While you may not be actively trying to offend the OP, he sees it as offense, and depending on his maturity, he may or may not listen to you at that point. If you are really trying to help him improve his suggestion/suggesting skills, then trying to avoid offense helps.
There's not really much anyone can do about that. I can't and won't control others. Offense is solely in the mind of the person being offended.
People will take offense; they take offense to the strangest and most banal of things. I can SEEK to avoid offense; but in my attempt to avoid offending one person; I may cross the line in the sand of another. There's too many people in the world with too many triggers for me to please anyone. I'll try to remain within the rules; but for the sake of my sanity and my own personality; I won't try to actively avoid offense. When I do say no offense, I mean that in a way that what I say may be seen as blunt and harsh; but there is no way I can say it without the message losing meaning.
A concept I've encouraged is to provide the suggester with a few things to improve the suggestion as opposed to highlighting the positives and negatives. I figure others are going to do the easy job of saying what's good and what's bad. The harder part would be to provide improvements to OP. Again, there's no need for minimal support. Instead, "no support, but X may help others to actually support."
With all that being said, even if I totally no support a suggestion; I do make it a point to provide things that could improve the overall suggestion. Often my improvements turn out to be complete rewrites. But it's just my attempt to ensure that my opinion remains only my own; and that any recommendations on suggestions I "no support" can at least improve the OPs chances with other critics.
So, a few weeks ago someone brought up formatting for suggestions. However, I've been thinking, what about formatting for critiques?
Like suggestions, no two critics will have the same method to give criticism, but in my experience and education, this has been the most effective at getting the suggester to think, reply, and make positive changes:
Start with positive feedback. ("Well, redstone tools would definitely make redstone more valuable and give people who don't care about mechanisms more use for them...")
Then, tell the user what is wrong with their suggestion. If possible, try to balance your critique by not focusing much more on the bad than the good. However, if the suggestion is really bad, this might not be possible, and you may have to go more in-depth with what is wrong. ("However, redstone is a dust, which doesn't make a lot of sense for equipment, and, like all other ores, it already has a primary use: electrical engineering. Unfortunately I'm going to have to say Minimal Support.")
Finally, end on a positive note. ("Still, it's clear you put a lot of effort into this, and it's a relatively good idea for a first suggestion, so points for effort.")
Also, try to stay calm and uplifting through your entire critique. Mocking the OP, being sassy, smug, or condescending, or getting angry is a sure way to get the suggester to stop taking you seriously.
I am not going out of my way to make someone feel good about problems, and I'm not going to soften my words. If they are going to think with their emotions instead of with their reason, that's on them, not on me. It is their responsibility to put aside any irritation or upset over my manner of speaking, and do what is in their own best interest.
It is not my responsibility to make sure they feel good about themselves. What I can do is understand that there is a person on the other side of the screen and not intend any offense. If they self-destruct because I wasn't positive about their jet engine suggestion, that's on them.
I am not going out of my way to make someone feel good about problems, and I'm not going to soften my words. If they are going to think with their emotions instead of with their reason, that's on them, not on me. It is their responsibility to put aside any irritation or upset over my manner of speaking, and do what is in their own best interest.
It is not my responsibility to make sure they feel good about themselves. What I can do is understand that there is a person on the other side of the screen and not intend any offense. If they self-destruct because I wasn't positive about their jet engine suggestion, that's on them.
If you want to be effective and helpful to the suggester, sometimes one does have to set aside their pride and speak in a more tactful manner. It doesn't matter whether they speak with reason or emotion; without truly knowing the person you won't know their agenda, and there's always the possibility that the critic's reasoning is flawed. Acting like this is similar to saying "I can talk to anyone however I feel like it, and they just have to deal with it."
Giving constructive criticism by highlighting both the positives and the negatives does not aim to make them feel good. It aims to let the suggester know what is wrong with his suggestion while minimizing the risk of reasonable offense. For example, if you were to go onto one of my suggestions and tell me everything bad about it and nothing else, I'd probably get upset. I would think that I'd be mature enough not to start flaming at you, but in my anger I would hold your criticism less valuable than someone who both pointed out what they liked and disliked and might even ignore it entirely. Obviously, you don't know what will offend anyone in particular, but there are some general things you can try to avoid, such as bashing a suggestion.
It doesn't matter whether they speak with reason or emotion; without truly knowing the person you won't know their agenda, and there's always the possibility that the critic's reasoning is flawed.
This is true whether or not I go out of my way to try and appease feelings they may or may not have. In my case, I would actually be more irritated with your way of dancing about then if you just told me things straight. But I take responsibility for my own feelings. I prevent myself from grouching at you out of irritation. Because how I react is my own fault, not yours. So I'm not going to tell you how to talk.
Acting like this is similar to saying "I can talk to anyone however I feel like it, and they just have to deal with it."
So long as I don't mean to offend, then yes. If they get upset and start yelling at me, I'll let them know I meant no offense, but that's about it. Their emotions are theirs to control. I'm not going to treat them like animals that may bite me and can be coerced with treats.
Giving constructive criticism by highlighting both the positives and the negatives does not aim to make them feel good. It aims to let the suggester know what is wrong with his suggestion while minimizing the risk of reasonable offense. For example, if you were to go onto one of my suggestions and tell me everything bad about it and nothing else, I'd probably get upset. I would think that I'd be mature enough not to start flaming at you, but in my anger I would hold your criticism less valuable than someone who both pointed out what they liked and disliked and might even ignore it entirely. Obviously, you don't know what will offend anyone in particular, but there are some general things you can try to avoid, such as bashing a suggestion.
I generally do highlight positives and negatives. Unfortunately I come across a lot of suggestions that lack one way or another, or have very little in the way of stand-out qualities or discussion value. If there are more negatives than positives, that will stand out. If I don't think there are positives and you do, it will seem to you like I'm only telling you what's bad about it. And no matter how reasonable a person I can be, getting a low grade doesn't make anyone happy.
