UPSB v3
Tricks & Combos / [topic][1.1.2] Notation/naming Conventions
To help clarify
-
Date: Fri, Jun 15 2007 16:30:35
Contributors: Strat1227, GizzardSmack, Skatox, Mats, Zombo
Abstract: To give an example of how I think these tricks should be notated.
Ok, after discussing this at length, I believe we have finally decided on the naming system for these tricks. (Thanks to everyone who has contributed, the ideas were great) Basically there are two ways to notate these tricks, a formal way for very specific descriptions, for tack-on games, ect, and a less formal way, thats less specific and be used for other breakdowns.
The formal looks somthing like this:
~ = This is used in place of '>' when notating a trick that gets interrupted.
[p x] = The [p] stands for "push", and is placed after the first trick, to signify that this is the push used to do the trick. The x can be replaced by the fingers it starts from (T1 or 34 or whatever), if the trick is not starting from its normal starting postition.
[s x] = The [s] stands for spins. The "x" is replaced by the number of spins done in this section of the trick.
[c x] = This stands for "catch". It is done after the trick that interrupts the first trick. This signifies that that is where the catch takes place. The x can be replaced by the fingers it finishes in (T1 or 34 or whatever), if the trick is not finishing in its normal end position.
{trick(s)} - This shows a trick or a sequence of tricks executed in the middle of another trick. Example:
Trick[p][s x] ~ {trick(s)} - [s x][c] - This denotes that the first trick is done, interupted in the middle of the spin part of the trick, and second trick, the one in curly braces is done completely (as denoted by the -, an ~ would represent another interruption), and then the first trick is completed.
Note that you can encapsulate an interruption of that form within another interruption. This phenomenon is called nesting. Here's an example below:
A ~ {B ~ {C - D}}}
means A starts, B starts, C - D, B ends, A ends.
If you want to say, A starts, B Starts, C - D, A ends, B ends, you would write:
A ~ B ~ C - D ~ A ~ B, because the {} cannot account for this type of form. It would have to also be written in long form if you want to make it clear that the second A is completing the first A, and the second B is completing the first B.
Examples:
Sonic Clip 23-12[p][s 1.0] ~ Pass 13-34 [s .5][c] - This is a Sonic Clip 23-12 that is interrupted by a complete Pass 13-34.
Shadow Still 12 [p] [s 1.0] ~ Korean Bak 12-12 [s .5][c] - This is the first part of a Shadow Still 12 caught after 1 spin, interrupted by the last part of a Korean Bak.
Sonic Clip 23-12 [p][s 1.0] ~ {Korean Bak Harmonic} ~[s 1.0][c] - This is a Sonic Clip 23-12 that is interrupted by a Korean Bak Harmonic 13, and then the Sonic Clip is completed.
Sonic Clip 34-12 [p][s 1.0] ~ Twisted Sonic 24-12 - This is a Sonic Clip 34-23, interrupted by a Twisted Sonic 24-12.
The Informal System would look like this:
Vid 1: Sonic Clip 23-12 ~ Pass 13-34
Vid 2: Shadow Still 12 ~ Korean Bak 12-12 .5
Vid 3: Sonic Clip 23-12 ~ {Korean Bak Harmonic}
Vid 4: Sonic Clip 34-23 ~ Twisted Sonic 24-12
----
Original Thread -
Date: Fri, Jan 8 2010 01:18:53
hi I've recently come across a problem and it's vis-a-vis fingerslots for interrupted:
What is the correct way to notate sonic bust:
sonic 23-12 ~> indexaround 13-12
VS
sonic 23-13 ~> indexaround 13-12
Look at the slots used: 12 vs 13.
1. Do you notate the slot at which the trick is being interrupted in? In this trick, the interruption happens when we hold the pen in 13.
