|
Okay, so there are two kinds of brainless comments roughly speaking pertaining events, news announcements and you name it. The first one will look like this:
"This caster is doing an absolutely amazing job, really digging this."
The other like this:
"This caster deoing a piece of shit job, absolutely terrible casting"
Both are brainless to the max, virtually useless drivel, no argument given why, no examples, and in my opinion annoying to read. I don't really care about people's opinions when they don't back them up because it's impossible to debate an opinion that doesn't come with an argument. Yet, one is seemingly a lot more accepted than the other. And I would argue that this is the inverse of what it should be. Brainless negativity is simply almost strictly better than brianless positivity:
Negativity inspires change and improvement
If you're telling people they're doing a good job as they are doing it now, the result is the same as saying nothing. They would have probably continued on their original path anyway. The "silence is golden" principle. People will generally assume that everything is fine and dandy when no one maks a remark. So it's basically useless to come with brainless positivity that does not tell people what is so good about it or how they can become even better. Brainless negativity on the other hand may inform people that they need to step their game up. If the entire community is brainlessly negative about your casting you might take the hint and either vastly improve or find another type of gig.
"But brainless posivity makes the person feel better."
Ah, so we really exist as a feedback platform to stroke egos now? Besides, Commander Spock would have a thing or two to say about letting one person feel better rather than letting one person feel bad, then improve, to serve better quality to thousands. The caster is an emplopee, the viewer the customer. The feelings of the caster are inconsequential I would say, he or she already gets a salary. Don't like the job? Find another one. However the company's obvious duty should be to provide the best experience to the customer, and in that it's listening to the brainless negativity and fire the caster people are negative about or give him or her some training.
Also, happiness does not breed results. The greatest minds in history were all tormented souls. Newton, Mozart, Beethoven, Van Gogh, Picasso, Russell, Einstein, Churchil. Any artist knows that happiness does not lead to great works of art. Inspiration comes from reaching one's lowest, not one's highest. The very greatest and memorable pieces of art from all artists were made when the artists were at their lowest. Torment leads to inspiration, creativity and perfectionism, not happiness, happniess just in general leadst o slacking it off.
Look at Artosis, back when he was living in the eSTRO house with his camcorder providing content, that was his highlight. Look at him now, he's slacking of, starting a bunch of projects he never finishes, taking money in the process. Refusing to take responsibility, he's got it covered, he has his salary, he's happy. He has no reason any more to improve and demand perfection from himself. I daresay that dousing a caster once in a while with a bit of a cynical review can inspire something greater. Great artistry is never born from happiness.
  
|
|
|
Spock is Vulcan, there's a reaon we don't take his advice.
|
Nobody in their right minds reads twitch chats anyway.
|
On July 12 2014 19:13 ninazerg wrote:
Spock isn't real. So? That doesn't disprove the general sense of the maxim "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few."
Fictional characters can say things that make sense. There's a reason this quote of Spock continues to be quoted, because it simply makes sense. 50 000 fans enjoying better casting > the ego of one caster.
If you can't find anything more wrong with the logic, you can't find anything wrong at all.
|
On July 12 2014 19:20 SiskosGoatee wrote:So? That doesn't disprove the general sense of the maxim "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few." Fictional characters can say things that make sense. There's a reason this quote of Spock continues to be quoted, because it simply makes sense. 50 000 fans enjoying better casting > the ego of one caster.
Well, my friend Gadget from Chip n' Dale: Rescue Rangers would say "You don't get someone to like you by acting like someone you aren't." In other words, just let Artosis be Artosis.
Also, like I said in my most recent blog, if people are going bandwagon, they might as well jump on a bandwagon of being positive. But if you have some constructive criticism for Artosis, I'm sure you could just send him a PM. However, the thing about self-improvement is that one has to decide to improve themselves, not be coerced into doing so from an outside mediator. For example, you can go up to someone who is overweight and say "You're fat, I highly recommend losing weight." they will probably not make an effort to lose weight until they decide for themselves to do so.
|
What are you trying to argue?
The axiom would make sense if we were purely logical beings but we're not, so they made up a race that is completely logical to put that into perspective.
It doesn't matter whether it's better to be a mindless hater or a mindlessly positive person when it comes to caster improvement because you'd be better of having a brain and giving some constructive feedback if that was your goal.
