Constructive Criticism Discouraged?

TiliusTilius Member Posts: 7
edited May 2012 in
I feel like Brickset has fallen to the same faults as EuroBricks, in that contructive criticism is discouraged. For example, commenting on the Cuusoo Corner news story, I pointed out several ways in which the criteria for sets that would be featured on this section don't hold up. Particularly, licensed ideas won't be considered despite the fact that we got a Minecraft set. Instead of a reasoned response, I've just had childish ones (e.g WHEN YOU RUN A SITE GET BACK TO ME), and now I've just been blocked from commenting.


  • CCCCCC UKMember Posts: 17,779
    edited May 2012
    I haven't read all the comments, but I thought Huw did not say that licensed ideas would not be considered for cuusoo corner, but that ones where it is not possible / likely to get a license would not be considered. So minecraft, since it was being developed on cuusoo by the minecraft team, would pass.
  • RedbullgivesuwindRedbullgivesuwind Brickset's Secret HeadquatersMember Posts: 1,764
    edited May 2012
    No it was that you had an opinion thats fine. Huw took on board the statement and said that he was willing for people to email him new products and then he would look at them and decide if he would put them into the Cussoo corner. If Huw put everything up there then it would completely defeat the point of it highlighting the great products. Huw can use his judgement over whether it seems fisable or not, based on the fact that he and many of the moderators work closely with lego and know many of the people working there and so know how the comapany operates. In fact the corner gives those starter projects a chance to get off the floor by bring our attention to a great model that may well have beenlost in the mire.

    Where you lost my attention and made yourself seem silly is when you said this:
    "And I will use my judgement, based on 17 years as an AFOL,"
    You realise how much of a child you're sounding now. OH I'VE LIKED LEGO FOR LONGER THAN YOU, THEREFORE I'M RIGHT. 17 years liking Lego doesn't make flawed points flawless.
    "What makes somebody an AFOL as opposed to being just a 'wannabe'? I was referring to the thousands of people that, for example, voted on The Winchester just because Simon Pegg mentioned it that are not LEGO fans and probably would never buy the set even if it was made.",
    So what you're saying is that people are not allowed to be casual fans of Lego? Because that's really completely against the entire spirit of the company. This entire post makes you seem like a selfish child, with your 'wannabee AFOLs' and your talking down to those who haven't liked Lego as long as you. If you say something silly, liking Lego for a long time doesn't make it less silly."
    This just became a personal attack on Huw and was really uncalled for. That was when Huw rightly lost patience with you and that I'm guessing is why you were blocked. Its not what you said but how you said it that caused the issue. Huw is not there to get personal abuse and be told his opinion is silly. Its his site and his opinion. You can disagree with him as much as you like, no one ever agrees. But it always about how you go about saying it that makes the diffrence. So just apologise for the way you said it and explain sensibly what you meant.
  • dougtsdougts Oregon, USAMember Posts: 4,128
    edited May 2012
    Quite the opposite really. I find constructive input highly valued on this site, and openly asked for all the time, particularly in the realm of new website features. There is healthy debate and an exchange of opinions on these forums each and every day about a variety of topics.

    As long as opinions and criticisms are presented in a courteous manner, I've never seen any instances of them being discouraged at all. At some point however, just as in any "debate" style forum, rehashing the same talking points over and over again without adding anything new to the conversation just becomes kind of pointless.

    Huw put out HIS guidelines for how HE will decided what projects to promote on the front page of HIS site. People are free to disagree with those guidelines, but in the end it's his call. He has openly invited people to send him ideas for the front page "Cuusoo Corner". That doesn't mean he will promote them all, but he's taking input, which of course he's not obligated to do at all. People are also free to argue about whether or to what degree LEGO seems to be hypocritical about's it's own Cuusoo guidelines, but that's really a separate conversation as well, and it seems the two things were getting horribly intertwined in the comments on that front page article. And finally, people are free to promote whatever Cuusoo projects they want, either here on the forums (see the Cuusoo Corner thread), or of course on any other website they want to frequent.
  • rocaorocao Administrator Posts: 4,288
    edited May 2012
    Others have already pointed it out, but you seem to have missed it thus far, so I'll state it again: Huw did not say that all models based on any IP would not pass CUUSOO approval. He qualified it as "Intellectual properties that it is not currently possible to license, that the owner would not grant a license for, or that do not meet the terms of a current license agreement".

    If you need help understanding what this means, here are some examples:
    - not currently possible to license: HALO (currently in an exclusive license to MegaBloks)
    - the owner would not grant a license for: Transformers (owned by Hasbro, producing their own toys as Kreo)
    - do not meet the terms of a current license agreement: Star Wars has granted the construction set license to LEGO but Hasbro owns the action figure license. This is why a set of only figures would not be possible.

    So what Huw is saying is that if a project falls into one of these categories such that he thinks the chance it is made is slim to none, he will not spend the time promoting it, and moreover, it would behoove people submitting and supporting ideas to understand the feasibility of the project.

    Knowledge of things like licensing agreements is a component to what Huw meant when he referred to his 17 years experience as an AFOL to legitimize his authority on promoting ideas that are worthy of being spotlighted. He was not saying that he knows better than a particular person (although he does), but that his opinion has credential.

