An attempt at constructive criticism

From: Trevor Browne <trevor.browne_at_easynet.co.uk>
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1998 19:21:22 +0100


This is a reply to Peter's reply to my criticism of his posting style. If you understand all that and are bored by the thread please skip down now.:-)

This will be my last word on the digest on this issue as I agree with Peter that this is not the correct forum to continue our discussion. However I invite Peter to reply once more as I do not wish to be accused of having to have the last word.

My following points are made in an attempt to explain my point of view, and are all personal opinion. They are meant in a constructive fashion. I made my
original post in a effort to criticize what I felt was an unnecessary level of aggression within Peter's previous few postings.

To begin with Peter, I would consider your use of the following phrases at the very least impolite.

>finally _explained_
>I shall tell you (again) that it is _wrong_.

In your defense you say

>I don't suffer Arseholes gladly
 

So by implication Steve is an 'Arsehole'. Have we resorted to name calling now.?

>Most of them are however phalanx, peltasts, cavalry etc. That is clear in
the
>literature.

I was under the impression that it was a generally accepted view that a Lunar 'all' was 51%. This implies a lack of standardization within the Lunar Empire. I would have said that left ample room for Steve's interpretation of the literature.

e.g. All Lunar heavy infantry regiments use the phalanx.

Also I repeat my previous view that Glorantha is a fictional construct, evolved over many years by a diverse selection of authors. This is the basis for my argument that your stating of absolute fact is inappropriate. Further I thought that the literature, published, fanzine or whatever was to be considered as if it were primary or secondary evidence. This IMO means that it could contain all the inaccuracy and bias of RW primary evidence. My problem was not with your point of view but with the way you expressed it.

Further to this I disagree with your view that cohort tactics do not require
a highly disciplined army with a skilled officer corps to perform. I also believe you are entitled to that opinion and that we can discuss this in a civilized and genial manner. Not resorting to comments such as 'You should ensure you have gotten your facts straight' would help maintain an atmosphere of friendly discussion. My repetition of your comment was meant to be ironic but as I have no literary pretensions I do not consider this big or clever.

As for my bias I included no attempts at impartiality because mine was not an impartial argument. IMO you were the aggressor in the exchange and IMO therefore at fault. Steve's comments such as 'why are you being so snide' led me to the conclusion he was reacting defensively. My post was titled 'calm down lads' implying that both of you had become heated in the exchange.

>Perhaps you could front up with a few suggestions?

Avoid assertions of absolute fact within a fictional setting. Avoid dismissal of others points without references. Adopt a less confrontational style.
Work on the premise that others opinions are as valid as your own until proven otherwise.
Avoid using derogatory descriptions of others views such as 'rubbish' If you require clarification of a point ask for it don't just dismiss it because you don't understand what they are driving at.

>I fail to see how I can make my strong disapproval of the allegedly
>"perfectly valid point" any less antagonistic.

How about, Steve I strongly disagree with your point that ...

>It's all very well of you to mindread Steve

I used the phrase 'I imagine' to imply speculation as to his thought processes. Not to imply some extrasensory knowledge of his minds workings.

>I would humbly suggest you go back to remedial reading school.

Funnily enough I did go to remedial English classes as a young child and had
quite serious educational difficulties prior to the age of six. However I have since completed two degrees and a post graduate qualification. You will understand therefore if I do not consider your snide remark overly wounding. You may consider this inflammatory but I do not intend it as such.

>Thus one cannot use this nitpick to prove that cohorts require
"extraordinary >amounts of training etc".

I don't consider the difference between the manipular and cohortal systems to
be mere nitpicking. I include this point only as further evidence of your unnecessarily inflammatory style. I further do not claim to be guiltless myself of inflammatory comments or heated discussion. I am merely proposing that we should refrain from comments such as this if we wish to continue a reasoned discussion.

I would be however delighted to continue our discussion regarding the levels
of training required to operate a Cohortal army system either privately or on
the digest.

>I do believe that it is necessary to point out that he is muddying the
waters >rather than clarifying them.

If that is your intention state that, don't just tell him his description is inadequate.

Me
>>A warband is a quite commonly used term in wargames circles in WRG's >>De
Bellis Multitudinis it is defined as 'all irregular foot that rely on an
>>impetuous and ferocious collective charge to sweep away enemy foot,
>>rather than on individual skill.

Peter
>Steve seemed to think the warband meant its members were "typically
>individually brave". So is a warband marked by the Individual Warrior
>or the Collective Charge?

You will notice that the description makes no reference to bravery being subordinated to the charge only skill. So to answer your question I would say the charge is paramount over individual expertise. Not that this means the warriors don't engage in individual melees within the overall movement.

> I'm impressed. You attempt to politely criticize someone and end up
> being all too aware that you have just written an extended personal
> attack.

Depends on your meaning of personal I meant it in the sense it was a criticism of your personal communication style and the way you respond to others posts, rather than a criticism of a point you had raised. I was however aware that it could be construed, that I had some dislike of you as a person outside of the digest and my last paragraph was an attempt to dispel that thought.

> Your lack of suggestions and copping out is duly noted.

I did not include suggestions as I did not want to patronize you by explaining the basics of civilized social interaction, something which most people learn as a child.

Please take this criticism in the way it was meant Peter, as a deliberate attempt to create a better atmosphere within the digest for the exchange of ideas about the fantasy world we all love.

To finish up I genuinely do not wish to see you leave the digest or stop making contributions but I do feel that you could do this in a less aggressive manner.

Trev


Powered by hypermail