Avoiding Flame Wars 101

There's quite a few flame wars on the web, and it seems they occur just as frequently on TF2 forums. Unfortunately, when touching on sensitive subjects, they're seemingly hard to avoid. However, the good news is that there's some things you can do to help avoid them. :)

I just recently ran across a post that went something like this:

Title: X, again.

I know a lot of you heavily back group X, and I'm all for the idea, however a recent event involving Y has really made me on fence about them, again. I was at peace about them for a while. To put it short, X is banning everyone from Y...I know that what Y did was wrong, but banning them? That's 100% inappropriate. Its been quite apparent, to me at least, for months now that X is tad bit power crazed. I think it would be wise to request a reform of X in order to avoid more events like this, scandals have been happening left and right, this is undeniable. Just want to hear some input from you guys.

Unfortunately, this degenerated quickly as people who support group X quickly took offense and others rolled their eyes. Equally unfortunate, the intention of the author in this case was actually to obtain input, but that was quickly passed over in favor of the debate over the validity of group X.

I talked with the author later on about this, and his response was something to the effect of "But everything I said was accurate!". Well, that may have been true, and his facts may have been 100% accurate. However, that doesn't mean listing all facts, or certain facts, or even some facts in a certain way, is the best approach to create an atmosphere conducive to avoiding a "ME vs YOU" situation or flame war.

What's the point? If you want to avoid a flame war, be supportive and brief.

1. Start with and genuinely emphasize that you're on the same team as the reader
2. Avoid subtle jabs and sarcasm ("a tiny bit power crazed", etc)
3. Avoid extremes ("100% inappropriate", "happening left and right", "undeniable", etc). 
4. Be brief (even so far as not listing the details or long links in-line where possible, because the physical amount of text required makes it feel large and/or complex)

For example, let's consider the following:

The Democratic Party is wrong. I think we should all vote for the Green Party.

While the statement could be factually true, anyone in your audience who thinks the Democratic Party is right will default to being in a disagreeing mood with anything you write following that (and conversely, the other half of the people will think you are brilliant). This is called a polarizing effect.

Now consider the following:

The the world needs more hugs. I think we should all vote for the Green Party.

That may be equally factually true, but because you start with something the reader agrees with, you are far more likely to get them to support the Green Party -- simply because they will default to agreeing with you (or at least, not think that your opinions are probably wrong).

Here's what I would have suggested the author of our original post write:

Title: Question about X and Y

I know we pride ourselves on making good decisions here, and we all hate to tarnish reputations if at all possible. So I was wondering if you guys felt X's action regarding Y was appropriate or not, and why. Here's some links (1, 2, 3). Personally, I'm leaning toward thinking it's unfair for reason A, B, and C. What are your thoughts?

Do you have any additional suggestions on how to avoid flame wars? Feel free to post a comment!