It is within your rights to hold my criticism as lesser for any reason, even if they are irrational reasons.
Bashing a suggestion I believe would be "flaming," which is against the rules. I don't need to follow a format to avoid doing it.
If you want to be effective and helpful to the suggester, sometimes one does have to set aside their pride and speak in a more tactful manner.
The big issue here is the assumption that direct and tactless is somehow an ineffective or non-helpful method. I get that you find a tactful approach to be more encouraged (who wouldn't); but I'd like to see some metrics or something that isn't anecdotes to convince me that there aren't other methods.
What works for you may not work on another poster.
It doesn't matter whether they speak with reason or emotion; without truly knowing the person you won't know their agenda, and there's always the possibility that the critic's reasoning is flawed.
Possibility? Near certainty. Critics are people, people make mistakes. If you're going to be a critic and are going to speak with any air of authority; it's on you to fact-check. If you don't do a fact check; or if you speak out both sides of your mouth; be prepared to be criticized yourself.
A critic is meant to work with a suggester to improve the suggestion; if someone brings in misinformation; it's up to a critic to correct the assertion.
Giving constructive criticism by highlighting both the positives and the negatives does not aim to make them feel good. It aims to let the suggester know what is wrong with his suggestion while minimizing the risk of reasonable offense.
I'm beginning to think that people are attributing a bipartisan opposition concept to suggesters and critics. Critics are not supposed to oppose suggesters; they're supposed to work with them. While people continue to insist that suggesters and critics are opponents; they will remain opponents. You're supposed to be on the same team.
With this granted, sometimes you just don't like a suggestion. That doesn't mean you should dislike the poster; but that you wouldn't want to see the suggestion implemented in Vanilla MC. If you don't like a suggestion; sometimes you won't see anything redeeming about it. But your voice shouldn't be silenced because you can't lump some good with the bad. Listing what are problems and why is constructive criticism. OP doesn't have to like it.
*snip* I would hold your criticism less valuable than someone who both pointed out what they liked and disliked and might even ignore it entirely.
Which is awesome. It speaks to you and your mindset; but it doesn't speak to the community as a whole. Different strokes for different folks, yo!
While you may value the criticism less (which is your right); it doesn't mean another suggester would hold it less valuable.
This is true whether or not I go out of my way to try and appease feelings they may or may not have. In my case, I would actually be more irritated with your way of dancing about then if you just told me things straight. But I take responsibility for my own feelings. I prevent myself from grouching at you out of irritation. Because how I react is my own fault, not yours. So I'm not going to tell you how to talk.
Notice that in my example, I did not "dance around the problem." I still told the person what was wrong with his suggestion and didn't make the problems seem less than they were. I just balanced it out by not going full "Your suggestion has issues, and here's what they are." Obviously, you aren't fully responsible for what a person does because of what you told them, but that does not excuse you for not trying to avoid such problems from occurring.
So long as I don't mean to offend, then yes. If they get upset and start yelling at me, I'll let them know I meant no offense, but that's about it. Their emotions are theirs to control. I'm not going to treat them like animals that may bite me and can be coerced with treats.
You can't treat people like they don't deserve any respect either. If you were to accidently injure someone as part of a harmless prank, just telling them it was just a prank won't somehow make it all better and absolve you from any blame.
I generally do highlight positives and negatives. Unfortunately I come across a lot of suggestions that lack one way or another, or have very little in the way of stand-out qualities or discussion value. If there are more negatives than positives, that will stand out. If I don't think there are positives and you do, it will seem to you like I'm only telling you what's bad about it. And no matter how reasonable a person I can be, getting a low grade doesn't make anyone happy.
It is within your rights to hold my criticism as lesser for any reason, even if they are irrational reasons.
Bashing a suggestion I believe would be "flaming," which is against the rules. I don't need to follow a format to avoid doing it.
To bash means to strike with a smashing or crushing blow. Regardless of whether you are flaming, focusing purely on negatives is bashing.
The big issue here is the assumption that direct and tactless is somehow an ineffective or non-helpful method. I get that you find a tactful approach to be more encouraged (who wouldn't); but I'd like to see some metrics or something that isn't anecdotes to convince me that there aren't other methods.
What works for you may not work on another poster.
Look, being direct and tactless isn't ineffective. It's just generally not the most effective way in my experience.
Consider this scenario: two twins, Bob and Rob, are working the same position at the same job but have two different managers. They are both given the same assignment and made the same exact mistakes. Bob's manager yells at him and says that his report sucked, he produced false information, and he misspelled a couple of terms. Rob's manager sits down with him privately and tells him good job for getting it in early, but that he made a couple of misquotes and used the acronym MTD instead of YTD in several locations. He then ends by telling him that he trusts him to learn from his mistakes and do better next time. Regardless of the personality, background, and maturity of the two employees, who do you think is more likely to learn from his mistake and do better next time? Who is more likely to quit? While either of them could do either, Rob's manager would have to be considered more effective at criticism.
Possibility? Near certainty. Critics are people, people make mistakes. If you're going to be a critic and are going to speak with any air of authority; it's on you to fact-check. If you don't do a fact check; or if you speak out both sides of your mouth; be prepared to be criticized yourself.
A critic is meant to work with a suggester to improve the suggestion; if someone brings in misinformation; it's up to a critic to correct the assertion.
I'm beginning to think that people are attributing a bipartisan opposition concept to suggesters and critics. Critics are not supposed to oppose suggesters; they're supposed to work with them. While people continue to insist that suggesters and critics are opponents; they will remain opponents. You're supposed to be on the same team.
With this granted, sometimes you just don't like a suggestion. That doesn't mean you should dislike the poster; but that you wouldn't want to see the suggestion implemented in Vanilla MC. If you don't like a suggestion; sometimes you won't see anything redeeming about it. But your voice shouldn't be silenced because you can't lump some good with the bad. Listing what are problems and why is constructive criticism. OP doesn't have to like it.
