|
|
Post by Tesagk on Jan 14, 2019 21:16:22 GMT
I've been around the internet long enough to say that I'm a well-versed traveler in the good, the bad, and the ugly regarding the internet. I've experienced, and, admittedly, occasionally contributed to toxic experiences. But I also try my best to create positive experiences, to establish community, to try and find common ground.
I like to think I'm generally a positive force. But, when even a moderator in a community feels like they need to weigh in on your posts, it sort of feels like it's worth having a discussion about critique etiquette.
There seems to be this unwritten rule on the internet, especially in gaming communities, that you're not allowed to critique someone's critique. There's a mindset of "take it or leave it" with critiques. The idea that it's not worth it and that doing so escalates arguments which simply aren't necessary. I see that assessment, but I vociferously disagree with it.
Not everyone on the internet is going to be sensitive to how other people accept their comments, but people are so used to defending people who are known to often be insensitive, borderline-d*kish, in their commentary, because it's easier than trying to get those people to change their behavior, that it feels like there's zero consideration for the fact that many of the people who respond negatively to such critiques are often dealing with behavioral health issues that demand support and thoughtfulness.
It's easy to say "well, they shouldn't be on the internet then" but I'm of the belief that we have an obligation for not just equality, but equity (the idea that some people may need certain supports or accommodations in order to get a fair and equal experience to other people with less needs.) to be a factor in how we develop communities.
We need to understand that, right or wrong, authority or no authority, expert or newbie, that it's fair and responsible to respond to critiques with critiques of our own. Yes, there are and should be limits to how this happens. Attacking someone for their opinion, right or wrong, is not acceptable either. But this notion that challenging a critique is somehow being ungrateful for it, or not receptive to constructive advice is absurd. It's not black or white, nor should it be. If I see holes in a critique, holes that I see as worth going after, then I'm going to do so. Not out of some spiteful need for petty revenge. Instead, I choose to do so because it may give me a better understanding if I'm confused as to what someone is trying to say. I choose to do so because sometimes people do need to be knocked off of their high horses and understand that if they're trying to help someone, "my way or the highway" isn't a great attitude. I choose to do so because I believe firmly that it's a vital part of developing a community.
I say this with no specific acrimony to any specific board member. The one person I did have a very public spat with I wish had gone another direction, I do respect them. But, between that spat, and the comment from the moderator, I felt like it would be useful to clarify that I am not ungrateful of critiques, and I don't want people to feel like I'm always going to be defensive about them.
|
|
|
|
Post by Fleur on Jan 15, 2019 16:50:42 GMT
I agree with the general premise of what you're saying, to be honest. I think people should be able to disagree with critique, because sometimes critique can be Not Very Good because it's founded on a false premise, or Not Very Good because it's attacking the person rather than the card, and so on and so forth. Having said that, at the same time, I think people should be expected to have some level of tolerance when receiving feedback, especially from people they've never talked to before. A good example of this is myself, actually. In most communities, I consider myself on the less harsh or more polite end of the spectrum. However, I imagine that no matter how much I try to make myself more polite, it can only go so far before it veers on either having to stretch to find some way to preserve the other party's feelings or something of another sort. I was once giving feedback to someone's writing, and made a number of edits. That person later chastised me because I didn't say much that was positive about it other than "Your story has an interesting premise, but... <insert critique here>" Of course, I could have tried to be more supportive and thoughtful, but in that specific case, I feel like doing so would either result in having to use the metaphorical equivalent of a magnifying glass to find a redeeming feature or quality I could throw in or result in me having to outright lie to the other party. I don't have time for the first, and the second would be unproductive. So, that's one reason that I (and maybe other critics) might not be quite as polite as some people might want. It's also kind of unreasonable to be expected to pander to people who struggle to take feedback constructively, especially in a hobby that is so conducive to critique and feedback. As one would say, there comes a point where one should just throw their arms in the air and say "Well, if you can't take the heat, don't go in the kitchen."