And in general it's better to be mindlessly positive than mindlessly negative since the latter aren't much fun to be around.
|
On July 12 2014 19:37 ninazerg wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2014 19:20 SiskosGoatee wrote:On July 12 2014 19:13 ninazerg wrote:
Spock isn't real. So? That doesn't disprove the general sense of the maxim "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few." Fictional characters can say things that make sense. There's a reason this quote of Spock continues to be quoted, because it simply makes sense. 50 000 fans enjoying better casting > the ego of one caster. Well, my friend Gadget from Chip n' Dale: Rescue Rangers would say " You don't get someone to like you by acting like someone you aren't." In other words, just let Artosis be Artosis. THe difference between this quote from a fictional character is that it makes absolutely no sense and is blatantly wrong. Politicians put on personae every day to fool people into liking them. People act like people they aren't all the time with great success to be liked. You don't think casters put on a stage persona? I'd bet my but that Day[9]'s a lot less jolly in private amongst his closest friends than on the stage.
Also, like I said in my most recent blog, if people are going bandwagon, they might as well jump on a bandwagon of being positive. Why? Like I just said, the negative bandwagon inspires improvement, the positive one does not. And a tormented soul in general produces greater works than a merry one.
|
the negative bandwagon inspires improvement, the positive one does not
Not necessarily. There are ways to provide constructive criticism (positive bandwagon helping) and there can also be cases where jeering or bullying or ostracizing a community member can provide a want for certain people to leave the scene due to excommunication and futility (negative bandwagon hurting). The idea should be to approach giving feedback, whether it's good or bad, with a kind of empathy and understanding that you're communicating with other human beings.
You can say, "I really like the way that X analyzed that opening, because I didn't even consider the fact that A, B, and C exist." That provides both positive reinforcement and lets commentators know what part went well, so that they can keep doing it or try to be even better at it (focus on that part in the future), especially if enough people zero in on the same thing. This is what educators do and say to help students guide themselves into being proactive and to continue moving in the right direction. It would be incredibly sad if teachers only critiqued students' bad moves and dead ends, and never reinforced the good behaviors.
Any critique or comment should be constructive (in an ideal world full of people who wish to inspire change... but we do lower the posting standards on Live Reports and similar mediums where one-liners are accepted input from countless laymen), and there's also obvious value in keeping people happy and motivated (albeit not necessarily at the expense of ignorance). So regardless of whether it's good news or bad news you need to give someone, of course it's ideal that we provide an in-depth explanation with examples that help get our points across.
I also disagree with your sweeping generalization that you must be a tormented soul to be a great mind or successful in life. Good situations can lead to better ones as well. The only reason you can point to bad situations getting better is because you're cherry-picking a few examples of initially bad situations that don't lead to worse ones. How many starving artists and lost thinkers didn't become a household name like Newton and Mozart and Van Gogh? I dare posit magnitudes more; we've just never heard of them. How many casters didn't become Artosis? Artosis is a tremendous success story, certainly showing what dedication can accomplish, but I'm sure that there are other successful casters who didn't come from nothing, as well as other people who attempted to cast but started to fail and then gave up.
|
Important difference between the 2 statements is that the negative one incites directionlessness, while the other does not (or at least less). Suppose i'd say this blog sucks. It's obvious something needs to change to the blog in order for me to like it. But what part? How much? In what way? You don't have a direction to follow. If i were to say your blog is great, at least you know it should be something like this to let me like it. Assuming brainlessness (no argument given at all), i'd say positive is better than negative.
Brainless negativity inspires change as little as brainless positivity, except when stopping or moving slower is considered change. Comparative brainlessness does inspire, however. "He's become much better/worse" incites analyzing your past and current performances, seeking out differences, at least short term.
Don't also forget that getting this feedback helps tournament organisers to choose which casters add value to the tournament. Again assuming brainlessness, if every caster is shat upon or praised to no end, you'd get random caster selections (okay, this may be a stretch...), and that wouldn't be good for improvement at all. So both brainless sides kindof need eachother to have impact.
|
On July 12 2014 23:03 Yorbon wrote:
Brainless negativity inspires change as little as brainless positivity,
I agree. The focus shouldn't be on whether what you're saying is technically positive or negative, it should be on how your feedback is presented (i.e., constructive and "not brainless").
