critique

I've been trying to track down evidence for the idea that people routinely post more nastily when they don't use their real name. I can't find any. There are theories about this and they make sense but that doesn't mean it's true. Requiring real names would be quite a dramatic change in forum rules.

I understand Ciro's point and I have to ask, shouldn't the same reasoning be applied to characterizing some voices here as "Tarot Taliban"? It's an ad hominem argument--don't listen to so-and-so's ideas because she's Taliban. Calling people Taliban is a contemporary way of saying they're fascists, in my view--not constructive or polite (I find it deeply offensive, actually).

Well, perhaps artists and deck publishers do not actually come out and say "I only want positive feedback" but what I have seen happen time and again, is that when comments that aren't totally gushing are put forth, the artists/publishers get noticeably offended, leave and or say some incredibly nasty stuff about the poster on some other social network....and then quite a few other creators/publishers/fans of those two groups join in on a pile up of bashing the member who had the gall to say something less than positive.

And please don't get me wrong, I have seen very constructive and reasonable criticisms treated as if they were utterly over the top and as rude as hell. How is it so impolite to ask about the printing quality of a certain deck or why the females in a deck seem to be present for the sole purpose of sexual exploitation?

Not for the first time Debra you choose to cherry pick only parts of my comments. You have have on previous occasions indicated your displeasure of my use of the term Tarot Taliban and I went to lengths to clarify what exactly I meant by it. It was an analogy of how some people consider their beliefs and values to be THE correct way and won't consider the beliefs and values of others. I explained quite clearly with examples of that in religion, sport, politics and ... Tarot. Why do you insist on bringing that up. This is a perfect example of my discomfort here on Aeclectic on occasions. Its almost impossible for me to participate in a general discussion on any thread without you seemingly directing a jibe at me.

Please. Can you stop personalizing things.

I think that's the problem with purely written communication - because we don't see the person who wrote the feedback, even if the words were well put, a recipient can view it as offensive. However, this is precisely what the entire AT forum is all about ... it's about learning and enrichment. It's about freedom to say things responsibly and honestly. And it's also about open-mindedness and interpersonal sensitivity even if our communication is limited to the written word.

I think being in AT requires a sense of maturity and a healthy respect for differences as I have seen in most of the threads. We have occasional disagreements and even "nasty" comments about the comments, but our moderators somehow know and sense when it is the right time to pause the thread for awhile to review it. Furthermore, I also observed in other threads that when some members realize they have unknowingly offended someone, they are also quick to apologize. We're actually a very forgiving group, which is good because it keeps the forum alive, dynamic and synergistic. I'm relatively about to be a year old and so far, I do enjoy what I see.

Perhaps, this is also one reality we need to face and maybe, we may not even be able to address - that some people will simply have difficulty taking feedback (be it positive or not). If we are the creators of the deck and if we find the feedback disturbing, we may want to pause for awhile, take a break from the thread and cool off so that when we come back, we feel refreshed again with a healthier perspective on how we can improve. After all, we still have a choice on which information to accept and act on and which ones to reject. This would still be our call if we were the creators.

If we are the ones giving the feedback, we can go by the principles of tact, respect and honesty, and provide suggestions for improvement rather than pure reactions which may not be taken well. When we all really think about it, if we were the feedback givers, we are the ones who also have a choice on what to pick on, what and how to say it, and when we feel it would be wiser to be quiet if we do choose to be quiet. It's a matter of tolerance and acceptance, I think.

I'm typically not the kind to participate in web forums, chats or the like. However, with AT, I realize that it is precisely the differences in opinion that I get to learn and be enriched ... some people have contradicted some of my posts sometimes because I may have not gotten things right but they manage to do it so well that I realize I still need to learn. I'd rather be in a forum where the posts and discussions are passionate, filled with paradoxical and contrasting opinions rather than one where everyone simply agreed or worse yet, decided to just keep quiet and not participate because they're bored. Definitely, the culture in AT is not one of agree-culture but more of complementing differences.

