"You don't have to play it"
"You don't have to live here"
"You don't have to work here"
"You don't have to X"
Choose anything you want, and they're all just as invalid forms of argument.
Criticism is criticism, and is justified no matter the source or receiver of the criticism.
I am fine with you saying that people shouldn't need immteraction, that's valid. I am not fine with you using the argument styled "This is a FREE game, you don't have to play it. The Imms put their free time into running this game, they don't have to. They don't get paid for it. If you don't like how they are running it, leave. Or else just shut the fuck up and deal with it."
That's bullshit.
If someone gives me a gift (which is free) - I can still say I don't like it, or it smells like shit (because they gave me a fucking turd in a box) or I can suggest ways they might improve their gift giving.
If someone offers a free service, let's say food to the homeless - But then pisses into the soup, the homeless folks are absolutely justified in criticizing the food and those who made it. Sure, they don't have to eat it. Nobody has to. But it was offered, and thus opens itself up to criticism.
Criticism isn't inherently a bad thing. I find that I prefer whiny/crappy criticism to people who don't talk criticism well. In short, I'd rather be around someone who complains too much than someone who can't take a complaint.
But yeah, your kind of post, right here, is one of the reasons I think people have some lacking ability to understand how exactly discussion, change, improvement, etc. all work.
I don't get why people are so adverse to complaints and criticism at all, even if the complaint/criticism ends up being shit some (heck, as far as I'm concerned, make it MOST of the time and I still feel this way) of the time.
Quote
I answer, that it is assuming very much more. There is the greatest difference between presuming an opinion to be true, because, with every opportunity for contesting it, it has not been refuted, and assuming its truth for the purpose of not permitting its refutation. Complete liberty of contradicting and disproving our opinion, is the very condition which justifies us in assuming its truth for purposes of action; and on no other terms can a being with human faculties have any rational assurance of being right. (...)
(...)
In the case of any person whose judgment is really deserving of confidence, how has it become so? Because he has kept his mind open to criticism of his opinions and conduct. Because it has been his practice to listen to all that could be said against him; to profit by as much of it as was just, and expound to himself, and upon occasion to others, the fallacy of what was fallacious. Because he has felt, that the only way in which a human being can make some approach to knowing the whole of a subject, is by hearing what can be said about it by persons of every variety of opinion, and studying all modes in which it can be looked at by every character of mind. No wise man ever acquired his wisdom in any mode but this; nor is it in the nature of human intellect to become wise in any other manner. The steady habit of correcting and completing his own opinion by collating it with those of others, so far from causing doubt and hesitation in carrying it into practice, is the only stable foundation for a just reliance on it: for, being cognisant of all that can, at least obviously, be said against him, and having taken up his position against all gainsayers—knowing that he has sought for objections and difficulties, instead of avoiding them, and has shut out no light which can be thrown upon the subject from any quarter—he has a right to think his judgment better than that of any person, or any multitude, who have not gone through a similar process.
etc. etc. etc
U DONT LIKE COMPLAINTS? THESE COMPLAINTS ARE FREE, U DONT GOTTA READUM. U SHUD LEAVE THE FORUM OR CF SINCE COMPLAINTS EXIST THIS IS COMMUNITY GAME U FAGUT