Maybe the “muddled” react should be renamed to “confused”, with the intentional ambiguity as to whether the idea itself seems confused or the reactor just found it confusing because they misunderstood something.
That proposal would help to some extent with the possible sentiment issues with “muddled” but I’d still prefer that “muddled” would be split into some more precise reactions. Could also replace “Wrong” perhaps.
Some possibilities:
TL;DR
Unnecessarily wordy [and make “Overcomplicated” specific to the content not form]
Unable to parse
Non sequitur
Ambiguous (i.e. multiple potential meanings)
Disagree with premise(s)
Unclear point
Misrepresentation [could potentially replace “Strawman” but be more general]
So the question arises, is it worth trying to distinguish between these sorts of different things? On the one hand, there’s potentially a lot possible distinctions there that could be tough for a reader to make, but on the other hand I think that precise negative feedback is useful, whereas vague negative feedback is much less so, so I’d be inclined to approve of making it easier to make negative feedback more precise rather than less. On a site aiming for strong epistemic standards, “muddled”/”confused” seems rather vague to me and I doubt it’s that useful to the writer—how do they know what sort of thing they need to fix?
Maybe the “muddled” react should be renamed to “confused”, with the intentional ambiguity as to whether the idea itself seems confused or the reactor just found it confusing because they misunderstood something.
That proposal would help to some extent with the possible sentiment issues with “muddled” but I’d still prefer that “muddled” would be split into some more precise reactions. Could also replace “Wrong” perhaps.
Some possibilities:
TL;DR
Unnecessarily wordy [and make “Overcomplicated” specific to the content not form]
Unable to parse
Non sequitur
Ambiguous (i.e. multiple potential meanings)
Disagree with premise(s)
Unclear point
Misrepresentation [could potentially replace “Strawman” but be more general]
So the question arises, is it worth trying to distinguish between these sorts of different things? On the one hand, there’s potentially a lot possible distinctions there that could be tough for a reader to make, but on the other hand I think that precise negative feedback is useful, whereas vague negative feedback is much less so, so I’d be inclined to approve of making it easier to make negative feedback more precise rather than less. On a site aiming for strong epistemic standards, “muddled”/”confused” seems rather vague to me and I doubt it’s that useful to the writer—how do they know what sort of thing they need to fix?