Yes, i realize you are trying to inform people about the possible backlash that could come from it, but in my honest opinion, that's not really trying to help the situation. Just pointing fingers.
You are welcome to your honest opinion, but I disagree with it. A significant part of the reason I brought this up was because I like my local convention and want it to succeed and be enjoyable and comfortable for everyone.
Bringing up this issue was, I felt, in itself a contribution to that end, and if that was all I chose or was able to do it would still have been worth doing.
I've said it before and I'll say it again: the validity of criticism is in no way diminished by the critic's willingness or ability to help improve the thing being criticized. If I say the quality of McDonald's food is bad, I'm not obligated to pitch in and help them improve it.
My point was that if people feel that there's an inherent issue with the theme and that even if done better it will still be problematic, what would motivate them to help out in bringing that theme to fruition? Better to put any energy in that direction into trying to convince them to change it.
I feel like people are glossing over the word inherent, as in the theme has issues regardless of how it's executed. I feel like this is a cart-before-the-horse situation, as in "we chose a theme which has issues and we're now trying to find a way to justify it" rather than "we chose a theme which doesn't have any issues and are just trying to do it as well as possible".
Yes, i realize you are trying to inform people about the possible backlash that could come from it, but in my honest opinion, that's not really trying to help the situation. Just pointing fingers.
You are welcome to your honest opinion, but I disagree with it. A significant part of the reason I brought this up was because I like my local convention and want it to succeed and be enjoyable and comfortable for everyone.
Bringing up this issue was, I felt, in itself a contribution to that end, and if that was all I chose or was able to do it would still have been worth doing.
I've said it before and I'll say it again: the validity of criticism is in no way diminished by the critic's willingness or ability to help improve the thing being criticized. If I say the quality of McDonald's food is bad, I'm not obligated to pitch in and help them improve it.
My point was that if people feel that there's an inherent issue with the theme and that even if done better it will still be problematic, what would motivate them to help out in bringing that theme to fruition? Better to put any energy in that direction into trying to convince them to change it.
I feel like people are glossing over the word inherent, as in the theme has issues regardless of how it's executed. I feel like this is a cart-before-the-horse situation, as in "we chose a theme which has issues and we're now trying to find a way to justify it" rather than "we chose a theme which doesn't have any issues and are just trying to do it as well as possible".