/-/S'pht-Translator-Active/-/

	Re: Conceit
	Posted By: RyokoTK	Date: 12/12/06 6:20 a.m.
	In Response To: Re: Conceit (Forrest of B.org) : The one bit of constructive feedback I think I can give is that you often : state your opinion without qualifying it as such. That is, you say your : opinion like it's objective fact, the way you might say that the sky is : blue - as though to say, how could it be otherwise, anyone with eyes or a : brain would see that it is thus. That's not to say that you shouldn't : think that you are right - of course you do, everybody thinks that they : are right, otherwise they wouldn't think that way, and most of the time : people have some good reason for thinking that they are right, and their : opinion has some merit to it. So I'm not saying not to express your : opinion or even to express it less, I'm just saying that some sort of : modification to your language use might lessen the kind of feedback you're : getting. I guess the way I see that is, when I say something like that, it's generally pretty obvious that it's an opinion, so why should I have to constantly qualify it as such? For instance, in the Puzzles article that you mention later on, it's pretty clear from the get-go that the article is what I think about the issue. Obviously it's not fact. I know it's not fact. Writing it that way makes it more clear, because I don't waste time and space constantly weaseling out of making any definitive statements. : I was reading your "Puzzles in Single-Player" article on House of : Luck earlier, and thinking about this very topic. I'll see if I can cite : some examples from there: You say at the end of the section about key : puzzles, "This is excusable, but not often." I understand that : the message you're trying to get across is just that it is your opinion : that overuse of such puzzles is bad, as they get very annoying, but : phrasing it in terms of "excusable" (and conversely, more often : "inexcusable") makes you sound authoritarian, like you are : condemning people who do that for something that is clearly, universally : wrong - rather than saying that it is something that you personally, and : perhaps many others that you know, find quite annoying. Well, it's like I said: the whole thing is clearly an article about what I think. I'm not going to waste time and weaken my article by watering down statements all the time, when the article itself is much more powerful by omitting the obvious "in my opinions" and softening all of the blows. It's actually a pretty basic essay writing strategy; the person reading your essay obviously can discern what's opinion, so don't insult the reader by assuming otherwise. : On a related note, in that same paragraph: "...because he can't get past : one area that doesn't even have to do with his skill with a gun. And : really, that's what the game's about." Again, someone might disagree : with you here, thinking that Marathon is about more than just your skill : with a gun. The original game had plenty of switch puzzles and platform : puzzles and such, so an argument could be made in that direction. But : whether or not either position is right, the point is that it's a fuzzy : issue that's easily a matter of opinion, and stating your opinion as fact : could upset people who disagree, and even make people who agree or have no : stance on it think of you as conceited or some such. Yeah, but the other articles also support the general idea. Obviously I have an agenda and a personal structure of beliefs about the game. : Same paragraph again: "If you want to implement platform puzzles, be my : guest. Just don't go overboard. Make them fairly simple, and don't put too : many of them in there." There's an implication in there that most : people probably don't pick up on on much more than an emotional level. : You're giving them permission to do something, with qualification. The : implication is that you are forbidding them from doing otherwise... or : else what? Now, obviously you're not really making any kind of threat or : anything, you're just stating your opinion; but the way that's phrased : carries some of the same sort of authoritarian tone that evokes feelings : like an "...or else" sentence would. Okay, besides the fact that you're now repeating yourself, this is getting silly anyway. Who is honestly stupid enough to think I actually have any power at all? I mean, if that's the case, then I can't really help them, seeing as I don't attempt to tend to idiots being idiots. I know perfectly well that I have no power, and anyone with half a brain knows that too. I'm the authority in my own article; that's why I write authoritatively. If it's a message board (and therefore a discussion, not a monologue), then the circumstances are different. But it's an article, and so I don't have to cater to the sensitivity of my counterpart, since there is no counterpart. : I think that's enough examples. The point I'm making is that it might help : people's opinion of you, and lessen the 'conceited' image you're may be : accruing, to be careful to qualify your language. Use "I think" : or "I feel" or "in my opinion" a lot. Instead of : saying "Don't do X. X is not fun." say "You probably : shouldn't do X, cause I don't know about you, but I don't find X very : fun." That's kind of an over-softened example there just for : emphasis, but I think you get the idea. The information conveyed by both : is the same (expressing your disapproval of X for the reason that it is : not fun), but it's presented in a way that will put people on the : defensive less, and help keep them from feeling like you're talking down : to them. Alright, well, first of all, I also am aware of how many people actually read these articles -- not many. And most of those actually are smart enough to understand. It's like saying that anyone who writes a game review should constantly soften their reviews by saying "in my opinion;" it's redundant. Obviously it's your opinion. Obviously you aren't the authority over this game. I don't need to be told that. Anyway, most of the whiners don't get the whining from House of Luck, I think.

