Ahem.
Hi.
Don't write much here any more, I certainly don't rant like I used to... but this is a subject I have exceptionally strong feelings about.
Since the relaxation in 'finger pointing', 'calling out' and 'naming and shaming' chastisement some time ago on deviantART, I've noticed an undercurrent of bitching emerging, most of it anonymously. I can understand why an increasingly blind eye has been turned towards these practices due to staffing and monitoring constraints and, of course, that the assumption is that if someone feels they are being victimised they will raise the issue with staff.
For me, the rot started in several areas. The first one being the Today page where, to be honest, 90% of the journals featured that I see are of little or no consequence or interest to the vast majority of the community and has, indirectly, been used by some of our more popular bedfellows as a means of furthering their lynching agendas. A posse staging post if you will. Whilst I realise that individual deviants cannot control their presence there, the very fact that it exists can only be damaging when negativity is positively encouraged. Sure, now and again a genuinely interesting community or art orientated journal appears, but most are the same old popular deviants either writing about mundane issues or they appear because there is a call to arms about a certain (usually alleged) issue with another deviant. I am sure this space could be used far more constructively. As we all know, deviants are regularly told that their news articles are more suited to their journals, ergo, if this is the case, surely a selection of the most popular and latest news articles would be far better suited to the Today page. Yeah, it's repetition, but considering our homepage, as customisable as it is, is geared towards showcasing thumbnails, a more holistic Today page with articles of wider interest would certainly be more palatable to the majority of deviants.
Moving on, the second area that I find particularly infuriating is the 'Reject' option on News articles. Sadly it seems that this 'anonymous' negativity ethic has now been extended to Critiques with the 'Fair' 'Unfair' options.
Why?
What real constructive purpose are these options serving?
There's no reasoning, criticism, counter-criticism or feedback. They simply serve to make people feel like they've done something wrong but, and even worse, they have no avenue for reply, recourse, or discussion as to the reasons for it... ergo, no idea how to improve
if the rejection is a genuine one based upon content.
Would you like an 'Un-Favourite' or 'Reject' option introduced to your individual deviation pages? I think not.
Comments generate discussion. Clicking buttons does not.
Everyone who takes issue with people faving and running already knows about that I'm sure. But at least faving and running has a positive aspect to it.
So why not force those who choose to reject Critiques or News articles to comment, which will at least reveal their identity and allow an option to discuss their views? People who Fav News articles are listed, why not rejecters?
My answer: do away with it all together and, in the true spirit of community, if someone has something constructively critical about your Critique or News article to say then they will say it. If not, they will move along.
I posted my first Critique yesterday. It's had one 'Unfair' vote already. I have no idea why. This disturbs me. I WANT to know why, not necessarily WHO, but WHY... see what I mean?
Art is as much about appreciation and discussion as it is about pressing shutters, clicking mouse buttons and brush strokes.
Please, please, erase anonymous and petty ridiculousness from our midst.
0_0 