Which is why, like anything else, you practice. It may sound weird to practice optimism, but it can be acquired as a skill. You may have difficulty, or even find it impossible, to find anything good with the suggestion, but you should always at least try, and you'll get better at it.
Which is awesome. It speaks to you and your mindset; but it doesn't speak to the community as a whole. Different strokes for different folks, yo!
While you may value the criticism less (which is your right); it doesn't mean another suggester would hold it less valuable.
I consider myself, and I hope many of you do too, to be a mature suggester on this forum. Most people who make suggestions on this forum are not, however, so they are even less likely to respond to criticism filled with only negative criticism. I'm sure there are a handful of people who wouldn't consider it less valuable, but it is a very small handful, and no one likes having their suggestion shot at.
Look, being direct and tactless isn't ineffective. It's just generally not the most effective way in my experience.
Consider this scenario: two twins, Bob and Rob, are working the same position at the same job but have two different managers. They are both given the same assignment and made the same exact mistakes. Bob's manager yells at him and says that his report sucked, he produced false information, and he misspelled a couple of terms. Rob's manager sits down with him privately and tells him good job for getting it in early, but that he made a couple of misquotes and used the acronym MTD instead of YTD in several locations. He then ends by telling him that he trusts him to learn from his mistakes and do better next time. Regardless of the personality, background, and maturity of the two employees, who do you think is more likely to learn from his mistake and do better next time? Who is more likely to quit? While either of them could do either, Rob's manager would have to be considered more effective at criticism.
It depends on how the individual reacts to stimulus. Some people are harder learners than others. You can have Bob and Rob in the same situation; but if Bob is apathetic and unmotivated, a harsh lecture may be all he needs to correct action where a light coaching would be ineffective or seen as the manager being weak or easily-cowed.
Which is why, like anything else, you practice. It may sound weird to practice optimism, but it can be acquired as a skill. You may have difficulty, or even find it impossible, to find anything good with the suggestion, but you should always at least try, and you'll get better at it.
Optimism isn't a skill, it's a state of mind. You can _practice_ optimistic sentences; but it doesn't change state of mind. If you're pessimistic or are a "realist", then optimism becomes a facade.
It depends on how the individual reacts to stimulus. Some people are harder learners than others. You can have Bob and Rob in the same situation; but if Bob is apathetic and unmotivated, a harsh lecture may be all he needs to correct action where a light coaching would be ineffective or seen as the manager being weak or easily-cowed.
Perhaps, but what I'm asking for is the general answer here. You don't know anything about the twins' personalities in this case, so you have to guess based on likelihoods, in which case, who was given the more effective criticism?
Optimism isn't a skill, it's a state of mind. You can _practice_ optimistic sentences; but it doesn't change state of mind. If you're pessimistic or are a "realist", then optimism becomes a facade.
Perhaps skill was the wrong word, but you can practice states of mind that aren't native to yours. Many people already do this: they have a "casual" state of mind when at home, and then a more "formal" one when at work or other public places. Full pessimism generally isn't helpful in my experience as it often leads to suggestion bashing and coming up with lame excuses for why you don't like a feature (such as "too hard to code"). I see realism as a much less severe version of pessimism, having a much bigger tendency to notice negative things than positives, but these people do have their use in pointing out some of the more obscure problems with a suggestion. Optimism may seem like an act to these people, but when you really think about it, for the most part people's online personalities are often different than their physical ones, so it doesn't seem to be to difficult to pull off.
Optimism and pessimism tend to be phenomenological, especially on-line. You are what you post!
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I did some CraftTweaker scripts for Mystical Agriculture. They fill in a couple of small gaps in MA, and also let you make or duplicate not only vanilla plants, but the blocks, plants and wood from Quark and Biomes O'Plenty. Also spawn eggs for most vanilla mobs! The scripts are here on Github.
Notice that in my example, I did not "dance around the problem." I still told the person what was wrong with his suggestion and didn't make the problems seem less than they were. I just balanced it out by not going full "Your suggestion has issues, and here's what they are." Obviously, you aren't fully responsible for what a person does because of what you told them, but that does not excuse you for not trying to avoid such problems from occurring.
You can't treat people like they don't deserve any respect either. If you were to accidently injure someone as part of a harmless prank, just telling them it was just a prank won't somehow make it all better and absolve you from any blame.
To bash means to strike with a smashing or crushing blow. Regardless of whether you are flaming, focusing purely on negatives is bashing.
I don't avoid such problems. I treat the other person with respect. Like a human being capable of self-awareness who won't go off the handle for something that isn't personal. I don't try to frame it in a balancing act that may not exist, to appease anger that might happen. I have too much respect for other people to treat them like they need to be reassured. I'm not their parent. I'm not going to dangle praise in front of them either, to teach them new tricks. I'm not their owner, either.
If there are positives and negatives, I point them out. I don't need to add more positives at the end to get them in a good mood. If it's positive, great for them. If it's negative, I'm not going to be dishonest. Anything contrary to reality is dancing around the issue and trying to frame it in a manner that it is not.
Failed prank? More like... telling a patient about their terminal illness. They don't know what the results will be, and are hoping for a good result. Trying to candy-coat it is a disservice to them. Mocking them for it is also not good, obviously. If there's a potential cure, by all means mention it. But don't try to make it better than it is. That's disrespectful.
Your definition of bashing is different from mine. Given that you seem to see purely negative critique as a bad thing, and possibly not even actual critique, I'm unsure if you can be convinced of its value.
I don't avoid such problems. I treat the other person with respect. Like a human being capable of self-awareness who won't go off the handle for something that isn't personal. I don't try to frame it in a balancing act that may not exist, to appease anger that might happen. I have too much respect for other people to treat them like they need to be reassured. I'm not their parent. I'm not going to dangle praise in front of them either, to teach them new tricks. I'm not their owner, either.
