Why critics are valuable (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> Scenario Design



Message

el cid again -> Why critics are valuable (8/9/2006 12:52:36 AM)

WITP as a produce is very large. Too large to review in total detail in any reasonable time frame. No one person could ever notice every last thing that might be better in the sense a large number of people - critical people looking for flaws - can.

WWII PTO is an even larger subject. Too large for any person to understand in toto. Also, there is no one place to go for information - so everyone will be to some degree operating with too little information. Also, there are many aspects, and no single person can be expert in all of them - even after decades of study. People trying to understand the way WITP works, or was modded, in a critical sense - looking for flaws - are the most valuable in identifying how it can be improved.

Communications is a difficult process. It is to a degree a subjective process. It depends on both writer and reader - and both bring to the table preconseptions, assumptions, and varying degrees of mastery of the language(s) used. Communications theory says it is inherently hard, and only a process involving feedback has any hope of getting it mostly right most of the time.

Secure people do not get upset by negative feedback. If your goal is the same as mine - to get a better game - and if you want as I do that Matrix will thrive - to get a better game and also other games in future -
than you will never get upset because someone somewhere figured out something was not right. That just identifies where we can think about how to make an improvement. It is, however, not helpful to be uncivil, or to assume some negative motive is present. It is also much more constructive - when you find a problem - to identify exactly what would be a better solution - to the degree it is clear to you what that is - and why? This at least creates the possibility of persuasion and immediate adoption. Since the rules of the board actually require being civil, any participation is conditional on doing so, it is not unreasonable to be a bit insistent about it. Since this is supposed to be fun, it also is probably necessary in fact.

Take a bit of pity on those at the front. They get a lot of mail and comments. There is some justification in writing (as one Matrix programmer did) that "I cannot answer specific requests because it would take far too much of my time." This is probably more true of modders than of Matrix people - they are more visible - and advertising gets noticed. Do not expect them to have time to go somewhere else to find something: if it matters and you want them to know it - send it directly - indirectly - or identify exactly to the last letter where to find it if it is not practical to do more. One author I once knew (he died) used to write "I want to know this and that, but if you help me, do not expect any reply. I thank you in advance, but if I respond to each letter, I will never write any books." If such an author does write to you directly - consider it to mean he has complimented you as worth his most valuable thing - his time. Most of all assume that a person involved in trying to make a better WITP has motives you should admire. Attributing to any such person a negative motive is almost certainly wrong. We must - being free people - disagree to a degree on this point or that one. Not for us the behavior of Nazis, or Imperialists, or radical Islamic terrorists - that only one thing can possibly be right. We should value our diversity - it means we can pool our knowledge and expertise and analysis - and get a much better product still. But only if we are civil will we be successful in that.



Terminus -> RE: Why critics are valuable (8/9/2006 1:36:59 AM)

Could you be more pretentious? Call me a Nazi, or a radical, or uncivil if you will, I don't care.



bbbf -> RE: Why critics are valuable (8/9/2006 2:32:57 AM)

Nope, I'd just call you plain old rude.



treespider -> RE: Why critics are valuable (8/9/2006 2:39:48 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus

Could you be more pretentious? Call me a Nazi, or a radical, or uncivil if you will, I don't care.



Can I call you Ray?



Terminus -> RE: Why critics are valuable (8/9/2006 2:45:02 AM)

Just as long as you don't call me Ray Jay...



treespider -> RE: Why critics are valuable (8/9/2006 2:46:31 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus

Just as long as you don't call me Ray Jay...



Well you certainly aren't a Johnson or are you?[;)]



Terminus -> RE: Why critics are valuable (8/9/2006 2:47:40 AM)

To be truthful, I'm not sure anymore...



el cid again -> RE: Why critics are valuable (8/9/2006 6:31:26 AM)

And in spite of some grasp of English, I don't even know what pretentious is. But to insure the record is strait - I was saying I am not a Nazi or other such person who only accepts things one way - and that I believed none of the rest of us are either. If I wanted to say something to you I would do so privately. Since we are not supposed to be rude on the board, I would not do that even if I believed it was justified by your demeanor. I do think you have a hard time grasping this concept - but that is as close as I can come to being critical. The fact is that quite often you have intelligent comments - and in spite of your habit of being less than polite I am certain you are not any sort of real bad guy. Here - if you were the sort to believe me (which isn't the case) - I would normally incert a story or two - but suffice it to say you are clearly not someone who is dogmatically determined to impose your politics on everyone you meet. So please do not read into my words things I do not believe and never attempted to say. In general, it is said I write like a laywer: I say what I mean in the immediate sense. And I like your picture.



