Newsgroups: rec.org.sca
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 01:10:22 -0400 
From: David Schroeder <ds4p+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: Basic Courtesy

Good gentles,

Graydon writes:

 >There are a bunch of theories about social pain minimization.  One
 >is that one is obligated to be careful of other people's presumed
 >emotional state (take the 'presumed' out and it's an obligation
 >to be telepathic, which is similar to an obligation to have three
 >hands), to avoid hurting them.  This is what Bertram, Esmeralda, 
 >Yaakov, it all apear to be espousing - they're assuming that it
 >is a nervous-making thing to post a composition, and feel obligated
 >to be gentle in criticizing it, to minimize the composers potential
 >hurt feelings.

Please, please, PLEASE -- I am NOT trying to say one should be
overly gentle or solicitous in criticizing creative works. Pointed
and specific critical comments are welcome while posts that boil down 
to "this 'thing' sucks" are not, in my opinion.  Whether or not Stephen's
original words:

  >Thanks...  This may be useful in convincing people why Filk
  >has no place in the SCA.

do boil down that way is also a matter of opinion.  In my mind, it
is analogous to "that bout in the Crown finals may be useful in 
convincing people why rattan fighting has no place in the SCA" or
"that dish (boiled eels, perhaps?) may be useful in convincing
people why period recipes have no place on SCA feast menus."

It is a "cheap" shot because it simply says "this is bad" in a 
flip way, without any qualification.  An "expensive" shot would
have required more effort, more "expense" on the part of the poster,
to make substantive criticisms that added something to the debate
rather than simply offer a blanket negation.  It is the "cheapness"
I object to, NOT the criticism.

Also, please understand that my comments were NOT meant to reflect
in any way on the TOPIC under discussion (to filk or not to filk),
but were aimed at the specific way in which Stephen's response was 
phrased.  I would have made the same observation had Stephen been
responding to someone saying "only documentably period dishes
should be served at SCA feasts" or some other strongly authenticist
point of view.  It's not WHAT he was saying, it was the WAY he said it.

Given the amount of blunt speech on the Rialto, I hope that people 
can see why only this _particular_ post garnered my criticism.  
It crossed a line.  Perhaps that line is difficult to fully
articulate.  Certainly, a "cheap shot" is not "just" one that
is flip and lacks specificity.  Does anyone else care to offer
_their_ definition of "cheap shot," to add to the debate?

  What about "cheap shots" on the tourney or battle field?

  What about "cheap shots" at newcomers' faux pas?

Are there such things or am I deluding myself?  Is every form of 
criticism, no matter how harsh, "acceptable" and "appropriate" 
so long as "principle" requires it?

Can organizations or collective bodies draw lines without being
accused of "political correctness" or "cultural imperialism" 
or worse?

Seems like both sides can get pretty militant...

All I really wanted was to discourage flip, unspecific, 
disparaging posts...

I'll bet that if every time I make a similar comment in the
future we end up with 150 screen's full of heated debate on
the topic, that should provide discouragement enough...
<broad smile>

Take care, good friends -- Bertram

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bertram of Bearington                                      Dave Schroeder
Debatable Lands/AEthelmearc/East               Carnegie Mellon University
INTERNET: ds4p@andrew.cmu.edu                         412/731-3230 (Home)
------------------------- PREME * Press On * PREME ----------------------
      "He indulged in every excess, yes in each licentious whim..."      

Newsgroups: rec.org.sca