Constructive criticism

Post by **nikohl** » Thu Apr 30, 2015 5:59 am

Invariel, I'm posting from my phone on my lunch break so I can't continue our epic quote fest

Suffice to say I don't want to get into a big long debate about dictionary definitions of words and so on. I do apologise if my use of "agree" was too broad for you (and apparently others) and led to you thinking I'd intentionally choose to stand around with my fingers in my ears going "la la la you're wrong" when someone had a valid point but said it in a way I didn't want to have to read. I did not mean it that way and I'll choose a better word to avoid misinterpretation next time; that was my error, sorry. I meant "agree with many points, find speaker unlikeable/diasagreeable and will not publicly align self with said person because of that despite the truth in what they say."

On an only slightly related note, as you mentioned how you arrived here: how did you find Mr Card Game? Despite being grumpy about the circumstances that allowed me to finally get my copy, I did quite enjoy playing it. (If we end up having plenty to chat about on this topic, rather than just "it was OK", I'll split us off a thread or find a more relevant one to move us to, so we don't derail this one.)

Invariel · Post by **Invariel** » Thu Apr 30, 2015 6:25 am

BootToTheHead wrote:If someone were to present me with an review that was rude in tone or from someone I knew was prone to writing disagreeable things, I would not read it. I don't have the desire to read rude things. And if I start reading something and right away I can tell that it's insulting, then I will stop reading it. Therefore, no matter how great the message might have been, I simply did not read it.

If you stop reading it, then you have stopped reading it, and you cannot honestly comment on the validity of what you have decided not to read. You cannot say, "There were valid points, but the tone invalidates those points."

BootToTheHead wrote:I don't believe it's fair to say I (or anyone else) is irrational for not listening to someone that's being rude or insulting to them or something they don't like. Since said person didn't listen, then they obviously cannot gain from the message that was wrapped inside the insulting package.

I don't feel that anyone is calling you (the collective "you") irrational for not listening to a message you see as insulting. I do feel that people consider you (again, the collective "you") irrational for falling for the same sort of trick over and over again.

BootToTheHead wrote:You can argue that we should be more thick skinned or whatever, but I think it's every person's right to not want to be insulted. In the same way, it's their right to not read something they don't want to. In the same way you might not want to read somebody's gushing review of Goblins as soon as you see that it's obviously going to be full of 'blind praise' or whatever. That gushing person might have some legitimate message about why Goblins is a good webcomic, but you might not ever get to that part if you stopped reading before they got to it.
(Sorry if I'm not making as much sense as I'm trying)

Sure, and I have certainly stayed away from critiques of things that I think are average or bad when the reviewer has come out and painted rainbows and happy flowers around everything, but if my interest is learning about a thing, or trying to figure out why someone feels the way they do about a subject, it's my responsibility to suffer through language I find inappropriate (whether it is overly negative or overly positive) searching for those nuggets of truth.

As an example, I went and saw the movie "Transcendence" which was not, in my opinion, a great movie. Then I saw that a particular critic had posted a review of the movie I had just watched. I found the reviewer's criticism to be overly negative, but what frustrated me was that the points he kept making against the movie (this wasn't explained, that made no sense, ...) were wrong. Not opinion-based wrong, but, in particular, the "this wasn't explained" part was explained just before the clip that he was showing during his voiceover. I agreed with his overall synopsis without agreeing with a single point he made!

BootToTheHead wrote:It kind of proves my point that people were agreeable to the drawing criticism once it was presented nicely. We read the criticism and people generally agreed with it. The message was received, read,

I would not come away with that conclusion, necessarily. I feel like this thread is an interesting experiment, "What happens when members of opinion X and opinion not X meet openly on X's turf," but I don't know yet that this level of criticism or tolerance of opinion would exist outside of this thread. I feel that both parties are extending a best foot forward, and trying very hard to parley, but in this sandbox, where both sides are, no doubt, being judged very harshly, people on both sides are playing extra nice.

BootToTheHead wrote:and deemed a valid critique.

The critique is valid whether you choose to accept it or not. It's like an opinion, you can have it and I can choose to disagree with it, but my disagreement does not invalidate it. It may have been accepted as constructive criticism by the members of these fora who came to the thread, but even if it hadn't been, it would still be valid.

nikohl, that makes infinitely more sense, particuarly that last bit. It is, in my opinion, a much better stance to have.

