Game Critics Should Embrace Friction, Personal Analysis

Game Critics Should Embrace Friction, Personal Analysis

Games journalism and criticism needs to eschew academic restraints, and use personal bias and anger to drive the conversation about games.

Read Full Article

Ok great more people shouting their vitally important opinion, yup thats just what game journalism needs. If gaming journalism wants to be taken seriously, having a sense of proportion about your opinions is vitail. Otherwise things will just degenerate into slanging matches between people with overblown sense of their own importance.

Yeah, I'm gonna have to have the importance of an opinion's worth regardless of the context explained to me again or something, I find it hard to believe that introducing more noise into the process is going to result in something we needed to see.

Fuck, no.

A review is there to tell me about everything I need to know about a game from a consumer's perspective. It's a technical report on what's in the game, how the mechanics work, what kind of storytelling is there, how the controls work, how it performs, etc.

What this dude is talking about is a blog post. And that's fine; it has its place. But trying to replace an actual review with details about how it made the reviewer "feel" is utter garbage. It's useless to a consumer who needs information before making a purchasing decision.

There is a VERY good reason why you don't need critics to actually start enforcing their morality upon others and more importantly the FICTIONAL content of video games. It removes all focus from the actual game design from a mechanical and emotional perspective of the playthrough that a user would receive.

If anything the best critics are able to explain the mechanics and if those mechanics are executed well enough that the experience that critic is playing through is an enjoyable experience in relation to the content that the game strives to be.

What we don't need are people who are somehow criticizing a game and are incapable to actually explain anything further than "This game offends my personal morality". It's fine if you are offended but it's not fine when said critic is given a platform to enforce that personal morality onto others where everyone else should not only have their own voice but more than likely not going to share the same values and morality as said critic.

SKBPinkie:
Fuck, no.

A review is there to tell me about everything I need to know about a game from a consumer's perspective. It's a technical report on what's in the game, how the mechanics work, what kind of storytelling is there, how the controls work, how it performs, etc.

What this dude is talking about is a blog post. And that's fine; it has its place. But trying to replace an actual review with details about how it made the reviewer "feel" is utter garbage. It's useless to a consumer who needs information before making a purchasing decision.

It's actually very useful information-- certainly moreso than the "sound" and "graphics" categories that you see on a lot of game reviews.

Saying "this game was fun when it did X, but Y part was boring" is vital information in a review.

On the other hand, I think reviewers like Angry Joe are a good example of what they mean. Yes he lets his emotions get the better of him, but as a trade-of you can always rest assured that his opinions will always be fully honest. And in that regard they're more trustworthy than a lot of reviews from major outlets like IGN and Gamespot.

Another example would be Totalbiscuit, although he adamantly insists he doesn't do reviews but first impressions videos, he doesn't hide it if he doesn't care for a particular title, or even entire genre, but he'll give credit where credit's due.

And these kind of reviewers are very valid ways to get informed about whether you should buy a title, you learn their personalities, their likes, and dislikes and contrast them against your own. I know there's things that I like that TB doesn't like, so if he doesn't like a particular feature for a specific reason I know that I'll probably like it, so that's useful information for me.

You can be angry without being a raging twit. I'm pretty sure many of us here wouldn't keep on tuning into Moviebob's reviews if he never went on his disgruntled rants about why a movie fails to perform, but he remains well spoken, so again, his anger is a very useful source of information to us.

And with these rants we actually learn something that you don't get in more "formal" reviews who'll at best say they didn't care for the graphics or thought the mechanics could be tighter, rather than explaining and showcasing why that's the case. (Yet another reason why the text review is probably going to continue to lose ground to the video as you can immediately show what you mean)

UltimatheChosen:

SKBPinkie:
Fuck, no.

A review is there to tell me about everything I need to know about a game from a consumer's perspective. It's a technical report on what's in the game, how the mechanics work, what kind of storytelling is there, how the controls work, how it performs, etc.

