I'd say "what does and does not fit" would constitute criticism. Saying "an inexplicable nuke doesn't fit" certainly is criticism. Therefore, you're statement is incorrect about "doesn't fit" fitting here.
On that note, you're also wrong about what the guide is about. It's not about "what to say", but "why to say". It's a call to do your research and back up your claims. You can certainly use any criticism without judgment (at least, from me). The point of this guide is to help explain how to responsibly answer why you use the criticisms.
Anyone can make a criticism, but it doesn't mean the criticism is valid, that's what supporting details are about. You may have noticed a few running phrases in FTC. "supporting details", "just press back", "go all the way or don't do anything at all". These all lead to one thing. If you don't have the time to explain yourself, you don't have the time to criticize.
Remember, if the suggester doesn't have the time to detail his suggestion he shouldn't post, why would you, as a critic be exempt.
I've actually been pretty careful about what to add because I don't want the guide to be totally recumbent; it's about 1 thing. Do things completely, or leave it to somebody else who will. If you don't want to do the homework to create legitimate arguments, then don't post. Which is the actual point of FTC.
Thanks for telling the author of the guide what his guide is about though. Does not in any way make you look conceited and illiterate.
Yes, I agree completely. Especially suggestions that have been Necro'd and critics continue to respond to them (One or two I remember that was filled with No supports and already died was revived and continued to be filled with No supports). Especially with the same responses people have already said, and the thread goes on with the same replies for ages.
The problem here is I'm not in any position to stop it. This is why everyone's friend, Mr. Report button, exists.
Bumping and necroing are against the rules. If the mods see a necro, they burn it. They burn it until it's dead, then they separate the thread into different parts and cast them across the globe to ensure it doesn't come back.... Then they lock the thread.
Gatekeeping: Criticizing Critics: The Critical Critception
Gatekeeper - (n) - Someone who acts as the moral arbiter of what people can(not) say/do/like.
A growing annoyance of some of my friends has been the absolute inability to criticize a work without some shameless white knight coming to some blind defense. It's usually includes some version of "If you don't like it, you do better!" "Let's see you do this then!" "You don't know the kind of work that this person has gone into!"
On a personal note: Shut up, I have.
On an impersonal note: People have these things called "taste" and "preference", my ability to pick up a palette of oil paints has no bearing on my ability to enjoy or be dissatisfied with a Bob Ross painting. I shouldn't have to know how to weave thatch to know a poorly made basket on sight. Sometimes bad is bad, and "let's see you do better" will end miserably.
Here's the problem: In a very best case you've thrown the discussion into a red herring or completely stifled the conversation altogether due to your inability to accept criticism or allow the OP to accept it. So either you have become a target for aggression and people will make a full suite of effort to quell you or you will have killed the suggestion as people are no longer motivated to continue discussing it because you're playing the damned gatekeeper of the discussion.
The problem continues: In a very worst case, if you throw "let's see you do better!" It will be taken as a challenge and they will. The thread you're attempting to promote dies as the new thread gathers ground, and the old thread simply dies as people flock from what you were trying to defend onto something actually worth defending.
The next problem is blind assumption: You have no actual idea what the critic could've personally done. You know NOTHING about them except what they tell you they've done or what they'd like you to believe and the hope that you'd believe there'd be some merit to their statement. With that said, they are probably a software developer, or a graphic artist or a systems analyst or a whole slew of other jobs in their own private life where the heckling of a gatekeeper is not only shunned and discouraged but quickly stamped out.
Finally, someone's ability to perform the same or similar action has no bearing on what makes or breaks a suggestion. It doesn't matter what they can or can't do as that's outside of the scope of the suggestion.
Gatekeeping: Criticizing Critics: The Critical Critception
Gatekeeper - (n) - Someone who acts as the moral arbiter of what people can(not) say/do/like.
A growing annoyance of some of my friends has been the absolute inability to criticize a work without some shameless white knight coming to some blind defense. It's usually includes some version of "If you don't like it, you do better!" "Let's see you do this then!" "You don't know the kind of work that this person has gone into!"
On a personal note: Shut up, I have.
On an impersonal note: People have these things called "taste" and "preference", my ability to pick up a palette of oil paints has no bearing on my ability to enjoy or be dissatisfied with a Bob Ross painting. I shouldn't have to know how to weave thatch to know a poorly made basket on sight. Sometimes bad is bad, and "let's see you do better" will end miserably.