JeffroK -> RE: Why critics are valuable (8/9/2006 6:39:12 AM)

Which picture,

Anders Lassen VC etc etc

or the Enzed Corsair?



bstarr -> RE: Why critics are valuable (8/10/2006 1:22:19 AM)

cid,
Don't take this the wrong way but I've just finished spending the better part of three years writing a book on the recovery effort after Space Shuttle Columbia tragedy.  I personally thanked every person who helped me.  Sure, it took a little time; but they gave time to me, so I gave it back. And it took me a lot less time for me to say 'thank you' than it did for them to do whatever research, give time for an interview, or whatever favor they did for me.
bs

ps. I'm not trying to pick another argument, I'm just letting you know what it was that sounded so pretentious (basically, that means full of yourself). I'm pretty sure that was not your intention.



Terminus -> RE: Why critics are valuable (8/10/2006 4:09:35 AM)

Alright, cid... I'll tell you what my problem with you is, and I have no qualms about doing it in public.

You say that your goal is to get a better game out of WitP by way of your RHS mod. That's fine. The problem arises, however, by the fact that you seem unable to comprehend that other people might have a similar goal, but vastly different ways of achieving it.

I've looked at RHS. If you looked at Mare Bellum, my mod, I suspect your head would explode, because it fails to conform to your idea of what constitutes a "better" WitP . However, it's mine, and it's succeeding in fulfilling my idea of what constitutes a "better" WitP.

Some time ago, FDRLincoln posted a thread about realistic "what-if" ships. He showed off a "what-if" Dutch aviation cruiser. You posted, saying that the aviation cruiser idea was a failed one, immediately (and snidely) pointing out that FDR had "failed to notice" this. The aviation cruiser idea was a failed one, but that's not relevant in this particular case; if FDR wants to mod his WitP scenario to include a Dutch aviation cruiser, then that's his business, and if he wants to post it, then that's also his business. Not yours, not mine, his.

At another instance, I myself made a post regarding the Japanese Type 96 anti-aircraft gun, and how it is considered inadequate by some sources, and a disaster by others. I made references to its awkward loading system, slow train and elevation rates, inadequate director and excessive vibration and smoke development. You subsequently posted about varied topics including modern-day light AAA, US Navy air defence training, etc. From my side of the pond, that had nothing to do with the discussion of the Type 96, but you refused to acknowledge this.

Any sort of civilised interaction between members of the human species must include give and take. You seek civility from me? How about moderating your tone a bit in return?

Nobody doubts that you're knowledgable, and nobody doubts your intentions to create what you see as a "better WitP", but you absolutely must accept that other people's ideas of a "better WitP" might not be the same as yours, and that this does not make them less valid.

I've said my piece. Make of it what you will...



Tankerace -> RE: Why critics are valuable (8/10/2006 4:23:40 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus

Alright, cid... I'll tell you what my problem with you is, and I have no qualms about doing it in public.

You say that your goal is to get a better game out of WitP by way of your RHS mod. That's fine. The problem arises, however, by the fact that you seem unable to comprehend that other people might have a similar goal, but vastly different ways of achieving it.

I've looked at RHS. If you looked at Mare Bellum, my mod, I suspect your head would explode, because it fails to conform to your idea of what constitutes a "better" WitP . However, it's mine, and it's succeeding in fulfilling my idea of what constitutes a "better" WitP.

Some time ago, FDRLincoln posted a thread about realistic "what-if" ships. He showed off a "what-if" Dutch aviation cruiser. You posted, saying that the aviation cruiser idea was a failed one, immediately (and snidely) pointing out that FDR had "failed to notice" this. The aviation cruiser idea was a failed one, but that's not relevant in this particular case; if FDR wants to mod his WitP scenario to include a Dutch aviation cruiser, then that's his business, and if he wants to post it, then that's also his business. Not yours, not mine, his.

At another instance, I myself made a post regarding the Japanese Type 96 anti-aircraft gun, and how it is considered inadequate by some sources, and a disaster by others. I made references to its awkward loading system, slow train and elevation rates, inadequate director and excessive vibration and smoke development. You subsequently posted about varied topics including modern-day light AAA, US Navy air defence training, etc. From my side of the pond, that had nothing to do with the discussion of the Type 96, but you refused to acknowledge this.

Any sort of civilised interaction between members of the human species must include give and take. You seek civility from me? How about moderating your tone a bit in return?

Nobody doubts that you're knowledgable, and nobody doubts your intentions to create what you see as a "better WitP". But you absolutely must accept that other people's ideas of a "better WitP" might not be the same as yours, and that this does not make them less valid.

