October Edit: I originally made this post to in response to a couple of gene releases that caused a lot of controversy, but I think it's relevant to the Riot of Rot discourse as well. If I made this now I would replace "staff are lazy and rushing out genes" with "staff are trying to censor plague," but I think the discussion about what kind of criticism users are "allowed" to make is still relevant.
One thing I think we've all noticed with both the Keel release and now Glowtail is controversy about the extent to which new genes should be criticize-able, and whether various user's comments are valid critique, or needless staff bashing. Since there's 50 pages of comments on the latest release already, there are, of course:
Now, this isn't intended to target any specific users. BUT I don't want things to get to the point where new gene threads have to be locked on the regular, and it feels like that's where we're heading. So I think we should all stop for a moment and remember the difference between good and bad forms of criticism.
The goal of criticism is to give the recipient an idea of what to improve in the future, so good criticism is focused around what aspects of the thing you like, what aspects you don't, and how those aspects could be improved.
Something like this highlights specific aspects of the new gene that the commenter doesn't like, and offers some suggestions for what they would have liked better. This is helpful to the artists, because it gives them a specific idea of what people would like to see done differently.
This is less helpful than the first one, because it's overly vague. Just calling the gene ugly makes it hard to know what would have made it better, or how future genes could be different.
BUT
This comment doesn't cross any lines with respect to staff treatment. It's not phrased as helpfully (or politely) as the first comment, but, fundamentally, people are allowed to not like a gene, with no context needed.
This does cross a line, for a couple of reasons. The first is that it makes a lot of assumptions. We really don't know what the development process is like, and it's a big leap to say that having some art errors means the staff don't care at all about quality. So we can't conclusively say whether a gene is "low-effort" or not.
The second is that it's shifted into targeting the staff directly, rather than the gene. The staff aren't immune to all personal criticism, but it's important to be respectful when talking about a person, rather than a piece of art.
This seems to me like a better example of how to critique the staff design process. It doesn't make assumptions, and it's kinder than the original, while still making the same point.
Most of the disagreement I've seen has centered around these words. I think this is because some people are confusing the claims that a gene looks lazy and that the staff are lazy. Again, assuming the staff must have gotten lazy with a gene is unfair, but saying that a gene looks lazy because it's simple or scattered is a valid claim.
TLDR: Keep your criticism focused, stay respectful, and let other users make focused, respectful criticism.
I don't claim to be the ultimate arbiter of what people can and can't say. But I would like it if our discussions about new genes could be about the genes, and not about what other people are saying about the genes.
Edit
It looks like users are being directed to this thread as the place for, I guess you'd call it meta-feedback? So in anticipation of extra traffic, I just want to add a couple of things.
One thing I think we've all noticed with both the Keel release and now Glowtail is controversy about the extent to which new genes should be criticize-able, and whether various user's comments are valid critique, or needless staff bashing. Since there's 50 pages of comments on the latest release already, there are, of course:
- Users giving reasonable criticism on the gene.
- Users making assumptions about staff's "laziness" because of how the gene looks.
- Users telling other users that they shouldn't make unfounded assumptions.
- Users telling other users that they shouldn't criticize genes they don't like at all.
Now, this isn't intended to target any specific users. BUT I don't want things to get to the point where new gene threads have to be locked on the regular, and it feels like that's where we're heading. So I think we should all stop for a moment and remember the difference between good and bad forms of criticism.
The goal of criticism is to give the recipient an idea of what to improve in the future, so good criticism is focused around what aspects of the thing you like, what aspects you don't, and how those aspects could be improved.
Good wrote:
I don't see myself using Glowtail anytime soon. I don't think the glow is very noticeable, and I wish it covered more than just the tail.
Something like this highlights specific aspects of the new gene that the commenter doesn't like, and offers some suggestions for what they would have liked better. This is helpful to the artists, because it gives them a specific idea of what people would like to see done differently.
Flawed but Fine wrote:
Ugh, another ugly gene. I can't believe the staff expect us to pay gem gene prices for something so basic. Still waiting for a quality gem tertiary.
This is less helpful than the first one, because it's overly vague. Just calling the gene ugly makes it hard to know what would have made it better, or how future genes could be different.
BUT
This comment doesn't cross any lines with respect to staff treatment. It's not phrased as helpfully (or politely) as the first comment, but, fundamentally, people are allowed to not like a gene, with no context needed.
Please don't wrote:
I hate how the staff keep pumping out these slapped-on, low-effort genes! It's obvious that the staff just don't care about quality from now on, and the site is only going to go downhill here.
This does cross a line, for a couple of reasons. The first is that it makes a lot of assumptions. We really don't know what the development process is like, and it's a big leap to say that having some art errors means the staff don't care at all about quality. So we can't conclusively say whether a gene is "low-effort" or not.
The second is that it's shifted into targeting the staff directly, rather than the gene. The staff aren't immune to all personal criticism, but it's important to be respectful when talking about a person, rather than a piece of art.
Better wrote:
It feels like staff have let quality control slip with this latest gene. Come on, staff, I know you can do better than this.
This seems to me like a better example of how to critique the staff design process. It doesn't make assumptions, and it's kinder than the original, while still making the same point.
Controversial wrote:
Anything including the words "Lazy" or "Rushed"
Most of the disagreement I've seen has centered around these words. I think this is because some people are confusing the claims that a gene looks lazy and that the staff are lazy. Again, assuming the staff must have gotten lazy with a gene is unfair, but saying that a gene looks lazy because it's simple or scattered is a valid claim.
TLDR: Keep your criticism focused, stay respectful, and let other users make focused, respectful criticism.
I don't claim to be the ultimate arbiter of what people can and can't say. But I would like it if our discussions about new genes could be about the genes, and not about what other people are saying about the genes.
Edit
It looks like users are being directed to this thread as the place for, I guess you'd call it meta-feedback? So in anticipation of extra traffic, I just want to add a couple of things.
- It's hard to say anything conclusive about what the majority of users want, or how they're reacting. I've seen people convinced that nearly all critics are being polite and constructive, and others convinced that they're nearly all being rude and negative. But between confirmation bias, the many scattered threads, and the discourse on discourse on discourse, assuming the vast majority of users are acting one way or the other is probably unfair.
- Just like the staff, other users are people with feelings. You're free to disagree, or point out flaws in other users' thinking, but remember to treat the actual person with respect.