All Newbies Read This Before Posting

[Vagrant0]

The above post by LadyMilla is an excellent way of looking at it. I will further clarify a key difference:

 

Criticism:

 

"I don't like the AR-15 rifle"

 

Constructive Criticism:

 

"I don't like the AR-15 rifle because the barrel is much longer than any real-world barrel.

 

Your example of constructive criticism is not really all that constructive either, to be honest. Adding "and here's a picture for reference" would help a lot more. Bben46 got it right.

While that is true, not everyone has such a picture and it is kinda selfish for the author to expect that everyone responding with something like this do the work. The important part however is that the comment was phrased in a way which is both respectful toward the author and that the comment was something constructive. Both must be present. If the comment were phrased instead like:

Are you stupid? Your barrel is too <expletive deleted> long and looks like <expletive deleted> <expletive deleted>. Learn to <expletive deleted> use google <expletive deleted> images <expletive deleted> <expletive deleted>! This mod is <expletive deleted> I hope you <expletive deleted>!

 

<image link, showing the gun in some crappy perspective that makes it entirely worthless for the purpose of scale>

 

I even included an image for you <expletive deleted>. Learn to <expletive deleted> do better, or <expletive deleted>. You make me <expletive deleted> sick!.

Despite the fact that this is technically constructive, it is both hostile and disrespectful of the author, and would almost certainly respond to this person defending the author and including his own insults toward this person, eventually spinning out of control, causing the author to just pull his works, and solve nothing. Which is why responses like this usually result in an immediate ban, and why the policy exists. And yes, there have been many such responses actually left in comment threads (most without so much as linking the image), so don't even try to say that something as ridiculously offensive as this would not happen.

Edited November 26, 2010 by Vagrant0

[Pitchguest]

@Vagrant0

 

While that is true, not everyone has such a picture and it is kinda selfish for the author to expect that everyone responding with something like this do the work. The important part however is that the comment was phrased in a way which is both respectful toward the author and that the comment was something constructive. Both must be present. If the comment were phrased instead like:

Are you stupid? Your barrel is too <expletive deleted> long and looks like <expletive deleted> <expletive deleted>. Learn to <expletive deleted> use google <expletive deleted> images <expletive deleted> <expletive deleted>! This mod is <expletive deleted> I hope you <expletive deleted>!

 

<image link, showing the gun in some crappy perspective that makes it entirely worthless for the purpose of scale>

 

I even included an image for you <expletive deleted>. Learn to <expletive deleted> do better, or <expletive deleted>. You make me <expletive deleted> sick!.

Despite the fact that this is technically constructive, it is both hostile and disrespectful of the author, and would almost certainly respond to this person defending the author and including his own insults toward this person, eventually spinning out of control, causing the author to just pull his works, and solve nothing. Which is why responses like this usually result in an immediate ban, and why the policy exists. And yes, there have been many such responses actually left in comment threads (most without so much as linking the image), so don't even try to say that something as ridiculously offensive as this would not happen.

 

I would go even further and suggest that constructive comments have to include ideas on how to fix it as well, or it wouldn't be all that constructive, would it? It's like saying, "I don't like the ripples in the water, they're unrealistic," suggesting the modder has done something to change the ripples in the water. How is that anyway constructive? I don't mean they would all have to be well versed in graphics programs and the like, I mean if they don't like it and want it changed for something better then the least they can do is give some sort of idea of what they want, or add a picture for reference, to clue the author in what could be changed and what should be changed. And I don't agree with your assessment entirely that all modders should be brown-nosed to any and all regards, in my opinion they should all take it with a pinch of salt - who discontinues their mod for a few bad comments, for instance? Attention seekers, that's who.

 

But I suppose it's better to let their creative juices flowing rather than stemming the tide, as it were, and while your example comment of bad constructive criticism was over the top and a tad onesided, I know not all constructive comments can be, shall we say, polite? So I'll concede you that point. Still, if you're going to add some constructive thought, wouldn't it better if you put some effort into it?