I've said my piece. Make of it what you will...



With WPO I don't spend as much time in the WitP forums, but from what little I have read of the CHS/RHS threads, I think you nailed it Term. And not in just Cid's case.

Everyone has their idea of "realism", or the perfect game. But, while it is insightful to offer opinions, critics have no business pointing out what they perceive to be failures, or stupid ideas, or bad methodology. Pointing out errors is one thing. But pointing out "failed concepts" is something that, quite frankly, are counter productive. Or, as in the caser of ladner's idea for a mod, instantly decrying a modder's idea as unrealistic, stupid, etc, can not do anything but destroy potential creativeness.

When WPO was just a mod many moons ago, anyone here could have told me what they would have liked to see in it, what they whought needed changed, or what they wanted added/removed/altered. But no one had the right to tell me how I did it was bad, that hypothetical ships I added in were stupid or failed concepts (Battlecruisers anyone?), or that they could have done it better.

If you can do it better, then by all means do it. But don't tell another member that they cannot. That is not constructive. All that is an ego inflating attempt to make yourself feel superior by trashing and running down another members idea.

In the end, it is one person's mod. Or one teams mod. They and they alone have the right to choose methodolgy and what they want to include. If they want to include a completely hypothetical battleship with 25 inch guns and wire guided torpedoes, let them. If you don't like it, don't play it. But don't trash his efforts. Let him be creative.

Critics are valuable, yes. But it has been my experience that critics can also constitute people who, to inflate their ego, trash other people's efforts to feel superior, or are unable to be creative and come up with ideas similar to those they trash, and as such are jealous.

Critics can be valuable. But the artist is far more valuable than the critic. We remember Leonardo Da Vinci, we could care less about his critics.

I am not singling anyone out in this post. Modders usually come under fire from self described "critics", who in turn produce nothing of their own. My whole point is if it is not your mod, offer advice, but do not criticize. If you pay for it, criticize away, or don't buy it. But if it is a mod, and you don't like what they are doing, then simply don't download it.

Like in Mel Brook's History of the World Part I: "With the Birth of the Artist came the inevitable after-birth of the critic."



treespider -> RE: Why critics are valuable (8/10/2006 5:36:35 AM)

It's not the critic who counts, not the man who points out how the strong man stumbled, or when the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena; whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs and comes short again and again; who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions and spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best, knows in the end the triumph of high achievement; and who at the worst if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory or defeat.

Theodore Roosevelt



RETIRED -> RE: Why critics are valuable (8/10/2006 7:04:09 AM)

As one who "wrassles" with CID over much of what he says, I found his "Olive Branch" statement quite acceptable and appreciated it for what it was. A kind of "back-handed" and convoluted attempt to say he appreciates reasonable criticism and argument. Given his writing "style" it takes some "between the lines" searching to find it, and it does come across as "patronizing" in a number of ways..., but that's just CID. You take him as you find him...., or leave him be. And he has put an enormous effort into RHS and keeping everyone informed of it's progress and set-backs. Maybe more than any other modder out there.

So I for one will say "thanks" to his attempt at "recognizing" his "loyal opposition". Your welcome, CID. And if I can just get my hands on those copies of Lloyd's Shipping Registries for the late 1930's again, I'll prove to you that your beloved Parillo is talking through a "cocked hat". Until then, I'll continue trying to "keep you honest" with various observations as they come up. Keep trying... You may not always be right, but you are always interesting and entertaining (not to mention "pompus" and "irritating" from time to time).




Nikademus -> Let the mod speak for itself. (8/10/2006 8:00:13 AM)

good ol' Mel.

Nice post too.

[:)]



el cid again -> RE: Why critics are valuable (8/10/2006 12:18:02 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: bstarr

cid,
Don't take this the wrong way but I've just finished spending the better part of three years writing a book on the recovery effort after Space Shuttle Columbia tragedy.  I personally thanked every person who helped me.  Sure, it took a little time; but they gave time to me, so I gave it back. And it took me a lot less time for me to say 'thank you' than it did for them to do whatever research, give time for an interview, or whatever favor they did for me.
bs

ps. I'm not trying to pick another argument, I'm just letting you know what it was that sounded so pretentious (basically, that means full of yourself). I'm pretty sure that was not your intention.


