Not an accredited source, but, if you want to play that game, I believe you just pulled what is called the fallacy fallacy.
EDIT: Or it could be the appeal to authority fallacy. I don't honestly know or care because there's so many "fallacies" out there that who can really know which is which, especially when those who make the claim about one being made either don't have an argument, don't know how to back up their argument, and/or want to slide the discussion altogether.

So, are you actually going to answer the question, or just continue to avoid it by going "You just don't understand"?

Last edited by Transdude1996 at 5:09 pm, Jun 16 2019

________________

Here you go: https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1. 64.2655

Why are you even challenging Wikipedia on this topic? Are you trying to deny that the described effect exists? If you are, you are funny -- you know you could google it yourself. Well, I suspect you actually want to claim that it doesn't apply to you, but in that case why does the quality of Wikipedia as a source matter when it doesn't talk about you at all? I sympathize with your desire to be argumentative on every single point, but I can't approve of it.

Anyway, you are leading the discussion astray. The original point I made was that scanaltion issues shouldn't be discussed with you et al. Even if you believe that you understand scanlation (spoiler: you don't 😉 ). Someone else challenged me claiming that this "transparency" is somehow beneficial, but they failed to provide a specific examples of such benefits. You joined in with a tangential argument, but failed to provide any such examples either. If neither of you can demonstrate the actual benefit, we'll just have to conclude that my point stands.

Last edited by cmertb at 5:38 pm, Jun 16 2019

________________
Active translations list
Completed translations list
Dropped translations

Alright, so you're not going to answer my question. Why did you even bother to respond if that's the case?

________________

You have two problems: 1) Count the number of question marks in your post. Which "question" you actually need an answer to? 2) If it turns out that your "question" is irrelevant to the point I was making, are you going to apologize for wasting my time?

To answer your latest question, I responded in order to make a point that I actually made. Did you understand what my message was? So don't claim that I don't answer your questions. 😉

Edit: Actually, in retrospect I realized the source of your confusion. When I said that non-contributors shouldn't be involved in these discussions, and you claimed that you understand scanlation (with the implication that it gives value to your opinion), I should have simply pointed out that it doesn't matter whether you understand scanlation or not, your opinion has no value simply due to your non-contributor status. Instead I hinted that you don't actually understand it, and that you don't understand how little you understand either (which is all true, but really, only a secondary consideration). That sent a false message to you, making you think that it's about your level of understanding, when it reality it's about your lack of ability to affect anything other than cause aggravation with thoughtless comments.

Last edited by cmertb at 6:04 pm, Jun 16 2019

________________
Active translations list
Completed translations list
Dropped translations

Let's see, perhaps...all of them.

No because you seem to be wasting more time and effort by refusing to answer them, rather than just answering them (And pointing out why certain points are irrelevant).

Also, just saw the edit to your post.
Make me understand or stop posting.

________________

Well the edit to my post which you saw explains why your questions are irrelevant. If you still don't understand, then the problem is with you. It takes two to tango, I can't bear all the responsibility for making you understand. Sorry.

Now that this detour is resolved, would you like to go back to the original discussion? Do you have any counterarguments to make there?

________________
Active translations list
Completed translations list
Dropped translations

Then why did you even respond to my posts in the first place if you can't handle the responsibility of presenting your side of an argument in a discussion? How can you, or ANYONE, take you seriously as translator to follow if you can't explain how it is that I am supposedly incorrect in discussing how the entire process works? Are all those links in your signature a lie? Did you get someone else to do the work and take credit for it? What? WHY ARE YOU EVEN HERE ON THIS SITE, TRYING TO PRESENT YOURSELF AS AN EXPERT ON THE SUBJECT OF TRANSLATIONS, YET CANNOT EVEN DEFEND YOURSELF IN EXPLAINING HOW IT IS THAT MY SIDE OF THE DISCUSSION IS WRONG WHEN I EXPLAINED EXACTLY THE PROCESS THAT I WENT THROUGH WITH POSTING SEVERAL COMICS ON AN IMAGEBOARD IN THE AFTERNOON BECAUSE I WAS BORED AND NOTICED THAT NO ONE POSTED TRANSLATED COPIES OF THE LATEST STRIPS?!?

