It seems that one of the primary purposes of these boards is to serve as a conduit for constructive criticism. Here are some online resources to help those folks that want to offer their opinion without looking like an ass:
- The Diplomatic Critiquer
- How to Give and Take Critique
- Critiquing Tips
Something that we used to good effect in my college photography critiques were rubrics. Here's an example I found for assessing artwork. Perhaps this site could use an online form modeled after something like this to assist contributors and critics alike.
"Courtesy is indeed the lord of all virtues."
I would honestly rather get "undiplomatic" criticism. If you sugar-coat it too much, you lose sight of the emotional angle. Knowing what people really think about you is good, but knowing what they feel about you as well is better.
The critic finds themselves not caring about the author or their work enough to carry the torch any more. The critic abandons the author and the author’s work. The criticism stops. Remaining interest for the critic is more academic than anything actually felt. Doubtless, the “offended author” imagines they have “won.” And after a fashion, they have.
Very true. If you chase-off or ignore anyone who isn't an outright sycophant, then you get to bask in nothing but positive feedback. But at what cost in self-deception and self-marginalization?
I sometimes think that the Dragon and Dungeon staff fall prey to a minor, probably unconscious variation on this theme when they don't take heed of threads on various internet forums (including this one) where former subscribers discuss why they don't patronize the magazine anymore. Since the current subscribers support the mags, former ones that might be persuaded to do so again if the format was changed to something they're more familiar with (that is, something recognizable as the same mags from the 80s and 90s by other than name) and potential future ones who might be more attracted to a different format are deemed not to matter. The only people that do matter are the ones voicing immediate approval in the here and now. But how much does that perspective hold one back?
Generally, the word "critique" implies that a critic doesn't simply do a drive-by attack on a particular person's work; instead, a critic has some measure of expertise on the subject and uses his time or space to offer something constructive to the artist. Not just complaints about what they personally would prefer to see or have.
The Critic Dilemma by David Liebman is a useful link to consider as well. Partly, it speaks to the fact that while all people may have strong opinions about someone's artistic work, all these varied opinions are not equally valid, useful, or even correct.
Let's try not to confuse opinions with critiques. On the Internet, most opinions are really just people giving praise -or- blowing static at artists or authors in their own special way, and as such they aren't useful for anything other than polarizing the e-audience.
At least with fanboys (and fangirls), they aren't pretending to offer useful "advice" under the guise of spewing venom. How many people here, who usually offer scathing opinions, are actually, genuinely qualified to offer a real and useful critique of written or artistic work?
At least with fanboys (and fangirls), they aren't pretending to offer useful "advice" under the guise of spewing venom. How many people here, who usually offer scathing opinions, are actually, genuinely qualified to offer a real and useful critique of written or artistic work?
Most of us.
We're mostly DMs and we got a job to do...this product is supposed to help us do it. When it falls down in that, we are in an perfectly authoritive position to criticize. Maybe we are not knowledgable to all the factors involved and certianly we might change our opinion if the ultimate reasoning is revealed to us. Nonetheless we are 'experts' in our field.
If I'm building a house and the power drill keeps breaking my wrist, and I find that its doing that to others as well, then I can criticize the drill and probably even the makers of the drill. It matters little whether I have the know how and talent to go home and build drills myself.
Most of us. We're mostly DMs and we got a job to do...this product is supposed to help us do it. When it falls down in that, we are in an perfectly authoritive position to criticize. Maybe we are not knowledgable to all the factors involved and certianly we might change our opinion if the ultimate reasoning is revealed to us. Nonetheless we are 'experts' in our field...
Experts are usually paid to do what they do. If not, they may have some skill or expertise in an area, but they're not a professional. For most DMs, this is a hobby. As much as some DMs might like to dress it up otherwise as a "job", this is most certainly a hobby for the majority.
Regardless, I've seen several "long time DMs" bellow and crank about everything, and have some of the most retarded opinions. Are all those "experts" right? Is there a metric for how a newbie 10-yr old DM should compare to a 40-year old DM who has been playing for decades? Some young DMs are far better than many 30-somethings.