If there are positives and negatives, I point them out. I don't need to add more positives at the end to get them in a good mood. If it's positive, great for them. If it's negative, I'm not going to be dishonest. Anything contrary to reality is dancing around the issue and trying to frame it in a manner that it is not.
Failed prank? More like... telling a patient about their terminal illness. They don't know what the results will be, and are hoping for a good result. Trying to candy-coat it is a disservice to them. Mocking them for it is also not good, obviously. If there's a potential cure, by all means mention it. But don't try to make it better than it is. That's disrespectful.
Your definition of bashing is different from mine. Given that you seem to see purely negative critique as a bad thing, and possibly not even actual critique, I'm unsure if you can be convinced of its value.
>sigh<
Again, a purely negative critique is not ineffective. It has its uses, and if you know the person, I suppose it may be even more effective. But in general, a critique that includes both positives and negatives is more likely to get the OP to improve his suggestion, and is especially important for first time posters, as you don't want to scare them away.
Don't lie about positives, of course. Don't tell them that their suggestion is good where it is actually bad, and don't blow up a relatively minor good thing to make it sound like it is super awesome. Just make sure to give credit where credit is due. Trying to balance positives with negatives is really just a personal thing I do; I suppose it's not required but I find it helps the OP take me more seriously. Ending with positives will make them more receptive to criticism in the future, at least according to personal experience and the course on criticism I took back in high school (a lot of what I've been saying has been derived from what I learned back then). It's not required, but again, the goal is to be as effective as possible.
My definition of bashing comes from Dictionary.com, though other sources agree with it. I guess bashing in this particular context is slang, so there's not really a solid definition, but since there's no way to really confirm who's right, arguing over it will do nothing.
Again, a purely negative critique is not ineffective. It has its uses, and if you know the person, I suppose it may be even more effective. But in general, a critique that includes both positives and negatives is more likely to get the OP to improve his suggestion, and is especially important for first time posters, as you don't want to scare them away.
I like you and I like your point of view; but I have to argue this. I want to believe you; but there isn't proof to your assertion. There isn't a link to a source that would encourage adding both positive and negative feedback to a suggestion over purely "negative" feedback. I can bet there are several socialogical studies that confirm it; and just as many that find no causal link as well. It's a REALLY difficult thing to prove which means it's hard to justify the position as more than personal preference.
Personal preference cannot be argued as it's simply an opinion. But an opinion cannot be used as an effective guideline as each person is different. While I personally think that a criticism should seek unbiased feedback; the critic may not have the time, patience, or energy to add positives and negatives; especially when the negatives are exhaustive. But because of this, I don't think that guiding people to add positives and negatives to their critique makes a more meaningful critique. Again, it's based on personal experience, confirmation bias. I've personally seen my attempts turn into a wash. Attempts that list positives WITH negatives tend to hit the same adoption rate as purely negative feedback (in other words, I've tried it your way and found that it yields no significant change to response quality.)
Trying to balance positives with negatives is really just a personal thing I do; I suppose it's not required but I find it helps the OP take me more seriously.
Ah! Bingo! You said it right here.
Again, I'm not holding this opinion purely to challenge you; but because I think there's a bit of ethical ambiguity associated with your proposed guideline.
I like you and I like your point of view; but I have to argue this. I want to believe you; but there isn't proof to your assertion. There isn't a link to a source that would encourage adding both positive and negative feedback to a suggestion over purely "negative" feedback. I can bet there are several socialogical studies that confirm it; and just as many that find no causal link as well. It's a REALLY difficult thing to prove which means it's hard to justify the position as more than personal preference.
Personal preference cannot be argued as it's simply an opinion. But an opinion cannot be used as an effective guideline as each person is different. While I personally think that a criticism should seek unbiased feedback; the critic may not have the time, patience, or energy to add positives and negatives; especially when the negatives are exhaustive. But because of this, I don't think that guiding people to add positives and negatives to their critique makes a more meaningful critique. Again, it's based on personal experience, confirmation bias. I've personally seen my attempts turn into a wash. Attempts that list positives WITH negatives tend to hit the same adoption rate as purely negative feedback (in other words, I've tried it your way and found that it yields no significant change to response quality.)
I get what you're saying, but when you think about it, how often do posters in this thread bother to link to any kind of source? Most people here just talk from personal experience, or bias from what they've heard from other critics. I'm not going to throw out everything I've read in this thread because of that, because often you can learn from other's experiences.
I've seen you try it "my way" before, and I think it does seem more successful, but I guess this could be confirmation bias. Still, your general posting personality has never seemed to be purely negative, so that may be why. Either way though, one's efforts are often wasted when a bunch of other people then come and then bash the thread into oblivion, resulting in the OP not wanting to bother replying.
Ah! Bingo! You said it right here.
Again, I'm not holding this opinion purely to challenge you; but because I think there's a bit of ethical ambiguity associated with your proposed guideline.
That's fine, I mean, I suppose neither of us have any solid proof that it's one way or the other. I just want to encourage a more "plucky and bubbly" environment, so to say, but I can understand people not wanting to lose some of their posting identity to do so.
That's fine, I mean, I suppose neither of us have any solid proof that it's one way or the other.
Well... It's more like you had the burden of proof. You made an assertion. I mean, it was an assertion on the back of good intentions; but it was still an assertion. This meant that you had to back it up in some way. I was simply refuting your assertion. FWIW I do try to back up assertions with studies or experiments. Sociology is icky; and even if you do find a study that supports your hypothesis; you're bound to find others that debunk it. Humans be human.
I think what all of this really amounts to is a middle ground that everyone involved with the latest discussion is more or less saying anyways:
If you like parts of an idea, say that. Telling people what you like is just as important as what you dislike, it tells then that part has gotten good reception. Don't make things up or overblow a small good thing into an amazing thing.