Here's the problem: In a very best case you've thrown the discussion into a red herring or completely stifled the conversation altogether due to your inability to accept criticism or allow the OP to accept it. So either you have become a target for aggression and people will make a full suite of effort to quell you or you will have killed the suggestion as people are no longer motivated to continue discussing it because you're playing the damned gatekeeper of the discussion.
The problem continues: In a very worst case, if you throw "let's see you do better!" It will be taken as a challenge and they will. The thread you're attempting to promote dies as the new thread gathers ground, and the old thread simply dies as people flock from what you were trying to defend onto something actually worth defending.
The next problem is blind assumption: You have no actual idea what the critic could've personally done. You know NOTHING about them except what they tell you they've done or what they'd like you to believe and the hope that you'd believe there'd be some merit to their statement. With that said, they are probably a software developer, or a graphic artist or a systems analyst or a whole slew of other jobs in their own private life where the heckling of a gatekeeper is not only shunned and discouraged but quickly stamped out.
Finally, someone's ability to perform the same or similar action has no bearing on what makes or breaks a suggestion. It doesn't matter what they can or can't do as that's outside of the scope of the suggestion.
The most hilarious part to this scenario is when the critic who is being accused of not being able to do better has a hall of fame suggestion.
That's fine. I also recommended that you could read it in multiple sittings anyway.
It's not a short read, and as much as I'd like to apologize for it; consider how much trouble it was to WRITE it. Put another way, it would be shorter if people weren't always looking for ways to trump each other in a race to the bottom.
Well, again, that goes in-line with feasibility. It's not extended realism though. It's doubtful that diamonds, stones, or as a stretch, trees exist in a vacuum known only to us Terrans.
It is totally possible that the Minecraft universe can be totally separated from our own but connected, if only tenuously, by comfortable familiar anchors.
Again, simply having trees, diamonds, or stone doesn't mean that the game is realistic (trees don't obey the laws of gravity in Minecraft unless you download a mod that forces them to); therefore we have to approach all problems by what makes sense within the Minecraft universe. This is why I state feasibility.
Feasible means "reality in scope" or what is real to the universe you're attempting to define. What's real here certainly isn't real to Minecraft, and vice versa. With that said, saying "Minceraft is (un)realistic" is wrong, whether you add the un or leave it off; it is neither realistic nor unrealistic. It exists in its own setting, in its own reality, and that should be respected if you're going to make a suggestion around it.
It's totally cool. The idea isn't the word so much as the idea.
Feasible is the correct word here, but it's not like knowing the word is required so long as the idea behind the word is understood. I guess the better way to say it is "Real to Minecraft" if "feasible" doesn't come to mind. It probably won't, honestly. You'd be surprised how often that word escapes me on the regular unless I try to retread it through various steps. With that said, even if you don't know the word, knowing the reasoning and explaining is often enough. (We're going back to supporting details again).
Well, there's a few things to discuss with the topic of vague suggestions.
Off the top: Just because something is no longer a rule doesn't mean you should do it. They trimmed it because there was no reasonable standard by which a suggestion could be considered vague (as you've read) not because they've allowed people the providence to spam up the forum. WhIlE iT iS nOt AgAiNsT tHe RuLeS tO uSe AlT-cApS, iT iS sTiLl oBnOxIoUs AnD sHoUlD bE aVoIdEd.
With that said:
Personal Stance: The rule was originally instated for a good reason. A vague thread leaves little to the discussion. There is often so much to cover and improve and so few places to start that it's a folly to attempt. Because of this, the only thing I can do is give up and just call it as it is, vague. The fact that these threads are no longer locked can be considered a good thing though, as it allows newer posters the grace to improve upon their suggestion and that can lead to proactive solutions.
For the Critics stance: Unchanged. Don't make vague suggestions if you don't want vague responses. If your suggestion is worth only 15 seconds of your time to write, it deserves 15 seconds of our time to respond. And because we're not linked to your mind, there's about 10 seconds of fruitless attempts to link to your psyche, 3 seconds of understanding the suggestion. and two seconds to - times up, pushing back!
Just found this out. I personally think it's a very bad decision. I mean, people can't just use their common sense?
