Why would you want your trick to have the same as another?
Not the exact same - but I don't think the Oops deck, and the trick Oops are the same. The word "deck" makes it different.
Can you think of anything good which can come of that?
Clarity of effect? Actually, there is invisible thread, deck, coins, palm aces - I think by adding the extra words, it changes the name.
Do you think it speaks to creativity?
"What's in a name? That which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet."
I am more concerned with the effect, then the name. I like when names are distinct and speak to the effect - but I wouldn't rank it as something overly important. Actually, some of the best tricks have very boring and unimaginative names.
Do you think it shows respect and knowledge of the history of ideas in our art?
Naming the effect exactly the same is not a good idea - but naming it similar might actually be nodding to an old effect, so sometimes - yes. However, in this case, I don't think that was the case. Like I said before - even with vast knowledge and buckets of respect, people name a trick the same. One man can only learn so much...re-read the case of Sankey and Asher. I don't think either of them lack in knowledge of respect.
Brad, I think your examples are weak, because they are comparing apples and oranges. When you look at the Oops deck, this makes sense to the gimmick. Calling a colour changind deck "triumph" when there is a historical understanding of what can be expected is odd. However, if I had a gimmicked deck, where I shuffled the cards face up and face down, and they all went back face down but one card...and it was moveless because of the deck...and I called it a "Triumph deck" - then yeah...I WOULD SAY THAT IS SMART...oh sorry, cap locks on, I don't want you to think I am emphasizing words to be condescending.
To answer your question, some titles are ingrained in our collective history and to rename them or offer different concepts with the same name is both irresponsible and even stupid.
I don't disagree with this - am I taking crazy pills? I must be. You seem to argue that the Oops deck, and the trick Oops is the same? Is this your point? If so, this is where I don't see eye to eye - if you are talking about a trick on the DVD called Oops, and the previous trick Oops - then yeah, the creator should change the name for purpose of clarity.
Here is a question Brad - as you are so well read - have their been other times in history that tricks have become really well known, and they share the same name? In other words, has this happened before?
Lastly, your last sentence seems to imply that I am for naming different tricks the EXACT same name as previously released tricks...WHICH I STATED BEFORE is not the case. Therefore, let me state again Brad, to make it really easy to read - "I don't think naming a trick the exact same as a previously released trick is good for magic - however, in the case of the Oops deck - it seems that the word DECK makes it different enough that people won't get confused".
Maybe it is that I am not mentally challenged, and if I saw a trick with cards called INVISIBLE, I wouldn't assume it was an I. D. I would read, and research the effect...as responsibility in magic does not just fall on those that sell, but also those that buy and make tricks stay on the market. This is how we as a magic community vote. I am glad you brought the trick Oops to everyone's attention, I guess we can let them decide.
Although I wonder, what makes you think that the word Oops is used in poor taste? Oops DECK to be specific?
I am going to go practice Twisted Sister, I mean Twisted Arm Illusion, Twisted, Twisted Collectors, Twisted Hofzinger, Twisted Aces (no not the orginal) Redivivus, Twisted Appearance.
Brad, don't take this as me being a jerk, but it seems if you ARE stating that Oops and Oops deck are the same - aren't all the above in violation as well? Looks like you have your work cut out for you if this is true!?
Thanks for taking the time to answer - look forward to your response.