Matt Colville's Community

[Morrus]

Criticism can be good. There are many ways of and type of criticism.

The problem is that 99% of the time it isn't criticism, it is a statement of preference couched as objective fact--often because folks can have blinkers when it comes to matters of taste. And that riles peoples' goats. Umm. Is "riles peoples' goats" a thing?

 

[Umbran]

Sure. But then it’s not productive, certainly not how I think of the term.

The only thing you can "produce" is changed minds?

I can produce understanding, without having to shift people's positions. I can learn about a book, movie, game, system, technique, etc. without trying to make someone change their opinion of that thing.

 

[The Firebird]

Or the 20k-ish pineapple pizza thread. Fun to post to, sure, certainly not productive. As opposed to the 30k conservatism thread from a few months ago, which was definitely acrimonious but also highly productive.

I'm confused. I took part and I agree that the conservatism thread was highly productive and did a great deal to clarify my own thinking. But I thought that the core disagreements there were fundamentally intractable and I'm not sure anyone changed their minds, in the sense that certain techniques stopped/started bothering them.

As I read Colville, he would say "do not take part in that type of thread but post away on the pineapple one, because then the community will like you". Which makes sense if you are trying to sell something.

 

[Umbran]

Yep. I think dueling criticisms...

The analogies.... Hammers and forges. Weapons. Dueling...

Of course you will generate conflicts, instead of community, if your basic metaphor for talking to someone is a fight.

 

[TwoSix]

The only thing you can "produce" is changed minds?

I can produce understanding, without having to shift people's positions. I can learn about a book, movie, game, system, technique, etc. without trying to make someone change their opinion of that thing.

I don't consider the transfer of information to explain or elucidate to be a discussion. More of a lecture or a teaching session.

What we're doing here, giving clarity into our semantic usage and bouncing different interpretations off of each other, is a productive discussion. Knowing how someone else uses a term will shape my own usage of the term in a slight way by being aware of the possible ambiguity, even if I don't change my mind. You've already swayed me even if I don't suddenly agree with you.

 

[TwoSix]

The analogies.... Hammers and forges. Weapons. Dueling...

Of course you will generate conflicts, instead of community, if your basic metaphor for talking to someone is a fight.

True discussion is inherently conflict-laden, because it's about attempting to find a path forward through an inherent disagreement. Trying to find compromise in disagreement is a conflict right up until both sides agree on the compromise.

Like this post I'm replying to right here, that you just made, is obviously intended for conflict.

 

[TheAlkaizer]

As I read Colville, he would say "do not take part in that type of thread but post away on the pineapple one, because then the community will like you". Which makes sense if you are trying to sell something.

I think the difference is that the pineapple thread is obviously offtopic.

He focuses on communities built around a specific thing (in most cases a product). If we take his own product as example, lots of people get excited for Draw Steel. They get together and they start talking about it. They're positive about the product, but the discussion might be about things they like, things they don't like, what's the best way to play it, what should be avoided. That's all valid discourse. Some might even come and say "I like the game but really dislike how it manages X".

The problem is when you have actors that come in this space for people excited about something, and that they're not excited about that something, and they just want to falsely criticize the product or convince others that they're wrong about it. It's definitely not a majority. The one I see the most (on Reddit specifically) is someone asking a question about 5E. Let's say "I'd like my 5E campaign to be a bit grittier, even though we don't have that many encounters but each encounter is a big deal". Appropriate answers would be discussing why 5E's design is not oriented towards that, what parts of the design are in the way, ways you could go around that. Carefully worded suggestions about alternatives to 5E could even be appropriate.

But I really often see a blunt "5E is just a poorly designed game. It does nothing particularly well. Do yourself a favor and play something else". That right there is not a discussion, it's not a criticism (saying something is bad or imperfect is not criticism) and it doesn't invite neither.

 

[TwoSix]

But I really often see a blunt "5E is just a poorly designed game. It does nothing particularly well. Do yourself a favor and play something else". That right there is not a discussion, it's not a criticism (saying something is bad or imperfect is not criticism) and it doesn't invite neither.

100%. People who makes those kinds of posts should generally be ignored. They're a net negative to the community.

 

[nyvinter]

Sure. But then it’s not productive, certainly not how I think of the term.

I don't know. I knew someone who treated every discussion as a debate. And if you think getting ignored and told to leave/take it somewhere else the moment you post something because everyone is exhausted by the thought of engaging with you is productive, then we have very different definitions.

At the same time, a lot of book circles has been has been productive because it made me see the book in new light, I got some really good food from that evenings host, and just had an excellent time with friends.

 

[TiQuinn]

I think this is common in many "artists". I have a family member who is a great artist, but they refuse to "sell themselves" thinking their art should speak for itself and people should flock to them. As you may have guessed, they are not a financially successful artist.

There's always that part of one's work that they hate, but it's still necessary. It's the difference between this is a job and this is a hobby.

But even when creators do engage with their community, there's a push now for more and more access too, which can end up with these parasocial relationships. So, it's possible to build a community, and then to be engaged with that community in a bad way.