Stop acting all high and mighty, stop acting like an intellectual, and answer the FUCKING questions that you have wasted 8 HOURS avoiding.

________________

It's always very entertaining to see people make fun of monkeys fighting and moments later join the monkey fight lol.

To break this "discussion" down into what it's actually about, we have one side that says there is no need to make drama like this transparent because the majority of consumers are not actually interacting with the contributors. So there is nothing to be gained apart from rage, and hatred further impeding contribution.
On the other side we have the opinion that transparency is important because people should be able to always make informed decisions, that's how markets self-regulate and improve.

Now the problem is that inherently both of these viewpoints are correct. It's simply market protection and consumer protection on a "market" that technically doesn't exist. And that's where technically both are wrong as well because in this instance it's more of a community issue but aggregator sites turn it into a consumer issue. Transparency in this case leads to community strife which is a detrimental thing but also leads to an aggregator having to change due to pressure from contributors and consumers. You can't just call it good or bad because you can't just ignore the bad/good.

So your pointless argument was indeed pointless because both of you decided to completely ignore the other's argument.

________________
in need of romance?
uncommon, sad, sweet

Transdude1996: Let's clarify things a bit. My first response wasn't to you. It was a general comment on the situation you brought up. This site has this functionality where you can either reply to thread, or reply to specific post. I used the former.

My second response directly to you was a response to an utterly invalid analogy you attempted to make in response to one of my points. You might have memory problems here, but you're the one who butted in on a discussion I was having with someone else. Which you then attempted to lead in a different direction. I have already explained why your analogy is BS and why your questions are irrelevant. The fact that you have comprehension issues doesn't give you the right to challenge my right to be on this site and to comment on whatever I feel like commenting on. So... clam down and return to the original discussion.

Lorska: you are incorrect in claiming that I chose to ignore the other side's argument. I have pointed out the basic error on which the other side's argument rests (and that you repeat). The error is that you think this is a market. This isn't a market. A market involves exchange of goods/services for money or for other goods. In this case, the goods are simply given away. There is no need to involve the "consumer" of free goods into regulating the market because they are inherently incapable of constructive contribution -- you would have to rely on their altruism, which is demonstrably not present in the vast majority.

I would love for you guys to show me ONE concrete benefit for scanlators in being "transparent" about all the politics going on in the scene. So far I see only disadvantages, which this latest drama amply demonstrated.

________________
Active translations list
Completed translations list
Dropped translations

Sigh.
Please read again what I wrote.
I explicitly stated that it's not really a market. It's a community issue which would give credit to your argument.
However due to the involvement of aggregator sites it gets shifted into that direction.
You didn't address the other person's argument at all actually, you dismissed it because of your interpretation.

So this doesn't make a market to you. Fine. As stated, I agree, but there are grey areas already existing. Are you gonna say YouTube does not work on the basic principles of a market that revolves around supply and demand even though you can't technically "buy" the products?

The argument you are fully capable of understanding because you already pretty much got to that conclusion while typing out your answer to me: criticism of the aggregator from suppliers (groups) and consumers (readers) forces a shift of behavior. Which (in the optimal case) reconciles with both of these parties to deliver something everyone can agree with.

Is it a "market" in the traditional sense? No. Does that excuse and exclude all the consequences a regular market would be subject to? No.

Just in case you missed a few history lessons: people get pissed > things change.
Just because we are in a society right now that promotes outrage culture doesn't mean every piece of outrage is unjustified, and pointless.

You can't be serious in that there can never be anything gained from transparency. That's lunacy. So is claiming that only good things can be gained from it. At best it's an ever-changing subjective evaluation that is dependent on the subject matter, the people involved and a myriad of smaller details. So unless you bring out that crystal ball and can with scientific precision prove that there can be nothing positive gained from this, my point stands. Neither of you is right or wrong, you're just standing on different ends of a constantly shifting spectrum bickering.

________________
in need of romance?
uncommon, sad, sweet

Have you EVER heard of a concept called the marketplace of ideas?


You mean the "disadvantage" that people can call you out when you're spouting nothing but blantant bullshit?