I like how you did X, Y, Z >>> You're a great caster/ player.
I'm curious as to why you decided to do X, Y, Z >>> You're a shitty caster/ player.
|
Also, this is a fan site. If I want to say I like something esports related, I don't necessarily need to explain it, given that I'm supposed to be talking to other people who also enjoy esports and their surroundings. If I want to say esports is shit, it might help to develop a little.
This isn't about being positive or negative, this is about what's expected.
When you're on westeros.org and you say Goodkind is shit, you don't really need to develop, everyone agrees. If you want to say something positive about Goodkind, though, I'm sure a lot of people will ask you to explain yourself. The reverse would be true on a Terry Goodkind forum.
|
as a general rule, in the sorts of situations that you are describing it is (probably) always better to be positive than it is to be negative.
i think you would inspire more positive change, more improvement etc. if instead of being negative towards things you actively tried to be positive.
|
"If only people were less happy the world would be a better place."
Got it.
+ Show Spoiler +My new goal in life is to improve the world by making as many people miserable as I can. I think I'll start by posting snarky responses to posts I disagree with.
|
Valid and constructive criticism is as useful as valid and constructive appreciation.
you did X good, you did X bad.
Much different than vacuous drivel about this is great!!!1/terrible!11!1 in general!!11!
There's also positive bias against unhappiness = great results. A LOT of people who've been happy have produced great things from microchip advances to altrustic non-profit organizations to try to help people/animals in shitty spots.
The unhappiness isn't a cause for the greatness of those people, it's a cause for the increased popularity and more well known state of those people.
You know how many times a certain famous painter in the 1600's was in jail before becoming wanted for murder? His infamy was cache for getting fame, but that has nothing to do with the merit of his works.
|
On July 13 2014 04:20 hypercube wrote:"If only people were less happy the world would be a better place." Got it. + Show Spoiler +My new goal in life is to improve the world by making as many people miserable as I can. I think I'll start by posting snarky responses to posts I disagree with.
I'm one step ahead of you, dawg. There's this coffee shop in my town that I frequent and sometimes my drink isn't made the way I want it so I tell the employees that they're doing a piece of shit job and that they're absolutely terrible at making coffee in hopes that they will either quit and find another job or make better coffee. I think it works really nicely and overall yields a positive result in the long term. Oh wait, no it doesn't because people don't want to hear shit like that and it makes them feel like fucking garbage, or they learn to ignore it because they see it as hateful spite.
Believe it or not, internet, peoples feelings FUCKING MATTER. How you treat people irl AND on the internet matters. Just because the person quit out, or left the ladder game, or stopped posting in that thread on reddit and now you aren't talking to them any more doesn't mean they stopped existing. They only stopped existing to you.
@OP:
Perhaps you should have made a blog about how we need both "brainless" positivity, mild negativity and constructive criticism in order to create a healthy balance instead of attempting to justify being an idiot who spews nonsense into twitch chat/reddit/TL.
|
are you really so affected by other people's opinions? Not everything has to be debated, sometimes it's just self-expression. Nothing more and nothing less
|
On July 12 2014 19:58 SiskosGoatee wrote:
Why? Like I just said, the negative bandwagon inspires improvement, the positive one does not. And a tormented soul in general produces greater works than a merry one.
All right, let's try it. Stop writing such shitty blogs.
On July 12 2014 17:38 SiskosGoatee wrote:
But brainless posivity
"posivity"
On July 12 2014 17:38 SiskosGoatee wrote:"This caster deoing a piece of shit job, absolutely terrible casting"
"deoing"!?
Also, when doing a multiple word adjective, you string the words together with hyphens, like this: "piece-of-shit job"
On July 12 2014 17:38 SiskosGoatee wrote:
happniess just in general leads to slacking it off.
"happniess"!?!? Also, "slacking it off"? Really?
On July 12 2014 17:38 SiskosGoatee wrote:
Also, happiness does not breed results.
