The "L" Word (Lazy) and Armchair Quarterbacking

Ok, so this is a weird topic admittedly. It isn't quite role playing specific, but I've seen a couple of threads spin off the rails when someone uses the word lazy. In fact, I was on one end of such a heated argument (I used the "L" word in regards to a recently released Unearthed Arcana) with [MENTION=6801328]Elfcrusher[/MENTION] on the other side (no hard feelings by the way). Anyways, it seems that once someone begins to use the word lazy, you have individuals fiercely coming to the defense of the product, editor, or author, and then you have individuals digging in regarding their opinion of the work. People get riled up and triggered, "arm-chair quarterback" and "strawman" start getting thrown around, and suddenly the thread becomes something entirely different than what it was meant to become.

So I'm legitimately curious about this phenomenon. I'm not trying to start an argument or get people triggered. I genuinely would like to know people's thoughts. At what point is criticism legitimate, and at what point does it cross a line? When is it ok for a person to vent their frustration with a product (regardless if they use the "L" word or not), and when does it really become an attack?

I understand the internet adds a layer of anonymity, and research shows that without consequences or identity people generally trend towards becoming terrible versions of themselves. But we are also consumers and may have a level of expectation or standard of excellence. And maybe that line changes if you've been playing a while or are new. Maybe it changes if you have experience working on an RPG. But many of us seem to be passionate about this hobby, and that seems to create a powder keg situation when that passion comes out to put us on different sides of how we love and express our love for this game.

And then, there is the idea of the armchair quarterback. Because we do not necessarily engage in professional RPG development, or editing, or whatever, do we have less room to criticize the product or body of work? I'm no chef, but if I spend money and order a dish I don't like or I feel underwhelmed by, I don't feel like I need to be a chef to complain. And for me as I read and experience these arguments, there seems to be a sense that it changes when RPGs are involved. Does it still count as armchair QB'ing if a person regularly posts homebrew content on the forum and leave it open for feedback and criticism? What about people that create for the DMGuild? If I criticize a senator for their voting record, do I have less room to criticize them because I am not trying to run for Senate?

Once again, not trying to troll or trigger people, but these are some of the thoughts that come to mind as I have been through these arguments and I'm really curious about how the community sees these things.

Because you have moved from fact-based argumentation to opinion-based statements.

Lets take the following examples:
Bob the wealthy, well-to-do, kindly noble, with a loving wife and doing children.
vs.
Bob the noble.

The former is certainly more descriptive, more robust, possibly more flavorful. The latter is simpler, less descriptive and potentially less flavorful. BUT, is the latter lazy? Lazy implies that less work was done on the character than should have been (a subjective standard defined only by the person making the lazy claim. Indeed, the claimant could argue that both are lazy and that one should have at least a 10 page backstory detailing the entire family history of Bob the Noble.

We can rationally discuss the amount of information provided, if it is greater or lesser. We can to some degree, infer how much impact more detail vs less might have on the players ability to visualize an NPC. We cannot do any of these things when words like "lazy" start getting tossed around. Especially if the tone becomes accusatory, there's a fairly wide gulf between "Hawk Diesel I think Bob the Noble is lazy on your part." and "Hawk Diesel I think you are a lazy DM!"

As far as armchair quarterbacking goes, the difference is between critique and criticism. Referring to the previous paragraph:
"Hawk Diesel I think Bob the Noble is lazy on your part, and your DMing would improve if you gave Bob a more robust backstory." is an example of critique (while still calling you a lazy DM of course).
However: "Hawk Diesel I think you are a lazy DM!" is just plain old criticism. It doesn't help you by even explaining what you were being lazy on and then fails to add any substantive support to its argument or any constructive advice.

People are quick to criticize because it is easy. It places no burden on them and makes them feel like they've "done their part". (which of course, they haven't). Critique is hard and it provides the target an opportunity to reply, because objective, fact-based discourse can be disputed, but subjective, opinion-based statements can be yelled at, but not really disputed.

