Things to think about before you call someone "Bad"

[Dualgunner]

I too thought (and think) so, which is why I found this thread to be a disappointing surprise. The title of the thread was pretty clear and wasn't really open to interpretation. You don't go around calling people bad. People however, questioned it, and some went as far as to claim calling someone bad could very well be an accurate assessment. Then had someone else claim that it could be too that the term bad was referred to a player's performance. Basically, anything and beyond to justify harassing someone.

There you go again, shifting the goalposts again. First assessment, then "honest assessment," now "accurate assessment." We also had this issue with the modifier "formative" for the term "formative assessment."

You know if a word needs a modifier, then that means the word does not naturally mean what it means with said modifier? Saying somebody is bad at the game is an assessment. It's not a formative one. One could argue it's a summative assessment. However it does not need to be a formative assessment to be an accurate assessment, an honest assessment, or an assessment.

[Gallus]

There you go again, shifting the goalposts again. First assessment, then "honest assessment," now "accurate assessment." We also had this issue with the modifier "formative" for the term "formative assessment."

You know if a word needs a modifier, then that means the word does not naturally mean what it means with said modifier? Saying somebody is bad at the game is an assessment. It's not a formative one. One could argue it's a summative assessment. However it does not need to be a formative assessment to be an accurate assessment, an honest assessment, or an assessment.

Yeah let's keep endlessly arguing over the semantics over and over again, because that's what you do in the 50% of the content of your posts. Brings nothing, so I've completely ignored that half of the content of yours in every single post. But you keep insisting, so let's get into it.
The word honest does not change the meaning of assessment whatsoever, so I'm not sure why you are even bringing it up. Your google definition of assessment brings absolutely nothing because the context in which a person offers "friendly" advice to somebody else in an online context has again nothing to do with giving someone a mark in an exam, though judging by your posts you are going to probably try and squeeze some common point here you'll even struggle to believe yourself.

And lastly, people in this thread have repeteadly demonstrated their desire for underperformers to improve, so they can have smoother runs. I'm inclined to believe it is implied that one of the goals of their "feedback", "friendly advice" or whatever you want to call it is to make others improve, which is more in line with the idea of assessment I gave, because know what? If it's not, and these people are really trying to just give a mark and leave it at that, without caring about others improve, I'll have a hard time understanding why I'm even reading the words "friendly advice" over and over again from them.

[Dualgunner]

Yeah let's keep endlessly arguing over the semantics over and over again, because that's what you do in the 50% of the content of your posts. Brings nothing, so I've completely ignored that half of the content of yours in every single post. But you keep insisting, so let's get into it.

And here I've been taking into account the entirety of your posts. I'm hurt.

The word honest does not change the meaning of assessment whatsoever, so I'm not sure why you are even bringing it up.

Assessments can be made in bad faith, or dishonestly. If "honest" really doesn't change the meaning of "assessment"...why add it? To fluff up your post to meet the minimum word requirement? Also how about "accurate"? Does "accurate" now not modify "assessment" at all?

Your google definition of assessment brings absolutely nothing because the context in which a person offers "friendly" advice to somebody else in an online context has again nothing to do with giving someone a mark in an exam, though judging by your posts you are going to probably try and squeeze some common point here you'll even struggle to believe yourself.

Bad isn't an assessment of skill.

You made the claim that the term "bad" is not an assessment of skill. I corrected you. It is not a formative assessment of skill, however it is still assessing that player's skill as bad.

And lastly, people in this thread have repeteadly demonstrated their desire for underperformers to improve, so they can have smoother runs.

I assume people who want to help people improve wouldn't use the term "bad" right out the gate. This doesn't change that "bad" is, at the end of the day, an assessment of skill.

I'm inclined to believe it is implied that one of the goals of their "feedback", "friendly advice" or whatever you want to call it is to make others improve, which is more in line with the idea of assessment I gave, because know what? If it's not, and these people are really trying to just give a mark and leave it at that, without caring about others improve, I'll have a hard time understanding why I'm even reading the words "friendly advice" over and over again from them.