If you're not a professional, hired and working in the industry, then your opinion should not count any more than mine. Yes, you can tell the publishers and editors what you like and don't like. You have a right to an opinion. But don't confuse that with "it's your job" to professionally critique someone's work - meaning that you start believing that it's right for you to judge what's right for me or other consumers.
Well, from MY perspective, I'd have to agree with Jeremy here. While it isn't our "right" or "duty" to complain and just irresponsibly spout unwarrented criticism or praise to those at Paizo; we ARE their intended audience/consumers of their product. This messageboard exists largely for the purpose of garnering our opinions about their product, which Paizo clearly values. Let's not argue over semantics here. Just because we aren't paid D&D critics doesn't mean we aren't qualified to give our opinion on how well Paizo is doing in providing the "public" with the "proper" gaming materials. Art is largely a subjective field. There are priceless classic paintings created by the "Masters" that I wouldn't personally hang in my dog's house. The thing to remember when critiquing art (whether in a magazine or some fancy gallery) is that not all styles and techniques appeal to everyone. What one considers a flawless masterpiece, another might regard as butt-ugly. Even so, it is still helpful, IMO, for the artist to be aware of those who are not appreciative of his/her personal style so he/she can adjust if neccessary. Basically, if one or two people find your work distasteful - who cares? but if a significant portion of the population agrees that you "suck", maybe it's something to consider!
Anyway, I'm sure the staff at Paizo prefers "constructive criticism" to crude bashing (who doesn't?); and those posters who take the time to specifically name what and why they like/dislike the product (possibly accompanied by some reasonable suggestions on how to "fix" the problem) are no doubt going to have the most powerful affect on those reading these boards. If one's goal is to get results, it behooves him/her to express him/herself in the most efficient way (that means being respectful, professional, clear and concise). If one doesn't care to behave accordingly, then don't b*tch that you're being ignored!
...it runs aground on several points, all of them based on the nature of the internet, to one degree or another.
(1) It has been famously said that, “To win an internet argument, you must yell louder and longer than everyone else.” Unfortunately, there is a great deal of truth to this statement...
I'm forced to agree with this. However, would-be critics must often choose between 'winning' and remaining respectful.
Is winning that important?
Jack
"Courtesy is indeed the lord of all virtues."
Criticism is a sticky wicket. And I agree with Sir Marcus 100%.
A personal experience: My very first post to these boards was regarding an adventure I had published In Dungeon a great many moons ago. Dungeon never printed any letters with commentary about the adventure, and for years I had wondered what player/DM reaction had been ... after all, it was in Dungeon so somebody must have played through it! Anyway, I happily discovered these boards and posted a query, asking if anyone was familiar with the adventure. Well, bam, the first reponse was not exactly a fan letter. I don't know what I expected, but I guess that wasn't it. The adventure in question* had consumed weeks of my time, probably 30 hours spent on the maps alone, and although Dungeon paid as well or better than any RPG publication at the time, I probably ended up earning a nickel an hour given all the time I put in. (Adventure writing is NOT the easy way to wealth, believe me.) But on carefully reading the gentleman's comments, he definitely had valid criticisms and I don't feel he was trying to hurt my feelings, just expressing his real opinion ... which is what I asked for. (I responded politely and we exchanged thoughtful comments, and in the meantime a few other notes came in.) Point is, the poster did nothing wrong, and I'm grateful he thought enough to comment on my work. I asked and I received, and a writer learns to develop a thick skin (a useful trait if you wish to get anything published). I will use the criticism to improve future adventures.
Now in the case of art, art is admittedly very subjective. Beauty is truly in the eye of the beholder. True too, oftentimes the authors/artists don't openly ask for comments as I did, but the mere existence of boards allocated to the magazines basically begs the question. Gamers are a tinkering, A-R lot (who else would endlessly customize rules and enjoy doing it?) and that, coupled with the already mentioned anonymous & dash-it-off nature of the Intenet can be a scary combination. Certainly we've had cases here where people have gone overboard, and I can't imagine reading 100 posts blasting one's work...
I think both sides can use moderation. If you are writing to complain, try to be constructive & not merely insulting, remember to address also what you liked, and remember that someone probably slaved over the work for hours for very little $$. Be respectful and remember the last time you had *your* efforts criticized before typing away.
