| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek wrote:
| |
In general, you (as a generic reader) don’t have the right not to be insulted
by what other people write.
|
Of course they do. People can do and feel anything they want. Is that what you
tell your wife when she is annoyed with you -- that she doesn’t have the right
to feel as she does?
I understand that your claim is that insult was not intended, and that’s also
valid.
There is obviously miscommunication here, a gap between what was meant and how
it has been received by some.
| |
I don’t see this as a fruitful line to go down further, really. I’d like to
not see this newsgroup be one where people habitually beg for feedback, I
think it’s a bad practice.
|
I totally agree with that. People should post because they want to share, not
because they expect praise.
| |
I’d also prefer not to be in a position where people who then give it get
jumped on by others for the way it was given.
|
Actually, your tone in the first post was not really even-handed, although I
realize that it is difficult to make negative criticism in a positive way --
maybe even more so in writing. That said, it is also clear that you had an
agenda behind your comments. More below...
| |
1 - I think there are other people who like representational (but perhaps
selectively compressed) more than fantastical. It’s not unanimous by any
stretch but .trains does tend to focus on prototypes more than other groups.
|
You go from a gross - if qualified - generalization; and then you equivocate the
meaning of your own statement with a subsequent disclaimer. If you already know
that a “fantastical” creation is not your bag, in what manner did you hope to
provide constructive feedback for such?
When I post replies in Mecha, I often point up the fact that I can only comment
on what I like because I have no in depth knowledge of the mecha subculture. My
likes and dislikes are therefore somewhat whimsical. If someone posts a
“Transformer” MOC, since I don’t know that much about Transformers I could never
comment on the accuracy of the MOC. As a consequence of my ignorance, I tend to
post only postive comments in the Mecha group.
With a fantastical model, there’s almost no point in saying (as you did in your
original reply): “If you like somewhat fantastical engines.” That’s taking an
obvious fact and using it to denigrate the MOC. You could have instead said
something like: “Fantastical models are not bag, so I don’t see myself as being
able to comment constructively on this MOC.”
This part was weird too: “For me, anyway, in .trains, anyway, I tend to look for
posts that have exciting new build techniques or that are nifty renditions of
prototypes I’m familiar with.”
Okay so now we understand where you are coming from (and I have been looking at
MOCs long enough to generally agree with the sentiment about building techniques
being a big draw for me too). But, its still just you expressing something like:
“I don’t like this kind of thing or find it interesting, but let me comment on
it anyway...”
And then there was this: “This isn’t .space where everything is fantastical.”
Oh yeah? Says who? As another person has pointed out, that’s just your take on
it. Further, the statement is false on the face of it. TLC itself has recently
come out with some fairly representational models for space. The statement is
also subtly disparaging of the space newsgroup as perhaps unserious, and
therefore unworthy, because of its frequent fantasy approach to MOC building.
The main thing is that there are no rules supporting such an assertion, and it
is Lego we are talking about. Sure there are degrees of modelling precision
(esp. taking a representational approach to the hobby, as you do), but you have
no right as a moderator to get heavy on someone with nonexistent rules that are
actually just your personal preferences -- even if the person called out was
begging for some attention. I think you used your reply as an excuse to say
something punishing like: “Your post is unworthy of commentary and here’s
why...” If you were annoyed by the begging for attention aspect of things, you
should have focused on that.
BTW, I think it’s inappropriate of you to move this to debate. It is reasonable
to discuss polite behavior for given newsgroups in those very newsgroups.
-- Hop-Frog
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
14 Messages in This Thread:
   
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