As for Mr. Card Game, I ... can't honestly say. I played it when it was demoed at a KoL Con a couple of years back, and since receiving my copy have yet to find a group of people willing to play it. What I remember of the finished-copy-playtest-games was that it was a fun enough deckbuilding game, but I feel that there are some strategies that are more optimal than others (like Kingdom of Loathing). And you're across the pond (judging by the times when you post things about bed and lunch) [or you have a terrible 5-1 schedule and I am sorry], which means someone likely had to smuggle you a copy from a Con or somesuch. Ugh. We could PM about it if you want, but I unfortunately don't have much more to say about the actual gameplay.

Guus · Post by **Guus** » Thu Apr 30, 2015 6:55 am

I noticed a certain careful tone here yes, but it's not overly exaggerated for this forum.
Usually, when someone says something and someone else responds negatively, the response back is "sorry, I didn't mean to insult" with a proper and more careful explanation. This is the case most of the times, and within the forum there seems to be an unspoken rule to first check the way you said something before you hack into the person who attacked you. Sure, you can say someone misinterpreted your comment, or flat-out say their facts are wrong, but opinions are disagreed on, not deemed wrong, and only attacks on actual co-members are actively discouraged (except when you're a huge bigot, then no one will like you

).
So yes, I do think people are a little more careful here on the Goblins "side" (I feel it's more a discussion than debate, so sides are kind of black and white in my view), but we normally tread quite carefully when it comes to people. Borderlining willful naivety every now and then

Post by **nikohl** » Thu Apr 30, 2015 6:57 am

Nobody smuggled me anything; I backed it on Kickstarter, and when I got the "boo hoo we spent all our money because we're bad at planning and now your game is in a warehouse and you can't have it" email from Richard James, I replied directly and said I'd take the "pay a small extra amount for shipping because we have literally no money" option. I also mentioned I'd be willing to help, if I could, by storing and distributing other UK copies to keep them from being sent into long term storage and not gotten to backers. He wasn't interested in my help (or able to accept it, or unwilling to double down and/or be caught out in an untruth, or whatever), but he was happy to take a further six dollars and change from me and send out my copy. I had it a few days after I spoke to Mr. James. Six dollars didn't seem too much of an extra inconvenience to finally get it, even if it did seem like the final ransom-flavoured icing on a shitty cake.

It's unbalanced but fun, in a nutshell, yes.

Invariel · Post by **Invariel** » Thu Apr 30, 2015 7:27 am

Ah, I apologize for jumping to that particular conclusion, nikohl. The reason I supposed that is that either Richard or Graydon had offered to bring copies of the game to last year's Con to hand off to EU people so that they could cart home games in their luggage, to give to backers who had not received their copies. That said, I find it troubling (and curious) that all it took was six dollars to ship the game to you, when that could have been divulged to backers and then people would have a less sour taste in their mouths when referring to the game.

thinkslogically · Post by **thinkslogically** » Thu Apr 30, 2015 7:33 am

If they ran out of money and then only charged $6 for shipping to the EU, I'm starting to get a reasonable idea of where all THunt's money went... I live in the UK and shipping costs are the reason I usually don't back kickstarters, because they're usually in the order of $30-60 for board games (then there's customs fees which may or may not be included as well).

Post by **nikohl** » Thu Apr 30, 2015 7:41 am

The additional six bucks was to get it from a UK Amazon fulfilment warehouse to me, on top of the international shipping uplift I already paid when I backed. Or at least that's what I was told it was for. It corresponds roughly to the â”¬Ãº3 or so for a heavy-ass economy mainland UK package from a big company, I guess. I wasn't super clear about that before, sorry. Rushed post while eating soup :3

ETA: when I get home I'll dredge up those emails. I'm pretty sure at least the original one was a mass backer infomail that mentioned the "small extra amount = game in your hands" option but I could be misremembering.

thinkslogically · Post by **thinkslogically** » Thu Apr 30, 2015 7:51 am

Ah ok - that makes more sense! No worries about getting the emails, it's not a big deal

Post by **nikohl** » Thu Apr 30, 2015 12:11 pm

Invariel wrote:Ah, I apologize for jumping to that particular conclusion, nikohl. The reason I supposed that is that either Richard or Graydon had offered to bring copies of the game to last year's Con to hand off to EU people so that they could cart home games in their luggage, to give to backers who had not received their copies. That said, I find it troubling (and curious) that all it took was six dollars to ship the game to you, when that could have been divulged to backers and then people would have a less sour taste in their mouths when referring to the game.