If you are an author/artist/editor, take a deep breath and re-read the comments after a healthy pause and ask yourself if the criticism has validity. Resist becoming defensive & blasting back with both barrels, and be professional. If you can't take any constructive criticism, reading the boards probably isn't the best idea.
*"Training Ground" from #67(?) if it matters, and yeah, I'd still love to hear about your experiences with it! Be gentle.
Personally, I think Jeremy and Laeknir are BOTH right. If there's anything I learned in my time as a Creative Writing major, it's this:
1) Everyone is entitled - and qualified! - to offer an opinion/criticism, whether or not they personally could "do any better". Some of the best editors I've worked with can't write to save their life, but have an amazing ability to recognize and quantify what is and isn't working for them as a reader. You don't have to be able to build a car from sheet iron in order to soup up/trick out one that's already been built. (That metaphor may be bad - I know nothing about cars - but you get the idea.)
2) As was already mentioned, not all criticism is of equal worth. Ultimately, it's the AUTHOR's job to decide who he's going to listen to, taking into consideration the critic's experience, personal ability, track record, and stylistic tendencies. This last is the biggest one, really - as I found over and over again at UW, a novelist and a poet can both be unbelievably talented and still think the other is crap. Same goes for experimental vs. traditional narrative, punk vs. pop, Mac vs. PC, Marshall vs. Mesa... it's all a matter of taste. The good author chooses his critics carefully (and broadly... sometimes that pop lover can teach the punk a thing or two), shields his feelings of self-worth behind walls of lead, and lets 'er rip.
So the moral: by all means, politely state your opinion... but keep in mind that the author doesn't OWE you anything. Just as you have the right to give it, he/she has the right -and sometimes the duty - to ignore it if they don't feel it's helpful.
And authors, I know it's hard (oh man, do I know :P), but sometimes the best thing you can do is to walk away from your keyboard and go do something else (tequila works). "Defending" your work is never productive, often destructive, and rarely sastisfying in the long run.
Now let's see some good, clean criticism! :)
-James
Some of the best editors I've worked with can't write to save their life, but have an amazing ability to recognize and quantify what is and isn't working for them as a reader.
*snippity snip*
-James
Alright - so which of the editors at Paizo are you referring to? Come on... you can tell us. ;)
1) Everyone is entitled - and qualified! - to offer an opinion/criticism, whether or not they personally could "do any better". Some of the best editors I've worked with can't write to save their life, but have an amazing ability to recognize and quantify what is and isn't working for them as a reader. You don't have to be able to build a car from sheet iron in order to soup up/trick out one that's already been built. (That metaphor may be bad - I know nothing about cars - but you get the idea.)
Moreover, even editors who definitely can write (like Paizo's), may not have equal facility with guiding and overseeing all types of publications. Kinda like how Mick Jagger would probably turn-out a pretty lousy symphony and Mozart would probably pen a pretty lousy bluesy rock song.
Witness Dungeon being so consistently brilliant and Dragon being so consistently blah.
Alright - so which of the editors at Paizo are you referring to? Come on... you can tell us. ;)Some of the best editors I've worked with can't write to save their life, but have an amazing ability to recognize and quantify what is and isn't working for them as a reader.
*snippity snip*
-James
I originally had an aside saying "nobody at Paizo!", but then I thought it would look like I was covering up for someone.... : P In reality, I was referring to several people I worked with back in college, but the idea's hardly a new one: Orson Scott Card frequently talks about the need to have an "ideal reader" - someone who may or may not know how to write themselves, but is intensely in tune with how a passage makes them react/which parts of a piece affect them. While I have a bit of a beef with Mr. Card for ideological reasons, the man definitely knows a thing or two about writing.
And getting back to the main point - our magazine editors rule. If you want lame editing, try newspaper... whereas here we almost always leave a piece better than when we received it, with most of the newspapers I've worked at your best bet was to turn it in and pray that the editor didn't have time to look at it....