There are laws. It's the judge's job to decide how to best follow those laws. Why can't moderators just be judges. Why can't we have good rules that make sense, but leave it up to some trusted individuals to decided what the rule means? Their opinions won't be very different.
Again, I personally see a bit more potential for good from this decision. A lot of posters get disheartened from becoming part of the community here because of a post being locked for being vague.
I actually know of members that came to produce excellent suggestions and threads from otherwise humbling beginnings because they were allowed to reform and improve a suggestion without a swift lock.
While I'm not a fan of digging through the muck for a diamond; the point is that the diamonds in the rough do exist, and a bit of leniency on rules allows these members to stick and improve the forum.
There will always be fresh out of waters and tree punchers that come to sully a perceived image of this board. However, it's also a good time to allow these members a bit of clemency to become allies instead of throwing them out with the trash because the filth covered their shine.
This will help me give better constructive criticism!
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If I helped you in any way or agree in my ideas or posts, make sure you click that green arrow pointing up below my post or simply huggle me! I use 1.7.10 (Modded), so when I comment that I like a 1.8 mod, I will comment to downgrade to 1.7.10. I support no pics, no clicks. Suggestions that I think that are the best deserves a banner!
It is almost time to say goodbye to 1.7.10 because of the recent surge of big 1.9 mods.
Why MCreator sucks: jcm2606's file (doesn't open a new tab) He allows/welcomes anyone to link the file, so I put it here in my signature for people to know how MCreator functions. I thank jcm2606 (he's awesome) for creating the document/file and I'm just here to spread the word.
I'd say "what does and does not fit" would constitute criticism. Saying "an inexplicable nuke doesn't fit" certainly is criticism. Therefore, you're statement is incorrect about "doesn't fit" fitting here.
On that note, you're also wrong about what the guide is about. It's not about "what to say", but "why to say". It's a call to do your research and back up your claims. You can certainly use any criticism without judgment (at least, from me). The point of this guide is to help explain how to responsibly answer why you use the criticisms.
Anyone can make a criticism, but it doesn't mean the criticism is valid, that's what supporting details are about. You may have noticed a few running phrases in FTC. "supporting details", "just press back", "go all the way or don't do anything at all". These all lead to one thing. If you don't have the time to explain yourself, you don't have the time to criticize.
Remember, if the suggester doesn't have the time to detail his suggestion he shouldn't post, why would you, as a critic be exempt.
I've actually been pretty careful about what to add because I don't want the guide to be totally recumbent; it's about 1 thing. Do things completely, or leave it to somebody else who will. If you don't want to do the homework to create legitimate arguments, then don't post. Which is the actual point of FTC.
Thanks for telling the author of the guide what his guide is about though. Does not in any way make you look conceited and illiterate.
OFFICIAL POSTING/REPLYING GUIDELINES
UNOFFICIAL POSTING GUIDE (PRT)
UNOFFICIAL REPLYING GUIDE (FTC)
You may want to edit your post and put a snip in the quote.
Add me on steam!
Random junk is random:
A few of my suggestions and a personal favorite suggestions. More neat-o suggestions in my bio.
I feel like it needs to make made very apparent to people that bumping a suggestion (like this one: http://www.minecraftforum.net/forums/minecraft-discussion/suggestions/2431508-make-minecraft-free?) just as it was on the brink of death is frowned upon. Especially since it's a bunch of people repeating what other people said.
Yes, I agree completely. Especially suggestions that have been Necro'd and critics continue to respond to them (One or two I remember that was filled with No supports and already died was revived and continued to be filled with No supports). Especially with the same responses people have already said, and the thread goes on with the same replies for ages.
The problem here is I'm not in any position to stop it. This is why everyone's friend, Mr. Report button, exists.
Bumping and necroing are against the rules. If the mods see a necro, they burn it. They burn it until it's dead, then they separate the thread into different parts and cast them across the globe to ensure it doesn't come back.... Then they lock the thread.
OFFICIAL POSTING/REPLYING GUIDELINES
UNOFFICIAL POSTING GUIDE (PRT)
UNOFFICIAL REPLYING GUIDE (FTC)
Gatekeeping: Criticizing Critics: The Critical Critception
Gatekeeper - (n) - Someone who acts as the moral arbiter of what people can(not) say/do/like.
