PDA

View Full Version : Critics should be invited to leave?



aastrotech
2010-Jul-11, 06:37 PM
Do you think people who examine and criticise the way things are done here should be invited to leave?

captain swoop
2010-Jul-11, 07:00 PM
Is there a point to all this?

LotusExcelle
2010-Jul-11, 07:11 PM
Most of the 'critics' I've seen have an agenda that requires breaking the rules i.e. unsupported claims, insults, and so forth.

Gillianren
2010-Jul-11, 07:32 PM
It depends on how often they criticize, how valid their criticisms are, and how they go about voicing them.

PetersCreek
2010-Jul-11, 07:59 PM
Should critics be asked to leave? To give an answer as broad as the question, no, not usually. I do think, however, that it might be best for all if the inconsolable critics decided for themselves to find a place more to their liking.

Jim
2010-Jul-11, 08:51 PM
Do you think people who examine and criticise the way things are done here should be invited to leave?

Have you ever provided your definition of "criticism?"

pzkpfw
2010-Jul-11, 09:24 PM
I voted "No", because criticism and feedback is welcome; if pursued in the right way (which means not being disruptive to the forum).

One does have to wonder, however, why people who complain and complain and complain don't simply leave of their own accord.

I think it's because, for whatever faults BAUT has - it is good (even to them)... further evidence are the people who say "I'm leaving" or "please delete my account" and are back posting a week or two later as though nothing happened.

captain swoop
2010-Jul-11, 09:33 PM
Or people who spend all their time posting in feedback and don't seem to participate in any threads.

korjik
2010-Jul-11, 10:10 PM
As one of the primary catalysts for this thread, I just want to say that I was not asking critics to leave.

Criticism has a point. Beating a dead horse does not

swampyankee
2010-Jul-11, 10:45 PM
While beer is always a good choice, I think that reasoned, polite criticism is a good thing, and should not be discouraged.

aastrotech
2010-Jul-12, 12:18 AM
Have you ever provided your definition of "criticism?"

Yes I have, many times in several ways. But in a nutshell (from wiki) Criticism is the judgement (using analysis and evaluation) of the merits and faults of the actions or work of another individual. Criticism can mean merely to evaluate without necessarily finding fault; however, usually the word implies the expression of disapproval.

aastrotech
2010-Jul-12, 12:23 AM
As one of the primary catalysts for this thread, I just want to say that I was not asking critics to leave.

Criticism has a point. Beating a dead horse does not

I can certainly understand the dead horse referance considering the stench arising in the other thread. However I don't identify the stench as coming from the horse. Perhaps those who bring the stench should reconsider.

pzkpfw
2010-Jul-12, 12:30 AM
I can certainly understand the dead horse referance considering the stench arising in the other thread. However I don't identify the stench as coming from the horse. Perhaps those who bring the stench should reconsider.

You do realise, don't you, who the person beating the dead horse was suggested to be?

Jim
2010-Jul-12, 01:09 AM
Yes I have, many times in several ways. But in a nutshell (from wiki) Criticism is the judgement (using analysis and evaluation) of the merits and faults of the actions or work of another individual. Criticism can mean merely to evaluate without necessarily finding fault; however, usually the word implies the expression of disapproval.

That's what wiki says; what do you say?

I have emphasized two points in that definition which need to be understood by those who would criticize others.

Simply put, criticism is not always or all negative; it should acknowledge what was done right and provide positive feedback for what was not, not just fault-finding. Those who are unable to recognize and/or practice this are not critics, they are negativists... all they can do is find fault and assign blame. This may be fine (or fun) for them, but all too soon people see them for what they are and discount their opinions and remarks as coming from someone who cannot acknowledge the good in anything.

As has been stated by several others, those who offer true criticism are always welcome here.

aastrotech
2010-Jul-12, 02:06 AM
While my motives in the other poll were and are grossly mischaracterized as all negative. I would point out that the poll itself did provide a reasonable spectrum of opinion options from good to bad (with good at the top!!!).

Where does that leave your charaterization of "all negative"?

If by "dead horse" you mean that as far as your preferance is concerned an issue that should never be resolved I would remind you there's more than one way to skin a cat. For instance I can start at the head and work my way down or start elsewhere:D. My personal preferance is to start at the head...if it can be reached.

Tensor
2010-Jul-12, 02:24 AM
While my motives in the other post were and are grossly mischaracterized as all negative. I would point out that the poll itself did provide a spectrum of opinion options from good to bad (with good at the top!!!).

Where does that leave your charaterization of "all negative"?

