Subject:
|
Re: Feedback thoughts
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.space
|
Date:
|
Sat, 15 Feb 2003 00:45:48 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1562 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.space, Daniel Jassim writes:
> I would add that we should not equate "honesty" solely with serious or
> critical remarks that border on being terse and inflammatory. I'm sensing an
> attitude shift in this group toward discrediting enthusiastic and positive
> comments about MOCs, as if they're somehow "less honest" or less
> constructive.
hi Dan,
Well, I obviously agree that 'honest' doesn't equal being terse or
inflamatory. If you got that from reading my comments, I really didn't
intend that. I think you are applying this thread exclusively to your
feelings reguarding comments posted to the Dragonstar, and while it
originally lead to this thread, I was careful to mention that I was writing
to a larger issue. I didn't have you in mind when I wrote that post.
For the purpose of the conversation, I would say 'honest' is more likely to
be referring to critical comments because people are far more likely to post
an offhanded "cool MOC!" post than post an offhanded "crappy MOC!"
No one has EVER said we need less positive comments in here. No one has
EVER critisized someone for posting positive comments. If it has happened
and I missed it... please refute me. I want to know if someone has.
All I am saying is that there is room for a more mature discussion of MOC
beyond, "Cool ship!" That means more positive comments... more questions...
more negative comments (politely stated of course)... more idea sharing,
just more discussion period!
> And I'm also sensing the beginnings of conformity and elitism
> and we don't need that either. I hope I'm wrong and just overreacting (as I
> know I often do!).
In the sprit of constructive critisizm being less vague, could you elaborate
on the conformity and elitism you mentioned? I'm really curious who you are
talking about and why you feel that way. I have some idea what you mean,
but I don't want to put words in your mouth.
I can understand where you get this from tho, I can also see how a complete
outsider to .space might get the feeling that there *already* is a full-on
elitism going on here. I don't think its intentional by any stretch, but
its easy to interpret some of the things here as it.
As for conformity... bah! If you take a look at what gets attention, I
think the trend in here is almost anti-conformist. IE: the more original
the work, the quicker the maker is vaunted. Look at Gil, he's a relative
newcomer, but his stuff is all way-out and different from anyone else's,
hence he has whole fads like the Pods started in honor of his creativity.
Wait, when you say conformity... are you talking about the fads that have
been showing up lately? Hoverbikes, Pods, Moonbase... etc...?
> Regarding feedback, I'd like to add that I think constructive feedback that
> is specific and offers some suggestions on possibly improving an MOC is
> good.
yeah, that's pretty much what I'm getting at here... glad you agree!
> Lego offers the similar challenges and, depending on how much brick one has,
> will influence one's building style and product. So when we critique
> someone's work, a certain amount of grace or credit should be given to the
> builder working within their material limitations.
I disagree here. Unless we have seen someone else's collection... its
literally impossible to give them credit for their limitations. We all have
limitations to our brick, they just aren't the same limiations... so it
makes no sense to expect people to judge a MOC in this reguard.
Put in more clear art terms, I remember in a critique I learned a lot from,
a really good painting was put up by another artist. The problem was, this
painting was painted on cardboard, and people kept commenting on that
negatively, which annoyed the maker. He thought we should just ingore the
fact that he painted on cardboard... but it had a very real effect on the work.
To make a long story short, you can't ignore aspects of the work that have
such a huge effect on it. They may not be what *you* want the attention on,
but if people are commenting on it, it matters.
> We should avoid comments
> that discredit someone's attempt at making an MOC look a certain way, shape,
> color, scale, etc, just because it fell short of our expectations, standards
> and/or measures.
No one is trying to discredit anyone else around here. Giving critical
feedback is not discrediting. No one is trying to say that.
If we followed the spirit of that sentence, there could not possibly be any
critical feedback at all. Our expectations, standards, and measures are
what form our opinions about another's work. The best way to talk about a
MOC is shape, color, scale, etc...
If you take all that away from a conversation, what are we left with? No
exploration of a MOC, no deeper conversations than "Cool MOC!"
Nothing but hero worship.
There *is* room for worship, yes. I could never do what Mladen does with
mecha. There are ppl who make amazing castle stuff that just floors me.
The train clubs have huge cities I bow before... but that doesn't mean those
things are the best they will ever be, and the builder doesn't want to hear
ways they might improve in the future. That a conversation can't be started
that becomes the seeds for new MOCs and better building techniques.
> I try to just enjoy something for what it is
> rather than what I think it should be and I encourage everyone to do the same.
So what you are saying is that critical feedback is not enjoying something
for what it is? That's an odd way to look at it. To ignore anything that
might be taken in a negative light isn't being honest. Post your feelings!
The builder should at least be offered a chance to defend why they did what
they did, maybe it was intentional? But if we don't ask questions or
comment about things like that we won't ever find out.
Seriously, I want to know... how is less communication a good thing for .space?
s p a c e .
Jk
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Feedback thoughts
|
| (...) I do agree that people do need to be more expressive on LUGNET pertaining to the way that structures are built on here. Joel is indeed correct here with his choice of words. As for conformity and elitism, however, I can sense the people who (...) (22 years ago, 15-Feb-03, to lugnet.space)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Feedback thoughts
|
| (...) <snipped> Very well said on everything, Joel! :) I would add that we should not equate "honesty" solely with serious or critical remarks that border on being terse and inflammatory. I'm sensing an attitude shift in this group toward (...) (22 years ago, 14-Feb-03, to lugnet.space)
|
108 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
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
