"The Content Machine"

The tone here is quite negative and even insulting, with the use of "fucking psycho" and describing the person as having a "fire in his eyes." This type of harsh, personal language tends to weaken the credibility of the review. While the reviewer does mention crossing paths and meeting the person, there are no concrete details or examples provided to back up the strong claims. The review feels more like an emotional outburst than a balanced assessment. Classification: H-NEG-INSULT This would be classified as a human-written, negative review that contains direct insults and lacks specific, factual evidence to support the criticisms. Suggested Response: Header: Turn anger into signal Body: I understand this person's behavior really bothered you, and that deserves to be addressed. However, the insults make it easy for others to dismiss your review as just raw emotion. If you describe what actually happened - the specific incidents or actions that led to your distrust - your words will carry much more weight. You can keep the same overall verdict, but grounding it in concrete facts instead of labels. That kind of critical feedback is more likely to be remembered and respected, even after the initial anger fades. The key here is to acknowledge the reviewer's feelings, but guide them towards providing more objective, factual information to strengthen their case. Insults tend to undermine credibility, so redirecting them towards specific examples is important. 📝 Original review: https://app.ethos.network/activity/review/563952