Subject:
|
Re: Feedback thoughts
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.space
|
Date:
|
Sat, 15 Feb 2003 02:46:19 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1548 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.space, Joel Kuester writes:
> 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
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 are
trying to do this online. I hope that I am not one of those people. Sure,
I may not be the conventional Space type here but at least I am not an
egotistical jerk here.
My brother, whom knows zilch about building captial vessels, does have what
seems to be a good suggestion to apparently improve your vessel. First, you
need to get some triangular windows (like what is on the Constitution
vessel) on top of the current roof of your vessel. Next, you need to make
an almost tent-like appearance stretching from those windows to where your
current tower is and put the top of the tower on this new section. It
should be 8 bricks high and slightly flat on top. Then you should put your
cannons on top of where they are now. (Their place on the vessel is good
but you need to put them on this new roof.)
Of course, if anyone knows a good deal on some road baseplates and some
bottom left corner Classic Space baseplates, that would certainly help me
out with my project.
Oh, and Joel, $2,500 is too rich for me. Please negotiate a better price
with me.
Jesse
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Feedback thoughts
|
| (...) Conformity and elitism...hmm, this doesn't sound good at all, but I too, have noticed to to a degree. I understand seniority in any forum is inevitable, but it seems to me whenever a lurker hits the scene and showcases a finished model, it (...) (22 years ago, 18-Feb-03, to lugnet.space)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Feedback thoughts
|
| (...) 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 (...) (22 years ago, 15-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
|
|
|
|