If you think something can be improved, tell them what and how. This helps make the ideas better. But if you simply can't find a way to improve an idea, that is fine as well. You don' t have to like everything.
Be honest and be nice. AKA the golden rule to any discussion. You don't need to sugarcoat everything provided you also aren't a jerk about it. And being honest is good but being brutally honest might be a step too far. In my experience the problem with people who say they are brutally honest is because they are more concerned with being brutal to the person rather than being honest.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want some advice on how to thrive in the Suggestions section? Check this handy list of guidelines and tips for posting your ideas and responding to the ideas of others!
I tend to telegraph if I have to be brutally honest. "Look, I gotta be honest here, ___." It doesn't really make the blow that much easier; but it does at least prepare the reader to brace for impact and it does mean they're more likely to survive it as they see it coming.
I tend to telegraph if I have to be brutally honest. "Look, I gotta be honest here, ___." It doesn't really make the blow that much easier; but it does at least prepare the reader to brace for impact and it does mean they're more likely to survive it as they see it coming.
Can I ask a serious question? What is 'brutal honesty'? Why does being brutal make it more honest? In what part of the thought process do you decide that to give a genuine criticism you need to sound like a bit of a jerk, to the point where you need to take precautions to make sure the reader isn't offended?
Can you not just be honest without the brutal part? Why is that harder? It's not sugarcoating - people consciously choose to add the 'brutality' to the honesty and I don't understand it.
Can I ask a serious question? What is 'brutal honesty'? Why does being brutal make it more honest? In what part of the thought process do you decide that to give a genuine criticism you need to sound like a bit of a jerk, to the point where you need to take precautions to make sure the reader isn't offended?
Can you not just be honest without the brutal part? Why is that harder? It's not sugarcoating - people consciously choose to add the 'brutality' to the honesty and I don't understand it.
Well, there's what "brutal honesty" is supposed to mean, as compared to how the phrase is actually used.
Most people don't like criticism, and they can experience it as a personal attack. Nevertheless, sometimes the criticism itself is justified and/or necessary, and in this context honesty can indeed be brutal. That said, there are also ways to either soften such criticism, or to make it harsher. It's easier to make it harsher, by stripping context away and delivering a bare judgment, or worse by decorating it with your own scorn. ("Not original and unbalanced, no support", or "that stupid idea again?") Softening a criticism takes more effort -- providing context and reason for the criticism, sometimes a bit of humor. ("I'm afraid that basic idea is already in the "frequent fliers" club, the big issue is... and you haven't provided anything that would fix that.")
When people actually say (or write) "I'll be brutally honest", that's liable to be like "I know this is racist/sexist/whatever but ...": The person already knows their statement is inappropriate, but they've decided to say it anyway. For which listeners/readers can feel free to make their own judgment of the critic, but not necessarily in the discussion thread. ;-)
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I did some CraftTweaker scripts for Mystical Agriculture. They fill in a couple of small gaps in MA, and also let you make or duplicate not only vanilla plants, but the blocks, plants and wood from Quark and Biomes O'Plenty. Also spawn eggs for most vanilla mobs! The scripts are here on Github.
Can I ask a serious question? What is 'brutal honesty'? Why does being brutal make it more honest? In what part of the thought process do you decide that to give a genuine criticism you need to sound like a bit of a jerk, to the point where you need to take precautions to make sure the reader isn't offended?
Can you not just be honest without the brutal part? Why is that harder? It's not sugarcoating - people consciously choose to add the 'brutality' to the honesty and I don't understand it.
Because people know what they're about to say will offend, are conscious of the fact that it will probably hurt the other's feelings, and proceed to say whatever it is anyways. Either because they believe that being offensive will cause a change that being inoffensive won't, or because they want to hurt the other person.
Can I ask a serious question? What is 'brutal honesty'? Why does being brutal make it more honest? In what part of the thought process do you decide that to give a genuine criticism you need to sound like a bit of a jerk, to the point where you need to take precautions to make sure the reader isn't offended?
Brutal honesty is actually a bit of a redundancy. honesty is brutal. People don't like hearing that an idea they put a lot of time and effort into is not being enjoyed. I don't think anyone likes having their work shot down. This, in itself, is brutal. Having to tell someone an honest opinion is opening them up to a brutal truth.
If I say, "honestly, I think that sentient village miners is a bad idea because it inhibits player agency and would be a source of game-caused griefing and frustration." It's considered brutal honesty. I consider it "plain honesty", but the fact that it's candid and not sugarcoated is what distinguishes it from other forms. OP likely wouldn't want to hear it and would be frustrated at the post.
I personally distinguish it from outright flaming the poster.
If I added "and your an idiot for posting it in the first place." - That would cross the line straight into flaming and bashing and what others would consider 'brutal'. - This part is obviously not allowed.
There's not really much anyone can do about that. I can't and won't control others. Offense is solely in the mind of the person being offended.
People will take offense; they take offense to the strangest and most banal of things. I can SEEK to avoid offense; but in my attempt to avoid offending one person; I may cross the line in the sand of another. There's too many people in the world with too many triggers for me to please anyone. I'll try to remain within the rules; but for the sake of my sanity and my own personality; I won't try to actively avoid offense. When I do say no offense, I mean that in a way that what I say may be seen as blunt and harsh; but there is no way I can say it without the message losing meaning.
A concept I've encouraged is to provide the suggester with a few things to improve the suggestion as opposed to highlighting the positives and negatives. I figure others are going to do the easy job of saying what's good and what's bad. The harder part would be to provide improvements to OP. Again, there's no need for minimal support. Instead, "no support, but X may help others to actually support."
With all that being said, even if I totally no support a suggestion; I do make it a point to provide things that could improve the overall suggestion. Often my improvements turn out to be complete rewrites. But it's just my attempt to ensure that my opinion remains only my own; and that any recommendations on suggestions I "no support" can at least improve the OPs chances with other critics.