What this dude is talking about is a blog post. And that's fine; it has its place. But trying to replace an actual review with details about how it made the reviewer "feel" is utter garbage. It's useless to a consumer who needs information before making a purchasing decision.

It's actually very useful information-- certainly moreso than the "sound" and "graphics" categories that you see on a lot of game reviews.

Saying "this game was fun when it did X, but Y part was boring" is vital information in a review.

Of course it is, but what exactly makes it fun / boring is crucial. And what I get from this dude's speech is that they need to focus more on the "emotion" side of things rather than the gory details.

What a reviewer may find boring may happen to be something I like. But if he just says it's boring, I get nothing out of it.

If I may rant for just one moment;

I tuned into the Critical Proximity Twitch stream at around 8:00pm EST and I ended up catching a presentation that was already half-over. I honestly had no idea what the talk was about, although if I had to take a guess it probably had to do with video game criticism backlash. A very short while after I tuned in, the speaker brought up the examples of the backlash against Gone Home and Dear Esther reviews along with Carolyn Petit's GTA V review. The speaker then said, quite bluntly, that the people who complained over those reviews "shouldn't be confused for having enthusiasm for video games," (or something to that effect) and he quickly continued to indirectly insult those people. The moment he finished his current sentence, the crowd gave a loud and enthusiastic applause.

That really pissed me off.

Rather than showing a willingness to talk or reason with the dissenters, that whole moment showed that the critics were completely ready to engage in the same group-mentality hatred that had been thrown their way. No-one is going to get anywhere if both sides determined on hating each other, and the people who have professional stakes in the matter (the critics) should know better.

V8 Ninja:
If I may rant for just one moment;

I tuned into the Critical Proximity Twitch stream at around 8:00pm EST and I ended up catching a presentation that was already half-over. I honestly had no idea what the talk was about, although if I had to take a guess it probably had to do with video game criticism backlash. A very short while after I tuned in, the speaker brought up the examples of the backlash against Gone Home and Dear Esther reviews along with Carolyn Petit's GTA V review. The speaker then said, quite bluntly, that the people who complained over those reviews "shouldn't be confused for having enthusiasm for video games," (or something to that effect) and he quickly continued to indirectly insult those people. The moment he finished his current sentence, the crowd gave a loud and enthusiastic applause.

That really pissed me off.

Rather than showing a willingness to talk or reason with the dissenters, that whole moment showed that the critics were completely ready to engage in the same group-mentality hatred that had been thrown their way. No-one is going to get anywhere if both sides determined on hating each other, and the people who have professional stakes in the matter (the critics) should know better.

I personally enjoyed the fact that the people who support this stuff weren't able to take any sort of critique when it came to the moderation of the twitch chat. The person who the channel was being very ban happy when people just expressed that they didn't enjoy the lecture. And there was even one guy when I criticized the mod for not at least giving the benefit of the doubt and trying to make the chat a more enjoyable experience instead of being ban happy using my own personal experience moderating channels where viewers range from 1k to 3k. I'm the one that gets called an idiot from the very people who call themselves critics that staunchly support lectures like this. So the people who are supposed to be creating a safe space and such are incapable of following their own rules and will resort to insulting people instead of actually understanding the criticism.

Personally I find it to be a tragedy that organizations like this exist where they create their own echo chamber where they turn anything they perceive as insulting as somehow against their cause. Instead of giving the benefit of the doubt and actually treating people as individuals and actually understand that banning people is the worst thing you can do to cultivate a positive following online.

Tenmar:

V8 Ninja:
snip

I personally enjoyed the fact that the people who support this stuff weren't able to take any sort of critique when it came to the moderation of the twitch chat. The person who the channel was being very ban happy when people just expressed that they didn't enjoy the lecture. And there was even one guy when I criticized the mod for not at least giving the benefit of the doubt and trying to make the chat a more enjoyable experience instead of being ban happy using my own personal experience moderating channels where viewers range from 1k to 3k. I'm the one that gets called an idiot from the very people who call themselves critics that staunchly support lectures like this. So the people who are supposed to be creating a safe space and such are incapable of following their own rules and will resort to insulting people instead of actually understanding the criticism.