Bolded the above because the below is relevant to it! As this is mostly-OT (there are references to G:AR, which is being discussed here, but that's about as far as it goes) I've spoilered it. Since there've only been a very few posts on the subject so far, I'm not gonna go to the trouble of splitting all this out, but if any of what I've posted spawns further discussion then another mod or I can move this over into a place of its own. My memory is not great but I think I remember discussing some of this when it happened, possibly in the G:AR thread.

Turns out my memory regarding the six bucks and change was wrong, though - it was eight

Anyway:

► Show Spoiler

BootToTheHead · Post by **BootToTheHead** » Thu Apr 30, 2015 9:34 pm

Invariel wrote:
If you stop reading it, then you have stopped reading it, and you cannot honestly comment on the validity of what you have decided not to read. You cannot say, "There were valid points, but the tone invalidates those points."

It's true that I cannot say "There were valid points, but the tone invalidates those points." Realistically, I wouldn't/shouldn't make a judgement call on something that I did not finish reading. I could say that it was full of insults, but even then I wouldn't have the full story, so shouldn't make claims based on something that I didn't read. But people in general don't operate that way. Too many people start reading something, find it distasteful (either too rude or too 'full of rainbows'), and call the review trash (or biased might be a better word). I don't think (could be wrong and I probably worded it wrong) that I (or anyone else???) said that the tone invalidates the points but rather that the tone makes the points much harder to get to. I'm trying to say that if you truly want someone to read your criticism then it should be presented in a more neutral manner.

On the flip side, you are exactly right when you said "...it's my responsibility to suffer through language I find inappropriate (whether it is overly negative or overly positive) searching for those nuggets of truth."

If the author (or anyone really) wants to actively seek constructive criticism then they should be able to read something nasty and see the valid parts (if they exist). I don't think the BWW forum is as rude as I was previously led to believe. I agreed with some points and disagreed with others. It's easier for me, obviously, because I'm not the one being personally attacked. It's much easier to be objective when you aren't personally involved. (again, the whole thick-skinned argument) I did see a few users that seemed to want to say rude things for the sole purpose of riling people up which is completely unhelpful.

I still believe that vitriolic language makes it harder to see the constructive part of the criticism. Obviously blind praise isn't useful either (honestly, it's probably less useful). Something closer to a middle ground would be more useful even if it bordered one way or the other.

Invariel wrote: I don't feel that anyone is calling you (the collective "you") irrational for not listening to a message you see as insulting. I do feel that people consider you (again, the collective "you") irrational for falling for the same sort of trick over and over again.

I'm not sure what the trick is, sorry. (???)

Invariel wrote: The critique is valid whether you choose to accept it or not. It's like an opinion, you can have it and I can choose to disagree with it, but my disagreement does not invalidate it. It may have been accepted as constructive criticism by the members of these fora who came to the thread, but even if it hadn't been, it would still be valid.

You are right. I think I'm not wording things as well as I'm trying to. The critique was valid and would continue to be valid regardless of tone. And I believe I (and others) did accept the critique. I wasn't trying to argue that the tone invalidates it, but rather that the tone turns people off to the message before it can ever be received. And, if the message is never received, the message is of no help to the person/people it might have been intended for. I meant to say that it was valid to say that the tone was important in getting the message across and that it does play an important role.

Davis8488 · Post by **Davis8488** » Thu Apr 30, 2015 10:07 pm

thinkslogically wrote:Soooo..... you're saying we're NOT a cult? Dammit guys, I was up all night knitting us cult robes! I even made a banner!

Shhhhh.... We don't tell people it's a cult until they hit 50 posts.

Also, if you could make my robe blue it would be much appreciated.