While the poll itself has a spectrum of opinions, you seem to have only negative ones, that's where the characterization comes from. So, similar to what Korjik said in your other thread:

The overwhelming majority like it here, a lot. The overwhelming majority like that they don't have a lot of spam, flame wars, and general net anarchy. Which means, the overwhelming majority like the way the moderators operate. So, if you seem to disagree so much with the way this place is run by inserting snide remarks into threads and starting somewhat silly threads to provide what you think is "feedback" for the mods, why exactly are you here?

BTW Mods, I don't need a poll for my feedback, you're doing an outstanding, if thankless job.

Jim
2010-Jul-12, 02:33 AM
... Where does that leave your charaterization of "all negative"? ...

I'm not sure I see what you mean. I asked you for your definition of criticism, made comments about wiki's, and gave mine. What did I characterize as "all negative?"

Gillianren
2010-Jul-12, 02:55 AM
If by "dead horse" you mean that as far as your preferance is concerned an issue that should never be resolved I would remind you there's more than one way to skin a cat. For instance I can start at the head and work my way down or start elsewhere:D. My personal preferance is to start at the head...if it can be reached.

Well, that's a heck of a strawman. What I, personally mean--and I agree with the characterization--is that the issue is limited to a very, very small group, the issue isn't considered an issue by most people, and the complaining about it has clearly gone beyond any place where a reasonable person would expect anything to be accomplished by it. And by "very, very small group," I mean "there might be someone other than you, but I can't think of them."

ineluki
2010-Jul-12, 11:01 AM
Do you think people who examine and criticise the way things are done here should be invited to leave?

To give you the answer you want, yes you should leave.

Gillianren
2010-Jul-12, 05:13 PM
Okay, look.

There is always room for improvement in any system. That is the nature of human interaction. Graham and I were talking about government last night, and we were trying to figure out if it's possible to come up with a system which both provides transparency for the benefit of the constituency and eliminates the possibility of corruption. (This included an argument about the meaning of the term "bribe" and a discussion of salaries in the highest echelons of government as compared to what those same people could earn in the private sector!) Neither of us could come up with one. Neither of us are political scientists, so we might have missed something, but we don't even think it's possible.

So we must, by experience, operate on the assumption that there is no way to perfect a system. Therefore, what we are looking at is ways to improve. Either way, though, we must ask "perfect for whom?" and "improve according to whose standards?"

Here, obviously, the ultimate authority is Fraser and Phil, both of whom have pretty much absented themselves from the day-to-day and don't even much post anymore. So from there, we really default to ToSeek and Antoniseb. If they state satisfaction with how something is being handled, well, that's how it's going to get handled. There may be fine-tuning on the ground by the mods, but it's really the two active admins which are the ultimate authority around here.

Let us say they have been petitioned over and over and over again about one person's complaints. Few if any can be shown to agree. Most of the board thinks the complaints are petty and superfluous, at least most of those involved in the discussion. (Really, most of the board doesn't even participate in the discussion.) Oh, and redundant, because they don't ever change. It's been explicitly stated that, if the person wants to really file an accurate complaint, he must provide specific details of his accusations, even if just in private message. This has never actually happened.

So. Is the complaining of the one going to change anything? If it does, that is in and of itself a failing of the system. Since the person can really only be seen to be complaining, not actually participating, it isn't in anyone's best interests, including their own, for that person to stay. They may claim that it'll be a great board if only everything changes to meet their requirements, but they don't even do anything with what they have now.

Jeff Root
2010-Jul-12, 07:49 PM
There isn't really a dead horse here, is there?

BAUT certainly isn't anywhere close to dead.

It just doesn't always move when you beat it.

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

HenrikOlsen
2010-Jul-12, 08:24 PM
There isn't really a dead horse here, is there?
aastrotech's beef with the mods?
It is definitely flogged regularly.

Totally offtrack, what would be the "cowflesh is called beef" analog be for horseflesh? Shewel?:)

Strange
2010-Jul-12, 08:42 PM
Totally offtrack, what would be the "cowflesh is called beef" analog be for horseflesh? Shewel?:)

Don't think there is one. I think it is sometimes (not very) euphemistically referred to as cheval meat. Basashi might be the trendy term for the raw version.

HenrikOlsen
2010-Jul-12, 08:53 PM
I know there isn't one, just tying to see guess what the result would have been if horses had also been food animals at the time of the Norman conquest of England.

PetersCreek
2010-Jul-12, 09:04 PM
If this horse isn't dead, it's very sick and wandering aimlessly. Thread closed pending moderator discussion.