Re: akademy2008 logo sucks.

faq
flatforty
contribute
subscribe
configure
search
rdf

main
parent
thread

Re: akademy2008 logo sucks.
by Aaron Seigo on Friday 14/Mar/2008, @08:33

perhaps the distinction between destructive stop energy and constructive input (negative or otherwise) has been lost on you.

destructive stop energy has no real content: "it sucks" says nothing about what problems the person perceives, let alone suggest realistic avenues of improvement. the only good it does is remove the motivation of others. there are some good writings available (dead tree and electronic formats both) on "poisonous" or "toxic" personalities.

often the individual doesn't intend to be poisonous, but it's a pattern they fall into.

constructive input highlights challenges with positive, energetic communication. bonus points for suggesting solutions. receiving constructive input, even if it is "wow, this could be a lot better", usually leaves the recipient feeling motivated, inquisitive and open (assuming there aren't ego issues interfering).

Uwe's comment is classic constructive criticism.

Related Links

·   Articles on Community and Events
·   Also by Aaron Seigo
·   Contact author

The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whomever posted them.
( Reply )

Re: akademy2008 logo sucks.
by Uwe Thiem on Saturday 15/Mar/2008, @01:07

Well, I had the advantage to know what I was talking about. ;-)

On the topic of constructive and destructive criticism, you don't necessarily need to point out how to improve it. Maybe, you don't know yourself. But you definitely have to point out as precisely as possible *what* actually sucks. General comments without any meat in them don't help anyone.

Of course, it you know how to improve whatever you are criticising then spell it out. But I would always defend the right to criticise without knowing a better way. It can be a starting point of the process that will eventually lead to the solution. The thing is to criticise in a way that helps which means to point out exactly what is wrong.

So. Not too many spelling errors this time. ;-) And no, my spelling of "to criticise" doesn't qualify. :-)

Uwe

[ Reply To This | View ]

The Fine Print: The previous comments are owned by whomever posted them.
( Reply )


		"You would know that after informal research, KDE developers prefer tea!" -- Roberto Alsina
KDE®, "K Desktop Environment", "KDE Dot News", "got the dot?" and the KDE Logo® are trademarks or registered trademarks of KDE e.V. in the European Union, the United States and other countries. All other trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the poster. The rest: Copyright © 2000-2008 KDE e.V. for The KDE Project. For further information or comments on this site, please contact the Webmaster.