-James
I actually prefer rather undipolmatic criticism of my own work, sugar coating just obscures the issues... however I also prefer that the criticism tend to be helpful in some way... I ignore "You suck" type crticism as the non-statement that it is. however I tend to consider the criticism of somebody who tells me what they think I am doing wrong and why very highly, even if it doesn't change my own opinion in the end.
I actually prefer rather undipolmatic criticism of my own work, sugar coating just obscures the issues... however I also prefer that the criticism tend to be helpful in some way... I ignore "You suck" type crticism as the non-statement that it is. however I tend to consider the criticism of somebody who tells me what they think I am doing wrong and why very highly, even if it doesn't change my own opinion in the end.
Well, yeah. It's not really criticism when there's no explaination. That's just a plain old attempt to insult somebody.
James Sutter,
Gotta agree with you about the newspaper reference. I wrote for a newspaper column for years (though that was over a decade ago). Oh, how I hated how they hacked my work! Even when I was an itinerant sports column writer (you think, "How could they screw up a sports report?"), they massacred my work until I was embarrassed that it included my by-line. Editors can be the boon or bane of one's existance!
This thread sucks.
Just kidding...I couldn't resist! :)
I tend to treat criticism a lot like Wes (cwslyclgh) described. If all you have to say is, "It sucks" then I'm going to shrug and walk away. If you say, "I didn't like it" then I'm probably going to ask you why if you didn't give reasons. I'm going to look at your reasons, and I'm going to give them some thought.
I may not like what you have to say, but I try to take it all in without getting defensive.
Now let's see some good, clean criticism! :)-James
Um ok, you guys are talking to fancy lol.
You use lots of big words. Make Ug's head hurt. You use less words next time, okie?
Ahem.
I oppose the thought of people being allowed and encouraged to be harsh, as many people think it's carte blance to be so caustic that they eat through the floor and head straight for China. This, in turn, often leads to a strained and adversarial relationship with the content providers who, most of the time, want only to provide better content.
I think there's a responsability of users to make comments that will BE heard by the intended audience, as much as I feel there's a responsibility of the intended audience to filter out comments that are just noise.
Favoring the noise above the signal only leads to more noise and less signal. Assuming there will be only noise and no signal leads to there being only noise and no signal.
Simply because the signal is hard to accomplish for the noise, does not mean the noise should be favored above the signal.
Put another way... If anyone out there is tired of whiny posts that say nothing but "You suck", then by all means, ignore such people out of hand.
Filter out the noise. Favor the signal above all else.
|
If you're not a professional, hired and working in the industry, then your opinion should not count any more than mine.
No. The opinion of a non-professional is not necessarily any more valid than yours. It could be.
A good critique will explain why the critic likes or dislikes something. Now, some may disagree with the reasoning provided, but if the argument is based upon a solid foundation, usually the conclusions should be valid as well.
Sometimes it is simply a matter of preference, but other times there are legitimate issues that need to be addressed.
Only considering criticism that comes from within the ranks is a policy for disaster. That is one of the reasons that civilians provide oversight for the US military. Sometimes being involved can make you blind to real problems.
In any case, a critique is an opinion based on observable facts with justifications. While they can be dismissed, they should be considered critically. Even if not every point a criticism raises should be treated as "correct", it is usally still worthwhile to consider whether the critic can be pleased, and if that really will please a greater portion of the audience.
And of course, someone offering their time to help someone produce a better product (even if unasked) should be considered as an offer of help. Though it can be annoying, the intention is usually sincerely good.
No. The opinion of a non-professional is not necessarily any more valid than yours. It could be.
Well now, that's a little difficult to follow. Is there an implied emphasis on one of your words? Like... necessarily? or valid? ;-)
... some may disagree with the reasoning provided, but if the argument is based upon a solid foundation, usually the conclusions should be valid as well.
Here, I'd have to say, that's not necessarily true. For example, uncoordinated facts might be presented as an "argument"... and they'd still be facts, but you'd end up with a non-sequitur.
Sometimes it is simply a matter of preference, but other times there are legitimate issues that need to be addressed. ...Only considering criticism that comes from within the ranks is a policy for disaster. That is one of the reasons that civilians provide oversight for the US military. Sometimes being involved can make you blind to real problems.