Some people had become hot. Some of them figured out they had misunderstood this or that - and apologized. I figured - based on the biologists law (if there is one rabbit in a field there are more rabbits) others may have also misunderstood this or that. So I tried to take the initiative to make some things clear. It is my habit to say things positively. Not sure why that bothers people sometimes - or why that is interpreted as being "full of yourself"? - but I am not the sort to water everything down so it says almost nothing to avoid the slightest ruffeled feathers. If someone is upset with me - he is almost always making an invalid assumption. I only try to make things better - and I have not the slightest problem accepting correction when I get something wrong (provided of course it can be shown to be so - if I don't instantly get it).
I don't try to hurt feelings or insult - on principle - and I would never waste time on something I could not make a contribution to. Getting mad at me is pretty much always confusion - usually related to linguistic style.
Now if you go to China you will find some party members who really do hate me - but that is different - and they are quite right to do so.



el cid again -> RE: Why critics are valuable (8/10/2006 12:25:23 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus

Alright, cid... I'll tell you what my problem with you is, and I have no qualms about doing it in public.

You say that your goal is to get a better game out of WitP by way of your RHS mod. That's fine. The problem arises, however, by the fact that you seem unable to comprehend that other people might have a similar goal, but vastly different ways of achieving it.

REPLY: This is an invalid assumption on your part. I am a Jeffersonian democrat, a student of Voltaire and a charter member of the Libertarian Party in three states: on principle I believe in your freedom to make different choices from mine. I suspect you take the relatively strong writing style I use to imply I am not broad minded: this is an error. I can say sincerely (this is a quote from Voltaire, translated) "I may not agree with what you say, but I defend to the death your right to say it." It is amazing to me you might think otherwise - for never did I say anything that hints such beliefs. I don't think that way. For you to think I do is to attribute ideas to me I never had - and that is not really my fault.

This is, however, common in communications. Theory says that the process is EQUALLY involved with BOTH ends of the message - and that what you expect to hear, what you hear, and what you remember hearing are themselves different - and just as important as what I wanted to say - what I did say - and what I remember saying - which themselves are also different. If you are trained to assume that communications is hard, that it requires endless feedback and clarification, and that you should never be upset when it goes foul - you would understand why I am not upset. It is the norm, what I expect, and I know - since you got it wrong - that sooner or later you will figure it out.



Terminus -> RE: Why critics are valuable (8/10/2006 12:29:11 PM)

You want me to be able to read your mind, and know what you mean to say, even if you don't say it directly. Thank you for proving my initial point...[8|]



el cid again -> RE: Why critics are valuable (8/10/2006 12:36:35 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus

Nobody doubts that you're knowledgable, and nobody doubts your intentions to create what you see as a "better WitP", but you absolutely must accept that other people's ideas of a "better WitP" might not be the same as yours, and that this does not make them less valid.

I've said my piece. Make of it what you will...



I make of this three things:

1) There is a compliment or two burried in there somewhere;
2) You and I agree on a great deal more than I suspected
3) It is likely to be sooner rather than later that you figure out we are actually allies

I suggest you consider that a web forum is in its nature a cryptic communications medium. I also suggest you consider that I never attack anyone or insult anyone directly - even in the sense you do. It is quite rare for me to believe - much less say - someone believes something he has never stated. If I write a report I clearly distinguish my speculation about what someone may believe - and why - from what the person actually said. If I had a suggestion for you it might be to try to become more aware of when you are substituting subjective impressions for stated facts. But I don't care if you do or not - provided you are civil. If you think something even implies disrespect, say so - or ask for amplification if you believe in being fair. I don't even ask for fair - because it is a fact of life many people don't do fair - and in the end all I need is to be patient. My list of enemies is very short - and entirely devoid of intellectually honest people of the sort you will find in this sort of circle. I know no one here is my enemy - and if someone else doesn't know - eventually he will figure it out. I have had real enemies - and in a different context have them still - so the distinction is clear for me. I completely agree with you - wether or not you know that. Sooner or later you will know it.



el cid again -> RE: Why critics are valuable (8/10/2006 12:52:07 PM)

Tankerace:

I don't think we entirely agree - nor entirely disagree - about the role of commentary. Since I regard criticism as constructive, I offer it in the same sense. My first (Navy) captain required I join an association because it is technically illegal for anyone on active duty to say, openly, anything done by the armed forces is wrong. But, he said, "your criticism is always motivated constructively" - and the Navy had a formal way to identify when this was the case. To say something is "unrealistic" is not to imply "you are stupid". And when something I do is said to be "unrealistic" you did not jump in to shield me from it (not that I needed that). There are those who hate the idea of ferries (even if they accept them at Hong Kong and the Inland Sea) - and referred to it in a way that implies I may be almost insane. But I am much more interested in knowing how people feel and don't like it when they are unhappy in silence - nor threatened if they don't understand or like my thinking. I may even be on both sides of a question.