2. Or, do you notate the slot at which the trick normally ends? Sonic 23-12 normally ends in 12, so 12. -
Date: Fri, Jan 8 2010 01:22:17
Hmm, well in the examples I show a "Sonic Clip 23-12 ~> Pass 13-34"
Meaning in the first one, you do where it would typically end, and in the second trick, the first fingerslot indicates where it ACTUALLY ended (eg, where the second one starts)
EDIT: Meaning for your example, I'd use sonic 23-12 ~> indexaround 13-12 -
Date: Fri, Jan 8 2010 01:23:47
yea but why?
wouldnt it be more exact to have the ending slot exactly where it was interrupted, to show exactly where the interruption occurs? -
Date: Fri, Jan 8 2010 03:30:13
it's the first one.
i've always used the first one, that's how i learned it, and it's more accurate.
inverse sonic 23-13 ~ pass 13-34
etc -
Date: Fri, Jan 8 2010 03:38:19QUOTE (Shadowserpant @ Jan 7 2010, 11:30 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>it's the first one.
i've always used the first one, that's how i learned it, and it's more accurate.
inverse sonic 23-13 ~ pass 13-34
etc
Ok, let me make this clear. What I posted IS technically correct right now. It's what was published by the RD back in the day, and there's a clear example of it in the OP.
That being said, it can be changed. I don't see a reason to, but if most people want it, so be it.
But again, Shadow, what you posted is *technically* incorrect, as the ONLY standing document on how to write it disagrees with you. -
Date: Fri, Jan 8 2010 03:39:31
right.
well i really don't know why, i thought i learned it properly, i never made any attempt to fix it.
if that's the case, i do think it should be changed, then. -
Date: Fri, Jan 8 2010 03:42:14QUOTE (Shadowserpant @ Jan 7 2010, 11:39 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>right.
well i really don't know why, i thought i learned it properly, i never made any attempt to fix it.
if that's the case, i do think it should be changed, then.
Right, so then, here is MY opinion (and of course, I consider it to be the right one).
What is posted in the Orginal Article is logically and fundamentally sound. It has no flaws, no lack of infomation, and no ambiguity. Yes, if we had this conversation 3 years ago when it happened, I'd suggest your method being published. However, here it is 3 years after the fact, we have no reason to change it other than opinion on "what's better", seeing has how the original one isn't flawed in any discernable way. -
Date: Fri, Jan 8 2010 03:44:55QUOTEYes, if we had this conversation 3 years ago when it happened, I'd suggest your method being published.
why? it seems you are suggesting that one is more correct than other. -
Date: Fri, Jan 8 2010 03:45:41
well i think if it's better then it should be implemented...
all the information may be covered with the current method, but it also supplies unnecessary information, which can be confusing. i don't think you should have to read to the next trick to understand the ending position of the first trick -
Date: Fri, Jan 8 2010 03:47:27
I don't think it's better, just preference really. Because others seem to like it, sure I could care less which we use, they say the same exact thing, just dfferent ways. But at this point, changing it is pointless, it doesn't solve any problems, just apeals to what some people like better.
-
Date: Fri, Jan 8 2010 11:42:49QUOTEsonic 23-12 ~> indexaround 13-12
VS
sonic 23-13 ~> indexaround 13-12
I think the first one is more understandable.
When reading the combo, you have to read the first trick separately, make sure what trick you're doing, and then advance. So if you read "Sonic 23-13", which can't be done separately, you'll not understand how to do it; then you'll see it's interrupted. But I think it's clearer if you notate the fingerslot where it would tipically end, and then you interrupt it.
Similar thing happens with Thumbaround T3-T3 ~ Ringaround 0.5 T3-34
Due to the interruption, the ending fingerslot for the Thumbaround could be T3, T2, T1..., so you could write anyone, but the nearest to do the Ringaround it's T3.
For the Ringaround, the starting fingerslot it's also interrupted, and this makes it a Fingerless Ringaround, so maybe it'll be more precise to write "~ Fingerless Ringaround 0.5 3-34". -
Date: Mon, Jan 11 2010 00:18:44
ok someone pointed one argument AGAINST the first method (complete trick slots):
Without interruption, the rule for verifying fingerslot correctness is simple:
The ending slot of one trick must correspond exactly to the starting slot of the next trick
Sonic 34-23 > Sonic 23-12 is correct
Sonic 34-23 > Sonic 34-23 is incorrect
The rule is simple, elegant and very easy to verify. It tells you right away the breakdown is wrong.
