and his idea was that authors should be BARRED from reviewing, the reason being that authors pick apart other authors work and insist that stories be written as the reviewer would have them written, rather than reviewing them for what they are.
How peculiar!
I'm often struck by
1) how generous many writers are in their reviews. (Witness the recent Tom Justin story, 5 reviews, 9.5 rating, all from writers)
2) how little tit-for-tat reviewing there is between writers.
3) How few malicious reviews there are, even though there are some truly awful stories posted. It's no good beating about the bush. Some stories deserve a good kicking from reviewers. If someone has the vanity required to post their efforts for the world to see, they'll soon get a reality check.
And in any case, they're just stories right? Your self-esteem shouldn't be based on your stories' reviews. If it does, you've got problems!