Personally I find it to be a tragedy that organizations like this exist where they create their own echo chamber where they turn anything they perceive as insulting as somehow against their cause. Instead of giving the benefit of the doubt and actually treating people as individuals and actually understand that banning people is the worst thing you can do to cultivate a positive following online.

Oh wow, I didn't even know about the ban-happy Twitch chat situation. That makes me respect the group even less.

And, you know, I'm not even mad that the critics are angry. When thousands of anonymous people tell you that your work is stupid and undeniably incorrect, I have no right to say that you're wrong for being upset. But counteracting those points with responses that echo the original hate-filled comments accomplishes nothing, makes the reviewers look petty, and at worst only fuels the flames of the argument.

V8 Ninja:

Oh wow, I didn't even know about the ban-happy Twitch chat situation. That makes me respect the group even less.

And, you know, I'm not even mad that the critics are angry. When thousands of anonymous people tell you that your work is stupid and undeniably incorrect, I have no right to say that you're wrong for being upset. But counteracting those points with responses that echo the original hate-filled comments accomplishes nothing, makes the reviewers look petty, and at worst only fuels the flames of the argument.

That's why I don't like a lot of these organizations that are created. They are essentially creating their own self manufactured rhetoric regardless if it was trolling or actual criticism that they take offense to because they disagree and don't like to hear that people don't like their content.

It's all too easy to position yourself as some moral figure instead of trying to actually just treat other people who have a different opinion. Especially when people decide to post on twitter and try and garner support from their peers that they were in the right despite being the only person who actually insulted another person.
https://twitter.com/TheGameCritique/status/445355104808759296

I have no problem supporting critics but when you have people who try and de-legitimize other people who actually take the time and explain everything in context and the only thing they can do is be insulting it's hard to actually figure out why anyone should support organizations like this.

That is why I only like Twitter in terms of marketing/promotion and not be a place to create an echo chamber where people only say nice things to you.

Greg Tito:
Games journalism and criticism needs to eschew academic restraints, and use personal bias and anger to drive the conversation about games.

Sorry but since when did game journalism catered to any academic standards? It's nothing personal but I believe you guys could never maintain any degree of objectivity often proving prone to hype and developer promises. If game journalists want to embrace more personal style in their writing fine by me, we still have video sites and message boards to provide us with necessary feedback concerning games we wish to buy. Just don't complain when people will start labelling you propaganda tubes for developers and spoiled children that cannot maintain any degree of professionalism.

Brice believes too much of our games criticism is ruled by the "specter" of object analysis. A game is an object, and we get too caught up in describing the thing, the music, the mechanics, the fun. Like the New Games Journalism which injected a personal narrative into playing a game, creating travelogues to imaginary words, Brice thinks New Games Criticism should embrace the self of the author when criticizing games.

Yes because this is what journalism should be, an objective analysis. If you want to write something much more personal write it on your blog or make a video series (jimquisition comes to mind), don't pollute gaming press with more unhealthy habits.

The article is discussing the more scholarly sort of criticism. Specifically excluding reviews and media bits. Think the guys who sit around discussing the symbolism of the color red in movies in 1986, and write books on it and so forth.

So they're not talking about consumer reviews, or even VLOG type stuff like Jimquisition.

Past that, I really have no interest in the topic at hand, so I didn't really read the rest.

Imagine if books were reviewed purely on quality of paper used, security of binding, typeface, number of individual words used etc. Still doesn't give a sense of whether I want to buy the book.

Also, criticism =/= review. There is a place for writing-about-games that isn't consumer advice. If that writing is good, or thought-provoking, why should it not be published professionally?