Now, it might have become off topic, but the original post was about whether criticism was allowed. If someone is truly interested in seeing that, they need only read the threads regarding the individual pages. Especially since Thunt's return I have noticed much criticism, especially regarding the number of panels per page, and it seems to me that some points find more agreement than opposition.

Krulle · Post by **Krulle** » Thu Apr 30, 2015 11:50 pm

Hiding it against "outsiders"

Hidden Content

This board requires you to be registered and logged-in to view hidden content.

YardMeat · Post by **YardMeat** » Fri May 01, 2015 7:26 am

Invariel wrote:And it is exactly that kind of groupthink mentality that gets people wondering (as the OP asks at the beginning of this thread) if you are a cult or not.

And, as we have seen, that sentiment was based on false assumptions. The OP has already come to realize that the forum isn't the sort of thing that he or she originally believed it to be.

You have these pre-approved practices (do not criticize the comic,

There are no rules against criticizing the comic. People here criticize the comic. People in this thread have criticized the comic. One of those well-conceived criticisms has been pretty well-received from what I can tell.

be happy you get a comic and don't think about the quality of what is presented,

I can see you saying this if you were completely new and hadn't read this thread, but presummably you have read this thread. People have given criticism regarding the comic. Again, the mods have only banned one person from this forum, and it wasn't due to insulting the comic. The only thing that we ask is that the criticisms be kept constructive. That should'nt be much to ask, especially on a fan forum. I realize that we aren't BWW, but we don't have to be in order to talk about the comic, give constructive criticism and yet still enjoy it at the end of the day.

Most of the criticisms we've seen here have been echoed by the fans in the past, just in a more polite way. Does that invalidate the message? Of course not. You correctly pointed out that a harsh tone does not invalidate the points made. Neither does a supportive tone.

Guus · Post by **Guus** » Fri May 01, 2015 9:04 am

I'm still very confused about the notion that we don't allow others to criticize the comic or even THunt's way of handling things. Heck, there are quite a few who have done that and still do, myself included, and even though I haven't always been absolutely nice in my criticisms I never even once got a mod warning, not even an unofficial one. The idea that we don't accept or practice criticism is simply factually wrong.

Glemp · Post by **Glemp** » Fri May 01, 2015 10:19 am

Indeed, on the BWW thread of our reactions to the review (I'd read the review before that thread, by the way), my post was specifically called out as agreeing with some of the points therein, and you'll note I'm still here with a clean record.

BootToTheHead · Post by **BootToTheHead** » Sat May 02, 2015 5:13 pm

(before I start, sorry for the long post)
Ok, I read the BWW thread back starting from the start of the discussion about posting on the Goblins forum (around 6 days ago). I mostly did this out of a desire to know that mindset just a little bit better.

Out of that, I think one of the major problems with communication (at least the way that I see it) feels like BWW is the 'attackers' and Goblins forum is the 'defenders'. I feel like everything I say has been automatically disagreed with based on word choice rather than the intended meaning. Maybe not on purpose, but that's how I feel. I feel like any misstep is automatically jumped on. I could just be sensitive here, but that's the way that I feel at least.

In the discussion I saw a lot of discussion basically calling Goblins fans sycophants and a cult and then objecting when fans also resorted to name calling. I personally find the name calling petty all around, but I find it odd that those on BWW found it not ok for us to be offended while at the same time being offended themselves. I know offended isn't the correct word. I don't know what the correct word is, please don't call me out over the one word. I think 'offended' in fans case might be seen as 'pouty and defensive' while in BWW case seems to be more 'angry backlashy'.

As I said earlier, I agree with some of what was said here, and I also agree with some of what was said on BWW. I have problems with some aspects of the comic, some of which were discussed. It's a deal breaker for some, but it's not a deal breaker for me. Many of the 'problems' though are opinions (like art quality and opinions about the author himself). I don't think it's fair to say that art quality is objectively terrible or Thunt is objectively an 'asshole'. It's an opinion and people will agree with it or disagree with it. It doesn't make it true. You can present facts to prove your case on either hand, but you cannot prove it to be irrefutable truth. It reminds me about how people can unironically love something that the masses consider to be filth and others can despise something that the masses adore. It's just a matter of opinion.
I feel like, in this discussion at least, Goblins fans are being asked to explain why they like something while Goblins haters (or dislikers?) have their dislike taken (mostly) at face value. Why can't I just say that I like it regardless of flaws? Why does that make me a bad person?

