That I disagree with, at least for ships. The idea behind veteran comments is sound, it's just that they're being abused. Good veteran comments really help to point out the good and bad points of a ship well beyond what the simple stats and tech description show, and I think that kind of comments should stay. For the rest though, I think we should just ditch the "everyone is entitled to state their opinion" policy that has been in effect so far, and start aggressively weeding out the garbage... that's one Jihad I can fully support.
Some stuff I think is good (with examples):
- Info on special gun placements and which banks corrospond to which guns (Ursa's top-right gun, useless versus anything small)
- Warnings about any problems with the ship (Tauret can't really use Kaysers due to energy constraints)
- Weaknesses (weapons system on the Erinyes is extremely exposed. Think 95% hull and no weapons working)
And for capships:
- Blind spots (in front and ever so slightly above a Moloch, only a single blob turret can reach you)
- Special issues (the Azrael is effectively impossible to disable due to the engine placement)
There's more, I'm sure, but stuff like this is where it's at. Not comments like "this is the best/ugliest/fastest fighter" or other subjective things. It has to be about facts you have to deal with in-game if you fly or face that ship.
For weapons though, removing them altogether might be just as well. Unlike the ships, the listed stats really do show everything you need to know about a weapon. Well almost everything - We'd have to add energy drain to the stats listed, but if we do that, everything is covered.