I strongly disagree, we have too much of that already. Half of what's damaging gaming right now is that the gaming media (as a whole) allows too many people to yell and scream their dissenting opinions, at a time when people need to step back and consider things a lot more rationally. Games tend to get tied into a lot more issues than they really should, especially seeing as they have unfortunately become a platform some people like to use to express their own idealogy and politics, and then get all upset when someone else who does the same and happens to disagree with them vehemently.

As a sort of point, look at the current state of games where all the yelling, screaming, and political posturing has created an environment where pretty much the only enemies you can safely use are zombies, Nazis, and aliens. Try and do a game involving say Russians, Chinese, Arabs, or whatever else, then all of a sudden screaming dissenters will appear from the woodwork and try and tear you down for being an evil bigot. The kind of reaction which hit say "Resident Evil 5" for showing tribesmen as tribesmen (and nothing all that different from national geographic) and pretty much ensured game companies aren't going to be in a big hurry to set many more games in Africa. Not to mention comments (some joking, many not) about Uncharted being racist, and the "pulp" type adventure vibe used in that game and Lara Croft being "offensive" to indigenous peoples because these guys raid ancient ruins and treasures for their own benefit.

"South Park: The Stick Of Truth" actually skewered this, and even outright spelled out what they were mocking. Not to mention even making a joke that when using the most sanitary and politically correct enemy available: the tired "Nazi Zombie" someone STILL objected (a german doctor who claims it was an offensive stereotype before getting gunned down), perhaps kind of ironic given that even with something this tired Germany called for this to be censored, making that scene even more funny given how oddly prophetic it was of the entire thing.

The point is more academic detachment is what's needed, not people shouting fire about how this is offensive, or that's offensive, or how a game shouldn't do this, or that, or the other things. It gets to the point where if current trends continue we're going to probably have to go back to pong. What we need actually is more of a concerted effort to keep that kind of thing out of gaming entirely. An actual effort should be made to pretty much deny any kind of large platform to people who want to make a message about video games and their content, whether it's sexism, racism, graphic violence, actual sex, or whatever else. Talk about the game, what it does, and whether it works, not what your opinion is about Nathan Drake stealing an Incan treasure, followed by a paragraph of hang wringing about the rights of indigenous peoples, people who don't like old school pulp-treasure hunting probably aren't considering the game to begin with, in order to want to know if it works or not, which is what they are looking to the game media for information on.

In short what I think we need is far more reviewers, and a lot less critics. Sure a modern FPS shooter might absolutely reek of pro-American jingoism and seemingly encourage military adventurism, especially to someone who doesn't like the US. The heroic American Flag imagery in the promotions, voiceovers by guys like Oliver North (in some cases), and similar things make that bloody obvious. The guy who bothers to look it up wants to know if the game is decent at what it does, not your opinion of the subject matter, and whether or not it should be selling millions upon millions of copies globally in your opinion. My opinion is exactly the opposite of what's posited in the article.

I say this largely because I've occasionally found it hard to really get good information on a game (including one that has already sold tons of copies, making opinions about content irrelevant), because it seems every source wants to spend the majority of the time ranting about the premise/content either to attack it or defend it. I'm not a big fan of shooters though, I just use them as the common example of a game type that falls prey to this.

Tenmar:

V8 Ninja:

Oh wow, I didn't even know about the ban-happy Twitch chat situation. That makes me respect the group even less.

And, you know, I'm not even mad that the critics are angry. When thousands of anonymous people tell you that your work is stupid and undeniably incorrect, I have no right to say that you're wrong for being upset. But counteracting those points with responses that echo the original hate-filled comments accomplishes nothing, makes the reviewers look petty, and at worst only fuels the flames of the argument.

That's why I don't like a lot of these organizations that are created. They are essentially creating their own self manufactured rhetoric regardless if it was trolling or actual criticism that they take offense to because they disagree and don't like to hear that people don't like their content.