As someone said, I am an artist - of data. As Andrew says, modding is mostly the art of compromise. Compromise is not at all easy - and even good ones will likely offend some. Worse, a modder must do so many things, he must sometimes be ignorant, and sometimes offend almost everyone - so many things had he tampered with.

On the other hand, I do agree with most of your remarks. I just don't think we agree that civil criticism is always germane and useful - my position. What is not useful is being impolite. I distinguish between saying "he said that and it means he thinks so and so is stupid" and
"he said so and so is stupid." Not the same thing - and frankly I think stupid people don't do history - even for fun. I see no justification for attributing to me or anyone else negative motives when they are not explicitly displayed - and I see no justification for saying someone being rude is right - when it never is right - and when it is a violation of the terms of participation in this forum.



el cid again -> RE: Why critics are valuable (8/10/2006 1:02:09 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: RETIRED

As one who "wrassles" with CID over much of what he says, I found his "Olive Branch" statement quite acceptable and appreciated it for what it was. A kind of "back-handed" and convoluted attempt to say he appreciates reasonable criticism and argument. Given his writing "style" it takes some "between the lines" searching to find it, and it does come across as "patronizing" in a number of ways..., but that's just CID. You take him as you find him...., or leave him be. And he has put an enormous effort into RHS and keeping everyone informed of it's progress and set-backs. Maybe more than any other modder out there.

So I for one will say "thanks" to his attempt at "recognizing" his "loyal opposition". Your welcome, CID. And if I can just get my hands on those copies of Lloyd's Shipping Registries for the late 1930's again, I'll prove to you that your beloved Parillo is talking through a "cocked hat". Until then, I'll continue trying to "keep you honest" with various observations as they come up. Keep trying... You may not always be right, but you are always interesting and entertaining (not to mention "pompus" and "irritating" from time to time).




Thanks. I will stipulate all of the above is true - except that Parillo is wrong. He isn't. And Lloyds won't do it anyway. You cannot understand a nation like Japan (or contemporary China) using an incomplete registry.
More than that, Lloyds will be your undoing - and I await your discovery that so many fast and new ships were built (at least before the war prevented such registry). This is better researched at the National Diet Library - which you can make inquires to in English - everyone there will use it (but it won't usually be pretty English). If you need the address I can look it up. This was a government policy funded to a great degree - as Parillo documents - and his work is scholarly - so you can use it to find cites. It is one of the biggest technical issues I have with stock and CHS - famous ships we know the specs of are given fictional (lower) speeds - because someone "knows" Japanese merchants are slow. A near complete list in English is found in an appendix to a strange game called Command at Sea.



Terminus -> RE: Why critics are valuable (8/10/2006 1:31:42 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again

I make of this three things:

1) There is a compliment or two burried in there somewhere;
2) You and I agree on a great deal more than I suspected
3) It is likely to be sooner rather than later that you figure out we are actually allies

I suggest you consider that a web forum is in its nature a cryptic communications medium. I also suggest you consider that I never attack anyone or insult anyone directly - even in the sense you do. It is quite rare for me to believe - much less say - someone believes something he has never stated. If I write a report I clearly distinguish my speculation about what someone may believe - and why - from what the person actually said. If I had a suggestion for you it might be to try to become more aware of when you are substituting subjective impressions for stated facts. But I don't care if you do or not - provided you are civil. If you think something even implies disrespect, say so - or ask for amplification if you believe in being fair. I don't even ask for fair - because it is a fact of life many people don't do fair - and in the end all I need is to be patient. My list of enemies is very short - and entirely devoid of intellectually honest people of the sort you will find in this sort of circle. I know no one here is my enemy - and if someone else doesn't know - eventually he will figure it out. I have had real enemies - and in a different context have them still - so the distinction is clear for me. I completely agree with you - wether or not you know that. Sooner or later you will know it.



And I suggest to you that you must consider the fact that you are responsible not just for the specific content of any message you post here, but also for the tone in which it is delivered.

If you're a student of communication then you know of the concept of "noise", i.e. the potential for the distortion of the content of a given piece of communication on its way from sender to recipient. This is not just the sort of noise that can be caused by techical issues, weather or what not, but also by (as you point out) what sender and/or recipient believes he's said or is going to hear. If the sender is interested in getting his point across clearly, then it is his responsibility to ensure that noise is minimised. And I'm not talking about the politically correct BS that demands never ever stepping on anybody's toes, believe me. That's actually counterproductive to good communication.

