Why critics are valuable

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: RETIRED

As one who "wrassles" with CID over much of what he says, I found his "Olive Branch" statement quite acceptable and appreciated it for what it was. A kind of "back-handed" and convoluted attempt to say he appreciates reasonable criticism and argument. Given his writing "style" it takes some "between the lines" searching to find it, and it does come across as "patronizing" in a number of ways..., but that's just CID. You take him as you find him...., or leave him be. And he has put an enormous effort into RHS and keeping everyone informed of it's progress and set-backs. Maybe more than any other modder out there.

So I for one will say "thanks" to his attempt at "recognizing" his "loyal opposition". Your welcome, CID. And if I can just get my hands on those copies of Lloyd's Shipping Registries for the late 1930's again, I'll prove to you that your beloved Parillo is talking through a "cocked hat". Until then, I'll continue trying to "keep you honest" with various observations as they come up. Keep trying... You may not always be right, but you are always interesting and entertaining (not to mention "pompus" and "irritating" from time to time).

Thanks. I will stipulate all of the above is true - except that Parillo is wrong. He isn't. And Lloyds won't do it anyway. You cannot understand a nation like Japan (or contemporary China) using an incomplete registry.
More than that, Lloyds will be your undoing - and I await your discovery that so many fast and new ships were built (at least before the war prevented such registry). This is better researched at the National Diet Library - which you can make inquires to in English - everyone there will use it (but it won't usually be pretty English). If you need the address I can look it up. This was a government policy funded to a great degree - as Parillo documents - and his work is scholarly - so you can use it to find cites. It is one of the biggest technical issues I have with stock and CHS - famous ships we know the specs of are given fictional (lower) speeds - because someone "knows" Japanese merchants are slow. A near complete list in English is found in an appendix to a strange game called Command at Sea.

[Terminus]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

I make of this three things:

1) There is a compliment or two burried in there somewhere;
2) You and I agree on a great deal more than I suspected
3) It is likely to be sooner rather than later that you figure out we are actually allies

I suggest you consider that a web forum is in its nature a cryptic communications medium. I also suggest you consider that I never attack anyone or insult anyone directly - even in the sense you do. It is quite rare for me to believe - much less say - someone believes something he has never stated. If I write a report I clearly distinguish my speculation about what someone may believe - and why - from what the person actually said. If I had a suggestion for you it might be to try to become more aware of when you are substituting subjective impressions for stated facts. But I don't care if you do or not - provided you are civil. If you think something even implies disrespect, say so - or ask for amplification if you believe in being fair. I don't even ask for fair - because it is a fact of life many people don't do fair - and in the end all I need is to be patient. My list of enemies is very short - and entirely devoid of intellectually honest people of the sort you will find in this sort of circle. I know no one here is my enemy - and if someone else doesn't know - eventually he will figure it out. I have had real enemies - and in a different context have them still - so the distinction is clear for me. I completely agree with you - wether or not you know that. Sooner or later you will know it.

And I suggest to you that you must consider the fact that you are responsible not just for the specific content of any message you post here, but also for the tone in which it is delivered.

If you're a student of communication then you know of the concept of "noise", i.e. the potential for the distortion of the content of a given piece of communication on its way from sender to recipient. This is not just the sort of noise that can be caused by techical issues, weather or what not, but also by (as you point out) what sender and/or recipient believes he's said or is going to hear. If the sender is interested in getting his point across clearly, then it is his responsibility to ensure that noise is minimised. And I'm not talking about the politically correct BS that demands never ever stepping on anybody's toes, believe me. That's actually counterproductive to good communication.

I submit that you must take into account the fact that you're not dealing with automatons here, but with fellow members of the species Homo Sapiens. If you deliver your message in even the most subtly wrong way, you create noise yourself and taint any future messages you want to get across.

It's a very subtle art, and one that I'd never dream of saying I've mastered.

[el cid again]

Amen.

[Nemo121]

Speaking as someone whose very specialty lies in the realm of human perception, misperception, illusion and delusion I would add to the above that there are none so blind as those who do not want to see.
 
People find it much, much easier to reject data which do not fit neatly into their mental schema, mental schema which are almost always hastily constructed from very rushed (mis)perceptions. As such you tend to find people, later, selecting out that which they choose to assimilate from the totality of what is said and choosing to ignore that which is actually objectively stated. People select out that which fits their schema and tend to ignore that which doesn't. That's one of the issue el cid is trying to get at and insofar as he is quite correct in this aspect I would point you to one of the great truths of the human mind which says that " We see things not as they are but as WE are and/or as we WANT them to be."
 
