Board Thread:General Wiki Discussion/@comment-4833240-20140301051701/@comment-24784594-20140303070844

Mikemacdee wrote:

If a writer puts more importance on my addressing them reverently than on my being honest and thorough, they're not mature enough to cut it. I find it very hard to believe that any writer who replied to this blog has ever permanently given up on writing because some stranger didn't speak sweetly enough. People SHOULD leave criticism that's more detailed than "ur pasta suk the fuk", but the importance should be placed on giving USEFUL criticism, not speaking like Glenda the Good Witch when they give it. ImGonnaBeThatGuy knows what he's talking about. I think the main focus on this discussion board was how to critique someone maturely, not kindly. Being nice doesn't define a mature critic. But you also wanna leave feedback that doesn't make you - the reviewer - look like a troll or psychopath. Sure, every now and then, writers will be ignorant, and you'll have to be harsh! But when it comes down to that, you gotta state your reasons for doing so. Otherwise, the writer will either not take you seriously, or just not even listen at all. And as a result, both the writer and the commenter will be giving off immaturity.

And yeah, I just read ImGonnaBeThatGuy's posts, and he also leaves a valid point. What's the use in trying to critique someone who basically doesn't take the site seriously? If you come on here and leave a story with absolutely no effort, and no knowledge of basic grammar and storytelling, then you're bound to have people calling you out on your laziness. However, not ALL first-timers are like that. True, there are waaaaaaaaaay too many who don't know what they're doing and need a wake-up call of sorts (only to have the result be them being babies), but there ARE first-timers who know what grammar and plot are, and even THEY will get criticized blindly. What then? And that's not a question to call anyone out; I truly am wondering what should be done in that case...