    You mentioned previously that support for one idea does not come at the expense of others. This claim is incorrect. The CUUSOO team is working with both limited time and money. If everything was promoted equally, as you suggest, such that exponentially more projects achieved the required support, the process of vetting them would reach a point of being too large to handle.

    You criticized the implementation of "CUUSOO corner" as an autocracy. I don't think that's wholly the case because Huw said he welcomed suggestions for models to include, and in fact, he has already fielded suggestions from the moderator group. However, even if those solicitations for ideas were ignored, the list isn't meant to be democratic and I don't agree that it should be as you seem to be implying. The democratic process happens on the CUUSOO site where people pledge support. Adding an additional layer of voting to derive a list to suggest people to go vote on is time-consuming and redundant.

    As for my opinion on how the exchange transpired, I think dougts summed it up pretty nicely:
    At some point however, just as in any "debate" style forum, rehashing the same talking points over and over again without adding anything new to the conversation just becomes kind of pointless.
    But I would like to point out that Huw did not initiate a change in tone to the discussion. You wrote that his position "makes absolutely no sense whatsoever" that his actions were "stupid" and that "what he's doing is fundamentally flawed and entirely self-interested, rather than being useful to the community". Were I in Huw's shoes, I would take exception to that also.
  • HuwHuw Brickset Towers, Hampshire, UKAdministrator Posts: 6,439
    edited May 2012
    Thank you for your replies on this, everyone.

    @Tilius, I disabled your account on the main site because, as some have suggested, your posts were not so much constructive criticism but personal attack.

    I warmly welcome feedback, in fact the site thrives on it, and the Cuusoo Corner (CC) is partly as a response to feedback. A lot of people emailed after we started pushing the modular western town asking if I could promote their model. The CC provides a means to do this. However, there is no point promoting everything because (a) there would be too many in the list and genuinely good models would get lost, just as they do at the main Cuusoo site and (b) some models are unlikely to pass review due to licensing issues and therefore it's a waste of everyone's time promoting them.

    As @rocao points out, I have never said that models based on an IP would not pass approval, but the IP has to align with LEGO's values, as has been proven by the Firefly and SotD models. Minecraft does, Eve probably does and I suspect Zelda does too, although I don't think that will be made due to other reasons I have stated elsewhere.

    Also, we have seen that models based on a popular IP don't need promoting here, they are capable of being supported from outside the AFOL community, whereas those that aren't, do need some help to gain exposure and support.

    I did not mean to sound arrogant with my '17 years as an AFOL' statement, and I am not suggesting that I know better than anyone else, but I would like to think that I have at least some idea, through working with LEGO on a number of initiatives over the years and knowing something about the way they operate, of what makes a good model that they would make and which would sell.

    I hope this puts an end to this discussion but please PM me if you wish to discuss it further.
  • SpaceCakeSpaceCake Member Posts: 291
    edited May 2012
    @Tilius - Based on the quotes that Redbullgivesuwind posted, I'd say you were justly dealt with.
    Oh and here's a little "constructive criticism" for you: Grow up.
  • davee123davee123 USAMember Posts: 808
    edited May 2012
    I now count 3 forums from which @Tilius has been banned. He was banned from posting comments to The Brick Show's site (for being similarly out of line and posting profanity in the process), and EuroBricks (I don't know the reason). ... And now BrickSet, it seems, if only temporarily?

    @Tilius, I think you may need to adjust your general behavior in online arguments.

  • Si_UKNZSi_UKNZ NZMember Posts: 4,179
    It's all been said really .. constructive criticism is great, but insulting people isn't very constructive.
  • HuwHuw Brickset Towers, Hampshire, UKAdministrator Posts: 6,439
    I haven't banned him here yet, I will give him an opportunity to post a civil reply should he wish to.
  • YellowcastleYellowcastle Member Posts: 4,401
    ^ That seems very reasonable.

  • TiliusTilius Member Posts: 7
    I was banned from The Brick Show site because I was basically trollin', because their 'show' is truely terrible. And Eurobricks I was banned by the xwingyoda lot for literally no reason, and the later administration couldn't find any record for why, then they banned me again because I said someone made an excellent review, but could improve by spellchecking it. So these are hardly decent reasons. I've been a BZPower member for nearly 10 years, so.....

    "This just became a personal attack on Huw and was really uncalled for. "
    Calling someone's points silly isn't a personal attack - it's attacking the points they're making. Which is fine.
    "Oh and here's a little "constructive criticism" for you: Grow up."
    Thanks, this comment really added a lot to resolving the discussion.

    Anyhow, I think we're done here. All sorted. :D :D :D
  • YellowcastleYellowcastle Member Posts: 4,401
    Sounds like a Ban to me.
  • davee123davee123 USAMember Posts: 808
    Calling someone's points silly isn't a personal attack - it's attacking the points they're making. Which is fine.
    Thanks, this comment really added a lot to resolving the discussion.
    I think this is the attitude that's causing you a problem. You haven't identified for yourself when your comments are being made for personal reasons or objective ones. Effectively, you're trolling. That means you'll reply when you feel you're being attacked (especially publicly), regardless of whether or not you have something to add to the argument. Further, you'll reply by further exaggerating your point, and exaggerating your opinion of your opponent, attempting to make them look all the more foolish.