________________

Lorska: I am actually going to say that Youtube is a market, and thus completely inapplicable to scanlation. I am not dismissing (as you claim) this argument of pointing to a market that exists in reality (whether entertainment industry or Youtube) and trying to apply similar logic to scanlation. I have already refuted it, and I will do so again: In a real market, there is exchange involved between producers and consumers (and intermediaries). When you watch Youtube, you are in fact paying to both YT and the producer of content (I hope we don't need to go into the details of YT's business model?). More importantly, the producer can deny YT the right to host their content, and they can prevent other producers from duplicating that content. This leads to two important differences from scanlation: a) consumers are vital to producers; b) producers are able to exert pressure on the intermediary through consumers. I believe it's pretty obvious how these differences change the whole equation.

Despite your fine sentiments about how angry people can bring about change, the reality is that the vast majority of leechers are perfectly happy with the present state of things and are, therefore, of no use for effecting any kind of change in favor of scanlators, and there isn't a thing scanlators can do about it -- precisely because this isn't a market with equal players. The whole history of anti-aggregator wars is there to back me up on this. What's more, the thread that started this drama shows it.

To be honest, it seems like a cheap cop-out to claim that since there is no crystal ball, we can't really predict how things are going to go, so everybody is right and wrong at the same time, bla bla bla, and only you are the wise and intelligent one rising above the "bickering". But in practice, there is sufficient history to draw solid enough conclusions, which I have. Your point DOES NOT STAND unless you can at least come up with a specific example of how scanlation will benefit from "transparency". Your requirement that absence of benefit must be proved flies in the face of common logic -- the typical requirement is to first prove presence. All I need to do to refute is to disprove the presence, not prove the absence. Imagine that I'm a scanlator, and you tell me that transparency about all the shit in my group(s), and what I think of other groups, and so on, is advantageous for me. Okay, how? How would you sell this idea to me -- not in some theoretical make-believe world, but here and now, in this community that I'm a part of?

Also, I hope "you" in "You can't be serious in that there can never be anything gained from transparency" is a general "you" and is not referring to me -- else you'd be misrepresenting my statement.

Transdude1996: Scanlation is neither a market of goods/services nor a market of ideas. You have yet to find a counterargument to my original point.

________________
Active translations list
Completed translations list
Dropped translations

The producers in scanalations are those translating the material. The consumers are those that want the translated material. Your "intermediaries" would be the sources where which your releases hosted. With this being the case, excusing their increasing displeasure towards the readers, Mangadex is turning scanalation releases into a monopoly to where you have to release on their site, or no one will know when you released content. Keep in mind that the F.A.Q. of THIS SITE received an update on January of last year stating "A MangaDex group link can substitute as a website", and that's the only update even on that page.


I don't see how everyone involved in this market doesn't count as an equal player since we're all doing this for free (Which means both Mangadex and those scanlation groups can piss off), we're all (supposedly) anonymous in our identities, we can acquire all the skills and material necessary to accomplish the work required in this environment thanks to the near infinite resources of the internet (You'd be surprised how many series exist, with raws freely available, and no one translating them), and the only thing that people will hold us to is our reputation (Which we can reset at anytime).


Is that a Freudian slip?


Might as well copy and paste what I previously said:

People WILL NOT hesitate to call bullshit when they see something fishy going. So, you're option is either to be transparent when your (group's) actions became noticed by the community, or stay silent and watch as you lose support due to people expecting the worst.


You are "selling" your translation to readers who want to "spend" their time reading it. Isn't that the definition of a market? That you are exchanging a good/idea (Your time and service spent on making a translation) for payment (Online presence, promoting an idea/series)? Also, wouldn't you agree that the internet itself is a "marketplace of idea" because of how absolutely NOTHING on it has any a "physical" existence (Aside from existing as code on a server somewhere in the cloud), yet everyone is still trying to "sell" on an idea (Whether it be a video, art, game, comic, etc.) with the only "payment" being asked for is your time?

________________

I'm just astounded at how defiant you are in your position. So you accept YouTube as a market because... there is ad revenue that gets shared with the creators too? Like, that is literally the only difference. Consumers don't pay those content creators anything unless you wanna factor in donations too. Oh you know that scanlation teams also finance themselves via donations and ads? You are paying Youtubers by watching their videos? Are you joking? Unless you use an extra subscription model or donate you are not paying a CENT to them. YouTube is paying them ad revenue they get from advertisers. There is 0 money changing hands between consumer and producer.