So, yes, there is an onus on the communicator to be clear but even in the presence of the clearest communication possible if the person receiving the communication has a particular rigid schema in mind then what is actually said is almost irrelevant.

A good example of this is in the "Is Japan Too Powerful" thread. People posted that Japan was too powerful and the fix was to increase the allocation of trained pilots and excellent airframes for the Allies in the later war years. I responded that this would fix the symptom but that what was needed was a much more comprehensive fix which operated at the level of the root causes of these problems but that we were unlikely to see the programmers make such fundamental changes to the game.
 
Jim D Burns then posted

You’re trying to argue that the system is somehow fine and any complaints are wasted breath.

 
So, because his mental schema couldn't encompass the fact that I actually said there was MORE wrong with the system than he and others had actually said his mind could only encompass a very selective and distorted selection of snippets from my post.... E.g. Where I said that complaints were wasted breath it was NOT in the context of arguing that there were no errors but in the context of saying the errors were so fundamental and systematic that I doubted the programmers would be willing to put in the work to fix these errors. Again, the exact opposite meaning to what he took.
 
 
So, there's an obligation to be clear when one speaks BUT even when one speaks clearly it is very common for one or more recipients to be unable, due to rigid forms of thinking and schema, to actually process what you have ACTUALLY said and, instead, process something completely different. This is taken to its extreme form in people with psychotic illnesses but exists in this lesser form in the mainstream population... mainly in anankastic personality typees and those who harbour grudges etc which tend to make the objective reality of what was said less important than the opportunity it presents to indulge their grudge etc.
 
So, one cannot just blame the writer or speaker for miscommunication. One must be aware of the complex interplay between what is said, what the audiences' schema are, their expectations, their emotional states and their predispositions towards the writer/speaker. It has been truly said that the least part of ensuring good communication is actually speaking clearly. By far the larger part lies in ensuring that the recipient is free from delusions, anankasms, perceptual deficits and just plain old-fashioned bigotry. ON an internet forum delusions, anankastic personalities, all form of perceptual and psychological deficits and old-fashioned bigotry are all rife. It is in the nature of wargame forums to disproportionately attract people with these issues and one must be aware of these things when judging the success or failure of any given communication.

[Drongo]

ORIGINAL: Nemo121

Speaking as someone whose very specialty lies in the realm of human perception, misperception, illusion and delusion I would add to the above that there are none so blind as those who do not want to see.

Your initial paragraphs of the post containing the above are implying fault with a certain mindset. You then name and quote another poster as an example of that mindset. The poster and quote come from an entirely different thread and forum.

You of course would have perceived the ethical conflict in this and have resolved it by alerting said poster of the existence of your own post so that he may have opportunity to respond. Yes?

[Tankerace]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

Tankerace:

I don't think we entirely agree - nor entirely disagree - about the role of commentary. Since I regard criticism as constructive, I offer it in the same sense. My first (Navy) captain required I join an association because it is technically illegal for anyone on active duty to say, openly, anything done by the armed forces is wrong. But, he said, "your criticism is always motivated constructively" - and the Navy had a formal way to identify when this was the case. To say something is "unrealistic" is not to imply "you are stupid". And when something I do is said to be "unrealistic" you did not jump in to shield me from it (not that I needed that). There are those who hate the idea of ferries (even if they accept them at Hong Kong and the Inland Sea) - and referred to it in a way that implies I may be almost insane. But I am much more interested in knowing how people feel and don't like it when they are unhappy in silence - nor threatened if they don't understand or like my thinking. I may even be on both sides of a question.

As someone said, I am an artist - of data. As Andrew says, modding is mostly the art of compromise. Compromise is not at all easy - and even good ones will likely offend some. Worse, a modder must do so many things, he must sometimes be ignorant, and sometimes offend almost everyone - so many things had he tampered with.

On the other hand, I do agree with most of your remarks. I just don't think we agree that civil criticism is always germane and useful - my position. What is not useful is being impolite. I distinguish between saying "he said that and it means he thinks so and so is stupid" and
"he said so and so is stupid." Not the same thing - and frankly I think stupid people don't do history - even for fun. I see no justification for attributing to me or anyone else negative motives when they are not explicitly displayed - and I see no justification for saying someone being rude is right - when it never is right - and when it is a violation of the terms of participation in this forum.