    If you want to actually convince people of things, you don't do so by being snarky to them. You need to treat them with respect, and explain objectively what issues you have with their opinions. And at the same time, you need to open own opinions to critique, allowing them to change, if challenged legitimately. Often times, you'll actually end up finding out that you were the one that was wrong-- and if you've talked yourself into a corner by acting superior, then admitting that in a discussion is really difficult to do.

    Best of luck.

  • dougtsdougts Oregon, USAMember Posts: 4,128
    As a general rule, anyone who has been banned from multiple places and yet somehow seems to believe the reasons aren't at least partly, if not wholly, of their own creation, is either seriously lacking in maturity, self-awareness, or both.

    Either that, or they are just a plain old troll.
  • YellowcastleYellowcastle Member Posts: 4,401
    I'm sorry, but IMO, anyone who admits to behaving like a "troll" online when it suits him can take a hike.
  • RedbullgivesuwindRedbullgivesuwind Brickset's Secret HeadquatersMember Posts: 1,764
    @Tilius As has been already said it is the way you say things that comes across as being a jerk.
    Look at these two sentances:
    'your arguement is silly and stupid and i think your a fool'

    'your points are invalid because light travels in straight lines etc etc'

    The first is a personal attack and adds nothing to your arguement and puts peoples nose out of joint. Which was what calling someones points silly is. You have not offered anything to refute the arguement.

    The second sentance says the same thing. But says it in a way that is poliet and has a counter arguement. It is said in a way that while showing you disagee with someone is not rude or childish.

    Completly agree I dont get trolls if you dislike something why waste your time on it.
  • TiliusTilius Member Posts: 7
    "As a general rule, anyone who has been banned from multiple places and yet somehow seems to believe the reasons aren't at least partly, if not wholly, of their own creation, is either seriously lacking in maturity, self-awareness, or both."
    Being banned from two websites, both of which are run by people of questionable morals anyway, isn't really much of a reflection on my character.

    But anyway. I am so, so sorry for what was said. If I could take it all back I would. I'm sorry. :(
  • YellowcastleYellowcastle Member Posts: 4,401
    edited May 2012
    ^ It's not a reflection on your character but a reflection on your behavior. That being said, I'm withdrawing from this exercise and have no interests in guessing the level of sarcasm in your last sentence.
  • RedbullgivesuwindRedbullgivesuwind Brickset's Secret HeadquatersMember Posts: 1,764
    ^^Love it when some one proves a point for you.
  • CCCCCC UKMember Posts: 17,779
    edited May 2012
    One of the great things about this site, in addition to good ideas, is the ability to trade with people that have something I want and get rid of something I don't want. I've (hopefully politely) disagreed with some people before, but have still traded with them. When I'm doing a trade I nearly always check how active they are and see what they have written before deciding on the trade. It tells me a little bit about them. I think only once have I decided not to trade based on comments made.

    What you say, or more realistically how you say it, can come back and bite you later in more ways than one.
  • tk79tk79 Member Posts: 329
    Troll's gonna troll
  • TiliusTilius Member Posts: 7
    Oh boy, I sure am having some real trouble accessing my set collection list. :(
  • HuwHuw Brickset Towers, Hampshire, UKAdministrator Posts: 6,439
    Yes you will have, your account is disabled.
  • TiliusTilius Member Posts: 7
    But I'm sooooo sorry. :(
  • thebrickshowthebrickshow Member Posts: 5
    @Tilius - Funny, saying we have questionable morals. We only ban people who use excessive profanity and VERY inappropriate attacks. We've banned a good amount of users on YouTube since that platform is loaded with people like yourself who hide behind a fake username leaving no trace of who you are. So if banning people like that means we have questionable morals, then by all means.

    We use no profanity in our video reviews which is why so many homeschool moms allow their kids to watch our show.

  • TiliusTilius Member Posts: 7
    I don't wish to engage in further argument, however I will say that your private correspondance leaves much to be desired, and the questionable morals I refer to are not in relation to who you choose to ban.
  • roxioroxio UKMember Posts: 1,335
    Almost leaves as much to be desired as this post from you ?
    I was banned from The Brick Show site because I was basically trollin'
  • TiliusTilius Member Posts: 7
    Your reponse makes no sense. The private messages sent to me from the Brick Show are some of the foulest, disgusting messages I've ever received online, and it's disturbing that such people are allowed to run a site directed at children. Which is worse than playful trollin'. Because it was a series completely messed up, disturbing and threatening messages. Why are you even commenting when my response was directed at TBS? Because you think your reponse was somehow a clever, ingenious comeback? Because it wasn't - it almost didn't make sense. As I said, I don't want to engage in further argument, so please avoid making nonsensical replies in someone else's conversation. Thanks.
  • bluemoosebluemoose Member Posts: 1,716
    Take it to PM if need to carry on with this.
This discussion has been closed.
Recent discussions Categories Privacy Policy