It's all too easy to position yourself as some moral figure instead of trying to actually just treat other people who have a different opinion. Especially when people decide to post on twitter and try and garner support from their peers that they were in the right despite being the only person who actually insulted another person.
https://twitter.com/TheGameCritique/status/445355104808759296

I have no problem supporting critics but when you have people who try and de-legitimize other people who actually take the time and explain everything in context and the only thing they can do is be insulting it's hard to actually figure out why anyone should support organizations like this.

That is why I only like Twitter in terms of marketing/promotion and not be a place to create an echo chamber where people only say nice things to you.

I find it ironic, that these people even dare to run this attitude. After all, a game critic is actually dependant on people reading his stuff, otherwise hes just a pretentious ponce with too much freetime.

On a more serious note, I can understand why some of the more vile responses to certain Reviews can prompt a critic to be upset. Stuff like Dear Esther prompted a whole shitstorm, with people insulting each other's standards or Reviews. But there WERE actually people writing reasonable reponses, and making arguments and good points on why they disliked the Game and would disagree with certain Reviews. Bunching them together with the common Troll, and then driving some half-assed snarky attitude is not one IOTA better than the Troll himself.

I think he means criticism in general, not just reviews. Personally i would agree that all too often people hide behind the idea of 'objectivity'. Just look at some of the gutless 7/10 reviews for Dungeon Keeper Mobile. Jim Sterling had the balls to write an honest review and rightly got kudos for it.

In terms of articles and editorial pieces we definitely need more people able to stick to their guns. The 'Journalists' at Gamespot, IGN and Gametrailers etc only ever make soft PR fluff pieces and make no legitimate contribution to the debate.

I have removed my words from this site.

I think games criticism needs more 'show, not tell'. Indeed, that's what games do best.

More than being 'angry', or even emotional over being academic, critics need to vary the ways that they get their voice out, otherwise you end up unconvincing.

I largely don't hold to certain reviewers, but Jim is a notable exception. I feel as though I CAN see his perspective on things, because he has the additional outlets of his Youtube channel. Jimquisition helps too.

A large reason why I think Let's Play's are popular these days is due to their simple nature of 'pick up a game, blabber over it' reveals both the game and the gamer. It's an interesting take with a plethora of perspectives.

If more reviewers, say got around to streaming the games they like to play, so that their gaming perspective was better understood, I think I'd follow more closely. Conversely for LP'ers too; If some LP'ers, say Arin of Game Grumps could get around to some good writing on games, I'd be in love. XD

Ultimately, variety is the spice of games criticism life these days.

EDIT: I also think that games criticism could stand to pull its head back a bit from the 'games industry' stink cloud. Focus more on the games, instead of getting us to buy or not buy.

I have removed my words from this site.

Hey, yeah, guy who thinks he's super smart, a question is not an opinion, and the opinion next to it wasn't formed on the basis of zero experience. There's no irony to be called upon here. Great job trying to be smug, though!

Nobody's saying you're stupid for having an opinion, so no need to rustle those jimmies of yours. It's just that in order to form a cohesive argument for a point of view, there has to be an actual reason behind it. Even if it's based on a prejudice, that prejudice has to be explored, so if we just blindly wave about, nothing is accomplished. Got it?

You don't necessarily need to play games for even an entire week, but you do have to ACTUALLY PLAY THE GAME to have a view to address. There are just many, many, many angry and emotional opinions formed on the internet, based on secondhand accounts of a game, and it sounds like the argument being made here is that those opinions are equally valid somehow because there's a kneejerk reaction behind it, and not because those points of view have a leg to stand on.

Back when Jimothy Sterling discussed this, a lot of people thought he was saying that critic's opinions were more worthy than anybody else's (which was not true). He was arguing against the vitriol that you're saying you are also arguing against. However, IN THIS ARTICLE, there is also an argument that we should accept emotions back into game criticism as a fundamental part of the process. However, there isn't any distinction made between emotional responses that add to the process, and those that would actually DETRACT from it, due to them obscuring or commandeering the purpose of the things being said.