This is one the many threads I really watch out for even if I do not actively participate in a number of them because just by reading them, I get to expand my perspectives, question some of the things I usually believed in, and also have fun reading at how the passionate members can really challenge each other.

Cirom, you are clearly a reasonable man, and a dedicated tarot artist/creator....surely you can see how the word Taliban is going to be seen/felt as an insult of the highest proportions. These are people who have done such atrocious and despicable things in the name of oppressing people and expression....destroying ancient statues of Buddha being one of their less evil deeds in this world. When we are all merely discussing tarot together, I am positive there are other words/terms/phrases we could choose when we describe one another that would carry less of a sting, whether here or in other web based arenas.

I am sincerely curious - why would someone post their work if they do not want comments?

cirom said:

A great many posts seem to reiterate how bad censorship would be, how pointless and futile it would be to only allow positive opinions or warm, fuzzy, encouraging comments. In fact people write the same comments repeatedly every time this topic comes up, which it does every few months or so. But I'm not clear why they do so because I really can't recall anyone actually ever proposing or requesting censorship in the sense its being described here. I don't recall anyone ever suggesting that only "nice" comments should be permitted. So why is that hypothetical scenario so often used like some bogey man that should be avoided?

Click to expand...

I was under the impression that this was exactly what was being suggested.

This quote from GriffinSong as an example.

GryffinSong said:

It occurs to me that perhaps in a perfect world an artist would specify what they're asking for in their opening post. For in
stance ...

"I've got a new deck I'm working on and I'm very interested in constructive critique. Go ahead, be blunt, I can take it ..."

Or ...

"Here's a few cards I've done. I'm just doing this for fun, so if you like them please let me know, and if you don't, please keep it to yourself."

... it would make replying so much easier, eh?

Click to expand...

This was followed up with suggestions that a subforum should be created, where such rules were in force.

If I have misunderstood, or misread, please ignore my posts on the subject.

And of course, the normal rules of politeness should always apply. Both in real life and here on the internet.


On the subject of real names.
That's an interesting one. But in a way, here, Lillie is my real name. It's the identity I have here, and on other internet places. If I used my real name, very few of you would know who the hell I was, and be able to put my comments into context with the rest of my posting here.

There is also the security aspect. We are told not to use our real names on the internet for very real safety considerations.
A lot of people here know a lot about me, because I have posted about myself. If I had to do that under my own name, I would have said a lot less, as I know that not only my friends are reading, but potentially the whole world.
Using an internet name allows me to be honest, while still retaining a measure of safety.

It would be nice if we could all use our real names on the internet in perfect safety. But the truth is that we can't.

Another (last) point on this is that some names are safer than others. Jane Smith would be a lot safer posting her real name on the internet than Clarissa Culpepper.

If someone wanted to trace Jane they would have a very difficult task with no other info. But Clarissa could probably be found quite easily, along with her address, and a lot of family details.

So that call for real names would give a very unfair advantage to some people.

Also, of course, unless we all undergo an Id check, we can all just say we are Jane Smith. Who would know?

Nicky, perhaps it's really more that they may have not realized the comments will be too straightfoward or from their perspective, rude or harsh. I guess this is how one would feel if they have spent hours and weeks painstakingly working at a deck. Usually, one is proud of one's accomplishments and therefore would want to show it to the world to see how it stands. They may not have expected a whole range of both positive and negative comments coming in.

And this may also be possible -- I have observed that sometimes, even if numerically, there are actually more positive comments and constructive ones given, it is possible that even just one "blunt" negative comment can really have a strong impact.

prudence said:

Cirom, you are clearly a reasonable man, and a dedicated tarot artist/creator....surely you can see how the word Taliban is going to be seen/felt as an insult of the highest proportions. These are people who have done such atrocious and despicable things in the name of oppressing people and expression....destroying ancient statues of Buddha being one of their less evil deeds in this world. When we are all merely discussing tarot together, I am positive there are other words/terms/phrases we could choose when we describe one another that would carry less of a sting, whether here or in other web based arenas.

Click to expand...

