A question about rules

[oldscool]

I noticed the rule at the top of the on the workbench page. Does this mean that I should not reply to a post at all unless it is asked for by the poster?

gus

[Guest]

Gerald, I think it means if you can't say something nice,don't say anything at all unless the builder asks for criticism.

[oldscool]

Well, it states criticisms, sarcasm and other comments so I wasn't sure.

I changed my display name back to oldscool because there is getting to be too many grumpys, grouchys and crankys on the forum.

gus

[Harry P.]

Gregg added that rule after we had yet another flame war, and I guess Gregg had seen just about enough.

However, I think Gregg worded the rule the wrong way. What I think he means is that we need to keep our comments directed at the model, not the person.

Example A: The engine detail looks good, but the ignition wires are a little out of scale. Try a slightly thinner gauge wire next time for more realism.

That comment is directed at the model, and is perfectly legitimate.

Example B: Your engine details are all wrong. Are you too lazy to do basic research?

That comment is directed not at the model, but at the person, and is the kind of comment we need to stay away from.

[oldscool]

Thanks Harry, that makes sense. I haven't been on here much lately as I have been away building airplanes.

gus

[PeterC(MrMondeo)]

but surely if we do say , " That dont look right " then we are in a way having a pop at the builder, and TBH some people are sooooo thin skinned to them a comment about their work, albeit constructive, can be taken to heart and twisted , and then start an arguement ??????????????? just a thought

[Harry P.]

but surely if we do say , " That dont look right " then we are in a way having a pop at the builder, and TBH some people are sooooo thin skinned to them a comment about their work, albeit constructive, can be taken to heart and twisted , and then start an arguement ??????????????? just a thought

I think I explained it pretty clearly. Let's not try to create a problem where there is none.

Thanks Harry, that makes sense. I haven't been on here much lately as I have been away building airplanes.

gus

You know we have an "Other Models" section... right?

[The Modeling Hermit]

Thanks Harry, that makes sense. I haven't been on here much lately as I have been away building airplanes.

gus

I hope you post some pictures of them.

[Robert81]

but surely if we do say , " That dont look right " then we are in a way having a pop at the builder, and TBH some people are sooooo thin skinned to them a comment about their work, albeit constructive, can be taken to heart and twisted , and then start an arguement ??????????????? just a thought

I think I explained it pretty clearly. Let's not try to create a problem where there is none.

No rule is going to fix what goes on here, It's thin skinned Whiners looking for a fight that cause the issues.

Some people just take any Criticism as a personal attack.

I won't name names but that is why this rule is here.

[Lunajammer]

I think everybody is entitled to an opinion, then step aside and allow/respect a rebuttal. Point, counter-point. The end. The dramas I see unfold is when the criticizer can't respect or let go of the response.

[philo426]

As long as the comment is posted in a respectful manner one should not take offense,especially if the poster is correct and there is something wrong/incorrect!

[Scale-Master]

I think everybody is entitled to an opinion, then step aside and allow/respect a rebuttal. Point, counter-point. The end. The dramas I see unfold is when the criticizer can't respect or let go of the response.

Agreed.

But there is something else I have noticed. What I see more often than the actual builder/thread starter lashing out or defending their work (while it does happen...) is people jumping in who are not directly involved with the model at hand, (other than the "critic") under the guise of "defending" the builder/thread starter, and causing causing much of the ruckus. (Can be defined as pot-stirrers.)

Example: Someone asks a question or makes a legitimate comment about the model or subject at hand.

Someone other than the builder/thread starter makes some retort insinuating the comment was (often incorrectly assessed to be) negative or uncalled for, and we're off.

Many times the person that the original comment was offered/made to is not even involved in the resulting mess. If nobody "came to their defense", it is likely no flame war would erupt.

If people, especially and primarily those not involved constructively in these conversations, could refrain from creating a false sense of animosity, I don't think we would have these problems.

Can we get Harry's description inserted into that caveat about comments header? It makes it clear enough.

[Harry P.]

Can we get Harry's description inserted into that caveat about comments header? It makes it clear enough.

I don't have access to that function, otherwise I would have done it. I've asked Gregg a few times already... but so far nothing. Which tells me that the rule as he wrote it is how he wants it.

Which I disagree with. But he's the boss...

[Scale-Master]

The professional "defenders" happen to be a small but dedicated bunch that engage in this behavior over and over again, which suggests that they're not going to stop anytime soon. It's a cute passive-aggressive trick though, because they can get their hits in under the guise of "helping" someone, when in fact they're the ones fabricating an argument (and the drama that follows) where a drama-free discussion once was...

I also have noticed that a significant percentage of these "professional defenders" don't really post much except as instigators or comedy relief players if you will. Not a whole lot in the way of actual building being shared. I realize it is not a rule to have to be a builder or to have to share what you build to be part of the group here. I am not trying to sir anything up, just pointing out an observation...

[CAL]

I just play it safe and dont comment over there any more.

[CAL]

Gregg added that rule after we had yet another flame war, and I guess Gregg had seen just about enough.

However, I think Gregg worded the rule the wrong way. What I think he means is that we need to keep our comments directed at the model, not the person.

Example A: The engine detail looks good, but the ignition wires are a little out of scale. Try a slightly thinner gauge wire next time for more realism.

That comment is directed at the model, and is perfectly legitimate.

Example B: Your engine details are all wrong. Are you too lazy to do basic research?

That comment is directed not at the model, but at the person, and is the kind of comment we need to stay away from.

Well it is not real clear. It sounded like to me when I read the statement is not to make any comment unless specifically aked for by the builder.

I think a whole lot of builders could be missing out on some very helpful commentary and kind of defeats the purposes of the message board.

[Danno]

I have no comment.

(But, if I did, I would agree with the Marks. )

[crazyjim]

This is supposed to be a hobby - let's have FUN!!

[Harry P.]

Well it is not real clear. It sounded like to me when I read the statement is not to make any comment unless specifically aked for by the builder.

That's why I said that Gregg worded the rule wrong!

[oldscool]

Harry, I am sorry that I even got all of this going. As far as comments go, if I see something that impresses me I will say so. If I don't like something i may make a comment along the lines of " it's not my cup of tea" but I never attack anyone.

gus

[Harry P.]

Harry, I am sorry that I even got all of this going. As far as comments go, if I see something that impresses me I will say so. If I don't like something i may make a comment along the lines of " it's not my cup of tea" but I never attack anyone.

gus

No need to be sorry... you didn't do anything wrong!