Estoria#4001

Emily Bett Rickards use to star in good shows But then she took an Arrow to the knee

Because the happy-go-lucky "it can be a positive thing" stance I have is usually the exception and not the rule

Also allow me to say that you have the right to be negative

By the way, I am completely open to what you're saying being true, Snow. My opposition is simply that being the default assumption with no benefit of the doubt regarding it not being that in any circumstance.

But when you react and examine a piece of criticism while reacting, isn't that basically a review

Yeah, but you were talking about the concept, not the channel as a standalone

Again, that's the least cheritable interpretation possible, and it borders on being in bad-faith

But I find this over protective viewpoint unsustainable, whenever you share something publically you should be aware that it is eligible for criticism

Maybe they just find it interesting to talk about? It doesn't need to be a malicious force trying to tear down everyone who shows an inkling of respect and appreciation for the game. But I'm uninformed since I haven't seen the podcast in question, which I should before commenting more.

If you don't like excruciating detail and pedantry, stay away from his channel

MauLer is definitely not for everyone

MauLer's own fanbase meme that part They call him the "Longoid"

Yeah

I heavily disagree with that It can be unfair, if it's done in bad faith and the responding party constantly strawman's the views of the one being responded But it can be fair if done in good faith and with a good dose of iron-manning HBomberGuy once did a nearly 2-hour long video defending Dark Souls 2 and dunking on MatthewMattosis in the process, misrepresenting his points and disingenuously editing out important parts from it. And few people bat an eye. MauLer then did an in-depth 10 hour long deconstruction of Bomber's response and played his entire video in order to provide the most accurate framing possible. And people shit on it because it's too long.

There isn't There can be But it's not a surefire thing As I've said, it depends on the approach taken

Except you don't know if it's that Saying that the sole purpose is "proving the person wrong" is reduction to absurdism It can be that, for sure. There are many bad faith responses out there

I will watch the podcast myself and see what it's all about

If you actually go through a person's argument and comb them, exploring them and also using them as a springboard to explore other topics, that is entirely fine That is not close minded at all And if reeks of an argument someone who did not watch the podcast in question would deliver As you can not possibly be sure as to if they simply attack and insult the person in question of if they're more interested in exploring the arguments given in the review itself

There is value and merit in reviewing criticism Saying there isn't is honestly close-minded It's all about the approach

It's not

I would like not to draw arbitrary time limits over how long your reviews and/or responses can be

Length is not an issue, it's all about the approach

Smudcast and his buddy MauLer like to do responses, there's nothing wrong with it

Why is that a problem