|
|
Forums - Modelling / Smallscale |
The construction forum is for the discussion of small scale AFV modelling. Usually this refers to 1-76th and 1-72nd scale AFVs. |
|
|
| Subject: | Re: Fair review? |  |
| Date: | Oct 6, 2005 |
| From: | Doug Chaltry | |
Hi Jeff,
Thanks for the non-confrontational reply. Your argument is very reasonable, however, I simply disagree with your view :-) And I'll tell you why.
Frankly, a person's background means nothing to me. Why? Because background is not a clear indicator of bias. There are so many things that can cause bias that background is only one of many, so why get fixated on that one? If I was affiliated with a specific manufacturer, would that automatically mean that I am biased? Of course not, so why would somebody feel that that it would? Maybe this view stems from people who are all too ready to see the negative side in everything and everybody.
A person's involvement in this hobby can range from being a newbie with only one or two model purchases and no background in tanks or models, to someone at the other extreme who is a former tank driver, has been part of this hobby for 25 years, has accumulated a collection of hundreds of model kits from all major and lesser manufacturers, has a library of hundreds of reference books on all sorts of AFV subjects, is a prolific model reviewer, writing articles for magazines and websites, and possibly even books. Where along this spectrum does somebody's opinions become "suspect" or "questionable"? The minute they get involved with a manufacturer in some way?
Every single person in this hobby has bias. This bias may be formed from any number of reasons. To assume someone is biased simply because he's affiliated with a manufacturer is presumptuous, antagonistic, and downright unsociable.
I personally own every small scale kit that Revell has made (except the Nashorn), and most of the kits made by Dragon. Based on this first-hand knowledge, generally speaking I prefer Revell over Dragon. Is this a bias? Yes, but it is based on first-hand experience. However, when I tell you that three of the Revell kits I own were given to me by Revell, but none of the Dragon kits were given to me by Dragon, does that color your opinion of my bias? I imagine that for many people, it does. And I say to that: too bad. That is an unfounded assumption of dishonesty, and I find it insulting that people who don't know me would automatically assume that. The same thing goes for Gert. There was absolutely nothing in his review that indicates dishonesty. The suspicion began only after it was made known that he's an after-market model maker.
I know I'm getting long-winded here, but this is an issue that has bothered me for years. When I read model reviews that end with a stupid quote such as "I have no relationship with this company", my first thought is "Who cares? Thanks for the review." We are all intelligent people here. We don't need people to tell us how "reliable" their reviews are. What if that person who says they have no relationship with the manufacturer is lying? To assume that he is lying, is no different than assuming that someone who DOES have a connection to a manufacturer is biased.
My final point is that this site is dedicated to reviewing MODELS. That is what Gert did. What the others are doing is reviewing HIM. And that I think is rude. As I said above, he's the only one I've seen who has done a side-by-side comparison of the two kits. Let's see someone else do the same thing, before they accuse Gert of being biased.
The bottom line is that he said both kits have strengths and weaknesses, and in comparison with each other, he prefers the Revell kit, primarily because of the hard tracks. Bravo. Someone else said that they prefer Dragon, primarily because of the open hatches. Great. That's the kind of discourse we need here. Not "I'm not going to believe anything you say, simply because you are a model manufacturer." If people want to believe that, fine. I just wish they would keep it to themselves, because opinions like that don't belong on a forum for reviewing models.
OK, I'm done. Sorry for ranting.
-Doug |
| |
|
|
 | Fair review? - Gabriel W. - Oct 6, 2005 |
| . . . Re: Fair review? - Doug Chaltry - Oct 6, 2005 |
| . . . . . . Re: Fair review? - Jeff - Oct 6, 2005 |
| . . . . . . . . . Re: Fair review? - Doug Chaltry - Oct 6, 2005 |
| . . . . . . . . . Re: Fair review? - stephen brezinski - Oct 7, 2005 |
| . . . . . . Re: Fair review? - Gordon Nickels - Oct 6, 2005 |
| . . . . . . . . . Re: Fair review? - Doug Chaltry - Oct 6, 2005 |
| . . . Re: Fair review? - Bram Corts - Oct 6, 2005 |
| . . . . . . Re: Fair review? - John Colin - Oct 7, 2005 |
| . . . . . . . . . Re: Fair review? - Till Huber - Oct 11, 2005 |
| . . . Re: Fair review? - David O'Barr - Oct 11, 2005 |
|
|