With interruption, this rule is not respected anymore. -
Date: Mon, Jan 18 2010 03:42:34
ok in FPSB its pretty much settled the original way is correct
please write an article about it
Skatox did propose a small add-on
he said in the original notation, since the first slot of the second trick is the actual slot, we lose the "intended" slot of the full trick, so one way to fix is
sonic 23-12 (13) ~> indexaround 12-12
so we have complete information and no ambiguity. -
Date: Mon, Jan 18 2010 03:44:55
wtf? "sonic 23-12 (13) ~> indexaround 12-12"?
is that official? or just like skatox's opinion of what it should be? -
Date: Mon, Jan 18 2010 03:48:14
skatox said what we're doing is fine, HOWEVER if we wanted to be 100% perfect with complete info, thats what we should do
-
Date: Mon, Jan 18 2010 03:54:24
"what we're doing", meaning what's technically correct or what people usually do? Because shadow does the second method all the time.
Also I'm confused how that method gives any more info than the first method? it just moves it and puts it in parenthesis -
Date: Mon, Jan 18 2010 05:08:09
normally we write:
sonic 23-12 ~> indexaround 13-12
which means we don't have the starting slot for complete IA which is 12. -
Date: Mon, Jan 18 2010 05:12:44
can I try my hand at writing an article?
-
Date: Mon, Jan 18 2010 05:18:34QUOTE (Zombo @ Jan 18 2010, 01:08 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>normally we write:
sonic 23-12 ~> indexaround 13-12
which means we don't have the starting slot for complete IA which is 12.
lol, seems like the issue we had to begin with was that the original nottion was giving too much info (ending slot of first trick, doesn't matter), this seems to only add to the problem.
but whatever lol, i guess in the article it'd only be a side note anyway.
sure hoiboy, i don't see why not, but make sur you post it here first when you're done -
Date: Mon, Jan 18 2010 05:22:16
i suggest using brackets [] for the numbers btw, its a lot less hassle and its more standardized (?)
UPSB's Research Department and FPSB's laboratory have come up with a few additions to the currently existing nomenclature system concerning interrupted notation.
It is now recommended that the trick being interrupted should be written as if were not interrupted, but with the fingerslot it is being interrupted in written in at the end in brackets.
ex.
sonic 23-12 (13) ~ indexaround 12-12
written something like this? or is there a certain format? -
Date: Mon, Jan 18 2010 05:45:28
First I'd be more thorough. Explain what the system was before releasing the article, write the reason the article is bieng released, then write the new system. Second I'm not sure if what you posted is even correct. The current correct method is "Sonic 23-12 ~ Indexaround 13-12", and Skatox's method is just an alternative that can be used if people want to give more information, it's suggested that they use the correct version, not altnernative, but either is accpetable. Third, try to be more clear in your wording.
QUOTEIt is now recommended that the trick being interrupted should be written as if were not interrupted, but with the fingerslot it is being interrupted in written in at the end in brackets.
is very hard to understand.
Fourth, it needs to be written in the UPSB wiki format. See: http://www.upsb.info/wiki/index.php?title=...arch_Department for more examples. -
Date: Mon, Jan 18 2010 05:50:19
mmk I give up
-
Date: Mon, Jan 18 2010 05:53:31
lol sorry if I was discouraging, I was trying to be constructive.
-
Date: Mon, Jan 18 2010 06:07:53
its ok for a start
just the content is wrong
the real system is:
for the notation A VV-WW ~ B XX-YY, WW is the ending slot of the complete trick A, XX is the actual slot used during the partial execution of B.
and skatox's notation is unofficial. -
Date: Mon, Jan 18 2010 09:37:18
I find that confusing because an Indexaround 13-12 can be done separately. Then I don't understand why to write the Indexaround 12-12 instead of the Indexaround 13-12.