OFFICIAL POSTING/REPLYING GUIDELINES
UNOFFICIAL POSTING GUIDE (PRT)
UNOFFICIAL REPLYING GUIDE (FTC)
I am not going out of my way to make someone feel good about problems, and I'm not going to soften my words. If they are going to think with their emotions instead of with their reason, that's on them, not on me. It is their responsibility to put aside any irritation or upset over my manner of speaking, and do what is in their own best interest.
It is not my responsibility to make sure they feel good about themselves. What I can do is understand that there is a person on the other side of the screen and not intend any offense. If they self-destruct because I wasn't positive about their jet engine suggestion, that's on them.
If you are planning to make a suggestion, please read this.
If you want to know more, you can read this.
For those who complain about post-Beta generation, you might want to see this.
If you want to be effective and helpful to the suggester, sometimes one does have to set aside their pride and speak in a more tactful manner. It doesn't matter whether they speak with reason or emotion; without truly knowing the person you won't know their agenda, and there's always the possibility that the critic's reasoning is flawed. Acting like this is similar to saying "I can talk to anyone however I feel like it, and they just have to deal with it."
Giving constructive criticism by highlighting both the positives and the negatives does not aim to make them feel good. It aims to let the suggester know what is wrong with his suggestion while minimizing the risk of reasonable offense. For example, if you were to go onto one of my suggestions and tell me everything bad about it and nothing else, I'd probably get upset. I would think that I'd be mature enough not to start flaming at you, but in my anger I would hold your criticism less valuable than someone who both pointed out what they liked and disliked and might even ignore it entirely. Obviously, you don't know what will offend anyone in particular, but there are some general things you can try to avoid, such as bashing a suggestion.
Want to see my suggestions? Here they are!
I am also known as GameWyrm or GameWyrm97. You can also find me at snapshotmc.com
This is true whether or not I go out of my way to try and appease feelings they may or may not have. In my case, I would actually be more irritated with your way of dancing about then if you just told me things straight. But I take responsibility for my own feelings. I prevent myself from grouching at you out of irritation. Because how I react is my own fault, not yours. So I'm not going to tell you how to talk.
So long as I don't mean to offend, then yes. If they get upset and start yelling at me, I'll let them know I meant no offense, but that's about it. Their emotions are theirs to control. I'm not going to treat them like animals that may bite me and can be coerced with treats.
I generally do highlight positives and negatives. Unfortunately I come across a lot of suggestions that lack one way or another, or have very little in the way of stand-out qualities or discussion value. If there are more negatives than positives, that will stand out. If I don't think there are positives and you do, it will seem to you like I'm only telling you what's bad about it. And no matter how reasonable a person I can be, getting a low grade doesn't make anyone happy.
It is within your rights to hold my criticism as lesser for any reason, even if they are irrational reasons.
Bashing a suggestion I believe would be "flaming," which is against the rules. I don't need to follow a format to avoid doing it.
If you are planning to make a suggestion, please read this.
If you want to know more, you can read this.
For those who complain about post-Beta generation, you might want to see this.
The big issue here is the assumption that direct and tactless is somehow an ineffective or non-helpful method. I get that you find a tactful approach to be more encouraged (who wouldn't); but I'd like to see some metrics or something that isn't anecdotes to convince me that there aren't other methods.
What works for you may not work on another poster.
Possibility? Near certainty. Critics are people, people make mistakes. If you're going to be a critic and are going to speak with any air of authority; it's on you to fact-check. If you don't do a fact check; or if you speak out both sides of your mouth; be prepared to be criticized yourself.
A critic is meant to work with a suggester to improve the suggestion; if someone brings in misinformation; it's up to a critic to correct the assertion.
I'm beginning to think that people are attributing a bipartisan opposition concept to suggesters and critics. Critics are not supposed to oppose suggesters; they're supposed to work with them. While people continue to insist that suggesters and critics are opponents; they will remain opponents. You're supposed to be on the same team.
With this granted, sometimes you just don't like a suggestion. That doesn't mean you should dislike the poster; but that you wouldn't want to see the suggestion implemented in Vanilla MC. If you don't like a suggestion; sometimes you won't see anything redeeming about it. But your voice shouldn't be silenced because you can't lump some good with the bad. Listing what are problems and why is constructive criticism. OP doesn't have to like it.
Which is awesome. It speaks to you and your mindset; but it doesn't speak to the community as a whole. Different strokes for different folks, yo!
While you may value the criticism less (which is your right); it doesn't mean another suggester would hold it less valuable.
OFFICIAL POSTING/REPLYING GUIDELINES
UNOFFICIAL POSTING GUIDE (PRT)
UNOFFICIAL REPLYING GUIDE (FTC)
Notice that in my example, I did not "dance around the problem." I still told the person what was wrong with his suggestion and didn't make the problems seem less than they were. I just balanced it out by not going full "Your suggestion has issues, and here's what they are." Obviously, you aren't fully responsible for what a person does because of what you told them, but that does not excuse you for not trying to avoid such problems from occurring.
You can't treat people like they don't deserve any respect either. If you were to accidently injure someone as part of a harmless prank, just telling them it was just a prank won't somehow make it all better and absolve you from any blame.
To bash means to strike with a smashing or crushing blow. Regardless of whether you are flaming, focusing purely on negatives is bashing.
Look, being direct and tactless isn't ineffective. It's just generally not the most effective way in my experience.
Consider this scenario: two twins, Bob and Rob, are working the same position at the same job but have two different managers. They are both given the same assignment and made the same exact mistakes. Bob's manager yells at him and says that his report sucked, he produced false information, and he misspelled a couple of terms. Rob's manager sits down with him privately and tells him good job for getting it in early, but that he made a couple of misquotes and used the acronym MTD instead of YTD in several locations. He then ends by telling him that he trusts him to learn from his mistakes and do better next time. Regardless of the personality, background, and maturity of the two employees, who do you think is more likely to learn from his mistake and do better next time? Who is more likely to quit? While either of them could do either, Rob's manager would have to be considered more effective at criticism.
