Another Wing Chun Forum Thread Locked!!

[guy b.]

Nope.

That applies to the person who put up the original video: if he can't support the argument made by the video, he should not have put the video up. The person critiquing the video only needs to support his written argument in a written fashion.

A puts up video.
B says it's bad.
A asks why.
B makes his case by describing why he thinks the video is bad. He makes a claim (e.g. "the red shirt opens himself up to attack, and this is bad"), and cites evidence from the video (e.g. "he opens his left side at 1:35"), possibly citing authoritative sources (e.g. historical texts) if required for authoritative (ethos) appeal (e.g. in 1932, Chen XX wrote "you shouldn't open your left side to attack").
A could legitimately respond with something like, "agreed, but it was a demo, meant to show the form of a specific punch. Normally, red would turn to the right and block," explaining why the move was shown that way.
However, if A were to say, "if you're so smart, why don't you make your own video?" it would be an attempt to deflect criticism from the original video, and would be irrelevant to the point at hand.

Say, if I critique an author's writing, it's not incumbent on me to rewrite the author's work.
Instead, I have to make a clear claim (e.g. "disconnected paragraph structure") then give evidence (e.g. "paragraph 2 ends with a rhetorical question, but the start of paragraph 3 does nothing to suggest an answer, or a direction to an answer to that question").
If, in response, the author wanted to address my criticism, he would have to challenge my claim, challenge my evidence, or challenge the rule on which my claim was based (e.g. "yes, they are disconnected, but the piece was written in a style evocative of X writer, who is well known for writing disconnected paragraphs. It was a parody of that author's work, in other words.")

In a web forum, it is only incumbent on B to make an effective written argument as to why A's video is bad.

Excellent post, needs to be read by all here.

 

[mograph]

All those critiquing a video have a responsibility as well -- my post doesn't encourage or excuse personal attacks on forum members.

 

[guy b.]

All those critiquing a video have a responsibility as well -- my post doesn't encourage or excuse personal attacks on forum members.

No, I think that is a good point as well. It is easy to get sucked into personal abuse and it doesn't help make discussion any more productive

 

[LFJ]

That applies to the person who put up the original video: if he can't support the argument made by the video, he should not have put the video up. The person critiquing the video only needs to support his written argument in a written fashion.

A puts up video.
B says it's bad.
A asks why.
B makes his case by describing why he thinks the video is bad. He makes a claim (e.g. "the red shirt opens himself up to attack, and this is bad"), and cites evidence from the video (e.g. "he opens his left side at 1:35"), possibly citing authoritative sources (e.g. historical texts) if required for authoritative (ethos) appeal (e.g. in 1932, Chen XX wrote "you shouldn't open your left side to attack").
A could legitimately respond with something like, "agreed, but it was a demo, meant to show the form of a specific punch. Normally, red would turn to the right and block," explaining why the move was shown that way.
However, if A were to say, "if you're so smart, why don't you make your own video?" it would be an attempt to deflect criticism from the original video, and would be irrelevant to the point at hand.

Say, if I critique an author's writing, it's not incumbent on me to rewrite the author's work.
Instead, I have to make a clear claim (e.g. "disconnected paragraph structure") then give evidence (e.g. "paragraph 2 ends with a rhetorical question, but the start of paragraph 3 does nothing to suggest an answer, or a direction to an answer to that question").
If, in response, the author wanted to address my criticism, he would have to challenge my claim, challenge my evidence, or challenge the rule on which my claim was based (e.g. "yes, they are disconnected, but the piece was written in a style evocative of X writer, who is well known for writing disconnected paragraphs. It was a parody of that author's work, in other words.")

In a web forum, it is only incumbent on B to make an effective written argument as to why A's video is bad.

This post should be made sticky and added to posting guidelines.

 

[ShortBridge]

I post here fairly rarely, largely because I have zero appetite for internet sparring. Nor do I feel the need to promote my training or defend it via keyboard. I am a member because I am naturally curious and know that I can still learn form others and am more than happy to lend perspective where it might be valued.

Unfortunately Wing Chun seems to be more mired in contentiousness than most systems. I think there are a number of contributors to this and I don't think they're going to go away.

Maybe, a fresh thread in the Wing Chun forum about what we each would like to gain from collaborating here would create an outline/agreement for constructive participation vs rehashing behavior that is causing threads to be locked?