Hmm... perhaps I was misunderstood. I didn't say that all critiques must come from "within". That would be quite retarded. What I meant is that critiques have value when they are from someone with professional experience in that field. The lay public might have an opinion about something, and it might sound good from a prima facie perspective, but some "good ideas" are completely unworkable in practice. Here's where experience in the field comes in handy (for the one offering the critique). The best critique is also one that is well-informed by reality, before a suggestion is made. Some cleverly offered ideas will completely tank when considered in actual practice.
In any case, a critique is an opinion based on observable facts with justifications. While they can be dismissed, they should be considered critically.
I agree, this is the essence of a good critique. I also agree that critiques should be evaluated critically. But again I feel compelled to point out that most opinions are not critiques.
Even if not every point a criticism raises should be treated as "correct", it is usally still worthwhile to consider whether the critic can be pleased, and if that really will please a greater portion of the audience. ... And of course, someone offering their time to help someone produce a better product (even if unasked) should be considered as an offer of help. Though it can be annoying, the intention is usually sincerely good.
I think this is where we disagree. Someone might think they have the best idea in the world for changing something, and maybe it has some merit, but the creator / author / editor / publisher could completely (and justifiably) refuse to change their product solely on artistic grounds - or for reasons unknown to the lay public. When one listens to every opinion in the masses, it's easy to end up with cheap, watered-down stuff that appeals to the "everyman".
|
|
think this is where we disagree. Someone might think they have the best idea in the world for changing something, and maybe it has some merit, but the creator / author / editor / publisher could completely (and justifiably) refuse to change their product solely on artistic grounds - or for reasons unknown to the lay public. When one listens to every opinion in the masses, it's easy to end up with cheap, watered-down stuff that appeals to the "everyman".
Of course the "content provider" can choose whether to change the content or attempt to follow a "tried and true" formula. The "content consumer" can choose to support the product or not. Usually criticism is offered before the consumer withdraws support of the product.
Now, making a better product should always be the goal. That does mean that some people will always be upset. They may have ideas for changing something that are very bad. Others might have ideas that are very good. The important thing is to consider these ideas and attempt to evaluate their quality.
I think a lot of subscribers have good ideas for improving both magazines. Some ideas are not as good. I'm certain that the paizo staff might come to these same conclusions given enough time and research, but some subscribers are willing to come out on a limb and offer their opinions on what is good and what is bad free of charge, simply to (hopefully) get a better product.
Now, as consumers we all want more for less. That is an inherent bias in our relationship to the magazine. Of course there are practical limitations regarding what the magazine can or cannot do. Generally, however, the magazine is good at considering the criticism and responding to it.
I've had one letter published in Dungeon. In that letter I explained what I wanted from the magazine. I said I wanted three or four adventures every issue, with at least one for low level, one for mid-levels and one for high levels. They heard me (and I'm sure others like me) and I've heard nothing but praise for Dungeon (as a whole) since. I've also heard that the magazine is doing better than it had been. So, some criticism is certainly good.
It doesn't matter the source. What matters it the audience. Most of the "critiques" of the magazine on these boards are directed at the paizo staff (since they have the power to effect change). However, by putting it in a public forum we give the opportunity for other members of the community to respond to our suggestions giving the staff a more "holistic" view. If I say something is a good idea, but four hundred other posters say it is a bad idea (or even worse, that they'd unsubscribe) the staff will quickly discard it. If I post an idea and four hundred posters agree with me, well, the staff would certainly do well to consider it after evaluating their limitations.
In any case, noise may "outpace" signal, but I think that at least on these boards, the signal comes through pretty clear. Usually, at least.
In any case, I don't think that any of us need any special qualifications to be considered "capable" of making a critism. Some will be better than others, but the fact that we care about the game and the magazine is enough. At least for me. And when I see a criticism I disagree with, I'll make sure to respond, including my reasons for disagreeing with such a critique or suggestion.
That, I believe, is the essence of dialogue. The problem on internet boards in general is not a lack of manners in offering a critique - it is the failure to engage in a meaningful dialogue over the issues raised. Too often a poster is attacked for their position (by fanboys, for instance) while the substance of the argument is ignored.
