I try to separate what I think happened in the series from what I would've liked to have happened. I find both to valuable discussions to this forum as long as the two don't intertwine and we don't get confused on which is which when a poster makes a reply. That's the real issue in our discussions because there have been plenty of times where posters have interjected their personal preferences into the discussion and let their opinions of the characters color how they see that character and what they actually said or did in the show. Sometimes the reality of what the character said or did differs greatly from what someone claims the character said or did.
That being said, I don't see any problem in questioning the writers as long you acknowledge what they actually wrote. Saying wtf were they thinking is perfectly valid and can lead to great discussions. Acknowledging what they wrote is very important because I don't see how you can criticize them without knowing what they wrote in the first place. That would only lead to "What exactly are you criticizing them for because that never happened?" responses.
There's one main distinction I make between good writing and bad writing. I can disagree with Hank or Rosalee and ask why Nick or Renard did this but as long as I'm referring to the character it's good writing because I'm still immersed in the story. On the other hand, me asking why the writers had Adalind or Wu do something is bad writing because I'm no longer immersed in the story because I'm thinking about what's going on behind the scenes. I'd much rather be concentrated on the puppet than the puppet master.
That being said, I don't see any problem in questioning the writers as long you acknowledge what they actually wrote. Saying wtf were they thinking is perfectly valid and can lead to great discussions. Acknowledging what they wrote is very important because I don't see how you can criticize them without knowing what they wrote in the first place. That would only lead to "What exactly are you criticizing them for because that never happened?" responses.
There's one main distinction I make between good writing and bad writing. I can disagree with Hank or Rosalee and ask why Nick or Renard did this but as long as I'm referring to the character it's good writing because I'm still immersed in the story. On the other hand, me asking why the writers had Adalind or Wu do something is bad writing because I'm no longer immersed in the story because I'm thinking about what's going on behind the scenes. I'd much rather be concentrated on the puppet than the puppet master.