Which is why, like anything else, you practice. It may sound weird to practice optimism, but it can be acquired as a skill. You may have difficulty, or even find it impossible, to find anything good with the suggestion, but you should always at least try, and you'll get better at it.
I consider myself, and I hope many of you do too, to be a mature suggester on this forum. Most people who make suggestions on this forum are not, however, so they are even less likely to respond to criticism filled with only negative criticism. I'm sure there are a handful of people who wouldn't consider it less valuable, but it is a very small handful, and no one likes having their suggestion shot at.
Want to see my suggestions? Here they are!
I am also known as GameWyrm or GameWyrm97. You can also find me at snapshotmc.com
It depends on how the individual reacts to stimulus. Some people are harder learners than others. You can have Bob and Rob in the same situation; but if Bob is apathetic and unmotivated, a harsh lecture may be all he needs to correct action where a light coaching would be ineffective or seen as the manager being weak or easily-cowed.
Optimism isn't a skill, it's a state of mind. You can _practice_ optimistic sentences; but it doesn't change state of mind. If you're pessimistic or are a "realist", then optimism becomes a facade.
OFFICIAL POSTING/REPLYING GUIDELINES
UNOFFICIAL POSTING GUIDE (PRT)
UNOFFICIAL REPLYING GUIDE (FTC)
Perhaps, but what I'm asking for is the general answer here. You don't know anything about the twins' personalities in this case, so you have to guess based on likelihoods, in which case, who was given the more effective criticism?
Perhaps skill was the wrong word, but you can practice states of mind that aren't native to yours. Many people already do this: they have a "casual" state of mind when at home, and then a more "formal" one when at work or other public places. Full pessimism generally isn't helpful in my experience as it often leads to suggestion bashing and coming up with lame excuses for why you don't like a feature (such as "too hard to code"). I see realism as a much less severe version of pessimism, having a much bigger tendency to notice negative things than positives, but these people do have their use in pointing out some of the more obscure problems with a suggestion. Optimism may seem like an act to these people, but when you really think about it, for the most part people's online personalities are often different than their physical ones, so it doesn't seem to be to difficult to pull off.
Want to see my suggestions? Here they are!
I am also known as GameWyrm or GameWyrm97. You can also find me at snapshotmc.com
Optimism and pessimism tend to be phenomenological, especially on-line. You are what you post!
I don't avoid such problems. I treat the other person with respect. Like a human being capable of self-awareness who won't go off the handle for something that isn't personal. I don't try to frame it in a balancing act that may not exist, to appease anger that might happen. I have too much respect for other people to treat them like they need to be reassured. I'm not their parent. I'm not going to dangle praise in front of them either, to teach them new tricks. I'm not their owner, either.
If there are positives and negatives, I point them out. I don't need to add more positives at the end to get them in a good mood. If it's positive, great for them. If it's negative, I'm not going to be dishonest. Anything contrary to reality is dancing around the issue and trying to frame it in a manner that it is not.
Failed prank? More like... telling a patient about their terminal illness. They don't know what the results will be, and are hoping for a good result. Trying to candy-coat it is a disservice to them. Mocking them for it is also not good, obviously. If there's a potential cure, by all means mention it. But don't try to make it better than it is. That's disrespectful.
Your definition of bashing is different from mine. Given that you seem to see purely negative critique as a bad thing, and possibly not even actual critique, I'm unsure if you can be convinced of its value.
If you are planning to make a suggestion, please read this.
If you want to know more, you can read this.
For those who complain about post-Beta generation, you might want to see this.
>sigh<
Again, a purely negative critique is not ineffective. It has its uses, and if you know the person, I suppose it may be even more effective. But in general, a critique that includes both positives and negatives is more likely to get the OP to improve his suggestion, and is especially important for first time posters, as you don't want to scare them away.
Don't lie about positives, of course. Don't tell them that their suggestion is good where it is actually bad, and don't blow up a relatively minor good thing to make it sound like it is super awesome. Just make sure to give credit where credit is due. Trying to balance positives with negatives is really just a personal thing I do; I suppose it's not required but I find it helps the OP take me more seriously. Ending with positives will make them more receptive to criticism in the future, at least according to personal experience and the course on criticism I took back in high school (a lot of what I've been saying has been derived from what I learned back then). It's not required, but again, the goal is to be as effective as possible.
My definition of bashing comes from Dictionary.com, though other sources agree with it. I guess bashing in this particular context is slang, so there's not really a solid definition, but since there's no way to really confirm who's right, arguing over it will do nothing.
Want to see my suggestions? Here they are!
I am also known as GameWyrm or GameWyrm97. You can also find me at snapshotmc.com
I like you and I like your point of view; but I have to argue this. I want to believe you; but there isn't proof to your assertion. There isn't a link to a source that would encourage adding both positive and negative feedback to a suggestion over purely "negative" feedback. I can bet there are several socialogical studies that confirm it; and just as many that find no causal link as well. It's a REALLY difficult thing to prove which means it's hard to justify the position as more than personal preference.
Personal preference cannot be argued as it's simply an opinion. But an opinion cannot be used as an effective guideline as each person is different. While I personally think that a criticism should seek unbiased feedback; the critic may not have the time, patience, or energy to add positives and negatives; especially when the negatives are exhaustive. But because of this, I don't think that guiding people to add positives and negatives to their critique makes a more meaningful critique. Again, it's based on personal experience, confirmation bias. I've personally seen my attempts turn into a wash. Attempts that list positives WITH negatives tend to hit the same adoption rate as purely negative feedback (in other words, I've tried it your way and found that it yields no significant change to response quality.)
Ah! Bingo! You said it right here.