If there was anything in this session that clarified this point, it wasn't recorded in the article.

This stance puts the other argument against death threats and such at odds, because those death threats are also opinions. Therefore, this actually makes it look like the position is "critic's opinions are worth more than anybody else's" even though it may have not been the intent.

DeadpanLunatic:
snip

There is a major difference between reading comments and reading feedback. And considering you decided to type this into your post when you are advocating for safe spaces for everyone...

DeadpanLunatic:
The idea that you are moderating anything fills me with despair.

I don't see why you deserve any sort of support when you violate the very same safe space advocacy that you claim to support. The same also applies to that person who decided to call me an idiot both in chat and on twitter because the difference between you two and myself is that I don't have to insult anyone when I demonstrate that I disagree with the methods used when it comes to moderation. Nor do I violate the very safe space approach that you and others advocate for. I know how to be civil to people and treat people as individuals instead of clumping up people into groups.

Also your twitter feed only demonstrates that you decide to not be civil as you advocate that there should be safe spaces. Doesn't help that you decide to call people "troublemakers" when you could instead be focused on building rapport and learn how to make the next set of lectures more enjoyable and more welcoming to everyone. https://twitter.com/JohannesKoeller

I was applying my experience of over half a year moderating multiple twitch channels which range from 200 users up to a max of 3k users. This compared to your person who was moderating less than 150 people in chat. Yet the first resort of moderation from that person wasn't to give users the benefit of the doubt, or to be accommodating to new viewers who stumbled upon in there like myself coming in due to the escapist making the panel an enjoyable stream. The first thing that person did when people stated that they didn't like a certain lecture was banning people. But to try and clump everything as trolling only does your organization a disservice to what you want to promote in the way of criticism when your own organization can't take actual criticism with feedback that comes from experience. The very experience that your own lecturers were sharing on that stream.

EDIT: Oh and the lecture on "new formalism" where you cropped that picture. Yeah I didn't like it. Even after reading the transcript(which was given to me by another member who also shared a dislike for that lecture and not your moderator) I didn't see any real connection to what he was lecturing about when it came to video games. The only thing I could potentially see from that lecture was the trying to create a classification of people who designed games that presented a very specific rhetoric. Even when he went into the history as he mentions all these sources of "formalism" he writes to be insulting towards white men. So one group of formalists he insults and that has no connection to other formalists he identifies through other mediums such as hip-hop. Yeah that lecture wasn't really all that important because it wasn't actually doing any service towards the hobby of games but instead trying to create a group that he could promote that he is an expert on and should be deemed an authority.

@AGBear This is one of the troublemakers from chat. I reported them on the site, hope it helps.— Joe Köller (@JohannesKoeller) March 17, 2014

You also resort to reporting me on this site when I haven't violated any forum rules and haven't insulted you in any sort of capacity. Hell, ya even decide to call me a troll via twitter instead of giving me the benefit of the doubt and get to know me. Ya just retweet the guy that called me an idiot and you decide to call me a troll. How do you expect to build positive rapport when all your actions are the ones that are actually negative and hostile and lack any criticism to a person who actually gave criticism and was able to express their opinion without resulting to insults?

One of the chat trolls came from a forum I used to go to. Time to derp a mod at their home I suppose.— Joe Köller (@JohannesKoeller) March 17, 2014

Uh, no. Seriously, no.

This isn't about keeping gaming away from more academic critique, but rather personal observation that bias and anger stop conversation, not move it forward. Academic writing is by and large a sales pitch for your opinion, theory, philosophy, or whatever, not just a statement of it. You have to convince people through reason or evidence, of what you're selling, and ideas that put the quality of said reason or evidence into question hurt the work. Bias, by making any evidence or reason seem invalid because personal preference causes the falsification, distortion, or omition of things to make your claim more valid than it really is. Anger by coming off as defensive to any opinions not your own, and showing even an unwillingness to engage detractors, even indirectly, because you don't actually want conversation or discussion, but rather praise. It's a concept that actually tries to lower an already low quality bar on video game journalism by removing any form of of standards on how to present and make an argument, so that the the writer has as little to concern themselves with as possible.

