TheKillerSheep seems to have a history of responding poorly to feedback they've received in the forums:
http://www.scp-wiki.net/forum/t-4422703/my-attempt-at-an-incident#post-3647124
Although you're not exactly very good at encouraging new writers. Although this is the critiques section, your overly blunt critique could very easily cause new writers to lose hope and just give up in frustration. That's just more of a general pet peeve I have with this section though. Makes me wonder how many more wonderful articles we would have if this community was a tad more welcoming.
http://www.scp-wiki.net/forum/t-4422703/my-attempt-at-an-incident#post-3647266
Yes yes, high standards and all are important, but you're missing the point here. You're asking writers to throw themselves at a wall over and over again. Now this works wonderfully for some people, but for many people it causes them to get frustrated and give up. Your advice isn't actually helping them climb that wall so much as it's showing them where the wall is and telling them to climb it. In the words that the reviewer of my draft used to call my draft a failure of a log and peurile they could have submitted helpful criticism. For example what about my choice to forgo stage directions? What about my choice to slur the words of the staff when they were drunk? Did that help or did that hurt my writing? I don't know because the reviewer never mentioned it. So I'm going to rewrite this draft, improve the overall pacing and then resubmit it for critism. Then that same person is going to come slamming down on the points they ignored earlier and tell me to try climbing that wall again. I understand that they prioritise certain flaws and that they only have a certain amount of time to spend, that's not the problem. The problem is that they tell you to throw yourself back at that wall with absolutely no indication that you've made any sort of progress. They never praise or even mention what you do well, so you start to think that what they don't mention is good and you don't seek to improve it. Then of course if you do resubmit it, the reviewer then tears into your article again, and the parts you thought were fine are actually terrible. This is rather frustrating and many writers give up at this point. I'm not asking you to be nice out of the kindness of your heart or to coddle people, I'm asking you to use positive feedback when appropriate. Cruelty isn't wrong because ethics are real, cruelty is wrong because it's stupid
http://www.scp-wiki.net/forum/t-4422703/my-attempt-at-an-incident#post-3647375
I know that, the problem is that many people don't. They see your bluntness as an attack, and with absolutely no positive reinforcement to keep them going, they tend to give up. I'm not asking you to make up compliments I'm asking you to use positive reinforcement. Saying something "That's a little better" or even "that's not as terrible" to show them that they've actually made improvements is what I mean. It's not that your feedback is invalid or in bad faith, it's just that it could be better.
http://www.scp-wiki.net/forum/t-4421001/scp-xxxx-the-box-of-boxes#post-3646942
I'll add a story if it improves the article, but I'm not going to sacrifice the quality of the anomaly to shove one in. You do know you can write an interesting article without having much of a story element right? Just because it is the style of articles doesn't mean it's the only way or even a good way to write. The Researcher was supposed to be crazy and unreasonable, but I can see how I didn't do that nearly subtly enough. It's a fine line between too casual and too clinical and it seems I took it the other way this time, but that's fixable. Nice to see the concept is definitely worth further development beyond a rough draft. All in all thanks for the advice :D
I've left a captain post in the first thread; the second one has been commented on by several experienced critters. While I can understand someone disagreeing with feedback they have received, this user's interactions with the forum team don't seem to foster an ideal environment, especially with the whole "reviewers versus the authors" setup they seem to be going with.
Butterfly squad, feel free to give this user a wide berth for the time being. I don't want anyone feeling like they're obligated to get involved with this sort of personality.
