In the context of modern casual games, bonuses often have no purpose other than an extra shiny thing. For example, if Flight Control had bonuses there wouldn’t be any change in player behavior since players are trying to miss as few as possible landings already.

(Also, maybe it’s just me, but I would find a 17th place ribbon more humiliating than no ribbon at all.)

This is my point, Dale. Disagreement, to your eyes, is negative and needs to be minimized.

Dan, that is not how I see it. Disagreement should not be minimized. I think it should be on even ground with praise.

(also, if I wanted to minimize disagreement I would not continue this discussion — for me, this is an opportunity for growth)

I liked your tool example but I think we shouldn’t lay out more sledge hammers and axes than nail guns and screw drivers.

I’ll let you have the last word. We can’t continue this exchange forever.

No, I would not have.

This is my point, Dale. Disagreement, to your eyes, is negative and needs to be minimized. Agreement is positive and should be maximized. But they are both value neutral. Disagreement and agreement are equally capable tools for uncovering truth wherever it lies, for exposing and clarifying the thought processes underlying our practice. Stigmatizing one of them is functionally the same as laying half your power tools out on the lawn beneath a sign that says “Free – Please Take.”

No, I would not have. You also took care of this in the previous post.

You asked “Can we respect one another and the commitment each of us brings to us a difficult job while at the same time setting a high bar for our ideas and practice?”

Yes we can. I read your post “‘Swap Design’ for ‘Edublogging'” and I agree with it. However, I think there is a fine line between being honesty and being mean.

Our respect for one another – despite our good ideas and practice – erodes if we use criticism and disagreement too frequently as our only means to set a high bar.

If I had linked to a comment I agreed with – one that recommended dusting the lock for fingerprints, let’s say – would you have written:

What’s the deal linking to the comment about dusting the lock for fingerprints? We got what you meant without the link. Why showcase the praise?

I don’t hyperlink to score cheap points or to prop myself up or for any other reason except that the more sources I link into a post – whether those sources or off-site or on-, comments I wrote or that someone else wrote, comments I agreed with or disagreed with – the more valuable the post will be for me when I come looking for it in the future.

Criticism and disagreement have been unfairly stigmatized by edubloggers as something that only bullies do to put other people down. This is a sad fact, especially for a job with stakes as high as ours. Can we respect one another and the commitment each of us brings to us a difficult job while at the same time setting a high bar for our ideas and practice?

#5 Good games/lessons don’t focus on failure – keep track of the planes landed not the number of planes crashed.

#6 Good games/lessons are always being improved – perhaps Flight Control has an auto update?

#7 Good games/lessons invite both genders to navigate through them – couldn’t help notice the ol’ time stewardess

One other matter I’d like to address- what’s the deal linking to the comment about the broken button? We got what you meant without the link. Why showcase the criticism? I’m not saying you should pull your punches. You responded to this in the comments of the Door Lock post. That was enough. Why come back with another jab below the belt by taking the time to consciously link to the comment you disagree with?

I think the differentiation is found in allowing the inquiry to move to investigation.