I submit that you must take into account the fact that you're not dealing with automatons here, but with fellow members of the species Homo Sapiens. If you deliver your message in even the most subtly wrong way, you create noise yourself and taint any future messages you want to get across.

It's a very subtle art, and one that I'd never dream of saying I've mastered.



el cid again -> RE: Why critics are valuable (8/10/2006 1:54:20 PM)

Amen.



Nemo121 -> RE: Why critics are valuable (8/10/2006 4:42:14 PM)

Speaking as someone whose very specialty lies in the realm of human perception, misperception, illusion and delusion I would add to the above that there are none so blind as those who do not want to see.

People find it much, much easier to reject data which do not fit neatly into their mental schema, mental schema which are almost always hastily constructed from very rushed (mis)perceptions. As such you tend to find people, later, selecting out that which they choose to assimilate from the totality of what is said and choosing to ignore that which is actually objectively stated. People select out that which fits their schema and tend to ignore that which doesn't. That's one of the issue el cid is trying to get at and insofar as he is quite correct in this aspect I would point you to one of the great truths of the human mind which says that " We see things not as they are but as WE are and/or as we WANT them to be."

So, yes, there is an onus on the communicator to be clear but even in the presence of the clearest communication possible if the person receiving the communication has a particular rigid schema in mind then what is actually said is almost irrelevant.

A good example of this is in the "Is Japan Too Powerful" thread. People posted that Japan was too powerful and the fix was to increase the allocation of trained pilots and excellent airframes for the Allies in the later war years. I responded that this would fix the symptom but that what was needed was a much more comprehensive fix which operated at the level of the root causes of these problems but that we were unlikely to see the programmers make such fundamental changes to the game.

Jim D Burns then posted
quote:

You’re trying to argue that the system is somehow fine and any complaints are wasted breath.


So, because his mental schema couldn't encompass the fact that I actually said there was MORE wrong with the system than he and others had actually said his mind could only encompass a very selective and distorted selection of snippets from my post.... E.g. Where I said that complaints were wasted breath it was NOT in the context of arguing that there were no errors but in the context of saying the errors were so fundamental and systematic that I doubted the programmers would be willing to put in the work to fix these errors. Again, the exact opposite meaning to what he took.


So, there's an obligation to be clear when one speaks BUT even when one speaks clearly it is very common for one or more recipients to be unable, due to rigid forms of thinking and schema, to actually process what you have ACTUALLY said and, instead, process something completely different. This is taken to its extreme form in people with psychotic illnesses but exists in this lesser form in the mainstream population... mainly in anankastic personality typees and those who harbour grudges etc which tend to make the objective reality of what was said less important than the opportunity it presents to indulge their grudge etc.

So, one cannot just blame the writer or speaker for miscommunication. One must be aware of the complex interplay between what is said, what the audiences' schema are, their expectations, their emotional states and their predispositions towards the writer/speaker. It has been truly said that the least part of ensuring good communication is actually speaking clearly. By far the larger part lies in ensuring that the recipient is free from delusions, anankasms, perceptual deficits and just plain old-fashioned bigotry. ON an internet forum delusions, anankastic personalities, all form of perceptual and psychological deficits and old-fashioned bigotry are all rife. It is in the nature of wargame forums to disproportionately attract people with these issues and one must be aware of these things when judging the success or failure of any given communication.



Drongo -> RE: Why critics are valuable (8/10/2006 7:26:19 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nemo121

Speaking as someone whose very specialty lies in the realm of human perception, misperception, illusion and delusion I would add to the above that there are none so blind as those who do not want to see.

Your initial paragraphs of the post containing the above are implying fault with a certain mindset. You then name and quote another poster as an example of that mindset. The poster and quote come from an entirely different thread and forum.

You of course would have perceived the ethical conflict in this and have resolved it by alerting said poster of the existence of your own post so that he may have opportunity to respond. Yes?




Tankerace -> RE: Why critics are valuable (8/10/2006 10:15:30 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again

Tankerace:

I don't think we entirely agree - nor entirely disagree - about the role of commentary. Since I regard criticism as constructive, I offer it in the same sense. My first (Navy) captain required I join an association because it is technically illegal for anyone on active duty to say, openly, anything done by the armed forces is wrong. But, he said, "your criticism is always motivated constructively" - and the Navy had a formal way to identify when this was the case. To say something is "unrealistic" is not to imply "you are stupid". And when something I do is said to be "unrealistic" you did not jump in to shield me from it (not that I needed that). There are those who hate the idea of ferries (even if they accept them at Hong Kong and the Inland Sea) - and referred to it in a way that implies I may be almost insane. But I am much more interested in knowing how people feel and don't like it when they are unhappy in silence - nor threatened if they don't understand or like my thinking. I may even be on both sides of a question.

