Okay, so let's take "stupid" out of Duff's first sentence and run it again:
"Please tell me what other industry, service, or ANYTHING where the attitude of "We should just he be happy we're getting it at all!!!" exists in...name one...and GO!"
That becomes a lot more difficult to address, like it or not.
You go straight to the four-figure mower, Kerry, glossing right over the botched restaurant meal that's closer in expense. And to state the model's purpose as static display is to vastly oversimplify its reason for existence. Any paperweight or plaque or trophy or flower vase can just sit there in static display. What separates the model is that it's meant as a scale reproduction of something, meant to resemble that prototype as closely as possible. And what's constantly implied but never satisfactorily proven is how it makes you somehow less of a modeler to expect the base kit to do its job as well as possible.
There are plenty of modelers, fully capable of correcting kits, who'd sooner dedicate their considerable skills to enhancement rather than those corrections; but from the look of your rules, apparently they're not "real modelers". How does that make any sense?
And then there's another element that I've been playing with for a day or two, the notion of kit criticism as "trolling". And make no mistake, I'm flat-out grateful to have this pointed out to me, because it looks like the first tiny window into a mode of thought that's left me utterly bewildered for the better part of a decade.
If I understand the concept correctly, to troll a forum is to post content with no other purpose in mind than to agitate other forum members and create a ruckus. To call kit criticism "trolling" is to preclude the possibility that a member may be posting out of actual disappointment with the kit. Fact is, you can't read minds, and who knows - maybe there really are people who trash kits purely to get a rise out of other forum members.
But I think that kind of post will have a pretty distinct attitude about it, and to treat any harsh review as if it's trolling has little basis in reality. Post #293, page 15, for instance. Closest thing to an out-and-out diatribe in this thread, and I'll go so far as to say his post was rather more strident than I would've done, some of it maybe even premature. But I'll not presume to judge Roger's content as "trolling", and I'm certainly not to going to reference a totally unrelated thread about another kit to address anything I find questionable about his post.
Said it before, and I'll say it again: you look at it objectively, it's not really the criticism getting these threads closed. It's the people who from all appearances just can't get over the fact that KITS WILL BE CRITICIZED.
Note that I do NOT claim any of you who object to criticism are doing it for kicks. The outrage I see from some of you is palpable and genuine - I just fail to understand the first rational basis for it. And again, I ask: if you yourself didn't develop the kit, what is it to you?
Edited by Chuck Kourouklis, 26 July 2013 - 09:13 AM.