Subject:
|
Re: Constructive criticism vs. sugar coating
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.general
|
Date:
|
Sat, 19 Apr 2003 08:32:40 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2719 times
|
| |
|
|
Mike Rayhawk wrote:
> > We've seen a couple negative incidents in the past couple weeks, too. There
> > was the point where Tom Stangl very bluntly chastised Nick Crocco for
> > complaining that no one cared about his creations (due to a lack of
> > response).
> >
> > In the first incident, individuals were upset at Tom for his harshness,
> > while they didn't totally accept Nick's apparently whiny attitude. Nick
> > admitted fault, Tom persisted with his claim.
>
> That was actually the incident that threw me into enough of a spin to post
> to this discussion. Basically, I totally agreed with Tom's position,
Yay, great, a Believer!...
> though
> actually saying so would have been as politically incorrect and ill-advised
> as Tom's post was in the first place.
Hrm, uh, er, maybe not...
> And from offline conversations I know
> that more than a couple of people had exactly the same reaction to Nick's
> post that Tom and I did, and about the same reaction to his
> morally-high-handed 'admission of fault' as well. Tom's posts were
> definitely very much appreciated even while we all agreed that they were
Yay, he Believes again!...
> horribly inappropriate nad no sane person would have thought it was a good
> idea to post them.
Nevermind, he's degenerated into calling me insane...
NOTE:
;-)
END NOTE.
I'm politically incorrect, but progressive (I consider Political Correctness
anything BUT progressive). Sometimes you just have to speak your mind, bluntness
be damned. If my bluntness stops anyone from whining about lack of attention in
the future, I'm perfectly happy with being shunned by fragile people that can't
take the real world. I don't care what they think about me, I care what *I*
think about me.
> Now I don't have anything against Nick personally, he seems like a perfectly
> nice guy with a perfectly nice site.
Ditto. I was actually going to post some comments about his site, but since he's
put me on ignore, there's really no point.
> It didn't seem like there was anything
> in that conversation even worth worrying about, just two guys each taking a
> string of events a little more personally than they should have, the kind of
It was never personal. If Nick doesn't whine in the future, I won't consider him
a Whiner anymore. I was criticising the behavior (whining/complaining), not the
person. I was trying to discourage the behavior from anyone in the future,
because it's happened many times on Lugnet, and noone has stepped up to stop it.
My point of view:
Case 1:
Poster whines about lack of attention.
People with Good Intentions give Poster attention.
Result - Poster learns to whine in the future to get attention.
Case 2:
Poster whines about lack of attention.
Someone <ahem!> berates them about their whining
Result - Poster learns whining may not be the best method.
Look at those carefully. Ignore the short term heated emotions. Concentrate on
Result of each case.
Now tell me - WHO is bettering Lugnet for the future? The people that encourage
the negative behavior of the original poster, or those that berate it?
> thing that works itself out after both of the involved parties have had a
> chance to blow off some steam.
I was never blowing off steam. You really don't want me to do that here, and I
never would. Only in .debate, and even there I've never gotten really steamed up
(some may think otherwise, but their 10 on a scale of steam may rate a 2-3 in my
book).
> The only point at which it became a strongly
> negative experience for me, believe it or not, was when you "hear hear"ed
> Nick's "your comment isn't appreciated by anyone," changing it from simple
> bickering between two guys to suddenly being a community endorsement of the
> censorship of negative opinions. (That was just gut-reaction though, I'm a
> little sensitive about people claiming moral superiority to tell other
> people their opinions aren't valid, and so I originally saw the exchange in
> only those terms.)
>
> > Neither of these incidents were really positive things, but both were
> > arguably growing pains in the community. Not saying they shouldn't have
> > happened - cause in a community you get the good and the bad, the positive
> > and the negative.
>
> And this is really the crux of my argument, that negative experiences aren't
> some kind of unfortunate and unavoidable side effect of growth, but in fact
> are a crucial catalyst for growth to occur. Without internal conflicts and
> external threats a community is robbed of opportunities to find its sense of
> 'self;' stresses are necessary for a community to measure itself against so
> it can mature and define its qualities and values. Same as for individual
> people.
>
> > He is known for writing blunt posts which several have been offended
> > by.
>
> Which happen to be exactly the kind of posts I like best. People are too
> easily offended around here.
Thank you.
> > The chastisement I have participated in [4] and have witnessed was for the
> > betterment of the whole of the community.
>
> In my opinion, the betterment of the whole of the community would be better
> served by chastizing the whiners than by chastizing the people who tell the
> whiners that they're whiners. Obviously that's not the prevailing opinion
> on LUGNET, and probably if confronted I'd have to admit (eventually) that
> it's not even the correct opinion, so good thing I'm not in charge.
>
> > Note, I said the future of the 'LEGO community,' not the future of the
> > 'LUGNET community.' Of course, the LUGNET community will exist primarily
> > online :-)
>
> Yeah, I caught the distinction, I was just saying that LUGNET is probably
> the *only* part of the community that will exist primarily online (ignoring
> other 'lugnet-like' communities like FBTB). All the important stuff will
> take place offline for the simple reason that you can't share the experience
> of the physical Brick over a modem.
>
> > [1] Frownies(R) are a registered trademark of Despair, Inc.
> > http://www.despair.com/demotivators/frownonthis.html
>
> LOL
>
> - Mike
Thanks for taking the time to speak up for once ;-)
--
Tom Stangl
***http://www.vfaq.com/
***DSM Visual FAQ home
***http://ba.dsm.org/
***SF Bay Area DSMs
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Constructive criticism vs. sugar coating
|
| (Speaking of sugar coating... After reading through this post again I can see that there's bits in here to offend probably every single person who reads it. What can I say? I can only advise the casual reader that if you find yourself strongly (...) (22 years ago, 18-Apr-03, to lugnet.general)
|
200 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