--edit: I have no idea why mention tags aren't working for me. Bah.

@shidako Thanks for the response. But I'm curious about a couple of things. What if a poster is just venting an opinion or frustration? And what if they are doing so in a way that it is not directed to anyone on these boards? Sure, it doesn't make for the greatest discourse or thread, and others are certainly capable of voicing their dissent. But it seems in each of the threads I've seen this happen, the focus of the discussion changes from the poster's opinion to denigrating their choice of words.

And what if the opinion is also included in a statement of reasons for the statement, contextualizing the opinion? Regardless of the merits of the opinion, context, reasons, what have you, I see many people become irate by the choice of words and focus of the argument spins into discussion around that.

Of course, maybe I'm basing too much on my limited experience of seeing this. And I'm also not trying to justify calling people lazy or cultivating a culture that allows disrespect on these forums. It's just interesting to me.

Hawk Diesel said:

@shidako Thanks for the response. But I'm curious about a couple of things. What if a poster is just venting an opinion or frustration? And what if they are doing so in a way that it is not directed to anyone on these boards? Sure, it doesn't make for the greatest discourse or thread, and others are certainly capable of voicing their dissent. But it seems in each of the threads I've seen this happen, the focus of the discussion changes from the poster's opinion to denigrating their choice of words.

Click to expand...

Opinion-based statements are statements. As you see, there's no discussion to be had there. The fact that someone vented does not somehow make them immune from someone else feeling like their way of doing things is being targeted. That's sort of the fun of free speech and all that. You can say what you want, but so can everyone else. Which is why its usually good to keep non-constructive commentary limited to blogs and not discussion-based forums.

And what if the opinion is also included in a statement of reasons for the statement, contextualizing the opinion? Regardless of the merits of the opinion, context, reasons, what have you, I see many people become irate by the choice of words and focus of the argument spins into discussion around that.

Click to expand...

Becoming upset that Bob is essentially slandering other people's way of doing things is not an unreasonable response. You can support your reasons for criticism, but still frame the statement in such a way as to make it clear that your reasons are less important than you opinions.

shidaku said:

Bob the wealthy, well-to-do, kindly noble, with a loving wife and doing children.
vs.
Bob the noble.

Click to expand...

Yeah, there's certainly a difference between those two - particularly when one takes the wonderful typo in the first line at face value.

--edit: I have no idea why mention tags aren't working for me. Bah.

Click to expand...

You have to spell the name right. [MENTION=59848]Hawk Diesel[/MENTION] tries to mention you first thing in post 3 but it fails because your name is misspelled...

Lanefan

[MENTION=59848]Hawk Diesel[/MENTION] - I don't think I've read the particular threads that prompted this one, so I don't know the exact context - but if you think something is lazy writing, or lazy design, then I don't see what's wrong with saying as much. I mean, you should expect counter-arguments from people who like the stuff, but that's the nature of criticism.

To me, “lazy” is a personal comment about somebody’s work ethic. It’s not a critique of the material.

I can think of some more "L" words that-- ah, forget that. Its too much work. Someone wanna do that for me and I'll tell you how you did it wrong. What are we talking about again?

Hawk Diesel said:

Ok, so this is a weird topic admittedly. It isn't quite role playing specific, but I've seen a couple of threads spin off the rails when someone uses the word lazy. In fact, I was on one end of such a heated argument (I used the "L" word in regards to a recently released Unearthed Arcana) with [MENTION=6801328]Elfcrusher[/MENTION] on the other side (no hard feelings by the way). Anyways, it seems that once someone begins to use the word lazy, you have individuals fiercely coming to the defense of the product, editor, or author, and then you have individuals digging in regarding their opinion of the work. People get riled up and triggered, "arm-chair quarterback" and "strawman" start getting thrown around, and suddenly the thread becomes something entirely different than what it was meant to become.