[ Post a Reply | Message Index | Read Prev Msg | Read Next Msg ] Pre-2004 Posts

Replies:

	Conceit	RyokoTK	12/11/06 9:21 p.m.
	Re: Conceit	Forrest of B.org	12/11/06 10:13 p.m.
	tl;dr *NM*	thermoplyae	12/11/06 11:06 p.m.
	lol *NM*	treellama	12/12/06 2:37 a.m.
	Re: Conceit	RyokoTK	12/12/06 6:20 a.m.
	Hmm...	MrHen	12/12/06 8:34 a.m.
	Re: Hmm...	Forrest of B.org	12/12/06 3:17 p.m.
	Re: Conceit	Forrest of B.org	12/12/06 3:34 p.m.
	Re: Conceit	thermoplyae	12/12/06 10:38 a.m.
	:) *NM*	MrHen	12/12/06 12:02 p.m.
	Re: Conceit	kyjel	12/12/06 12:21 a.m.
	Re: Conceit	McNutcase	12/12/06 1:56 a.m.
	Re: Conceit	Vid Boi	12/12/06 2:16 a.m.
	Re: Conceit	RyokoTK	12/12/06 6:22 a.m.
	Re: Conceit	Nicholai	12/14/06 12:17 p.m.
	Re: Conceit	goran	12/12/06 2:21 a.m.
	Re: Conceit	treellama	12/12/06 2:55 a.m.
	Re: Conceit	RyokoTK	12/12/06 6:26 a.m.
	Re: Conceit	irons	12/12/06 6:34 a.m.
	Re: Conceit	McNutcase	12/12/06 8:13 a.m.
	Re: Conceit	RyokoTK	12/12/06 8:59 a.m.
	Re: Conceit	McNutcase	12/12/06 10:00 a.m.
	Hypocrisy...	MrHen	12/12/06 8:40 a.m.
	Re: Conceit	D-M.A.	12/12/06 5:15 a.m.
	You're my favorite brain fart *NM*	Tycho	12/12/06 8:35 p.m.
	You're my favorite too!!! *NM*	D-M.A.	12/15/06 7:31 a.m.
	ironic...	MrHen	12/12/06 5:52 a.m.
	Re: ironic...	RyokoTK	12/12/06 6:43 a.m.
	Fools and their feelings.	MrHen	12/12/06 9:02 a.m.
	Re: ironic...	ukimalefu	12/12/06 4:40 p.m.
	Re: Conceit	Sammy Jenkins	12/12/06 3:36 p.m.
	Re: Conceit	RyokoTK	12/12/06 4:35 p.m.
	Re: Conceit	Sammy Jenkins	12/12/06 4:43 p.m.
	Re: Conceit	RyokoTK	12/12/06 4:47 p.m.
	Re: Conceit	treellama	12/13/06 2:48 a.m.
	*shudder*	MrHen	12/13/06 5:04 a.m.
	Re: *shudder*	RyokoTK	12/13/06 5:39 a.m.
	*sigh* fair enough. your life, not mine. *NM*	MrHen	12/13/06 5:48 a.m.
	Re: *shudder*	goran	12/13/06 7:43 a.m.
	Re: *shudder*	RyokoTK	12/13/06 8:28 a.m.
	Re: *shudder*	LegacyTyphoon	12/14/06 8:36 a.m.
	Re: *shudder*	goran	12/14/06 9:41 a.m.
	Re: *shudder*	RyokoTK	12/14/06 10:59 a.m.
	Re: Conceit	irons	12/12/06 5:08 p.m.
	Re: Conceit	Tycho	12/12/06 8:34 p.m.
	Re: Conceit	Screamingfool	12/13/06 11:12 a.m.
	Re: Conceit	Nicholai	12/13/06 9:20 p.m.
	Re: Conceit	Sammy Jenkins	12/13/06 10:41 p.m.
	Re: Conceit	RyokoTK	12/14/06 4:29 a.m.
	Re: Conceit	Nicholai	12/14/06 12:08 p.m.
	Re: Conceit	LegacyTyphoon	12/14/06 8:45 p.m.
	Re: Conceit	RyokoTK	12/14/06 9:12 p.m.
	Re: Conceit	LegacyTyphoon	12/14/06 9:58 p.m.
	lol *NM*	Nicholai	12/15/06 6:08 p.m.

[ Post a Reply | Message Index | Read Prev Msg | Read Next Msg ] Pre-2004 Posts