If an author didn't want reviews and comments then they shouldn't post it on the internet for all to see and judge. To borrow his analogy If you open a restaurant to the public expect some bad reviews.
That’s pretty much it, and in that sense. The reviewer cannot complain if they get banned, since the work is for free. It works both ways.
or just don't post in public lol. Keep your stories to yourself.
And I agree there, criticism is part of the process after all. Though, as I stated, multiple times. The work is free, it is not paid for. The standards do not apply as the same. If the work was paid for, then naturally, reviews are mandatory, and the author has no control over this in the least. This is one of the reasons why it is better to ignore it. Now onto the next point, these sites are free. More often than not, the users aren’t here to make a profit. A lot of them simply wishes to just write, and have somewhere to put it. Similarly, much like social media. If you do something offensive, no matter what it is really. If it is in some form of violation, a ban is a ban. Whether this is against a specific person, or a group, etc.
That's an idealist's vision not one of reality. looks good on paper but not so much in practice. You can't stop people from judging a work and the more you try the more people dislike it and work to circumvent it. It doesn't matter if it's free the work is out in the public.
Yeah, judgment will always be there. No getting around it. Though, as I said. It works both ways. You get what you paid for. The work is free, so what happens-happens. Freedom to speak as I said, but not freedom to the consequences of one’s words. Which is why as stated before, be weary of your words. It is better to not say anything at all. Humans have the capacity to reason, which is also why they are held accountable for their actions. Whether this may be unfair or not, it works all the same. If you say something, and if it triggers someone. Then a ban is a ban. You gained the consequences of your words, but you also freely spoke what you meant. Nothing has been in violation.
You're point is really good. Unfortunately, not all authors take things as a mere grain of salt. Sometimes, it also hurts a lot on their part. That's one thing I learned. A painful lesson both as reader and an author. So if I want to help the author become better I tend to send it via dm. Anyway, I feel your point.
Okay, I don't want to make this a bigger deal than it is, and nor do I want this to snowball into an argument that ends up antagonizing everyone. Scribble Hub is not a professional site, but it is a competitive one. If you put your work online, it's because you want some kind of feedback, right? If no one reads their work, would they still strive to publish chapters? Ah, of course, I whole-heartedly agree with what you said. If you have nothing positive to say, then don't say it. It works wonders both in the workplace and in personal relationships, but as I stated, it doesn't apply to reviews. The whole point of a review is to leave a thought about the work you're reading, be it positive or negative. And there's nothing we can do about it, people are opinionated. Don't expect everyone to use their "better judgment" because hardly anyone will care about the mood they'd make the author feel due to their 'bad review'. It is what it is. You just have to swallow the bitter pill and move on. And just because a work is free, it shouldn't be barred from being judged. Also, for all we know, that author might be running a Patreon with advanced chapters, and Salvin might have joined... I don't know, I don't care. A bad review is not going to push anyone into suicide, it's not going to cause some sort of psychological trauma to the author—as long as it is constructive, that is. When you put your story online, you should know exactly what you're getting yourself into.
Look, I will be blunt here. Read every last post I made.
Yep, hit the nail on the head. It works both ways.
My eyesight is bad without my glasses, but I can clearly see you just claimed SH as being a competitive site. You also say the reader here has higher ground, but the site owner intentionally or unintentionally favored the author by doubling down on the current policy more than the suggestion of the reader, so you tell me. Also, don't mistake a charity for business. People spread the word for a cause, so more people can benefit from it - not to profit. The exact same could be said from here. When free food is being given out, the taste isn't your main concern. However, if it's in violation of a health protocol, the first thing you do is report it to the authority, not by leaving a review. If the story is in bad taste, you can report it, no one is stopping you.
There is a ranking, hence there is a competition. Readers favor the best stories, and even those get plenty of negative reviews. Also, you can't really expect Tony to unblock Slavin just so he can leave a review, can you? What's done is done. This whole diatribe started because we don't see eye to eye about bad reviews. Which is fine. And... all of my posts so far have been about our split opinion, not about Slavin being blocked. As I said, I don't care. It is what it is.
There is a competition, but it doesn't mean it is highly competitive. The point of this concern being raised wasn't just to unblock the op, but to change a policy, and the argument given was that the author should suck it up, so people should still be even able to leave review after being blocked. This is why we're in disagreement. I countered due to the nature of the site - it is chill. The emphasis is given less on the quality and and numbers, meaning to say neither author nor reader are superior. But to be clear, I am not saying that the author should, in fact, ignore criticism, I'm just saying they have the option to do so cause this site is meant to be chill. It also doesn't necessarily mean the author could just sit and ignore and block all criticism since it is inevitable, but at the very least they can be selective about it.
No, my main disagreement was with Valmond since he was of the opinion that readers should avoid leaving bad reviews. I guess you just got caught in the crossfire, somehow. Yes, let's leave it here.
I was talking more about what they say about comments not the reviews. Saying we shouldn't say negative things or the authors should have full control on what others should and could say.
"If you don't have anything good to say, don't say it." -I disagree with this.