A growing annoyance of some of my friends has been the absolute inability to criticize a work without some shameless white knight coming to some blind defense. It's usually includes some version of "If you don't like it, you do better!" "Let's see you do this then!" "You don't know the kind of work that this person has gone into!"
On a personal note: Shut up, I have.
On an impersonal note: People have these things called "taste" and "preference", my ability to pick up a palette of oil paints has no bearing on my ability to enjoy or be dissatisfied with a Bob Ross painting. I shouldn't have to know how to weave thatch to know a poorly made basket on sight. Sometimes bad is bad, and "let's see you do better" will end miserably.
Here's the problem: In a very best case you've thrown the discussion into a red herring or completely stifled the conversation altogether due to your inability to accept criticism or allow the OP to accept it. So either you have become a target for aggression and people will make a full suite of effort to quell you or you will have killed the suggestion as people are no longer motivated to continue discussing it because you're playing the damned gatekeeper of the discussion.
The problem continues: In a very worst case, if you throw "let's see you do better!" It will be taken as a challenge and they will. The thread you're attempting to promote dies as the new thread gathers ground, and the old thread simply dies as people flock from what you were trying to defend onto something actually worth defending.
The next problem is blind assumption: You have no actual idea what the critic could've personally done. You know NOTHING about them except what they tell you they've done or what they'd like you to believe and the hope that you'd believe there'd be some merit to their statement. With that said, they are probably a software developer, or a graphic artist or a systems analyst or a whole slew of other jobs in their own private life where the heckling of a gatekeeper is not only shunned and discouraged but quickly stamped out.
Finally, someone's ability to perform the same or similar action has no bearing on what makes or breaks a suggestion. It doesn't matter what they can or can't do as that's outside of the scope of the suggestion.
OFFICIAL POSTING/REPLYING GUIDELINES
UNOFFICIAL POSTING GUIDE (PRT)
UNOFFICIAL REPLYING GUIDE (FTC)
The most hilarious part to this scenario is when the critic who is being accused of not being able to do better has a hall of fame suggestion.
Add me on steam!
Random junk is random:
A few of my suggestions and a personal favorite suggestions. More neat-o suggestions in my bio.
All of my suggestions are OLD. So old that the O fell off of it!
With that said, having a basic knowledge of how to make a suggestion helps, but it should not be required.
OFFICIAL POSTING/REPLYING GUIDELINES
UNOFFICIAL POSTING GUIDE (PRT)
UNOFFICIAL REPLYING GUIDE (FTC)
Took Me a While To read
That's fine. I also recommended that you could read it in multiple sittings anyway.
It's not a short read, and as much as I'd like to apologize for it; consider how much trouble it was to WRITE it. Put another way, it would be shorter if people weren't always looking for ways to trump each other in a race to the bottom.
OFFICIAL POSTING/REPLYING GUIDELINES
UNOFFICIAL POSTING GUIDE (PRT)
UNOFFICIAL REPLYING GUIDE (FTC)
Well, again, that goes in-line with feasibility. It's not extended realism though. It's doubtful that diamonds, stones, or as a stretch, trees exist in a vacuum known only to us Terrans.
It is totally possible that the Minecraft universe can be totally separated from our own but connected, if only tenuously, by comfortable familiar anchors.
Again, simply having trees, diamonds, or stone doesn't mean that the game is realistic (trees don't obey the laws of gravity in Minecraft unless you download a mod that forces them to); therefore we have to approach all problems by what makes sense within the Minecraft universe. This is why I state feasibility.
Feasible means "reality in scope" or what is real to the universe you're attempting to define. What's real here certainly isn't real to Minecraft, and vice versa. With that said, saying "Minceraft is (un)realistic" is wrong, whether you add the un or leave it off; it is neither realistic nor unrealistic. It exists in its own setting, in its own reality, and that should be respected if you're going to make a suggestion around it.
OFFICIAL POSTING/REPLYING GUIDELINES
UNOFFICIAL POSTING GUIDE (PRT)
UNOFFICIAL REPLYING GUIDE (FTC)
It's totally cool. The idea isn't the word so much as the idea.
Feasible is the correct word here, but it's not like knowing the word is required so long as the idea behind the word is understood. I guess the better way to say it is "Real to Minecraft" if "feasible" doesn't come to mind. It probably won't, honestly. You'd be surprised how often that word escapes me on the regular unless I try to retread it through various steps. With that said, even if you don't know the word, knowing the reasoning and explaining is often enough. (We're going back to supporting details again).