"However, I will concede that you are not a cult, in fact, I will defend your individual free thinking nature any time it is brough up here again for as long as I can, if you can come to terms that we're not here to sling shit at the builders of your house."
I wanted to say thank you to Bertbutt for that statement. I get that (some?most?) of you don't want to just straight out attack anyone here. I do, however, feel (like I said earlier) like many of the statements by the fans here are automatically attacked. Like we have to be careful of our wording or else the entire thing is thrown out. And words do matter, I get that, but intent matters as well. I feel like many on the BWW feel like they are enlightened to the terribleness of Goblins while the rest of us are blindly wallowing in that terribleness unable to see it for what it is.
Granted both sides seem to have resorted to at least some name calling too....soooooo pot/kettle I suppose haha. It's harder for me to see things from the BWW point of view. Maybe you all feel just as attacked?

"Secondly, we don't hate you. We fucking pity you. You spend your time and money and spirit to invest into this comic and it barely updates. You were treated like shit repeatedly..." quote from Sindy (there's more, but that's the gist of it).

I think the pity thing goes with the enlightened thing I said earlier. It's like enjoying Goblins makes us stupid. I have never spent money on Goblins, so I'm not really the one targeted here, but I feel like if they want to give him money, let them. Call them stupid or wasteful, but it's their prerogative. People waste their money all the time. Just because you personally disagree with it doesn't make it bad. In fact, I personally find some of it wasteful, but I still feel like it's their business if they want to spend it. I don't find it abusive at all. To say so, in my mind, implies a lack of free will on their behalf. Some people are just generous.

Another thing I saw was an almost refusal to separate the creator from the work. Someone said they are unconnected and was immediately jumped for that (over dramatic wording, I know). I do feel that it's acceptable to not like a creator and still enjoy his/her work. I don't pay as much attention to Thunt's personal life as it seems many both here and at BWW do. I don't read his twitter and I rarely read his blogs. I keep seeing that it's impossible to ignore, but it isn't really. I do keep somewhat up to date from complaints and discussion on the forum, especially on the kickstarter thing, but it's because I choose to read it, not because I can't ignore it.
I don't agree with a lot of Thunt's decisions(esp recent ones). From what I've read, there are a lot who don't. But it doesn't automatically make him a terrible person. I think it's fair for someone to believe that he is, and I think it should be fair as well for someone to believe that he isn't. It doesn't make them brainwashed. It's their opinion and they are entitled to it.

All that aside, liking or disliking a person has no bearing on the quality of the work. Since we are talking semantics about validity here. Disliking the creator does not invalidate the quality of the work, nor does liking the creator validate a lack of quality.
Liking or not liking the quality is one thing, deeming it terrible just because you don't like the artist is another. It's the same concept as not listening to something because you don't like the tone it's delivered in. (And, so I don't get called a hypocrite, it's perfectly valid to never read the comic or stop reading it because you don't like the author, but that doesn't change the quality or lack of quality of the work)

BootToTheHead · Post by **BootToTheHead** » Sat May 02, 2015 6:34 pm

While I'm busy complaining about things, I have to say I also agree (though not as vehemently and it's not a deal breaker for me) about the tone in the pacing of Goblins at the moment. I feel like we are getting some emotional whiplash with regards to the overall tone of the story.
We went from Forgath almost dying to him joking with two brand new characters. I feel like there should have been something between the fall and the jokes.
For Minmax, he believes Forgath to be dead (and why shouldn't he) and now he's bonding with the goblins who just moments ago were fighting amongst themselves. I just feel like something needs to be in between these transitions.

The pages work fine for me in a stand-alone manner. I like the jokes for the most part and I like the art (it could be better, but I do like it), but they pages feel more like stand-alone pages. I feel like I am enjoying them more because I get to read them several days apart rather than all at once. Reading through the pages one after, it feels disruptive to me and I wish that more had been done to end the drama from the Kore fight before transitioning into the jokes.

