Something that really irritates me about the concrit debate...

Is the fact it is called the concrit debate.

At the end of the day rather critique is constructive or not is something the author decides not you.

You can write the most well written nuanced critique possible and it can still not be constructive for the author you sent it to.

On the other hand another author might find the most sloppily written borderline abusive comment to be incredibly constructive for their own reasons.

At the end of the day rather critique is constructive or not isn't set in stone so I get irritated with the entire so called debate.

It also doesn't help that folks way to often prove themselves to be spectacular hypocrites about things.

I mean I've seen folks constantly moaning about how folks don't want their critique that is totally offered out of desire to help them improve and yet you don't see them going off and offering their critique to the authors who practically beg for it do you.

Instead you see them complaining and blaming the authors who don't want their critique for them not commenting anymore.

My stance on the critique debate..

It is simple you respect writers wishes and you do what is best for you if they are incompatible find someone else to read.

If you really enjoy giving long detailed critiques you find the writers who want that and have fun.

If your only able to leave little short comments then go to town and ignore the folks who don't want feedback or only want more detailed reviews.

Not like to leave comments at all then find the folks who don't seem that concerned or don't want comments and read guilt free.