So I'm legitimately curious about this phenomenon. I'm not trying to start an argument or get people triggered. I genuinely would like to know people's thoughts. At what point is criticism legitimate, and at what point does it cross a line? When is it ok for a person to vent their frustration with a product (regardless if they use the "L" word or not), and when does it really become an attack?

I understand the internet adds a layer of anonymity, and research shows that without consequences or identity people generally trend towards becoming terrible versions of themselves. But we are also consumers and may have a level of expectation or standard of excellence. And maybe that line changes if you've been playing a while or are new. Maybe it changes if you have experience working on an RPG. But many of us seem to be passionate about this hobby, and that seems to create a powder keg situation when that passion comes out to put us on different sides of how we love and express our love for this game.

And then, there is the idea of the armchair quarterback. Because we do not necessarily engage in professional RPG development, or editing, or whatever, do we have less room to criticize the product or body of work? I'm no chef, but if I spend money and order a dish I don't like or I feel underwhelmed by, I don't feel like I need to be a chef to complain. And for me as I read and experience these arguments, there seems to be a sense that it changes when RPGs are involved. Does it still count as armchair QB'ing if a person regularly posts homebrew content on the forum and leave it open for feedback and criticism? What about people that create for the DMGuild? If I criticize a senator for their voting record, do I have less room to criticize them because I am not trying to run for Senate?

Once again, not trying to troll or trigger people, but these are some of the thoughts that come to mind as I have been through these arguments and I'm really curious about how the community sees these things.

Click to expand...

Well, this is a bit lazy, isn't it? The thread that spawned it has posts that clearly lay out exactly why people find lazy to be unfair, and exactly why it was inappropriate in the case discussed. Also, it clearly laid out the difference between criticism and arm-chair quarterbacking. Being willing to write multiple paragraphs that completely fail to correctly represent the arguments you're questioning while also indicating that you're aware of the source material is seems like you might actually be intentionally stirring the pot. I'll take your word you aren't, though, and just assume you read but didn't understand the multiple explanations in the other thread.

Work cannot be lazy. Only people can be lazy. If you call a work lazy, you are explicitly saying that those that did the work were lazy about it. When the work is an almost 200 page book that has a handful of minor, quickly addressed and corrected errors, that's not lazy, that's accidental. Calling that lazy exposes 1) disrespect for people that actually work hard and 2) a misunderstanding of the work actually involved. Sadly, calling the mistakes lazy might win you points with others inclined to not think through the work and effort involved, but for those that are aware it just marks you as ignorant. Don't be ignorant.

And that led into armchair quarterbacking, which differs from criticism because it assumes the work is a) easy and b) something that the criticizer could do better. Unless you've actually tried to proof a document of that size you really have no idea of the difficulty involved. I didn't. I assumed that since I wrote well and could successfully edit my coursework, that editing was easy. When I joined a team that produced professional technical information on a national scale, I learned that I was grossly in error. Editing large, detailed works where you have to use consistent phrasing to avoid confusion is extremely hard. We had four review cycles, the last two of which involved different teams of professional editors, and we never, never had a document make it through the fourth review without discovering at least one error. And we had a decent bit of slop in our schedules so we could 'slid right' if we needed more time to perfect a copy. Despite all of that, we would occasionally print something in error and have to correct it, so even with a large, well-funded team with independent editing teams in independent reviews, errors can still happen. That certainly isn't lazy.

Mistakes happen. Pointing those mistakes out, even lamenting them, is perfectly good -- even helpful. What's not helpful is assuming that the work is easy (it's not) and leveling insulting terms at the hardworking people that made it (they certainly aren't lazy).

But, hey, I have little belief that this will convince anyone to value other people's work. How many threads do we have that complain about how WotC is screwing them over by expecting them to pay for digital content when they could just pirate it?

I think a big part for me in reading that thread was that the issue of complaint had already been resolved, in several ways, and very, very quickly (and at considerable cost, someone mentioned). None of this was acknowledged by the OP or his supporters, amd none of it evidences laziness.

Sent from my SM-G900P using EN World mobile app