For the Critics

[DSKY]

All of us who are reading and posting to this development forum share a strong common bond: our enjoyment of Kerbal Space Program. Yet the discussion here can get heated and downright nasty at times. This can take many forms; my pet peeve happens to be those folks who oppose a suggestion because there is "no reason" to implement it. Of course there's a reason; the original poster had one. It may or may not be popular, useful, or even possible, but there is a reason. Just because you are unable to imagine one doesn't mean there isn't one.

My other (one of my other...) addictions is Minecraft. One of the members of the Mincraft suggestion forum, yoshi9048, wrote an excellent guide for critics. "Critics" not in the pejorative sense - criticism is not inherently bad; in fact is is necessary to refine ideas. Yoshi's guide was intended to help keep the discussion civil and productive. I encourage everyone posting on this forum - ANY forum - to read it.

http://www.minecraftforum.net/forums/minecraft-discussion/suggestions/44180-for-the-critics-ftc

[nothingSpecial]

I am waiting for someone to respond "there is no reason to read that guide".

[DSKY]

I am waiting for someone to respond "there is no reason to read that guide".

No kidding!

[mythbusters844]

Yet the discussion here can get heated and downright nasty at times...[There are] folks who oppose a suggestion because there is "no reason" to implement it. Of course there's a reason; the original poster had one. It may or may not be popular, useful, or even possible, but there is a reason. Just because you are unable to imagine one doesn't mean there isn't one.

Can you give a specific example of these two happening in the KSP forums (and not minecraft forums)?

[DSKY]

Can you give a specific example of these two happening in the KSP forums (and not minecraft forums)?

My pleasure.

Topic: Remove the nosecone on the new mk1Cockpit - Gifs and pictures

Reply #29

No. It just looks bad. We already have some parts that don't look good no matter what you attach to the front of them - Mk3 cockpit and both Mk2-to-Mk1 adapters. Don't turn the new smooth and sleek cockpit into one more of those parts.

And even if you make avionics hub fit, there's no other part that would look good in its place. Just no reason to spoil PorkJet's design.

Topic: Procedural sub-biomes to motivate more surface exploration

Reply #44

Now you can say I'm yelling at you.

It is a goal. An exploration game needs "fog of war," period.

You are being stupid here... "Random Generation =/= Fog of War" no matter how you look at it. It's confusing the actual gameplay of exploration, with the mean you produce the "contents" that you will be exploring.

As I'm trying damn hard to make you understand : You can get bored of exploring 100 randomly generated/copypasted pattern on 50 planets, faster than exploring 10 handcrafted place (of choice !) on 8 planets.

[nothingSpecial]

My pleasure.

Topic: Remove the nosecone on the new mk1Cockpit - Gifs and pictures

Reply #29

Topic: Procedural sub-biomes to motivate more surface exploration

Reply #44

I read both of your examples. Except for the line "you are being stupid here" which shouldn't really belong, both of them contain legit critique, and I personally agree with stated arguments against proposed ideas. There is no reason to put them into "they oppose just because there is no reason", because they oppose to proposed suggestions because there is a reason not to implement them (without thorough development of initial ideas).

So unless you show any "there is no reason" arguments that are not imply "there is a reason not to" arguments, there is no reason to claim that there is no reason to use "there is no reason" arguments on KSP forums.

Or, to put all of the above in simple words: the first example is a really good critique and the second is bad in shape but is based on a understandable concern.

Or, to put all of the above in fewer words: there is no reason to use this posts as examples.

[Alshain]

Your first example (Reply #29) is perfectly legitimate. He offered valid reasons why he believed it should NOT be implemented. It isn't that he can't imagine a reason to do it, it's that he specifically doesn't want it to happen. If the original poster has the right to suggest it, then others have the right to refute it as a bad idea they don't want to have happen.

The second reply is probably more to your cause, as you say debates can get heated. The poster does seem to be getting a little too upset. Never the less, he still has reasons not to implement the idea. There is nothing wrong with dissenting opinions, and there is "no reason" to censor the ideas of others just because they don't agree with your idea.

[Wjolcz]

So what addition or change to the KSP are we talking here about?

[nothingSpecial]

Addition of reason, of course!