Criticism is good. Dialogue is better. Ideally, criticism will engender a dialogue which will result in an evaluation, perhaps a compromise, and a noticeable improvement in quality.
...Usually criticism is offered before the consumer withdraws support of the product.
Not necessarily. In fact, I suspect that this is probably rare in any hobby-oriented magazines because most buyers of Dungeon or Dragon are invested. Even if they don't have a subscription in the truest sense of being invested, they are involved in the game and like the feeling that they have a place for possible input.
Now, making a better product should always be the goal. That does mean that some people will always be upset. They may have ideas for changing something that are very bad. Others might have ideas that are very good. The important thing is to consider these ideas and attempt to evaluate their quality.
I absolutely agree. But again, critical opinions are different than critiques, and should be weighed as such when evaluating input.
I think a lot of subscribers have good ideas for improving both magazines. Some ideas are not as good. I'm certain that the paizo staff might come to these same conclusions given enough time and research, ...
A good editor can tell the difference between ideas that are good and bad for the magazine as a whole. But again, just because something appears to be a good idea to several subscribers and has other subscribers echoing "yes", it does not logically follow that the proposal will be good for the magazine.
... but some subscribers are willing to come out on a limb and offer their opinions on what is good and what is bad free of charge, simply to (hopefully) get a better product.
Are you suggesting that your input is worthy of payment? Excellent! ;-)
Now, as consumers we all want more for less. That is an inherent bias in our relationship to the magazine. Of course there are practical limitations regarding what the magazine can or cannot do. Generally, however, the magazine is good at considering the criticism and responding to it.
I'll agree wholeheartedly: the editors do an excellent job of considering and responding to input. However, many (most?) subscribers are woefully unaware of most practical limitations in publishing a magazine, and messageboards have the tendency of encouraging uninformed, reactive input.
I've had one letter published in Dungeon. In that letter I explained what I wanted from the magazine. I said I wanted three or four adventures every issue, with at least one for low level, one for mid-levels and one for high levels. They heard me (and I'm sure others like me) and I've heard nothing but praise for Dungeon (as a whole) since. I've also heard that the magazine is doing better than it had been. So, some criticism is certainly good.
Congrats on your letter. But I'll wager good money that your letter came at a time when the decision was already made to move the magazine in such a direction. It was probably convenient to illustrate the change made. Just sayin’.
It doesn't matter the source.
Au contraire, mon frere! Walk a month in an editor’s shoes, and I guarantee you’d do a 180 on this.
What matters it the audience. Most of the "critiques" of the magazine on these boards are directed at the paizo staff (since they have the power to effect change). However, by putting it in a public forum we give the opportunity for other members of the community to respond to our suggestions giving the staff a more "holistic" view. If I say something is a good idea, but four hundred other posters …
Yeah, ok… we all know about weighing opinions based on majority preference. But do you actually know the percentage of subscribers who are also on the internet? If not specifically listed as a subscriber, what’s the guarantee that anonymous internet person A actually buys the magazine? Can one believe that anonymous internet person B actually buys (or might buy) the magazine if something is changed based on what they want? No, it’s reckless to over-weigh or trust anonymous input from people on the internet. As you are certainly aware, most posters prefer anonymity precisely because they can offer opinions that they wouldn’t ordinarily offer, or even make inflammatory statements without any tie to personal responsibility. That’s the way of the internet.
Don’t get me wrong, though: I’m not saying to ignore input from the Internet. I’m saying that it should be given no more consideration than is appropriate.
…the problem on internet boards in general is not a lack of manners in offering a critique - it is the failure to engage in a meaningful dialogue over the issues raised. Too often a poster is attacked for their position (by fanboys, for instance) while the substance of the argument is ignored.
Sheesh… you can’t have it both ways. If you want to offer your opinions and “critiques” freely such that people other than the editors can see it, then you are opening yourself to counter-opinions by everyone, including these so-called “fanboys.” Dialogue is nice when you can get it on the internet, but don’t expect it by any means.
This is quite an interesting topic, and it puts me in mind of several things that always seem to come up when free speech, criticism on the internet, and how much weight one's opinion should have come up.