As I said, I was not singling out any one person in my post, rather as a general comment to all. Being involved with WPO and hopefully moving sometime in the future to another project, I don't visit the WitP forums as much anymore. As such, I don't read everyone's posts and I don't want to put myself in a position to judge anyone for what they may or may not have said.

My main point was that critics are valuable, yes. I know WPO had its share of bumbleheaded, idiotic mistakes that took fresh eyes all of two minutes to see what I had been blind to for months. But I also have seen some on this forum (not you) that criticize just for the sheer love of trashing someone else's work.

The reason is not because their work is bad. I may agree that it is bad. But, I would hate to stifle such creativity, that could bear fruit in the guture.

This is the interesting dilemma of forums or internet chat: tone. It is impossible to determine how someone is saying, or how they want to say, or how someone interprets a post.

I agree with you 100%, doing a database is an art. Doing it perfect, including everything possible, takes as much time and patientice as creating a piece of art - it is a piece of art. My main point (and again, my comments were directed as a general to all critics, especially those who contribute nothing. Not to you in particular) is that, unless the person is contributing to your mod (and by your I mean the critic), they should be able to do it how they wish. Even if it is stupid, or fantasy, or pure uh... cow pie [;)].

I guess what I am trying to get at is that since 2004 (yep, I'm a WitP plank owner.... I guess WPO too [;)]) I have seen so many people propose an idea for a mod, even if it historically impossible, and several forum critics who do not mod in anyway shoot it down. I myself probably wouldn't like a fantasy mod (no probably about it), but if the modder does that and likes modding, he may in the future produce a CHS or WPO type mod. But if he is stifled from his first attempt, then we may not get a truly good mod on down the road.

Just to set the record straight, on my comments on critics I was not singling you out Cid, nor anyone else. I was making a general statement about critics, and especially those that contribute nothing. This community is pretty friendly. But sometimes we all speak whatever is on our mind, and it isn't always politically corrected on its way out [:D].

[Nemo121]

LOL Drongo,
 
As I said in my post... Sometimes people care to deal less with what is actually said than furthering their own agendas. It is a pity that rather than dealing with anything I've actually said you are trying to forment conflict.
 
As to pointing out a mindset and then giving an example of same... There's no ethical conflict there in the slightest. In any case it was useful to bait the trap, wait and allow someone else to blunder in and illustrate my point, by focussing less on the issue at hand... perception, mis-perception etc... and more on exingencies irrelevant to the issue at hand but motivated by more fundamental drives than engaging in reasoned discourse, precisely as you have done. Thank you for that. It will only be a matter of time before someone informs the named poster of this thread so he can come and "defend himself" thus further illustrating the point.
 
 
As to the actual topic we are trying to discuss... I agree with Tankerace. In something as subjective as mods there are an almost infinite variety of truths each with importance and validity to some. If we judge validity purely on one criteria then we will stifle creativity. It may not make sense to us but one of the greatest problems in this forum ( and life in general) is that far too many people can only conceive of their own biases and viewpoints having validity and dismiss the different as "wrong" instead of simply opening their mind to encompass it ( assuming it isn't actively harmful). Wargamers, in particular, have a much higher incidence of anankastic personalities than the general populace and so are overly prone to this sort of behaviour which kills open-mindedness, experimentation etc.
 
I may think it is a stupid idea, I may even think it terribly unbalancing and I may have no desire to ever play it BUT I always hope it will work out and be enjoyable for some ( or, ideally, many). Pointing out a glaring flaw in the hopes it can be fixed is one thing but undercutting the entire effort another.

[Drongo]

ORIGINAL: Nemo121

LOL Drongo,

As I said in my post... Sometimes people care to deal less with what is actually said than furthering their own agendas. It is a pity that rather than dealing with anything I've actually said you are trying to forment conflict.

As to pointing out a mindset and then giving an example of same... There's no ethical conflict there in the slightest. In any case it was useful to bait the trap, wait and allow someone else to blunder in and illustrate my point, by focussing less on the issue at hand... perception, mis-perception etc... and more on exingencies irrelevant to the issue at hand but motivated by more fundamental drives than engaging in reasoned discourse, precisely as you have done. Thank you for that. It will only be a matter of time before someone informs the named poster of this thread so he can come and "defend himself" thus further illustrating the point.