[Vagrant0]

I would go even further and suggest that constructive comments have to include ideas on how to fix it as well, or it wouldn't be all that constructive, would it? It's like saying, "I don't like the ripples in the water, they're unrealistic," suggesting the modder has done something to change the ripples in the water. How is that anyway constructive? I don't mean they would all have to be well versed in graphics programs and the like, I mean if they don't like it and want it changed for something better then the least they can do is give some sort of idea of what they want, or add a picture for reference, to clue the author in what could be changed and what should be changed. And I don't agree with your assessment entirely that all modders should be brown-nosed to any and all regards, in my opinion they should all take it with a pinch of salt - who discontinues their mod for a few bad comments, for instance? Attention seekers, that's who.

 

But I suppose it's better to let their creative juices flowing rather than stemming the tide, as it were, and while your example comment of bad constructive criticism was over the top and a tad onesided, I know not all constructive comments can be, shall we say, polite? So I'll concede you that point. Still, if you're going to add some constructive thought, wouldn't it better if you put some effort into it?

First off, it's impractical to think that everyone who would comment to a mod either knows what the heck they're talking about, or has any understanding as to what is done by that mod. Afterall, to even provide an example in that situation, the person making the comment would have to have some idea as to what specifically can be done. No, it's not a constructive comment, but is instead an irrelevant one. If it seems to be something maligned, or if the uploader wants it gone, it is usually removed. But normally a comment like this would stand since it makes the one who posted it look foolish, and can serve as a means of seeing a trend among that users comments. If occasional stupidity were a bannable offense, we would have trouble keeping ahead of it all.

 

I never suggested that modders should be "brown nosed", I said that the comments directed toward them be civil and respectful of the works. If you can't differentiate between being civil and kissing up to someone, that sounds like your own social problem. There is such a thing as respectful disagreement and criticism. You just don't see it often because it's easier to trash someone's work than it is to explain both what and why something isn't right in your opinion. But in the same token, you can't really expect that person who you are openly hostile with and have just insulted to listen to your suggestions/demands about what YOU think is right. Ultimately, it's THEIR MOD, THEIR DECISION. Being hostile about suggestions only makes it less likely that any of them will be listened to.

[JimboUK]

Wait, is constructive criticism "Do" or "Don't" I'm sorry if i seem like a noob (if that's what you call people who don't know what they're talking about in the "Nexus Forums") but i don't understand.

Can you please clarify.

 

Other then that thanks for the update for this thread.

 

As others have said being constructive is stating politely what the issue is and how it might be addressed. An example might be a pistol that in the real world uses 9mm ammo but the modder has used 10mm instead. The correct way would be "I like this but the (insert pistol name here) uses 9mm ammo, it might be worth changing this to reflect that. Note the use of "might" instead of "should", one is a suggestion, the other is awfully close to an instruction. The incorrect way is "This sucks the (insert pistol name here) doesn't use 10mm ammo." The "I want to be banned" way is "what did you use 10mm for you dick".

 

Pointing out that something isn't lore friendly is not constructive, 99% of the time it's a statement of the obvious that is of no use to anyone. The same with "I think that character looks ugly", again this doesn't help anyone as attractiveness is subjective. If You Have Nothing Nice to Say, Say Nothing At All is the best way.

[phoneyLogic]

Yep, a constructive criticism tries to point out upsides or downsides of a mod, But this also implies that the critic actually faced the mod and its intentions (that's why the waiting time has been introduced. Before that, people tended to rate a mod instantly after downloading, even without testing). The comment zone is a very important feedback for the mod author. And a critic, who provides useful feedback, also has a better chance of beeing take into account. Otherwise he might just get ignored.

 

Maybe here is an example for a *not really* constuctive comment / criticism:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TT8sl9ZyICE

:P

Edited November 27, 2010 by tortured Tomato

[Pitchguest]

I would go even further and suggest that constructive comments have to include ideas on how to fix it as well, or it wouldn't be all that constructive, would it? It's like saying, "I don't like the ripples in the water, they're unrealistic," suggesting the modder has done something to change the ripples in the water. How is that anyway constructive? I don't mean they would all have to be well versed in graphics programs and the like, I mean if they don't like it and want it changed for something better then the least they can do is give some sort of idea of what they want, or add a picture for reference, to clue the author in what could be changed and what should be changed. And I don't agree with your assessment entirely that all modders should be brown-nosed to any and all regards, in my opinion they should all take it with a pinch of salt - who discontinues their mod for a few bad comments, for instance? Attention seekers, that's who.

