Chockstone Forum

      Sponsored By
      ROCK
   HARDWARE

Chockstone Photography

Australian Landscape Prints

Chockstone Forum - General Discussion

General Climbing Discussion

Topic Date User

CRUX Magazine Issue #2 14-Jan-2007 At 3:36:03 PM brough

Message

On 14/01/2007 PreferKnitting wrote:
>Brough man, you're a more capable man than I am to be able to glean any sense of humour and light-heartedness in BomberPro's remarks.

You may be right PK, BP's post was a bit heavy, in re-reading. I guess the tone of it all will be evident in how far BP takes it and how well the target of the strike takes it.I was suprised it took this long for someone to start sh###-bagging Crux magazine. Not because I think there's anything wrong with the publication, but moreso because of the general Chockstone pisstaking that I had assumed was between mates (maybe not?).

As a rule, when engaging in making a point, for example a criticism, if I want someone to take on board the point I'll try to make it as diplomatically as possible. People, because of their egos, generally do not like being wrong or (especially) proved wrong. It's a difficult time when you've made an error of judgement that someone else brings to light, particularly in public or a public forum.

If I 1) want the criticism I'm making to be converted to a positive outcome and 2) want to stay amicable with the person, I will:

-be nice about it
-try not to do it in public
-try not to make the other person feel bad (an artform)
-try to make accompanying suggestions for a constructive outcome

And, as invariably my own credibility will come under question, in response to my criticism, I will try to demonstrate

- experience (runs on the board) and capability in the subject matter

Or, to put it another way:

- It's as much about how you deliver the criticism as what you actually say - if you want your ideas to end up taken on board and actioned
- your own credibility will come into question when you're criticising others, so try to cover your arse (eg when you start slagging off magazine editors, organise the catalogue of magazines you've edited/published to give examples of your own work)

Following on with Teddy's analogy, it's the difference, between sitting in the stands yelling abuse, and running side by side with your colleagues in the arena, deep in sh##, helping with the solution.

If you'll indulge me another quote

Sometime last century, Eleanor Roosevelt wrote:
>Great minds discuss ideas. Average minds discuss events. Small minds discuss people

So, BP had every right to make the criticism of Crux, but I reckon the way he's gone about it means that it would be hard for Neil and the Crux team to take the criticisms on board because:

- there's personal attacks involved (BP's gone straight to the "people" part of Roosevelt's quote above and foregone the "ideas" and "events")
- there are a few constructive suggestions for the future but they are undermined by harsh language and an antagonistic tone, and are not accompanied by any firm pledge to help or contribute personally
- there's no demonstration of BP's expertise in the area of publishing magazines

cheers brough