That's a flame. From my perspective, it's all to do with the attitude of the message and how it's meant to make you feel. True, some writers are oversensitive and will see flames where they don't exist, but experience is usually enough to work out what the review writer's intention was.

But indeed, a personal attack is a dead giveaway, and when reviews consist of unhelpful comments or focus on the author's talent rather than the story's content, I find they're almost always flames anyway.

Especially if you only link to a help site instead of listing the specific flaws with those particular characters. "You can't write" is harsh but isn't enough to (in my opinion) make something a flame, as long as you say "All your characters are Sues because of [blah blah blah blah that is reasonable]. "You deserve to die" is a) inaccurate based on simple bad writing, b) never okay ever, and c) would always make anything a flame.

There's a difference between saying "you suck" and "that story sucks".

There's also a difference between saying "that story sucks" and saying, "that story sucks; here's how you make it better."

Politeness is generally preferable, but it's not politeness that makes something not a flame. It's the general attitude. If you're trying to communicate or inform, then it's not a flame. If you're trying to insult someone or make them feel stupid, then it is.

So, for me, your example would be a flame. Yes, it links to a help site, but its main purpose is to hurt the author. When I give concrit, I do my best to leave the author out of it as much as I can, much like when I PPC stories, and just focus on the writing.

So, instead of saying, "You can't write, etc." I'd go more for something like, "All the characters read like Mary Sues, which isn't something that attracts readers," and then link to the help site.

Then again, I also think that I can be a bit too nice in my critiques. -shrugs- As you say, it's a matter of balance.

--anamia