Regarding whining and politeness (A quick note to everyone)

philip.ed · #1 10-04-2010, 08:59 PM

I agree as well.
If this is a debate, what about the concept of complete truth? By this I mean the ability for one to say what one thinks truthfully and honestly? Although a comment may seem harsh, perhaps (though) it is just honest? (of course, the post would have to be supported by evidence as you said)

SlipBall · #2 10-04-2010, 10:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by philip.ed

I agree as well.
If this is a debate, what about the concept of complete truth? By this I mean the ability for one to say what one thinks truthfully and honestly? Although a comment may seem harsh, perhaps (though) it is just honest? (of course, the post would have to be supported by evidence as you said)

Supported by evidence...I'm still waiting on your non flat, WRONG, cloud base whine evidence. Oleg has not posted shots that allow a determination as to cloud base shape. But yet you describe the images as being such.

BadAim · #3 10-04-2010, 11:07 PM

I'll make one comment for the moment. Too often people hide behind "honesty" as an excuse for rudeness. This is not a new problem, as it is mentioned in writings known to be 3000+ years old. If one has a problem in this area, it is a good idea to remain silent, as it is better to be silent and thought a fool than to speak and prove it.

philip.ed · #4 10-05-2010, 08:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SlipBall

Supported by evidence...I'm still waiting on your non flat, WRONG, cloud base whine evidence. Oleg has not posted shots that allow a determination as to cloud base shape. But yet you describe the images as being such.

I did back it up. I posted a scientific review of the matter (this isn't a joke by the way). I didn't post any pictures (apart from one to show the cauliflower effect) but if needed I could easily. If I'm honest, I thought a simple goggle-images search would throw up so many results, that I didn't have to post a picture to support my argument (as I felt the scientific review was quite watertight). In hindsight, a picture is quite noticeable, so adding one would have done no harm at all. Indeed, I can link you to my post if you want; unless you saw it?
I also linked to a series of SoW pictures which clearly showed the lack of a flat-cloud-base. Are we talking specifically about this weeks update or the whole SoW series of updates?

IceFire · #5 10-05-2010, 03:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by philip.ed

I agree as well.
If this is a debate, what about the concept of complete truth? By this I mean the ability for one to say what one thinks truthfully and honestly? Although a comment may seem harsh, perhaps (though) it is just honest? (of course, the post would have to be supported by evidence as you said)

Without being overly wordy it is still possible to be truthful and to the point without seeming harsh.

philip.ed · #6 10-05-2010, 08:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by IceFire

Without being overly wordy it is still possible to be truthful and to the point without seeming harsh.

I think it's all dependent on the person. For example, if my mother told me my hair-style sucked, I wouldn't be offended. Then again, I wouldn't listen to her on such style matters

In a situation like this, it's all dependent on how much work the team has put into the aspect in question. For example, if they had worked really hard on the terrain, and a load of people said it was wrong, then even if each-one of those people supported their theories with evidence it would still be a bit of a blow to Oleg's team. Conversely, if they hadn't worked as hard on this area, the news would (IMO) be quite useful' especially if it was supported by evidence, and whilst the critique might be harsh in places, the usefullness might outweigh this

Sorry, my answer is quite wordy, but i think the answer is that it depends on the situation. I think one can be truthful without being harsh, but it depends on the truth. Calling beautiful person beautiful is by no means harsh. The only issue is that this latter point is completely at the other end of the spectrum

kendo65 · #7 10-05-2010, 10:10 AM

This discussion of the merits of complete excoriating truth versus what might be called 'tact' has much more general application than on this forum.

I think it requires judgement and maybe some maturity to be able to distinguish how far to go on either end of the scale...

...or put another way: just what IS the correct response to the question

"Does my bum look big in this...?"

kendo65 · #8 10-05-2010, 10:43 AM

Actually, that analogy is more accurate than I realized…think of Oleg as your girlfriend

. She’s spent the last two hours getting herself ready for that big do in town, the one everyone has been looking forward to for months. You’re just ready to go when out comes the dreaded question…

Your response?

If she looks fine you have the easy task of being completely truthful.
If not, then a little tactfulness is called for as you suggest that perhaps that dress may not be the best choice for this evening, seeing as it is looking like rain and that….

However, I would suggest that your answer to the question should never, EVER be:

“Yeah, like the back end of a bus, lard-arse”

Read and learn Tree, read and learn…….

philip.ed · #9 10-05-2010, 10:48 AM

'Darling, it doesn't matter what you wear, your bum will always be that big. But don't threat babe, our anniversary is soon, and if you want I'll pay for liposuction?"

kendo65 · #10 10-05-2010, 11:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kendo65

...
If she looks fine you have the easy task of being completely truthful.
If not, then a little tactfulness is called for as you suggest that perhaps that dress may not be the best choice for this evening, seeing as it is looking like rain and that….

To which "Oleg" replies:

"You expect me to change my dress THIS late in the development cycle..!!"

Gonna knock this on the head right here before the moderators have me taken away...

Apologies to the thread originator, but there was a serious point hiding in there...