everyone makes mistakes - its just those who don't learn from them over and over again we should watch out for...!

I
M
H
O....!

I'm all for crediting where its due... Its why I started a thread downstairs about it...would be very useful to have some baseline to work to, and give it where its needed...

And it will help others who may release words on cards based presentations in the future...

This was never about words on cards, it was always about the principle of the effect which was Richard Osterlind's intellectucal capital. That is the one point that is consistently missed by many in this community.

Method is not the only intellectual capital, and presentation is not the true measure of a variant.

I don't have the SCDD so I cannot talk to the issues directly, but I can talk to the points mentioned that do not address the principle created. The comments have centered on the method, presentation, impromptu outcome, etc.

Protecting intellectual property is the responsibility of all of us, and respecting those who created the foundation should be important to all of us.

I've written a non-mentalism/non-magic book which quotes several known persons. My publisher requires that I get permission from each person whose quote is in the book. Each quote is already in the public domain but I still have to get explicit permission. When we publish in our community we owe it to the community to do due diligence getting our material vetted suffciently to ensure there is no conflict with other intellectual property.

Just my thoughts, Solarzar