Again, I'm not holding this opinion purely to challenge you; but because I think there's a bit of ethical ambiguity associated with your proposed guideline.
OFFICIAL POSTING/REPLYING GUIDELINES
UNOFFICIAL POSTING GUIDE (PRT)
UNOFFICIAL REPLYING GUIDE (FTC)
I get what you're saying, but when you think about it, how often do posters in this thread bother to link to any kind of source? Most people here just talk from personal experience, or bias from what they've heard from other critics. I'm not going to throw out everything I've read in this thread because of that, because often you can learn from other's experiences.
I've seen you try it "my way" before, and I think it does seem more successful, but I guess this could be confirmation bias. Still, your general posting personality has never seemed to be purely negative, so that may be why. Either way though, one's efforts are often wasted when a bunch of other people then come and then bash the thread into oblivion, resulting in the OP not wanting to bother replying.
That's fine, I mean, I suppose neither of us have any solid proof that it's one way or the other. I just want to encourage a more "plucky and bubbly" environment, so to say, but I can understand people not wanting to lose some of their posting identity to do so.
Want to see my suggestions? Here they are!
I am also known as GameWyrm or GameWyrm97. You can also find me at snapshotmc.com
Well... It's more like you had the burden of proof. You made an assertion. I mean, it was an assertion on the back of good intentions; but it was still an assertion. This meant that you had to back it up in some way. I was simply refuting your assertion. FWIW I do try to back up assertions with studies or experiments. Sociology is icky; and even if you do find a study that supports your hypothesis; you're bound to find others that debunk it. Humans be human.
OFFICIAL POSTING/REPLYING GUIDELINES
UNOFFICIAL POSTING GUIDE (PRT)
UNOFFICIAL REPLYING GUIDE (FTC)
I think what all of this really amounts to is a middle ground that everyone involved with the latest discussion is more or less saying anyways:
If you like parts of an idea, say that. Telling people what you like is just as important as what you dislike, it tells then that part has gotten good reception. Don't make things up or overblow a small good thing into an amazing thing.
If you think something can be improved, tell them what and how. This helps make the ideas better. But if you simply can't find a way to improve an idea, that is fine as well. You don' t have to like everything.
Be honest and be nice. AKA the golden rule to any discussion. You don't need to sugarcoat everything provided you also aren't a jerk about it. And being honest is good but being brutally honest might be a step too far. In my experience the problem with people who say they are brutally honest is because they are more concerned with being brutal to the person rather than being honest.
Want some advice on how to thrive in the Suggestions section? Check this handy list of guidelines and tips for posting your ideas and responding to the ideas of others!
http://www.minecraftforum.net/forums/minecraft-discussion/suggestions/2775557-guidelines-for-the-suggestions-forum
I tend to telegraph if I have to be brutally honest. "Look, I gotta be honest here, ___." It doesn't really make the blow that much easier; but it does at least prepare the reader to brace for impact and it does mean they're more likely to survive it as they see it coming.
OFFICIAL POSTING/REPLYING GUIDELINES
UNOFFICIAL POSTING GUIDE (PRT)
UNOFFICIAL REPLYING GUIDE (FTC)
Can I ask a serious question? What is 'brutal honesty'? Why does being brutal make it more honest? In what part of the thought process do you decide that to give a genuine criticism you need to sound like a bit of a jerk, to the point where you need to take precautions to make sure the reader isn't offended?
Can you not just be honest without the brutal part? Why is that harder? It's not sugarcoating - people consciously choose to add the 'brutality' to the honesty and I don't understand it.
Well, there's what "brutal honesty" is supposed to mean, as compared to how the phrase is actually used.
Most people don't like criticism, and they can experience it as a personal attack. Nevertheless, sometimes the criticism itself is justified and/or necessary, and in this context honesty can indeed be brutal. That said, there are also ways to either soften such criticism, or to make it harsher. It's easier to make it harsher, by stripping context away and delivering a bare judgment, or worse by decorating it with your own scorn. ("Not original and unbalanced, no support", or "that stupid idea again?") Softening a criticism takes more effort -- providing context and reason for the criticism, sometimes a bit of humor. ("I'm afraid that basic idea is already in the "frequent fliers" club, the big issue is... and you haven't provided anything that would fix that.")
When people actually say (or write) "I'll be brutally honest", that's liable to be like "I know this is racist/sexist/whatever but ...": The person already knows their statement is inappropriate, but they've decided to say it anyway. For which listeners/readers can feel free to make their own judgment of the critic, but not necessarily in the discussion thread. ;-)
Because people know what they're about to say will offend, are conscious of the fact that it will probably hurt the other's feelings, and proceed to say whatever it is anyways. Either because they believe that being offensive will cause a change that being inoffensive won't, or because they want to hurt the other person.
If you are planning to make a suggestion, please read this.
If you want to know more, you can read this.
For those who complain about post-Beta generation, you might want to see this.
Brutal honesty is actually a bit of a redundancy. honesty is brutal. People don't like hearing that an idea they put a lot of time and effort into is not being enjoyed. I don't think anyone likes having their work shot down. This, in itself, is brutal. Having to tell someone an honest opinion is opening them up to a brutal truth.
If I say, "honestly, I think that sentient village miners is a bad idea because it inhibits player agency and would be a source of game-caused griefing and frustration." It's considered brutal honesty. I consider it "plain honesty", but the fact that it's candid and not sugarcoated is what distinguishes it from other forms. OP likely wouldn't want to hear it and would be frustrated at the post.
I personally distinguish it from outright flaming the poster.
If I added "and your an idiot for posting it in the first place." - That would cross the line straight into flaming and bashing and what others would consider 'brutal'. - This part is obviously not allowed.
OFFICIAL POSTING/REPLYING GUIDELINES
UNOFFICIAL POSTING GUIDE (PRT)
UNOFFICIAL REPLYING GUIDE (FTC)