[quote]Oddly, I find the former to be more polite. I'm not sure why. I think it might be because, in the second, the critic seems to be presuming that the writer is writing for the sole benefit of the critic and so should tailor their writing to the critic's benefit. The request, by concept, seems inappropriate to me.

The former is more obviously constructive criticism, and, when such constructive criticism is politely given to somebody receptive to it (and sure, there are people that can't take it) - well, surely they'd welcome the insight if it's explained to them, and be more likely to willingly implement it to improve their own writing, rather than to please a nit-picking critic.[/quote]

I'm not denying that either [i]could[/i] be effective. I am stating, however, that just PM'ing someone with some critiques or posting messages in a thread with a few criticisms of issues you believe are there is blatantly rude. There are alternatives and the difference between the two is that the former doesn't at all state that the error exists in both the writer and the reader. If you have issues reading or enjoying a specific style and wish for alterations and state immediately that you are having such problems, it gives a polite writer more reason to alter them. As a matter of fact, a critique and criticism are different. A critique is merely a detailed analysis while criticism is to judge something based on its merits and flaws. A critique itself is neutral; just an observation and that is what a lot of people believe constructive criticism is. It's not. In most constructive criticism, you are looking at 'flaws' and attempting to get a writer to improve them; that's if you're just plain not being a dick. Fact is, it is rude to just 'judge' someone - especially publicly - and begin pointing out flaws. If an individual has no desire to deal with that, improve or merely alter the aspect you have a problem with because you think it is a flaw, chances are you could have circumvented that if you explained that it was causing a personal issue. 

#1: Your statement was true, but has no real parallel to mine. I pointed out a mechanic involved in a system of people, and a roleplay is in fact still a system of people. Stating a roleplay is not an empire is completely irrelevant to that. The entire point was that a republic would give up its authority to a single person in times of civil unrest, and that is an apparent issue here.

#2. Diluting the purpose of a system like mine because 'the worst case scenario isn't that bad' isn't making its use any less meaningful. If each GM knew that they couldn't just kick out players because they 'wanted to', they would be forced to go through a more significant screening process, roleplays would most likely be smaller, there would most likely exist a) more close-knit inner communities and b) higher level of social stratification. I do firmly believe that making GM's accountable would weed out weaker ones as well.

#3. There is no real checks and balances if there is no way to usurp your decision. An example of what I mean is if a GM created a set pool of traits and a set of rules for creating a character. If a roleplayer creates a character using a small dysfunction in that system allowing for a slightly off-the-wall set of traits and/or abilities, but does so creating a character around that core, whose fault is it? If the GM later instates a rule or a set of guidelines forbidding it, but by far not before the completion of that character, who should have to give in here? In most cases, I say the GM should simply allow said character in, as long as it doesn't otherwise hurt the plot, interactions with other characters and is a quality creation. Yet, if a GM retains the ability to reject a character that cannot be edited without diluting its core concept when it was their lack of communication and foresight that made way for the character, then it is still unfair in that sense. It is a situation as simple as this that I do firmly believe a GM should be held accountable, or the countless similar scenarios when allowing one exception then enforcing the rules would be the 'fair' way to handle it. Yet, if that player is just jettisoned from the roleplay and it goes on, was there any real justice done there? 

The type of system I would like could only ever be implemented on a site-wide range, so it would never come to fruition unless there was another incentives system. If everyone was 'cool like the Fonz', then you'd never need any real system. But, we all know, that's not the case.