[quote=@Roach]
I just calls them like I sees them. People who rewrite other people's works (without being asked to) in, say, friendly [i]creative writing contests[/i] on the internet are people with no awareness of how constructive criticism works in the real world. I stand by my point: they are bad at critique.
[/quote] 

[quote=@Roach]
Unironically, no-one brought hurt feelings into it. People who rewrite are assholes, yes. 

But [b][u]we both know[/u][/b] why this particular example of bad writing advice niggles at you so.
[/quote]

Hey, look your mind reading again.

Pray tell. If no one took a person's critique personally. Why would someone like you feel the need to make ad-hom attacks exactly? 

And ironically, this almost proves my point. (In that someone is flat out stating something, that has no example offered, or elaboration on why it's so bad.) But, I digress.

So, before you had to bring it up the second time. When I wanted to be nice and shrug the obvious cheap shot off. I was weighing on questioning precisely what you think critique is meant to do. When you posted right under my review, "Long review is bad. Because it's not friendly."

Well, here's the thing.

Critique isn't friendly. It's not fun to hear. No matter how lighthearted and filled with sorry's one makes it. Because people can utterly freak out regardless. Or act like you, and attack someone's method regarding their own preconceived flaws on what was said. When here's the dirtiest truth of them all, it's only meant to help and offer suggestions for improvement. Nothing more, nothing less.

No, providing every detail of not only what you liked, why you liked it, what you didn't like, why you didn't like it, what was actually wrong, and friendly suggestions to improve, is not, nor will it ever be "bad critique". And because I *do* know what I meant. And many people who appreciate it, knew it wasn't "to feed an ego".

[quote=@Roach]
No one is saying that you cannot [b]suggest[/b] changes. The problem comes from literally rewriting the words. The author's authentic voice is a better fit for their own work than a stranger's. 
[/quote]

Nothing is stopping an author from explaining that themselves then. And better yet, taking one's rewritten words, going "Hmm. Okay, how do I take that advice, and then make it my own?" 

Because, I don't believe anything is perfect. If I fuck up in writing or critique, the more specific you are, the better it is to me.

And the total reverse of you claiming "suggestions to fix sentences are always bad". Isn't useful to me at all. Because it provides me no wiggle room to grow as a critic. Something that everyone should work to improve upon.

And let's cut to the "bring me down" chase, and say I've had many PM from people I've critiqued/advised in the exact same way, and thank me for how clear I was. So, don't tell me that it can never work. Because I know it can, and does help people. Especially, those who can actually assume one's good faith.

And, cherry on top. If the author is allowed to have a voice that is unquestioned in their method, breaking any rule that suits them.

Well, why can't the critic or the reader be allowed to have their own methods of review, that may even be different from how someone else tells them "the right way to offer help"?
[hr]
TLDR: Let's be honest. What you take offense to is up to you. But just maybe, it helps to give people the benefit of the doubt. 

And no, giving someone your opinion of potential better sentences. Isn't "being an asshole". When the person is doing it with the intention to help you improve. And it's far more likely that you can't accept critique. Because good writers, will ask follow up questions to their fellow writers/critics, if their goal is to improve. If not, then even sheer dismissal, is still far better than blindly lashing out.