Not everybody believes in formative assessment, either, I might add. Summative assessment is still widely popular in the United States, at least. It's primarily how learning by parser works, as well--you perform, you get a grade after the performance (DPS), and you decide what to do better next time from that information. If someone believes in using summative assessment and genuinely thinks that that will help players improve, then that is how they're going to try to help other players learn.

[Gallus]

You are blaming me for adding "honest" to assessment because it brings nothing when you are googling up entire definitions that are out of context.

So you believe that behind someone using the word "bad" to approach another player in an online context where most of the time nobody knows each other there is a sumative assessment?

[Dualgunner]

You are blaming me for adding "honest" to assessment because it brings nothing when you are googling up entire definitions that are out of context.

And you are ascribing the worst possible motivations to me in the middle of a conversation, which itself is not intellectually honest. Maybe you expect nothing of me, but I expect a lot more from you. I am calling you out for constantly adding modifying words to the term we are discussing.

So you believe that behind someone using the word "bad" to approach another player in an online context where most of the time nobody knows each other there is a sumative assessment?

No. I believe approaching someone saying "bad" is just being a rude asshole.

I believe making an assessment that somebody is bad and pointing it out to them at the end of an encounter can be a summative assessment.

[Gallus]

No. I believe approaching someone saying "bad" is just being a rude asshole.
I believe making an assessment that somebody is bad and pointing it out to them at the end of an encounter can be a summative assessment.

We play different games then, or at the very least had very different experiences regarding this subject, because I've seen the first situation more times than I can count, while I can count with the fingers of one hand the times I've seen the latter.

[Dualgunner]

We play different games then, or at the very least had very different experiences regarding this subject, because I've seen the first situation more times than I can count, while I can count with the fingers of one hand the times I've seen the latter.

Honestly, over five years I've had so many silent dungeon runs where nobody says anything, that the experience of just nobody saying anything drowns out any anecdotes I have one way or the other on how feedback is given. Regardless, you have to admit that, 5+ years of anecdote for either of us is still just anecdote, and nobody has access to any real data regarding player interactions as far as I'm aware.

[Sigma-Astra]

Yeah let's keep endlessly arguing over the semantics over and over again, because that's what you do in the 50% of the content of your posts.

People wouldn't keep arguing semantics over and over with you if you stopped changing the story and crutch of your argument every time someone debunks it and you fumble to come up with another excuse that still treads water.

You've shifted the goal posts so many times that you'd make a great Blitzball AI goalie in FFX at this point.

[Gallus]

People wouldn't keep arguing semantics over and over with you if you stopped changing the story and crutch of your argument every time someone debunks it and you fumble to come up with another excuse that still treads water.

It was only a very specific poster that did that, not people in general. There's nothing to debunk because there's no way you could ever justify calling someone bad in the context of an online game. From friendly advice to accurate assessments, you can disguise bad mouthing behind as many terms as you want. No real company is ever going to acknowledge your cause.

[WaterShield]

It was only a very specific poster that did that, not people. There's nothing to debunk because there's no way you could ever justify calling someone bad in the context of an online game. From friendly advice to accurate assessments, you can disguise bad mouthing behind as many terms as you want. No real company is ever going to acknowledge your cause.

bad adjective
\ˈbad
\
worse\ˈwərs
\; worst\ˈwərst
\
Definition of bad

(Entry 1 of 3)

1a : failing to reach an acceptable standard : poor a bad repair job

Example: This healer stands still using no abilities for 70% of the dungeon and only uses one spell (Cure 2) They are bad at healing.

Explain how that is an incorrect assessment or somehow harassment if I give advice on how to play better. Example: Please cast something between heals, you have some dps abilities such as stone and aero that can help the run go smoother.

In this instance an acceptable standard is attempting to be doing something throughout the dungeon run. I'm not asking for perfection, just a semblance of effort. I would then argue that this does justify me quantifying someone as being bad at something.

Also, stating someone is bad at something is not an insult. It is an assessment of their skill at a given task. It is a neutral statement.