So... your only remaining argument is that scanlators don't have any rights, so they can't apply any pressure. Ok? just because you stole the apples you sell doesn't mean they are not part of the apple market? It actually doesn't change a thing. Scanlators (producers) produce a scanlation (product) illegally or of at least questionable legality, that they then put out for readers (consumers) to enjoy. They also get hosted by aggregator sites (intermediaries) that either don't give a crap about them or they respect them, but who cares. The intermediaries make money off advertisements/donations just like the producers. If consumers are fed up with shit quality products they'll stop consuming it. If they are fed up with crappy intermediaries, they'll stop consuming it there. Just because the producers can't exert any rights because it's products made from stolen goods doesn't mean it doesn't function the same way. They also still have the ultimate power of stopping projects, which happened in the past as well.

Again, I'm not saying "oooh transparency in this case is such a good thing". It has obvious negative implications. But saying it has only negative consequences is just dumb. Just imagine that these guys tried to "figure stuff out behind the scenes". The statements made from both sides are two stances that can't really be merged. So at best the scanlators would just silently stop releases for MD. And then what? Either MD doesn't give a crap about it and still does it which just leads to more drama and hate and aggregator warfare or they stop and readers get pissed (probably at the groups) for releases not coming without any known reason. So the result of no transparency is just "suck it up"? There is a clear difference between personal drama between some people that'll benefit nobody ever and a clash of two entities of the same market (even if you hate this word) that each stand strong for their own interests. Where exactly the line should be drawn is not something anybody can easily tell and you can decide for yourself.

I mean it's pretty obvious at this point that you have your opinion and that's never going to change, which is why I called the whole thing pointless. If you so strongly believe that no human will stand of the side of scanlators which (just as a reminder) are the ones actually providing something, there isn't much point to even try anyway. Cause the whole point of transparency is that people can understand a process and then make informed decisions.

________________
in need of romance?
uncommon, sad, sweet

Lorska: I don't even know how clueless you have to be to claim that Youtube and scanlation function the same way. I already explained the two key differences. What is there not to understand? They change everything about scanlator relations with the rest of the community. EVERYTHING. No matter how many superficial similarities you claim there are (you are wrong on them too, but I don't even want to waste time explaining basic things to you), the reality is that scanlators have infinitely less control than YT content creators. Because they have no control, they don't sell their work. On the flip side, since scanlators can't sell, they don't have customers and don't need to pander to them either. It's power through weakness, if you will.

You realize I gave you the exact criteria for an effective argument in support of your position? I asked for just ONE concrete example. What I got instead was:
1. False analogy between YT and scanlation that I'm already tired of refuting.
2. Meaningless philosophizing about how sometimes somewhere transparency can be good (which I agree with, just not here and now), and it's just dumb to dare to disagree with you. LOL.
3. Complaint that I wont't change my mind (if you want to change minds, try explaining what I asked for -- even transdude managed this time).
4. Another lie claiming that I believe what I never said (that "no human will stand of the side of scanlators" -- on the contrary, there is always that small number that supports scanlators).

Do you honestly believe that if you can't come up with a single specific benefit, your post has any ability to convince anyone?

Transdude1996: I'm impressed, you actually attempted to get on topic by providing an example.

Incidentally, if scanlation were a market, scanlators would be selling stuff. But since you yourself said that they're only "selling" (meaning not really seling), then it's a "market" (meaning not really a market).

But semantics aside, you claim that it would be advantageous for groups to be transparent because "People WILL NOT hesitate to call bullshit when they see something fishy going. So, you're option is either to be transparent when your (group's) actions became noticed by the community, or stay silent and watch as you lose support due to people expecting the worst." The problem is, 99% of leechers don't care one way or the other. All they do is read anonymously, which means they are entirely invisible. Transparency would be entirely wasted on them. And what support will be lost? You will stop reading their work? You know that won't happen, and even if it does, won't be noticed by anyone. Donations? That won't happen either. The reality is the less you release, the more people offer to donate. People who offer to donate in general don't care about anything fishy, they just want their manga (that's why they offer money when there is a delay). The only way you lose their support if someone else gives them what they want faster than you. How transparency is going to help there I don't even know.

So I guess... try again?

________________
Active translations list
Completed translations list
Dropped translations