* More importantly, politeness has diminishing returns when dealing with random strangers on the Internet. It takes not that much effort to write a critique that will not infuriate the 90%, but an exponentially larger effort to encompass the 95%, then the 99%. And so on and so forth. Because of this, it's often impractical to try and write a critique with everyone's feelings in mind, especially since effort put into trying to dampen a critique or piece of feedback is effort not spent on the critique itself. Overall I agree with your premise, but I don't actually see all that many people who aren't open to having their critiques... well, critiqued. That's not to say that it isn't a problem, but that at least from my viewpoint, there aren't all that many people that need to be knocked off of their high horses, or so to speak. Personally, I'm of the opinion of the former: that it's often better to just take criticism to work rather than to try to discipline or reprimand someone for their critique delivered in a blunt and perhaps rude way. After all, if they aren't tearing into you yourself, it's very reassuring to know that their quarrel lies not in you, but in your creation(s). At least, that's what I find helps me. You do you. * = I'm not sure if this is the actual quote but I got the general gist of it so like whatever edit edit: just realized I didn't tag you in this so you might not even get the chance to reply to it, so uh, Tesagk |
|
|
|
Post by Tesagk on Jan 18, 2019 17:28:47 GMT
I saw it, but I'm not sure what to respond with. No one is perfect, and sometimes a critique of a critique can come off as passive-aggressive defensiveness, but I still think we owe people the benefit of the doubt. Sitting there and saying "well you're always getting defensive when you get critiqued" isn't going to build a more positive community.
|
|
|
|
Post by Fleur on Jan 19, 2019 1:18:12 GMT
I mean, if some people say you're always getting defensive when you get critiqued, that can and should be considered as a critique of a critique of a critique - and if not of the critique itself, then in the way you're applying your critique of other critiques. That's not to say it's right for people to assume things of you, but there's definitely a constructive message to be had here with a slight perspective shift.
|
|
|
|
Post by kefke on Jan 20, 2019 18:38:52 GMT
On a somewhat related note, can we talk about people giving "off topic" advice?
It's something I see in a lot of communities, but especially in homebrew communities. I've seen it happen to others, and I've experienced it personally. Someone presents something, and says, "I am looking for feedback on X and Y." or asks a question on how to do something specific. In response, they get, "Here's the issues I see with W and Z." or all the reasons why they should do something else instead of the thing they asked about. Their actual area of concern doesn't get addressed. Now, there's nothing wrong with pointing out things someone may not have noticed, or suggesting an easier way to do things. My concern is that a lot of time when I see this happen, people will do this even when they have been specifically asked not to, and/or if asked directly to give feedback on the original point, will double down on their insistence that the asker's area of concern is "wrong", and that they should be concerned with something else. It can quickly degenerate into an argument and fairly obvious irritation from one or both sides that could usually have been avoided if the original points had just been directly addressed, even if in the context of being a less-important issue or sub-optimal solution.
|
|
|
|
Post by Fleur on Jan 23, 2019 1:04:58 GMT
kefke : I think off-topic critique is an interesting topic in that sometimes, it really can be annoying. But at the same time, particularly when it comes to cards, it can be difficult to separate different features of a card. For example, if I were to make: Deface  Instant  Destroy target enchantment. "Your influence will be erased!" -Polyhteasfkjsagf the Cynic ...and ask about power level and ask specifically not to comment on anything else, it's sort of impossible to comment about power level without also talking about the color pie. Because of how magic is set up, this card would be fine power-wise in white or green because either color can already deal with enchantments. In black, however, this card would be too strong because it circumvents a common black weakness. In this case, discussions about color pie and power are intrinsically tied together, and it can hard to know what is too far off and what isn't. Because of this, even if someone specifically asks for something not to be commented on, that can be impossible because of how tied those various parts of a card might be. Still, I agree with your general point about off-topic critiques (like say, critiquing flavor when someone asks about power). It can definitely be frustrating, especially to be on the receiving end.