First, its always good to remember that internet sites and message boards aren't free. They are free for us, but they are paid for and maintained by the folks at Paizo, so we have no right to anything that has to do with them. They provide them becuase they want people to discuss their products and to be able to communicate with them, and they are pretty benevolent dictators as far as opinions go, but it is their sandbox, and its a privalage, not a right.
Second, the thing that a lot of people tend to forget about free speech is that your right to make a statement is just that. If someone else makes a statement counter to yours, its not invalidating your freedom of speech, its just someone else exhibiting their right to do the same thing. If you want a conversation to be civil, you can't just demand someone be nice becuase you have a right to savage something they like, you have to set the tone and model the behavior. In the end, the person that sounds more calm, rational, and reasoned will likely present the better case, unless you are vehemently against their opinion in the first place. Then again, I think we have all seen someone argue for something we agree with, only to wish they weren't on our side after seeing HOW they defend our issue.
Third, just becuase someone likes something, and offers opinions on what they like instead of criticism on what they don't like, that doesn't make someone a "fanboy" (a term I deeply hate since its used to universally dismiss positive comments). If someone likes the way a writer sets up his narative, the kind of information he chooses to include or not to include, the tone of the article or adventure, and the background he invests in his subjects, that can be just as useful as complaining about the same things in an article or adventure you don't like. Also remember, one person, no matter how well spoken, isn't going to cause the editiors or publishers to go against hundreds of other opinions, because this writer is "smarter" than the rest. And while you may not think saying that Writer X always comes up with really good magic items is a helpful comment, when a lot of people are moved to say this instead of just a few fans, it creates a trend, which is what editors and publishers are looking for . . . trends.
About the fanboy thing. Try not to be too dismisive about stereotyping a poster based on what they like and what they defend. On one thread, I mentioned being a Forgotten Realms fan, and the immeditate assumption was that I must love drow and have good aligned drow twin scimitar wielding PCs running around my campaign all the time. Or that I must immediately, without regard, love everything that Ed Greenwood has ever written. Obviously such assumptions ignore the fact that I think RAS needs to branch out from writing about Drizzt and that the series has stagnated, or that while I like some of Ed's novels, I think he writes better sourcebooks than novels. Deal with people based on what they tell you, not what you assume about them.
And to wrap up . . . I may not think the Drizzt books are that great anymore, but this is a good example of trends, and logically what a company has to do. I can make the best arguement in the world about the direction the Drizzt books have gone and what books should be written. But in the end, they make more money than any other author's books. Should I assume everyone that buys them are silly Drizzt fanboys? I don't know them all, they may have very valid reasons for buying the books in droves. All I can do is state my opinion, vote with my pocketbook, and move on.
|
|
Sheesh… you can’t have it both ways. If you want to offer your opinions and “critiques” freely such that people other than the editors can see it, then you are opening yourself to counter-opinions by everyone, including these so-called “fanboys.” Dialogue is nice when you can get it on the internet, but don’t expect it by any means.
Right. Dialogue.
What I mean to say is, if I attack an article or feature for a particular reason, I should not be inviting attacks against myself. Rather, the attacks should be directed at my argument. I used the term "fan-boy" because it was featured earlier in this thread. In this case, I did intend to refer to people who "like everything without regard to quality", or even worse, who "don't like some things, but will pretend they do because they hate to see the magazine criticized because, while they may not like some things, overall the magazine is a great thing so nobody should say anything mean about it."
In any case, online posting often results in people ignoring the substance of a criticism and focusing on the poster.
For instance, when I've brought up issues that I find contain room for improvement, I've been called a "loser who spends too much time writing his opinions". The implication that I should instead be using this time to contribute to my community (despite the fact that it is 10:30 at night and I have friends over involved in a RISK game that I'm sitting out) I would be a more fulfilled individual or something...
In any case, civility should be the natural state, but that doesn't mean people can't deeply disagree. Still, attacks should be leveled at arguments, not at people. So, I don't want it both ways. Only one way.
I like criticism. I don't like personal insults, yelling, and hissy fits. If I get the latter, I disregard the former.
-Amber S.