Uninformed opinion. I think it can be said of anyone that just about everyone goes through difficulty in life. Are Bill Gates and Kofi Annan chronically depressed? I'm not so sure they are, but I would bet they go through peaks and valleys, like anyone else. The world already is an inherently difficult and dark place, and so if someone were suffering from depression, bipolar disorders, and other such things, or were angry or afraid frequently, I wouldn't blame them. So yes, there is cause for great figures in history to have gone through horrible emotional and psychological burdens. So Isaac Newton may have gone through bipolar disorder and possibility schizophrenia, but I know several people with the same problems who, frankly, haven't done shit. What this tells us is that there is not really a correlation to suffering to greatness, but that great people can also undergo suffering like anyone else. Furthermore, considering the condition of the world, being such a dismal place in general, I don't see how adding to someone's suffering by berating them could be directly correlated with someone making an individual choice to seek self-improvement.
|
On July 13 2014 04:20 hypercube wrote:"If only people were less happy the world would be a better place." Got it. + Show Spoiler +My new goal in life is to improve the world by making as many people miserable as I can. I think I'll start by posting snarky responses to posts I disagree with.
More like "Let's sacrifice the happiness of one person to benefit that of thousands."
|
Rarely seen someone be so wrong.
If you tell some one they're doing a great job, they'll feel happy, motivated, and will ceaselessly continue to improve their own performance.
|
Advice from a scifi show is regularly, on a scale from one to ten, a solid terrible/ten.
|
I think the truth is that both of them can be good, where "good" is the enjoyment of the community and caster as a consequence.
You say that brainless negativity can bring someone to do things, but positivity does not. To this I would say that sometimes when a caster is doing really good things, they have no reason to change (analogously, if your car was working perfectly, you would not change any components).
If someone were to be brainlessly negative in that case (not because he/she wants to, but purely as a consequence of your theory), then the caster might feel as if the majority of what they are doing is bad, when in reality it is good to the majority and to the person commenting. Thus the caster would change, and its likely that he would alter these good qualities (like his humour) to something that is worse for everyone (just being purely analytical and boring, or forcing a new, weird sense of humour that no one enjoys).
Basically you can't assume that the change will always be positive in light of negative feedback, you also have to consider that the caster might make a change for the worse, especially when there is no constructive information to be had, just pure negative reinforcement.
Of course in other cases, like with Moletrap in the GSL, negativity really can be good because there really is something that he is doing wrong. And although its not clear, at least he can start to figure things out and try out other styles of casting.
So altogether I think that the balance of 'brainless' positive and negative opinions actually serves as a good barometer of how well you are doing as a caster, so it can be used as a very broad guide to help yourself improve. If you (theoretically) were to only include the negative, then no one would have any understanding of how well they're doing - everything would seem wrong. It would make life horribly confusing and sad for them, and the viewers would likely not get the entertainment they are seeking as a result of the unwanted changes.
Also at some point, they would simply accept negative reinforcement as a fact of life and not read any meaning into it at all which counteracts your theory. If you could only say "I don't like that" towards everything in your life, and people understood that, how seriously would they take your commentary? You don't even have a choice in what you say, so they have no idea whether you really mean what you are saying or whether its just as a result of a very rigid philosophy. So ultimately your theory is self-defeating if it were implemented.
Also a quick comment to dark plasma - I think I agree with your points but he is discussing the pure, brainless comments. I think we all agree constructive commentary is better, but of the two 'brainless' categories, which would you prefer and why? Its kind of an interesting philosophical question in a way, although I feel I have resolved it pretty well 
|
On July 13 2014 21:33 SiskosGoatee wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2014 04:20 hypercube wrote:"If only people were less happy the world would be a better place." Got it. + Show Spoiler +My new goal in life is to improve the world by making as many people miserable as I can. I think I'll start by posting snarky responses to posts I disagree with. More like "Let's sacrifice the happiness of one person to benefit that of thousands."
Cool. I nominate yours.
+ Show Spoiler +But seriously, let's not "sacrifice" someone else's happiness. Especially not over something so trivial as the quality of commentary. That's just not cool.
|
Good thing that I do not agree with the blog. Else I would have to say something like: "I really dig this stuff"
|
On July 14 2014 01:14 docvoc wrote:
Advice from a scifi show is regularly, on a scale from one to ten, a solid terrible/ten.
But scifi shows are really cool 
|
Of course negative (preferrably constructive) can be helpful sometimes, but to think positive feedback doesn't do good you must not understand basic biology.
If someone tells me my photos are good that makes me happy. Therefore I wanna keep making photos, keep improving to get even more positive feedback. Simple, really.
|
This OP is really doing an amazing job pointing out what is wrong with the community. Really digging it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
