This is true whether or not I go out of my way to try and appease feelings they may or may not have. In my case, I would actually be more irritated with your way of dancing about then if you just told me things straight. But I take responsibility for my own feelings. I prevent myself from grouching at you out of irritation. Because how I react is my own fault, not yours. So I'm not going to tell you how to talk.
Notice that in my example, I did not "dance around the problem." I still told the person what was wrong with his suggestion and didn't make the problems seem less than they were. I just balanced it out by not going full "Your suggestion has issues, and here's what they are." Obviously, you aren't fully responsible for what a person does because of what you told them, but that does not excuse you for not trying to avoid such problems from occurring.
So long as I don't mean to offend, then yes. If they get upset and start yelling at me, I'll let them know I meant no offense, but that's about it. Their emotions are theirs to control. I'm not going to treat them like animals that may bite me and can be coerced with treats.
You can't treat people like they don't deserve any respect either. If you were to accidently injure someone as part of a harmless prank, just telling them it was just a prank won't somehow make it all better and absolve you from any blame.
I generally do highlight positives and negatives. Unfortunately I come across a lot of suggestions that lack one way or another, or have very little in the way of stand-out qualities or discussion value. If there are more negatives than positives, that will stand out. If I don't think there are positives and you do, it will seem to you like I'm only telling you what's bad about it. And no matter how reasonable a person I can be, getting a low grade doesn't make anyone happy.
It is within your rights to hold my criticism as lesser for any reason, even if they are irrational reasons.
Bashing a suggestion I believe would be "flaming," which is against the rules. I don't need to follow a format to avoid doing it.
To bash means to strike with a smashing or crushing blow. Regardless of whether you are flaming, focusing purely on negatives is bashing.
The big issue here is the assumption that direct and tactless is somehow an ineffective or non-helpful method. I get that you find a tactful approach to be more encouraged (who wouldn't); but I'd like to see some metrics or something that isn't anecdotes to convince me that there aren't other methods.
What works for you may not work on another poster.
Look, being direct and tactless isn't ineffective. It's just generally not the most effective way in my experience.
Consider this scenario: two twins, Bob and Rob, are working the same position at the same job but have two different managers. They are both given the same assignment and made the same exact mistakes. Bob's manager yells at him and says that his report sucked, he produced false information, and he misspelled a couple of terms. Rob's manager sits down with him privately and tells him good job for getting it in early, but that he made a couple of misquotes and used the acronym MTD instead of YTD in several locations. He then ends by telling him that he trusts him to learn from his mistakes and do better next time. Regardless of the personality, background, and maturity of the two employees, who do you think is more likely to learn from his mistake and do better next time? Who is more likely to quit? While either of them could do either, Rob's manager would have to be considered more effective at criticism.
Possibility? Near certainty. Critics are people, people make mistakes. If you're going to be a critic and are going to speak with any air of authority; it's on you to fact-check. If you don't do a fact check; or if you speak out both sides of your mouth; be prepared to be criticized yourself.
A critic is meant to work with a suggester to improve the suggestion; if someone brings in misinformation; it's up to a critic to correct the assertion.
I'm beginning to think that people are attributing a bipartisan opposition concept to suggesters and critics. Critics are not supposed to oppose suggesters; they're supposed to work with them. While people continue to insist that suggesters and critics are opponents; they will remain opponents. You're supposed to be on the same team.
With this granted, sometimes you just don't like a suggestion. That doesn't mean you should dislike the poster; but that you wouldn't want to see the suggestion implemented in Vanilla MC. If you don't like a suggestion; sometimes you won't see anything redeeming about it. But your voice shouldn't be silenced because you can't lump some good with the bad. Listing what are problems and why is constructive criticism. OP doesn't have to like it.
Which is why, like anything else, you practice. It may sound weird to practice optimism, but it can be acquired as a skill. You may have difficulty, or even find it impossible, to find anything good with the suggestion, but you should always at least try, and you'll get better at it.
Which is awesome. It speaks to you and your mindset; but it doesn't speak to the community as a whole. Different strokes for different folks, yo!
While you may value the criticism less (which is your right); it doesn't mean another suggester would hold it less valuable.
I consider myself, and I hope many of you do too, to be a mature suggester on this forum. Most people who make suggestions on this forum are not, however, so they are even less likely to respond to criticism filled with only negative criticism. I'm sure there are a handful of people who wouldn't consider it less valuable, but it is a very small handful, and no one likes having their suggestion shot at.