What I mean to say is, if I attack an article or feature for a particular reason, I should not be inviting attacks against myself. Rather, the attacks should be directed at my argument.
I thought you wanted dialogue, rather than attacks (of any kind)... ;-)
I used the term "fan-boy" because it was featured earlier in this thread. In this case, I did intend to refer to people who "like everything without regard to quality"...
But... isn't this just your opinion? Beyond anecdotal reports, how do you know what people like, or why? And does it matter, if someone likes a particular feature without thinking through every little aspect of it? Some people might buy the magazine because they just want to have fun without over-thinking the content or "quality" of every feature.
...or even worse, who "don't like some things, but will pretend they do because they hate to see the magazine criticized because, while they may not like some things, overall the magazine is a great thing so nobody should say anything mean about it."
Hmm... pretending they like something when they don't... how would you know? Maybe someone doesn't like a few fiddlybits related to something, but they like the overall whole. To spend a lot of time arguing for tiny improvements when the overall is appreciated anyway might seem like a waste of time (especially with a hobby). What if someone sees your point-by-point argument against something, and thinks... well, yeah, XYZ could've been a different color and it might've been "better", but they don't really care? If they reply to your argument with "eh, doesn't bother me that much" or even "nah, you're wrong", aren't those views just as valid as yours which took an hour to go through? I'd say yes!
In any case, online posting often results in people ignoring the substance of a criticism and focusing on the poster. For instance, when I've brought up issues that I find contain room for improvement, I've been called a "loser who spends too much time writing his opinions"...
I haven't seen a specific example of an ad hominem attack against you, so I'll just go with it. But ultimately, I suspect that this is something that you'll simply have to accept unless the board's moderators impose specific resctictions against this, or posting requirements.
In any case, civility should be the natural state, but that doesn't mean people can't deeply disagree. Still, attacks should be leveled at arguments, not at people. So, I don't want it both ways. Only one way.
Sure, everyone should have thoughtful, respectful views when expressing anything. And definitely, people should not stoop to ad hominem attacks. But the reality of the situation is that just about everyone is allowed to post here: child through adult, novice to experienced, fans and critics, the rather dim to the very bright, and so on.
Bottom line: you don't need a license or an IQ above 100 (or even above 85) in order to post something here. So it's really unreasonable to expect that just because you're posting something well-thought-out and well-intentioned that everyone else will take up the same banner and principles.
It's just not going to happen on the internet, where both cream and scum rise to the top. I suppose it's nice that you want to improve the magazine, but no one will give you praise for being a critic, no matter how well-intentioned, unless they agree with most aspects of your argument.
|
|
Sure, everyone should have thoughtful, respectful views when expressing anything. And definitely, people should not stoop to ad hominem attacks. But the reality of the situation is that just about everyone is allowed to post here: child through adult, novice to experienced, fans and critics, the rather dim to the very bright, and so on.
Bottom line: you don't need a license or an IQ above 100 (or even above 85) in order to post something here. So it's really unreasonable to expect that just because you're posting something well-thought-out and well-intentioned that everyone else will take up the same banner and principles.
I agree that it is unreasonable to expect that, but not to hope for that. In summary, I don't think that the critics are all "impolite". Some might be. I don't think that all of the defenders of the magazine are impolite, though some might be. The original poster seems to think we need more civility in leveling criticism. While more civility is a good thing, I don't think we're at a bad place as far as that goes. I do think that we need more civility in a discussion that gets started.
I agree that it is unreasonable to expect that, but not to hope for that. In summary, I don't think that the critics are all "impolite". Some might be. I don't think that all of the defenders of the magazine are impolite, though some might be. The original poster seems to think we need more civility in leveling criticism. While more civility is a good thing, I don't think we're at a bad place as far as that goes. I do think that we need more civility in a discussion that gets started.
Agreed! But if you think that some critics "might" be relatively civil, we don't have to go very far to find a lack of tact: this whole thread was started in response to the 128-Why Do The Maps Suck posting. That critic apologized later in his thread, which I think was appropriate. But as long as we have a range of posters with varied attitudes, there will be limits in terms of the "dialogue" seen here - both in criticism, and in the responses to it.