It's not a deal breaker for me as I did enjoy reading the pages themselves, but looking at them in the overall theme of the story definitely bugs me. Hopefully things will get better once we stick to one group rather than switching back and forth as much.

Synch · Post by **Synch** » Sun May 03, 2015 4:25 am

BootToTheHead wrote:While I'm busy complaining about things, I have to say I also agree (though not as vehemently and it's not a deal breaker for me) about the tone in the pacing of Goblins at the moment. I feel like we are getting some emotional whiplash with regards to the overall tone of the story.
We went from Forgath almost dying to him joking with two brand new characters. I feel like there should have been something between the fall and the jokes.
For Minmax, he believes Forgath to be dead (and why shouldn't he) and now he's bonding with the goblins who just moments ago were fighting amongst themselves. I just feel like something needs to be in between these transitions.

Yeah I mentioned that in the forum thread about the page itself. I got some comments about it being used to lighten the tone, but no-one jumped on me for criticising there. Seems like we can get away with it

spiderwrangler · Post by **spiderwrangler** » Sun May 03, 2015 5:30 am

Shut up Synch, you're the worst.

Post by **nikohl** » Sun May 03, 2015 5:35 am

Dissenter! Stand and be poked with the Dissenter stick, so that all can see your shaaaaaame :{

I am one of the people who doesn't actually mind the change of pace too much, because in all the RL games I play, we flip back-and-forth between Serious Dramatic In-Game Tension and "dude, did you just... fart on my cat?" all the time. So I don't find the humour or the scene-switching or the getting-over-it-quite-quickly that jarring, but I can totally see why other people would/do.

Guus · Post by **Guus** » Sun May 03, 2015 6:39 am

"Dude, the city is on fire, we don't have time to go to the whore house!"
"But I collected flowers for her!"

...yep, I get what you mean

thinkslogically · Post by **thinkslogically** » Sun May 03, 2015 6:46 am

yeah, Minmax is behaving ok as far as I'm concerned, but I would have expected Forgath to be a lot more freaked out and a lot less tolerant of randoms showing up and making jokes... It's true he can't exactly do much right now with no armour or that, but he knows that Kore is following his best mate into a dungeon crawl and he's got limited time to do anything about it.

Anyway, now Synch's been prodded with the Dissenter Stick, I'm afraid Cult Rules say he has to wear the Slippers of Shame until he's said 2 nice things about the comic. Sozzles. Please see your Cultists Handbook for details.

Post by **SeeAMoose** » Sun May 03, 2015 10:10 am

thinkslogically wrote:yeah, Minmax is behaving ok as far as I'm concerned, but I would have expected Forgath to be a lot more freaked out and a lot less tolerant of randoms showing up and making jokes... It's true he can't exactly do much right now with no armour or that, but he knows that Kore is following his best mate into a dungeon crawl and he's got limited time to do anything about it.

Anyway, now Synch's been prodded with the Dissenter Stick, I'm afraid Cult Rules say he has to wear the Slippers of Shame until he's said 2 nice things about the comic. Sozzles. Please see your Cultists Handbook for details.

We have a handbook now? How is it I'm supposed to be in charge of this cult and no one tells me anything .

Krulle · Post by **Krulle** » Sun May 03, 2015 10:16 am

Thinks mistyped.
You're not part of the cult, and our fake frontface...
That's why we keep you out of the loop...

Post by **nikohl** » Sun May 03, 2015 10:33 am

Two words, Moose. Plausible Deniability.

The Goblins Fan Forum

Constructive criticism

Re: Constructive criticism

Re: Constructive criticism

Re: Constructive criticism

Re: Constructive criticism

Re: Constructive criticism

Re: Constructive criticism

Re: Constructive criticism

Re: Constructive criticism

Re: Constructive criticism

Re: Constructive criticism

Re: Constructive criticism

Re: Constructive criticism

Re: Constructive criticism

Re: Constructive criticism

Re: Constructive criticism

Re: Constructive criticism

Re: Constructive criticism

Re: Constructive criticism

Re: Constructive criticism

Re: Constructive criticism

Re: Constructive criticism

Re: Constructive criticism

Re: Constructive criticism

Re: Constructive criticism

Re: Constructive criticism