|
|
|
|
Post by kefke on Jan 23, 2019 6:31:23 GMT
kefke : I think off-topic critique is an interesting topic in that sometimes, it really can be annoying. But at the same time, particularly when it comes to cards, it can be difficult to separate different features of a card. For example, if I were to make: Deface Instant Destroy target enchantment. "Your influence will be erased!" -Polyhteasfkjsagf the Cynic ...and ask about power level and ask specifically not to comment on anything else, it's sort of impossible to comment about power level without also talking about the color pie. Because of how magic is set up, this card would be fine power-wise in white or green because either color can already deal with enchantments. In black, however, this card would be too strong because it circumvents a common black weakness. In this case, discussions about color pie and power are intrinsically tied together, and it can hard to know what is too far off and what isn't. Because of this, even if someone specifically asks for something not to be commented on, that can be impossible because of how tied those various parts of a card might be. Still, I agree with your general point about off-topic critiques (like say, critiquing flavor when someone asks about power). It can definitely be frustrating, especially to be on the receiving end. See, it isn't, though. In terms of power level, that "Deface" is just a black Demystify. So the effect is definitely within the bounds of what a CMC 1 common instant is allowed to do. Yes, we can acknowledge that black does not usually get enchantment removal. So it's definitely a colour bend, if not an outright break. However, if we're being asked about just this card, we can't really comment on colour pie, because we don't know the environment of the set. In a vanilla, canon, WotC-produced set, a black Demystify would certainly be disruptive, but in a homebrew set that may not always be the case, since it's a "play with it if you want" option and not "once made, it's here forever". The creator might even be pulling a Planar Chaos and skewing the pie on purpose. Not to mention, it could be part of a set that is meant as a pure thought exercise and not to be played, or only meant to be played within its own set/block that is balanced around having deviations from the standard colour pie, or with older cards where the roles weren't as set as they currently are, or even meant to be played in a cube or other curated collection of cards/sets. As homebrew, it has that flexibility, to not need to take the entire meta of the vanilla game into account. Which actually segues well into the more relevant point - My issue is less with the idea of criticising things outside the scope of the question altogether, and more on the kind of pedantic criticism where someone refuses to answer the question asked because they get caught up on something else. The difference would be between someone saying, "Well, it's on par with Demystify, but black isn't normally supposed to get enchantment removal like that." and someone who just replies "Black doesn't get enchantment removal." and won't talk about anything else, even when directly asked...or worse, if the OP states they are aware of the colour pie and wanted to shake it up/change it for their set, the person then proceeds to challenge them on the entire concept of doing so and insist that they shouldn't. If I were to break it down, I'd categorize things something like this. - Good answers acknowledge that the person asking may already have considered the other factors.
- Great answers ask questions to establish what the asker has already thought of, and point them in the direction of things they haven't.
- Bad answers assume the asker has no idea what they're doing.
|
|
|
|
Post by Fleur on Jan 23, 2019 16:53:19 GMT
kefke : I get your point now, thanks. There are times where this gets more blurry (for example, a hyper-efficient flier might be okay in white but not in blue) but otherwise, I agree with most of what you're saying. I'm gonna have to apologize for my previous comment; was running on not enough sleep and stressing over exams, sorry. Having said that, I think it's fair to assume that someone who is designing a card sans context is designing for the vanilla color pie/metagame. Generally, people who are doing that kind of thing will indicate well in advance the kind of experiment/context they're using so that those cards can be evaluated without that context. So of course, I wouldn't level a color pie complaint against someone who was trying to pull a Planar Chaos, but I'd also assume by default that they weren't trying to pull a Planar Chaos. Like for me, I'm currently working on a Planar Chaos/Torment-esque set - so a bunch of cards in it will look out of place in vanilla Magic, so I get what you're saying. tl;dr: I agree with your main point but I think it's fair for someone to judge something as though it's vanilla Magic integrated by default unless otherwise stated
|
|
