The majority of posts here are thoughtful, informative, interesting, encouraging, thought-provoking and/or funny - that's one of the reasons I like being here. Thanks. :) Occasionally there are posts that don't quite come up to the mark. Here're a few of the guidelines I tend to apply when assessing politeness. This does not cover all possible ways to be rude. It probably differs from other people's, including other moderators - what counts as courteous can vary across cultural groups and context. It doesn't mean I always manage to follow these guidelines myself - I've been trying to learn for my own sake to define what it is that people generally and I personally tend to find disrespectful. My guess is that a lot of rudeness (my own and others) is unintentional/unaware (though some of it may be deliberate). Rule 1a: Be polite and respectful. If you have fallen foul of Rule 1a and wish you knew why, or you want to avoid going there, consider reviewing your posts for the following. Avoid: 1. Name calling. 2. Stating or clearly implying that another person or group of people are stupid, generally ignorant, incompetent, bad, or other negative judgment about their character, capabilities or intentions. 3. Stating or clearly implying that you are generally more noble, knowledgeable, intelligent, wise, competent etc than most others. 4. Obscenities. 5. Misrepresenting or misquoting people. 6. Inaccurate generalisations and hyperbole can risk crossing the line, eg 'No-one here ever ...', Everyone always ...' . 7. Uninvited psychological analyses or aspersions about mental (ill-)health. 8. Uninvited judgments that someone else's thoughts are determined by unbalanced hormones etc. (e.g. 'You must have high serotonin to be saying that.') 9. Ridiculing people, including for their health status, appearance, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, religion etc. (Practice humour that isn't at someone else's expense.) 10. Content aimed at making the target feel bad. Rule 1b: Use the forum for the purposes described in the "About" section. These are some of the things I look out for, when it comes to breaching this rule - again, it's my list, not comprehensive, and others may have different ways of looking at it. 1. Posts that are likely to severely confuse readers about Peat's work - eg. posts that systematically contradict Peat without making it clear that they differ significantly from Peat's stated views. 2. Posts that attack the forum, e.g. stating that the forum is all useless, stupid, wrong etc. (If this is what you think, either contribute content to improve it, or find or create another forum that suits you better.) 3. Complaints about the Peat-centric nature and focus of this forum, e.g. complaints about people quoting Peat, or complaints that an overwhelming amount of contrary or unrelated material are not encouraged. (If this isn't the kind of forum you want to be in, that's fine. Maybe you can find or create that somewhere else.) 4. Posts that make personal attacks on admin or moderators. 5. Threats. None of this means we can't disagree with each other on areas of fact or opinion. It does mean discussing or arguing the point, not the person, and making humour that does not attack other people. And there is a matter of emphasis - this is not a forum for all views about everything - it's main purpose is for learning about, discussing and making use of Peat's work.