As someone said, I am an artist - of data. As Andrew says, modding is mostly the art of compromise. Compromise is not at all easy - and even good ones will likely offend some. Worse, a modder must do so many things, he must sometimes be ignorant, and sometimes offend almost everyone - so many things had he tampered with.

On the other hand, I do agree with most of your remarks. I just don't think we agree that civil criticism is always germane and useful - my position. What is not useful is being impolite. I distinguish between saying "he said that and it means he thinks so and so is stupid" and
"he said so and so is stupid." Not the same thing - and frankly I think stupid people don't do history - even for fun. I see no justification for attributing to me or anyone else negative motives when they are not explicitly displayed - and I see no justification for saying someone being rude is right - when it never is right - and when it is a violation of the terms of participation in this forum.


As I said, I was not singling out any one person in my post, rather as a general comment to all. Being involved with WPO and hopefully moving sometime in the future to another project, I don't visit the WitP forums as much anymore. As such, I don't read everyone's posts and I don't want to put myself in a position to judge anyone for what they may or may not have said.

My main point was that critics are valuable, yes. I know WPO had its share of bumbleheaded, idiotic mistakes that took fresh eyes all of two minutes to see what I had been blind to for months. But I also have seen some on this forum (not you) that criticize just for the sheer love of trashing someone else's work.

The reason is not because their work is bad. I may agree that it is bad. But, I would hate to stifle such creativity, that could bear fruit in the guture.

This is the interesting dilemma of forums or internet chat: tone. It is impossible to determine how someone is saying, or how they want to say, or how someone interprets a post.

I agree with you 100%, doing a database is an art. Doing it perfect, including everything possible, takes as much time and patientice as creating a piece of art - it is a piece of art. My main point (and again, my comments were directed as a general to all critics, especially those who contribute nothing. Not to you in particular) is that, unless the person is contributing to your mod (and by your I mean the critic), they should be able to do it how they wish. Even if it is stupid, or fantasy, or pure uh... cow pie [;)].

I guess what I am trying to get at is that since 2004 (yep, I'm a WitP plank owner.... I guess WPO too [;)]) I have seen so many people propose an idea for a mod, even if it historically impossible, and several forum critics who do not mod in anyway shoot it down. I myself probably wouldn't like a fantasy mod (no probably about it), but if the modder does that and likes modding, he may in the future produce a CHS or WPO type mod. But if he is stifled from his first attempt, then we may not get a truly good mod on down the road.

Just to set the record straight, on my comments on critics I was not singling you out Cid, nor anyone else. I was making a general statement about critics, and especially those that contribute nothing. This community is pretty friendly. But sometimes we all speak whatever is on our mind, and it isn't always politically corrected on its way out [:D].



Nemo121 -> RE: Why critics are valuable (8/10/2006 10:50:17 PM)

LOL Drongo,

As I said in my post... Sometimes people care to deal less with what is actually said than furthering their own agendas. It is a pity that rather than dealing with anything I've actually said you are trying to forment conflict.

As to pointing out a mindset and then giving an example of same... There's no ethical conflict there in the slightest. In any case it was useful to bait the trap, wait and allow someone else to blunder in and illustrate my point, by focussing less on the issue at hand... perception, mis-perception etc... and more on exingencies irrelevant to the issue at hand but motivated by more fundamental drives than engaging in reasoned discourse, precisely as you have done. Thank you for that. It will only be a matter of time before someone informs the named poster of this thread so he can come and "defend himself" thus further illustrating the point.


As to the actual topic we are trying to discuss... I agree with Tankerace. In something as subjective as mods there are an almost infinite variety of truths each with importance and validity to some. If we judge validity purely on one criteria then we will stifle creativity. It may not make sense to us but one of the greatest problems in this forum ( and life in general) is that far too many people can only conceive of their own biases and viewpoints having validity and dismiss the different as "wrong" instead of simply opening their mind to encompass it ( assuming it isn't actively harmful). Wargamers, in particular, have a much higher incidence of anankastic personalities than the general populace and so are overly prone to this sort of behaviour which kills open-mindedness, experimentation etc.

I may think it is a stupid idea, I may even think it terribly unbalancing and I may have no desire to ever play it BUT I always hope it will work out and be enjoyable for some ( or, ideally, many). Pointing out a glaring flaw in the hopes it can be fixed is one thing but undercutting the entire effort another.



