demalion said:
Question: would you do the things that inspired that treatment?
I have yet to see a concern with Kyle's comments and actions mentioned at the same time that concern is expressed about his treatment by others in reaction to the same. Accusing a web site of writing an article as retaliation for not receiving a Doom 3 preview seems atleast as serious and insulting as any accusation I've seen directed at Kyle, and I've atleast seen some support for the accusations levelled at Kyle.
I would like to think that in Kyle's position I would act differently. I understand where the opinions of Kyle come from. I share most of them, and there is certainly plenty of support for "accusations levelled at Kyle."
You need to clarify the word "treatment". If you mean just the pure name calling and taunting that some do, without any regard to discussing facts, say so. However, the word "treatment" implies inclusion of all the commentary, regardless of its basis, including criticism which happens to be extensively correlated to specific actions and statements that Kyle has in fact performed. Complaining about that seems rather nonsensical, unless you propose that these forums distance themselves from fact, reasoning, and discussion based on establishing such?
My apologies for being unclear. By treatment I am referring primarily to the taunting, name calling, and referring to the site as [T]. I understand constructive criticism and actually enjoy receiving it. Plenty of people, as has been my personal experience, do not. For that reason, I have a higher level of respect for people willing to take and learn from constructive criticism, a la brent.
Are my standards too high? Why? I don't define my standards by the behavior of personnel at [H], and other people have and continue to meet them...why should I lower them for these specific cases? The "hit count" hieararchy of web sites?
I don't think there's such a thing as setting standards too high, especially for oneself. As I said in another thread, I've exchanged a couple of emails with Kyle when I was asking for clarification of [H]'s stance on something. I was perfectly polite in my email, and he paid me the same courtesy in return. Did I agree with what he said? Nope. However, I did gain a slightly better understanding of the way [H] operates internally, which is useful information regardless.
"Stubborn" is not a virtue by itself. You can be "stubbornly wrong" just as well as you can be "stubbornly dedicated to being objective" or "stubbornly dedicated to serious consideration of all criticism". Kyle seems to think one version of being "stubborn" is just as good as any other...since he isn't here to defend that stance, could you explain why you share that view, since you seem to?
I was not using stubborn as a virtue as much as a character trait. Some people are simply stubborn. They're stubborn when they're wrong, they're stubborn when they're right, and they're stubborn when they're running around in the gray area. I believe Kyle to be one of these people. My only point of saying that he is stubborn was to say "Look, you're not going to change the way he does things, and I don't think that resorting to flaming is the way to go."
So, I should lower my standards because I "won't change Kyle"? That sounds like something he's said, strangely enough. Perhaps when people responded negatively to that, it was some indication that people didn't agree with this idea, and has some relevance to why people might not share your outlook (even without being part of some sort of "anti-[H]" club by nature).
I'm not able to equivocate keeping high standards and attacking someone verbally.Keep in mind here, I'm not referring to you, but to the people
do verbally attack him. Disagreeing is disagreeing. Strongly disagreeing is strongly disagreeing. Not visiting a website anymore is a non-offensive sign of protest. But name-calling doesn't fall under these categories, imo.
How about other people not changing? Let's say your saying what you did in response to people's comments about Kyle won't "change that" either. How is it everyone with a differing outlook on the concept has to change to suite Kyle and, apparently, yourself? Why can't you and Kyle change instead?
Forgive me if you don't really condone this outlook on "stubborn", but I think your words are a pretty direct argument along the lines I am addressing. If you don't think they are, please clarify.
I understand the corner I've managed to back myself into here...perhaps a bit of a double standard. I suppose I've just always thought there are very few reasons to treat people poorly. Yes, I understand that Kyle has a reputation to treat people poorly, but why pull yourself (again, using "you" in the general sense) to that level?
What animosity between the "two sites"? This isn't a turf war between gangs!
[H] is run by personnel.
I, personally, have a problem with the actions of specific members of that personnel. So do many other individuals.
Those other individuals posting at Beyond 3D probably happen to like Beyond3D.
This is a good point. I, along with other people, tend to group websites like [H] and B3D with their patronage. To the actual persononnel here at B3D's credit, they stay away from personal attacks and focus more on the issues at hand. I mistakenly didn't make this distinction. However, I do feel that the owners of the board are responsible for what happens on the board. It's like if a parent allows his/her child to have a raging party, he/she is liable for what happens to the attendees.
This situation is a result of the thoughts of the individuals, and their evaluation of the actions of the personnel behind the sites. This doesn't make their reactions a display of animosity between two sites, and trying to say it does just seems to sidestep that many individuals independently came to their own evaluations based on what the sites actually did, and try to instead substitute the idea that the site to favor was picked, and that the criticism of one and not the other is the result of that alone instead of something objective.
The only animosity "between sites" that I have seen is in the rather rude commentary Kyle has directed at the personnel who run this site, and that has occurred without any relation to factuality or objectivity. I have not seen that in the other direction. If you seek to address such animosity, I recommend you take it up with him. I also recommend that you try to make sure you do not label something rude based on the chosen response of the person at whom it is directed, but by its content.
Agreed. Kyle made the same mistake I did, and grouped a website with its forum members. I think Kyle's rude post would likely have been tempered if he had made that distinction before writing it.
) b/c they were upset that they didn't get in on the Doom 3 benchmarks--and in that same editorial, he goes on to say that it's wrong to ascribe motives. Would it be wrong of me to think that Kyle's abandoning 3DMark is a result of jealousy of B3D and ET for being included as FutureMark Beta members, while he was not? :?