 

But I suppose it's better to let their creative juices flowing rather than stemming the tide, as it were, and while your example comment of bad constructive criticism was over the top and a tad onesided, I know not all constructive comments can be, shall we say, polite? So I'll concede you that point. Still, if you're going to add some constructive thought, wouldn't it better if you put some effort into it?

First off, it's impractical to think that everyone who would comment to a mod either knows what the heck they're talking about, or has any understanding as to what is done by that mod. Afterall, to even provide an example in that situation, the person making the comment would have to have some idea as to what specifically can be done. No, it's not a constructive comment, but is instead an irrelevant one. If it seems to be something maligned, or if the uploader wants it gone, it is usually removed. But normally a comment like this would stand since it makes the one who posted it look foolish, and can serve as a means of seeing a trend among that users comments. If occasional stupidity were a bannable offense, we would have trouble keeping ahead of it all.

 

I never suggested that modders should be "brown nosed", I said that the comments directed toward them be civil and respectful of the works. If you can't differentiate between being civil and kissing up to someone, that sounds like your own social problem. There is such a thing as respectful disagreement and criticism. You just don't see it often because it's easier to trash someone's work than it is to explain both what and why something isn't right in your opinion. But in the same token, you can't really expect that person who you are openly hostile with and have just insulted to listen to your suggestions/demands about what YOU think is right. Ultimately, it's THEIR MOD, THEIR DECISION. Being hostile about suggestions only makes it less likely that any of them will be listened to.

 

Well I didn't actually say that everyone who comments has to have a grasp on what they're talking about, just the ones who criticize - and if they're going to criticize, then at least they should put some thought into it. Which is kind of the point of a constructive comment. Now I'm not sure what you mean by saying that's irrelevant, as it's clearly not, and you also seem go on about it being malignant. Why carefully thought-out constructive criticisms were to be malignant in any way I can't fathom, but I'm going to out on a limb here and assume you went back to your previous example of bad constructive criticism and referenced that as being irrelevant. Which is kind of confusing in the middle of a sentence construct and a no-brainer, but nevermind. Moving on.

 

When I said that modders shouldn't be brown-nosed, I meant in the case of criticism where the commentator overtly praises the modder unnecessarily. Which doesn't mean they cannot criticize civilly, but they add praise when it seems out of place and I've seen a lot of people do it perhaps in a vain attempt to escape the wrath of the moderators. Which is, in my humble opinion, ridiculous.

 

Also, it's true many suggestions can be put forward in a hostile and rude manner, but that doesn't mean their suggestions can't/don't ring true. If the modder outright refuses to at least acknowledge the evidence they've put forth, however rudely or unsightly, then they're just being stubborn. If the critic is rude but points out information that could very well improve the realism of the mod, you could ignore their rudeness but take the information to heart and at the very least see how well it could be implemented. I'm not saying this couldn't be said in a more polite tone, but there you go. Which is why I said that those who discontinue their mods for a few bad comments, or too few endorsements, or what have you, are just looking for attention. However, ultimately, yes, it's their mod. Alas we have no say in their workings, or the workings of the moderators for that matter.

[phoneyLogic]

May I insist, that what a Modder does or not is allone his/her decission. If a critic wants to influence a Modder in a way, he/she should only do it politely.

 

Why?

Because it's all the Modders work, their spare time, their effort - voluntary in its meaning.

 

They decide what they want to do with their spare time and Mods. If they decide to pull them, be it for what ever reason, be fine and don't judge 'em out of the blue.

 

Sometimes it's hard to handle criticism - we all know that - but an author can pull his mods for many reasons, e.g for own quality conserns, because he moved on, because he decided to host somewhere else, because another mod does include it, ... list is long.

 

 

Btw: What is "brown nosed"? Never heard that term.

[BlackBaron2]

Brown-nosing means the exact same thing as kissing someone's butt, in other words trying desperately to get their approval.

[phoneyLogic]

;D very picturesque. Thanks for shedding light upon the ... object.

[Luminiari]

In regards to cursing...

 

I know the obvious F, S and C bombs are a big no-no. But what about the 'B' word (not in relation to a female dog)? I was hoping to change my user title to a Red vs Blue reference that uses that word.