Couple of comments about etiquette, since this is what this post appears to be about, rather than the crane MOC in question per se, though it does involve many quotes and responses from others. I will not pull in the quotes from every since response (though I will bring in some), that would be a dissertation, but rest assured, the below references are accurate.
Also, I have no affiliation nor ties with @Sariel, so please consider this before any criticism of "defending" him. I try to be as objective as I can, and here is simply my perception of what I read in the post in question. In summary, I think it is very important to be aware of the trajectory of responses that led to the outcome. No one has made comment to this, and I think it helps add clarification to the very nature of the argument.
For what it is worth, this is a community, and in any community you have to be aware of the members at play. Whether you like this or not this is the reality; and often age and maturity helps bring forth this awareness.
That being said, there is the trajectory of responses that led to the fracas. This all began because of @M_longer's response here:
It really would look better built in smaller scale, because now it looks like few pieces mixed together. You have big off road chassis, tiny outriggers suitable for cherry picker and thin boom, that does not match the scale of the model.
Actually, it looks like some russian crane trucks or specialized oilfield machinery:
Now, @M_longer has been criticized in the past for being too harsh, but from my point of view, he has made great strides forward in this. Several past posts have even been quite complimentary and when advice is offered it seems to be with less acrimony. The above is no different. Very harmless, appropriate, and accurate IMO.
Next, @Aventador2004 came back with:
It doesn't have to look good to work. I see nothing wrong with something like this. A freestyle build based on something else.
Nothing wrong with this either, however, it does appear blatantly like a "cover-up" (i.e. trying to back-track by calling it a freestyle build when the initial builder obviously was not free-styling) and as though he is defending the original OP.
In fact, @M_longer then returns exactly that. He states that as a free-style the model is great (literally says "great" and "powerful"). The rest of his response is only defending the idea of calling something what it actually is.
As a freestyle model it looks great, powerfull. But as you can see it was named Liebherr LTM 1060? Does it look like this?
The post then compares the two images we are all now aware of. I will not repost. And @Aventador2004 then comes back with
Quite similar actually, it has the body lines, capability, and all the functions.
Now, this is where it all falls apart for me. Up to this point, things were pretty copacetic. The MOC in question, compared to its real-life thing are not even close. Objectively depicted by image overlays later in the post. What accounts for the disparity? I don't think we have an organic problem of vision, therefore the only reason I can see for the response by @Aventador2004 is that there is a lot of top-down processing going on here (if not familiar - look it up).
@Sariel notices this, and posts:
Respectfully, you're starting to bend the fabric of reality here. This is a LEGO model that looks quite similar to a Liebherr crane:
I am not sure how this could have been more delicately put. To claim that the two pics are "bending reality" seems to me, entirely accurate. In fact, the picture overlays demonstrate this to a degree where I think Sariel's comments can be taken literally. To bend reality in such a matter one has to look elsewhere why this might be the case. Like I said, aside from an organic visual problem, the only thing I can see that might account for this bending reality is some bias lens that the poster (@aventador2004) is seeing through. Begs the question of what this might be.
After this, things disintegrate. It involves what appears to be a young (if not underage) but otherwise fantastic and contributing member of the community trying to take on, verbally in argument, one of the most seasoned and talented builders out there. Sparks are likely to fly here. This is not news nor should we be shocked by this. As mentioned, nothing is inherently wrong with this, and to this point things were more or less copacetic.
So we then are left to see how things play out. And, at least to me, the first logic and posting etiquette that begins to fade is not by @Sariel , but @Aventador2004 . A couple posts later he comments that he did not want to argue about the topic (when by all accounts he appears the instigator), calls Sariel's past comments "harsh" (I see no harshness in his comments to this point) and then he begins to throw barbs at others that haven't even joined in the conversation yet. Stating "At least this OP did not claim to Have a Game Changing Moc" really shows the true motivation behind @Aventador2004. This is a cloaked insult, and readers need to be aware of this. Comes not from wanting to contribute something meaningful, but because of hurt feelings. It is drudging up a past that has long been at rest. This horse was dead a long time ago, and he chooses to dig it up and kick it again.
This is where @Aventador2004's comments lose me. Fingers are being pointed at sariel but it is the former who first turns to name-calling. Which, by the way, then the original OP, who has been quiet through this whole ordeal then chimes in, and also joins in the insults (i.e. " May be no one should be making any MOCs, except you as well?")
I will stop here. My point is the trajectory of the posts in question tell a lot of the story that people are missing. I am not sure the comments by @Aventador2004 are as benign and innocent as people are perceiving. Etiquette begins to fade here and true colors are beginning to merge. This has been a theme in the past, and I know this will be unpopular to state, but I am going to anyways. There appears to a lack of logic here to critiquing Sariel's initial comments, and it eerily smells like jealousy.
As we look forward to the future of postings, and their etiquette - @Aventador2004 was certainly correct about one thing. In a future post he states
if we are to keep the hobby alive and not make it into "Only the fittest survive". We need to encourage some builders onward. This does mean holding our tongue once in a while, or just not posting. If you dont like it, don't comment. Simple.
Eloquently put. Solid, and mature. Bravo. Words and maturity are spot on, as well as the rationale. Despite this, it is also incomplete. If I were to be so bold, I would take these exact words and extend them to offering something like:
We also need to be aware of over-sensitivity from young builders and new or inexperienced builders need to be open and receptive to feedback from others. EVEN IF IT IS UNCOMFORTABLE. Lastly, young builders need to be aware that their MOCs are not likely to be as popular as those more experienced, and this needs to be accepted. The power of online posting lies with the OP; and awareness of the above is paramount to have a positive experience.
We cannot go too far to bend reality to make life and her experience more comfortable for others. Because, in the end, I am not sure this really helps them. Perhaps in the short run, but not the long run. "Encouraging some builders onward" is not just defined as being nice or massaging feelings; but being accurate as well. From the perspective of this lone member, that is exactly how I perceived @M_longer's and @Sariel's comments to be.
Why? Discussion is good here. Perhaps there is a learning point - perhaps not in the direction you want but a learning point nonetheless.
Listen, this sounds harsh, but I truly mean it from a supportive role. You mention, again, that you wanted a "calm" conversation or something like it. However, it was you that first turned to insults. To play the good guy here is not your best card. Perhaps there is learning here - like I said, just not in the direction you want it.
I for one would really like it if this thread stays alive. I would like this conversation to continue.
Erik - I am not sure I see Sariel not being nice at all. Perhaps defensive, but not unkind.
But I think defensiveness is perhaps appropriate. I can own up to it, I feel a little as well. I think we have a right to stick up for the very nature of this forum, and as I see it, Sariel's concern of being too accepting, or unwilling to call a spade a spade is a real concern here. IMO, it really applied to the post in question.