As to the actual topic we are trying to discuss... I agree with Tankerace. In something as subjective as mods there are an almost infinite variety of truths each with importance and validity to some. If we judge validity purely on one criteria then we will stifle creativity. It may not make sense to us but one of the greatest problems in this forum ( and life in general) is that far too many people can only conceive of their own biases and viewpoints having validity and dismiss the different as "wrong" instead of simply opening their mind to encompass it ( assuming it isn't actively harmful). Wargamers, in particular, have a much higher incidence of anankastic personalities than the general populace and so are overly prone to this sort of behaviour which kills open-mindedness, experimentation etc.

I may think it is a stupid idea, I may even think it terribly unbalancing and I may have no desire to ever play it BUT I always hope it will work out and be enjoyable for some ( or, ideally, many). Pointing out a glaring flaw in the hopes it can be fixed is one thing but undercutting the entire effort another.

I take it that means no. Yes?

[JeffroK]

Probably been talking about me[8D]
 
I see a difference between criticism of ideas versus criticism of data.
 
If I dont agree with a mods idea, be it Super Japan, Russia in from Day1, Take out half the bases and bulk up the Jap defenses then its an opinion only. I shouldnt say the Modders opinion is wrong, its just different.
 
Equally on comments about "Variables" be they manouvre ratings, firepower, accuracy etc. They are subjective and open to interpretation.
 
But when someone points out errors in fact, be it data entry, aircraft names/roles/arrival it seems the standard counterattack is , source please!!, I inherited.... or a rambling dissertation on something mostly irrelevant. It makes many not worth considering helping out, which means we would still have WITP 1.0 vanilla.
 
I know this appears aimed at Sid, as but he has been one of the most active modders and in his series of mods provided plenty of different views on what we belive is normal he has atrracted most of the criticism. It isnt meant in that way, the effort he has spent in producing his series is immense, I have fiddled around and it takes too bloody long to review the whole database and ensure all slots are correct and that changing slot A doesnt affect slot ZZ35.
 
What should be happening is keep the level of debate going, I have learned heaps here, but learn to live with different views of the same thing.  If you believe the Hurri IIB should have 12 x .303 or should be a Hurri IIC, make your own adjustments, I have tweaked CHS (prior to the latesteffort from Andrew & the team) so some things fit MY opinions.
 
Those doing the mods should equally be open to listening to the debate, but in the end its their mod, they can do what they want.
 
Finally, my thanks to the many who participate here, its your input that has raised an acceptable game into one which in its CHS 2.07! (I play Niks mod of it) is an excellent simulation of WW2 in the Pacific. But the journey hasnt ended yet, but I think Matrix/2x3 has to start helping more, after all, the Mods are increasing sales of their product.
 
 

[RETIRED]

JeffK Well put. The true goal of any "critic" should be to point out things they see as problems or errors in the ongoing debate...., and why they feel this is so. Spark a debate that hopefully will improve things overall. Too often these threads degenerate into vaugely-disguised "name calling" Just because someone doesn't see things the same way as you do isn't absolute proof that he's wrong.

Cid's an opinionated fellow..., but at least he will back up his opinions with explanation and sources most of the time. And his writing style can be rough as a corncob...., but at least he's willing to spend the time to post explanations of what he's doing in his mod and where he's trying to go with it, and why. I think he's wrong in a few of the directions he wants to go, and so do others. But to be worthwhile criticism we can't just say "That's Dumb"; we need to say why we think it's in error and what we would suggest as a better way to go. Debate can be lively without degeneration into "mud-slinging". If we all (and yes, that includes Cid, who brings it on himself once in a while) would just try to keep pushing the discussion back onto "the high road" when it wanders, we'll be better off.

[Ron Saueracker]

Criticism is only useful when what is being criticised is open for change. We would not have issues like Uber CAP, land combat by TYCO, naval combat that is more in tune with 1742 than 1942 (just to brush the surface) if this was indeed the case here. Otherwise, I liken it to peeing in the wind.

[RETIRED]

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

Criticism is only useful when what is being criticised is open for change. We would not have issues like Uber CAP, land combat by TYCO, naval combat that is more in tune with 1742 than 1942 (just to brush the surface) if this was indeed the case here. Otherwise, I liken it to peeing in the wind.

RON Remember, not everyone knows what is "open to change" until they ask for the change. And with the new team working on the "patches and updates", maybe some of these things can be delt with eventually. "Hope springs eternal...", which is a good thing or we'd all kill ourselves.

[el cid again]

Your clarification - which indeed fit into the qualifiers you originally expressed - causes me to revise an earlier post of my own: I think we are at least 99% - and possibly perfectly - in agreement.