She spends more than enough time and effort researching and writing her reviews as well as getting feedback from well know and trusted testers for her reviews to be good. But everything in her reviews is usually spot unless Wargaming changes things last minute in which case Mouse’s reviews will just be generally close to being accurate and still very useful.

Yes I have only slightly disagreed with Miss Mouse on couple reviews mainly her Angry Youtuber ratings of Duke of York and Graf Spee back in the day, but I kept the fact polite and respectful and she informed me that Garbage, Mehboat, Goodboat, And Overpowered rating has often been a joke / trick for those that skip reading her very well done reviews and simple check the rating. He did what was correct and understandable, just that the answer wasn't right. I respect Mouse and I think she is a reliable source, but I am perfectly capable to disagreeing and debating against her.Ī researcher can be reliable but wrong: his data collected from hours worth of collection and the wrong conclusion he gave based on that data that attested to by others could be wrong, but he isn't unreliable.

Looking at one of the original posts that started this, this was TwinBaka telling Mouse that she, in general, did not have the experience or the perspective to make a review despite the fact that she has already put in hours worth of work into each of them: It's even more obvious in the quote I replied to. It's because the person she is pissed by is discrediting her hard-earned reliability that was gained by thousands of hours of research, while having contributed a tiny amount relative to her.

No, the reason why Mouse is pissed isn't because she is being objected against.

World of warships jean bart review