Magicsofa wrote:
NNAAAAHH wrote:Who would you say, active, on BYOND, is considered a 'veteran' of a field of development? Anyway, as for the rest of the comment you have made; the hardware developers are more of a master in the field of 3D engines than John Carmack. As you've already sit on; '3D engines that strain the limits of graphic hardware'. This would mean they have more control over the field than any programmer available. | |
I understood perfectly what he was saying, without taking any offense. The only reason I didn't reply to Magicsofa's first comment on this post is because I agreed with most points made in it, replying would lead to no real new grounds here.
As a man, if your pride is 'attacked' as you call it, you're supposed to attack back; correct? What better way to do so, than to take the power from their attack? | |
I guess I speak from a more personal standpoint on the insulting section. When I'm told something is bad(not the general 'this sucks'), I tend to be a lot more motivated to make it better. If someone respectfully tells me what I can do to improve, they'll get the 'thank you' the other guy doesn't, but they'll also get a 'I'll try that sometime' response. Because I feel it's fine to leave it like that until I feel the urge to re-visit on the situation. This is harmful to both my development of whatever field I am working in, and the work I have presented. Leaving around something that isn't the best you can do will lower the standards and overall result of the rest of what you do.
Y'know how when you see someone's home office on T.V. and they have all their old trophies on the mantle, awards and such? If they placed all their failures on the mantle, they'd have one of two results. One would be that they would be less motivated and less likely to do anything great. The second would be for them to become motivated to finally do something great, which could hurt their psyche. On a side note, yes, you paged me almost that exact conversation. I will not bring anything else about it to light to prevent any rants about moderation again. | |
I don't think you understand how motivation works. It's not that you get insulted and you're like, "YEAH! TIME TO PROVE THEM WRONG!" Motivation has to be there at the start, it has to be there before they're critiqued. Critique is to make whatever more pleasing to public eye. Frankly, if I don't care about whatever it is that I'm doing, and you tell me that I'm doing it poorly, I really couldn't care less. I'm not motivated. You could yell at me, try to inspire me, but if I really don't care about whatever it is that I'm doing, I'm not GOING to improve.
Don't try to motivate people with critique. That's not what critique is for. | |
If you put something out for public viewing, you've clearly been motivated to make it and place it out there. If you don't care about what you're doing, you SHOULD quit. If you don't motivate someone to do what you're critiquing them on, it wont be done.
| |
If you put something out for public viewing, you are motivated to make it. But someone telling you it sucks or it's really awesome probably isn't going to change it.
| |
It's the one posting the work's job to change the work posted based on the feedback, you cannot blame the people telling the poster what to do, what not to do, what is good, or what is bad.
| |
I don't blame them. I'm saying your motive shouldn't be to motivate the poster. It's to give them guidelines on how to improve, in your opinion. Which should be directed at making their work more appealing to a particular audience. Don't try to overstep your bounds.
| |
Critique's prime aim is pretty much providing feedback. What is or is not done with the feedback is the person offering up work for critique's area to decide on. Motivation is their domain.
| |
There are so many other ways of going about it and good teacher observation and experience seems to suggest those ways carry far more motivation weight, I'm not sure what would make such an approach compelling.
The only particular scenario I can think of is a super-ego issue, which I think you've touched on before. Super-ego happens to be perpetuated by teen bravado (which you do see on BYOND often) and the sense that reputation on these forums holds some social value. Which critic through "taking down a peg" may (or may not) help deflate that.
However, see above, I think you need quite some intellectual authority to even consider this, and I don't think we have the individuals. What we do get though, which concerns me greatly, is individuals not of a suitable authority trying this. That creates a certain sense hostility in the critique and comments "approach" on BYOND, which discourages participation and so holds us collectively back. It also ironically perpetuates the super-ego issue among those that who ask for critique, as they hold a standing assumption that non-positive (not necessarily insults, just any advice) critique is merely "haters hating".
We obviously would rather not have this situation, if we can help it. We have a fair few lurking who have the intellectual prowess to provide good (better than currently expressed) critique on programming and art. They don't due to the super-ego issue (they'll be ignored by the person asking) AND in part potentially "aggressive" cross-critique from their more junior peers (being cross-checked by people who really, have no mettle with which to do so, much less with a combative tone). You can't get their participation, or the participation of individuals that are "too afraid" to even ask for C&C by having an "aggressive" critique approach being the defacto or popular approach.
This is one of the big moderative reasons I'll always cringe at "insulting" critique styles, as collectively it makes no sense for us, nor particularly to me seems a necessary approach. Those with sufficient super-ego will ignore critique they wish to ignore regardless, and that is their problem. I don't think those people are moved by "insulting" critique, and I think everyone else would be as moved, if not more, by an approach that makes it's phrasing respectful and understand that individuals seeking C&C will (and should to an extent) hold pride in their creations, before getting into the important matter of improvement.