Quote - I was a member of a 16mm Model Railway forum and they ran a similar procedure although, in truth most personal attacks were picked up and corrected before such procedures were needed.  Again though it was a very much smaller forum.

I can understand, and agree with personal attacks being deleted but often the attacks are the result of a dubious post.  AmbientShade highlighted what I felt was a very valid point in that the number of personal attacks would be reduced if it was made clear what was fact and what was opinion.  Everyone is entitled to their veiwpoint but attacking a peice of software on the basis you have some inside knowledge that you cannot divulge might just get someones back up. 

 

Absent any reason to believe otherwise, I always assume that what someone says is merely their opinion. Especially if their statement contains the pronoun "I". :) Things only become facts when there is independent confirmation.

I frequently qualify what I say with "I think" or "I believe" or "In my experience", and so on. But I was taught in university that this unnecessarily weakened my writing because it was assumed that if you used the first person in your statement you were biased and speaking from experience that may be impossible to corroborate. So I sometimes forget to include all those little qualifiers. :D

People who are ripe to be offended will be offended even with a reminder that a statement is only a matter of opinion. Some people will be offended that you disagree with them at all. Some people will appear to be offended when they're just passionate about their own position. It's very hard to judge at times.

And then there are people who just seem to be in a perpetual bad mood. I suppose you could ban them. But often they have useful and valid things to say on many topics... It's a serious challenge balancing all these different factors. I know that much.

---

PoserPro 2014, PS CS5.5 Ext, Nikon D300. Win 8, i7-4770 @ 3.4 GHz, AMD Radeon 8570, 12 GB RAM.