-
Date: Mon, Jan 18 2010 15:44:59QUOTE (Freeman @ Jan 18 2010, 04:37 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>I find that confusing because an Indexaround 13-12 can be done separately. Then I don't understand why to write the Indexaround 12-12 instead of the Indexaround 13-12.
sorry bad example, but y ou can think of a situation where the partial slot is not a real trick -
Date: Tue, Jan 19 2010 04:12:50
i still don't understand why we SHOULDN'T use the second method, it doesn't make sense to me to use wrong information. why wouldn't the reader read ahead one character to see the ~ and know that it's a hybrid trick? the first method is just confusing imo
-
Date: Tue, Jan 19 2010 04:16:23
it's not wrong information.
-
Date: Tue, Jan 19 2010 04:51:58
well i think it is. if you never DO a sonic 23-12, why should it be in the notation?
-
Date: Tue, Jan 19 2010 04:55:06
but sonic 12-13 isn't a real thing, so it's wrong too, just in a different way.
it *really* doesn't make a difference IMO
-
Date: Tue, Jan 19 2010 05:12:17
the ~ makes it real.
it makes a difference for me, because it slows down my ability to read breakdowns. i dont think i should have to read two tricks to figure out the first one. -
Date: Tue, Jan 19 2010 05:18:30
ok, well unless you want to take on the Labratory and what's currently correct by yourself, not much can be done
-
Date: Tue, Jan 19 2010 05:21:04
why does the laboratory have control..?
-
Date: Tue, Jan 19 2010 05:22:40
it doesnt, but they officially have released what's right (just like we would have if we finished first), AND the article already posted is in agreeance with them.
so right now it's everything that's official and technically correct, vs your opinion ... not to say that your opinion isn't valid, but it just doesn't count for much on its own. -
Date: Tue, Jan 19 2010 05:23:35
the thing is
when you see ~ you dont have enough information any to start the trick
so its better if you read the whole thing and execute the whole hybrid, rather that see it step by step because its really meant to be like one trick in appearance. -
Date: Tue, Jan 19 2010 05:27:36QUOTE (strat1227 @ Jan 18 2010, 09:22 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>it doesnt, but they officially have released what's right (just like we would have if we finished first), AND the article already posted is in agreeance with them.
so right now it's everything that's official and technically correct, vs your opinion ... not to say that your opinion isn't valid, but it just doesn't count for much on its own.
well i don't think we should go along with things just because they're in place, which is why i'm making my argumentsQUOTE (Zombo @ Jan 18 2010, 09:23 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>the thing is
when you see ~ you dont have enough information any to start the trick
so its better if you read the whole thing and execute the whole hybrid, rather that see it step by step because its really meant to be like one trick in appearance.
but that argument can work both ways. as i noted, a spinner is expected to read ~ along with the preceding trick. if they do so, they should already know that the trick is not complete, and they need to read on to know what it is being interrupted with -
Date: Tue, Jan 19 2010 05:29:38
yes, we've heard your arguement, several times ... but at this point, it's a stalemate... you have your opinion, others have theirs ... why whould we do yours over ours? especially when A. ours is official, and B. labratory agrees?
-
Date: Tue, Jan 19 2010 05:32:41QUOTE (Shadowserpant @ Jan 19 2010, 12:27 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>but that argument can work both ways. as i noted, a spinner is expected to read ~ along with the preceding trick. if they do so, they should already know that the trick is not complete, and they need to read on to know what it is being interrupted with
i dont see how this argument can help you, if you're saying they need to read on, then what' the problem? they'll know the actual slot used from the next trick. -
Date: Tue, Jan 19 2010 05:36:11
well, to finish that debate at least, i present the arguments because oftentimes, as i've experienced multiple times in the RD itself, people change their minds after being presented points they had not taken into consideration.
for once, actually, that's me. i can concede to the first method. after thinking about it for awhile, i couldn't think of any hybrid which would have different slots in which the starting trick could end in multiple positions, which eliminates my argument of unnecessary information.
but that was the question i had unanswered up to now, which is why i continued to argue
edit:
@zombo
my point to counter the argument that with the 2nd method, the reader wouldn't understand the first trick -
Date: Tue, Jan 19 2010 05:40:00
yeah, my argument the whole time wasn't which one was necessarily "better", but actual REASON's for changing ... IMO if it ain't broke don't fix it. there's no reason the old system is wrong, so no need for change