OFFICIAL POSTING/REPLYING GUIDELINES
UNOFFICIAL POSTING GUIDE (PRT)
UNOFFICIAL REPLYING GUIDE (FTC)
Right here.
Well, there's a few things to discuss with the topic of vague suggestions.
Off the top: Just because something is no longer a rule doesn't mean you should do it. They trimmed it because there was no reasonable standard by which a suggestion could be considered vague (as you've read) not because they've allowed people the providence to spam up the forum. WhIlE iT iS nOt AgAiNsT tHe RuLeS tO uSe AlT-cApS, iT iS sTiLl oBnOxIoUs AnD sHoUlD bE aVoIdEd.
With that said:
Personal Stance: The rule was originally instated for a good reason. A vague thread leaves little to the discussion. There is often so much to cover and improve and so few places to start that it's a folly to attempt. Because of this, the only thing I can do is give up and just call it as it is, vague. The fact that these threads are no longer locked can be considered a good thing though, as it allows newer posters the grace to improve upon their suggestion and that can lead to proactive solutions.
For the Critics stance: Unchanged. Don't make vague suggestions if you don't want vague responses. If your suggestion is worth only 15 seconds of your time to write, it deserves 15 seconds of our time to respond. And because we're not linked to your mind, there's about 10 seconds of fruitless attempts to link to your psyche, 3 seconds of understanding the suggestion. and two seconds to - times up, pushing back!
OFFICIAL POSTING/REPLYING GUIDELINES
UNOFFICIAL POSTING GUIDE (PRT)
UNOFFICIAL REPLYING GUIDE (FTC)
It's best if you add that to the OP, it's really helpful. Unless you already added it, which is alright.
FTC updated to try to improve readability. I separated each section by hr tags
OFFICIAL POSTING/REPLYING GUIDELINES
UNOFFICIAL POSTING GUIDE (PRT)
UNOFFICIAL REPLYING GUIDE (FTC)
I loose a piece of my sanity each day because of this.
Just found this out. I personally think it's a very bad decision. I mean, people can't just use their common sense?
There are laws. It's the judge's job to decide how to best follow those laws. Why can't moderators just be judges. Why can't we have good rules that make sense, but leave it up to some trusted individuals to decided what the rule means? Their opinions won't be very different.
Please read these two threads:
http://www.minecraftforum.net/forums/minecraft-discussion/suggestions/2572194-please-read-this-before-making-a-suggestion-v2-0
http://www.minecraftforum.net/forums/minecraft-discussion/suggestions/44180-for-the-critics-ftc
Again, I personally see a bit more potential for good from this decision. A lot of posters get disheartened from becoming part of the community here because of a post being locked for being vague.
I actually know of members that came to produce excellent suggestions and threads from otherwise humbling beginnings because they were allowed to reform and improve a suggestion without a swift lock.
While I'm not a fan of digging through the muck for a diamond; the point is that the diamonds in the rough do exist, and a bit of leniency on rules allows these members to stick and improve the forum.
There will always be fresh out of waters and tree punchers that come to sully a perceived image of this board. However, it's also a good time to allow these members a bit of clemency to become allies instead of throwing them out with the trash because the filth covered their shine.
OFFICIAL POSTING/REPLYING GUIDELINES
UNOFFICIAL POSTING GUIDE (PRT)
UNOFFICIAL REPLYING GUIDE (FTC)
This will help me give better constructive criticism!
If I helped you in any way or agree in my ideas or posts, make sure you click that green arrow pointing up below my post or simply huggle me! I use 1.7.10 (Modded), so when I comment that I like a 1.8 mod, I will comment to downgrade to 1.7.10. I support no pics, no clicks. Suggestions that I think that are the best deserves a banner!
It is almost time to say goodbye to 1.7.10 because of the recent surge of big 1.9 mods.
Why MCreator sucks: jcm2606's file (doesn't open a new tab) He allows/welcomes anyone to link the file, so I put it here in my signature for people to know how MCreator functions. I thank jcm2606 (he's awesome) for creating the document/file and I'm just here to spread the word.
500+ huggles? U wot, m8?