Drongo -> RE: Why critics are valuable (8/11/2006 4:57:12 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nemo121

LOL Drongo,

As I said in my post... Sometimes people care to deal less with what is actually said than furthering their own agendas. It is a pity that rather than dealing with anything I've actually said you are trying to forment conflict.

As to pointing out a mindset and then giving an example of same... There's no ethical conflict there in the slightest. In any case it was useful to bait the trap, wait and allow someone else to blunder in and illustrate my point, by focussing less on the issue at hand... perception, mis-perception etc... and more on exingencies irrelevant to the issue at hand but motivated by more fundamental drives than engaging in reasoned discourse, precisely as you have done. Thank you for that. It will only be a matter of time before someone informs the named poster of this thread so he can come and "defend himself" thus further illustrating the point.


As to the actual topic we are trying to discuss... I agree with Tankerace. In something as subjective as mods there are an almost infinite variety of truths each with importance and validity to some. If we judge validity purely on one criteria then we will stifle creativity. It may not make sense to us but one of the greatest problems in this forum ( and life in general) is that far too many people can only conceive of their own biases and viewpoints having validity and dismiss the different as "wrong" instead of simply opening their mind to encompass it ( assuming it isn't actively harmful). Wargamers, in particular, have a much higher incidence of anankastic personalities than the general populace and so are overly prone to this sort of behaviour which kills open-mindedness, experimentation etc.

I may think it is a stupid idea, I may even think it terribly unbalancing and I may have no desire to ever play it BUT I always hope it will work out and be enjoyable for some ( or, ideally, many). Pointing out a glaring flaw in the hopes it can be fixed is one thing but undercutting the entire effort another.

I take it that means no. Yes?



JeffroK -> RE: Why critics are valuable (8/11/2006 9:50:09 AM)

Probably been talking about me[8D]

I see a difference between criticism of ideas versus criticism of data.

If I dont agree with a mods idea, be it Super Japan, Russia in from Day1, Take out half the bases and bulk up the Jap defenses then its an opinion only. I shouldnt say the Modders opinion is wrong, its just different.

Equally on comments about "Variables" be they manouvre ratings, firepower, accuracy etc. They are subjective and open to interpretation.

But when someone points out errors in fact, be it data entry, aircraft names/roles/arrival it seems the standard counterattack is , source please!!, I inherited.... or a rambling dissertation on something mostly irrelevant. It makes many not worth considering helping out, which means we would still have WITP 1.0 vanilla.

I know this appears aimed at Sid, as but he has been one of the most active modders and in his series of mods provided plenty of different views on what we belive is normal he has atrracted most of the criticism. It isnt meant in that way, the effort he has spent in producing his series is immense, I have fiddled around and it takes too bloody long to review the whole database and ensure all slots are correct and that changing slot A doesnt affect slot ZZ35.

What should be happening is keep the level of debate going, I have learned heaps here, but learn to live with different views of the same thing.  If you believe the Hurri IIB should have 12 x .303 or should be a Hurri IIC, make your own adjustments, I have tweaked CHS (prior to the latesteffort from Andrew & the team) so some things fit MY opinions.

Those doing the mods should equally be open to listening to the debate, but in the end its their mod, they can do what they want.

Finally, my thanks to the many who participate here, its your input that has raised an acceptable game into one which in its CHS 2.07! (I play Niks mod of it) is an excellent simulation of WW2 in the Pacific. But the journey hasnt ended yet, but I think Matrix/2x3 has to start helping more, after all, the Mods are increasing sales of their product.




RETIRED -> RE: Why critics are valuable (8/11/2006 4:12:28 PM)

JeffK Well put. The true goal of any "critic" should be to point out things they see as problems or errors in the ongoing debate...., and why they feel this is so. Spark a debate that hopefully will improve things overall. Too often these threads degenerate into vaugely-disguised "name calling" Just because someone doesn't see things the same way as you do isn't absolute proof that he's wrong.

Cid's an opinionated fellow..., but at least he will back up his opinions with explanation and sources most of the time. And his writing style can be rough as a corncob...., but at least he's willing to spend the time to post explanations of what he's doing in his mod and where he's trying to go with it, and why. I think he's wrong in a few of the directions he wants to go, and so do others. But to be worthwhile criticism we can't just say "That's Dumb"; we need to say why we think it's in error and what we would suggest as a better way to go. Debate can be lively without degeneration into "mud-slinging". If we all (and yes, that includes Cid, who brings it on himself once in a while) would just try to keep pushing the discussion back onto "the high road" when it wanders, we'll be better off.



Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.625