I quite agree with you, except that I didn't use the term to describe anyONE as far as I recall, no doubt some may be diligently going through previous posts from way back when to prove me wrong, but I don't think I am. I used it to describe a general non acceptance of alternative views other than ones own. In fact in explaining myself I used the same example as you of destroying the Buddhas, and the inconstancy of the Taliban banning of sports with the exception of Cricket which they happen to like. I then used that as an analogy in the context of people who have extreme opinions in tarot, for example that only the Marseilles was correct or superior to the RWS, that kind of thing. I think there is a distinct difference between that and making any specific insult aimed at one person which is how Debra's comment might have made it sound to you. Its a term I had used on several occasions I admit but no one else has indicated they were personally offended as far as I'm aware, why should they? In fact many found the term amusing although I didn't intend that either. The various mods did not indicate any objection either. I consider my use of that term has been referenced incorrectly in the context of this thread.

Lillie said:

I was under the impression that this was exactly what was being suggested.
. . .
This was followed up with suggestions that a subforum should be created, where such rules were in force.
If I have misunderstood, or misread, please ignore my posts on the subject.
And of course, the normal rules of politeness should always apply. Both in real life and here on the internet.

Click to expand...

See, I understood her statements to mean that in a perfect world, people would explicitly state what they desired and expected in their own threads -- and people would ideally respond in kind, out of courtesy. Indeed, how much easier the world would be, haha! But this could be my misinterpretation, I'll admit.

When I was in support of the subforum idea (which doesn't seem to be a good one for a variety of reasons anyhow) it was to support the creation of a place for a certain kind of formal critiquing discourse which, yes, would have certain rules due to its very nature. (Those rules are about how to state your opinions, not what sort of opinions you're allowed to express.) Since the rules would be limited only to certain threads, it didn't seem offensive to me.

And really, I have no problem with a person who starts a thread about their project blatantly asking only for cheers -- at least you'd know up front what they want, right? I may think a range of opinions would be more useful, but so what? They're obviously not open to hearing them. Saves everyone else from expending the energy or creating a fight. And if a person DID ask only for cheers, I don't think any decent person would pipe up just to say "I hate every color you used, and your cards hurt my eyes." That's knowingly starting trouble. So guidelines would encourage stating expectations up front to avoid all of that, in my mind. But I admit that maybe I'm not seeing how guidelines such as these, in a limited place, could be harmful in the long run.

prudence said:

Well, perhaps artists and deck publishers do not actually come out and say "I only want positive feedback" but what I have seen happen time and again, is that when comments that aren't totally gushing are put forth, the artists/publishers get noticeably offended, leave and or say some incredibly nasty stuff about the poster on some other social network....and then quite a few other creators/publishers/fans of those two groups join in on a pile up of bashing the member who had the gall to say something less than positive.

Click to expand...

Yes, I'm sure this has happened, and I'm not sure what can be done about it. A few simple explanatory guidelines could help the artists know what to expect, too. It can be hard to fight human nature, though. Some people might naively expect only positive comments and become hurt in the moment when reality happens.

Lillie said:

On the subject of real names.
. . .
If I had to do that under my own name, I would have said a lot less, as I know that not only my friends are reading, but potentially the whole world.
Using an internet name allows me to be honest, while still retaining a measure of safety.

Click to expand...

Debra said:

I've been trying to track down evidence for the idea that people routinely post more nastily when they don't use their real name. I can't find any. There are theories about this and they make sense but that doesn't mean it's true. Requiring real names would be quite a dramatic change in forum rules.

Click to expand...

I completely agree that real names would be a problem! Debra, I'm also very interested to know about any related data or evidence. This is maybe a little off topic, but I was more so referring to the push for "real names everywhere" that comes from changing internet culture -- largely influenced by Facebook and Google+ name policies. Some people genuinely believe that it would solve the "behavior problems" one runs into online, but I think it would stifle honest discussion in other ways. With regard to this forum, I'm sure plenty of AT members wouldn't care to have their bosses or neighbors know about their Tarot interests or spiritual/religious opinions. It's not their business. Thank goodness for usernames.