When I review stories, I review them. I assume that the purpose of reviewing is to give you feedback that can help improve your writing. MOST of the reviews I do are towards that goal - you probably wrote an very interesting story that I want to help you see where you can present it even better, so more people will be eager to read your works. Being able to express your creativity through good writing is something I admire and respect - and being an editor is something I love to do. I hope I can help writers share their vision more clearly and enjoyably.
I am not here to give out fuzzy-wuzzy huggly-wugglies. If you want nothing but effusive and meaningless gushing, you're in the wrong place. I can't fathom why someone would be so pathetically needy that they would cover their ears and cry whenever someone tries to give them considered and even feedback. Feedback based on editorial criteria is not intended to be cruel - it's not aimed at the author, it's not calling anyone names, it's not invalidating your purpose in life.
If I was interested enough to read your work, and interested enough to review it, then I think it's good work, something I'd probably like to see more of. Don't throw away any positive comments I make because you get crushed when it's not a blanket, meaningless lovefest. If you sucked, I'd use the word "suck". If I say "it's a great story, but this seemed off" or "that sticks out like a sore thumb", it's because your jewel just has a tiny flaw that a good writer could polish out. And we already established that I probably think you're a good writer!
So read it, decide whether it's valid and then, as a writer, figure out if you want to do anything with it. Maybe you will, maybe you won't. Keep writing and sharing your gift. We'll still listen and ask for more. :)
[Unless I actually used the word "suck". Then I think it sucks. Sometimes, sheer suckitude requires a response for the good of humanity.]