"This is what I think" is not journalistic or academic. It's a forum post with pretensions. I get that game journalism is a lot of freelance writing and is hardly a university or the New York Times, but we don't do the medium any favors by keeping the bar low. The low bar itself should have most game journalists a bit more humbler just by virtue that they aren't peer reviewed, or even put through a stringent editor before publishing. Moving conversation forward does not mean falling on bad debate habits, it means improving your argument's form and foundation.

I have removed my words from this site.

SKBPinkie:
Of course it is, but what exactly makes it fun / boring is crucial. And what I get from this dude's speech is that they need to focus more on the "emotion" side of things rather than the gory details.

What a reviewer may find boring may happen to be something I like. But if he just says it's boring, I get nothing out of it.

I don't think that's what he's saying at all.

I think his point is that a lot of critics are trying to emulate ordinary journalism and sound professionally neutral-- but they also need to convey a viewpoint on the game, since it is a review. Which, in my opinion, is an undesirable hybrid.

If you're writing a review, you don't need to sound uninvested or neutral. The whole point is to have an opinion, and I think he's saying that critics need to embrace that.

DeadpanLunatic:
I'm loath to repeat myself, so let's keep this short.

Tenmar:

I don't see why you deserve any sort of support when you violate the very same safe space advocacy that you claim to support.

Here's the deal: Safe spaces aren't about having to include everyone at all costs. They aren't about waltzing in and demanding that people make room for you and your opinions. They are about showing the people around you respect, which you have done a very poor job of from the moment you started defending the hate speech of the other late arrivals and banging on about how much more qualified you were to moderate the stream. Somebody else's stream. If you think you know how to be polite, you might be surprised to learn how you come off.

Hell, ya even decide to call me a troll via twitter instead of giving me the benefit of the doubt and get to know me. Ya just retweet the guy that called me an idiot and you decide to call me a troll. How do you expect to build positive rapport when all your actions are the ones that are actually negative and hostile and lack any criticism to a person who actually gave criticism and was able to express their opinion without resulting to insults?

Yes, I insulted you. Outside of that space, mind, but what I say about you and your work isn't exactly pleasant. Now realize that this is exactly what you've been saying about me and my work. Here, there and here again. I did get to know you, through what you said. Why do you think it's my responsibility to give you the benefit of the doubt, and not yours to not make a complete ass of yourself in the first place? What makes you think that after that introduction I would be interested in building rapport with you, yet another anonyomous voice in my internet presence?

Rhethorical questions. I'm out, so you'll have to stalk me on Twitter looking for clues that your profound criticism rattled my existence. Have fun, enjoy your victory :)

What victory? I was just having a conversation with you. I'm just disagreeing and pointing out as to why the method you are interacting with other people doesn't actually build that rapport needed to cultivate a positive experience that you lament when people express disagreement or a dislike in your content.

But just keep in mind that I wasn't the one that had to resort to insults, you and your peers were. You may not like that I'm criticizing you for that and I can understand that you might find me dis-pleasurable, but I'm not the one that needs to do any sort of reflecting in how I interact with people. I've at least treated you with respect by disagreeing with you and being able to say I dislike the content or the actions of the mod. You and said individual on twitter decided to be insult me on twitter instead of getting to know me and giving me benefit of the doubt.

I should also say that I treat you and the mod and others as individuals. You, on the other hand are taking the easy way out and try and clump people who disagree with you as people who are defending "hate speech". Which shows you aren't really interested in treating people and getting to know people as individuals when it comes to social interactions. Plenty of people are open to getting along with each other but your continuous actions demonstrate quite the opposite that you'd rather make opponents than friends.

 

Reply to Thread

Your account does not have posting rights. If you feel this is in error, please contact an administrator. (ID# 54106)