I'm not sure if I'm stupid, but, does anyone else find it impossible to critique by the established guidelines?

I know I'm stupid for thinking I'm stupid, and I'm sorry if I ruffle anyone's feathers by saying so. I read the rules, I read the guidelines. It's just that 1.51 seems to be very confusing to me, and that's what I want to talk about. It seems like it changes with everything.<br><br>For example, in one of the posts I critiqued, I wrote that a specific plot point seemed implausible to me, and then provided evidence for why I thought so. I felt like this was a constructive critique, because not only was I pointing out the problem, but then I also offered up a solution as to why it was a problem. Everyone loves a good solution, right?<br><br>First of all, that was wrong, apparently, because I was told that I broke rule 1.51.<br><br>Secondly, what even is 1.51? It sometimes feels like the same piece of feedback can, depending on the context, be a personal attack, or a constructive critique. Is it not allowed to critique anything that's under a character's POV? I see a lot of people do so, but I don't understand if it's right or wrong.<br><br>Why do some people see it as rude when it clearly makes sense in context, and why do others see it as normal and acceptable when it seems wrong to me and others?<br><br>Again, I'm sorry that I don't fully understand it. I want to be a good member here, because I think this is one of the best resources for writers to improve. I'm sorry if I didn't make myself clear, or if I used poor grammar/spelling. Feel free to point it out. Thanks.