What makes a civil critique?

As someone who has used this forum to critique everything from urban planning to restaurant decor, it is hard to decipher when a comment may hurt a person's sensibilities. Any critique is a personal judgment based on taste, experience, knowledge, and with fear of being politically incorrect, socio-economic background.

I have been wounded several times on this forum and have retaliated defensively with wanton intent. Yet, it is the very provocative nature of this forum that makes it so darn interesting! In addition, Robin has opened up this forum to all comers regardless of their so called adroitness when it comes to culinary opinions. Thus, really, no one on this forum is an expert, no one is right, and no one has perfect taste. We share our impressions and wonder if other people agree or disagree. I guess it is important and fair to at least attempt not to hurt someone's feelings.

Thus, everyone can sink their teeth into a hunk of barbecue and decide if it's good or bad. Last I looked, Harvard was not awarding a Ph.D in dry or wet Bar B Q!

[Robin Garr]

I've been addressing a similar issue in another thread, Phil, and I hope we can put it to rest, because this is something I feel firmly about. And since I paid for this microphone (R. Reagan, 1980), I get to decide:

There are two simple principles: How we talk about restaurants, and how we talk about each other.

1. When you review a restaurant, you have a right to be as negative (or as positive) as you wish. You will probably be more persuasive if you frame your comments intelligently and express them with grace and style, but that's not required. Say your piece. You have a right to do that.

2. DO NOT BASH, INSULT OR FLAME FELLOW FORUMITES. If you disagree with a person, dispute the argument, not the poster. Again, the use of logic and intelligent thinking is a strong plus. "Arguments" like "That's stupid" or "you're silly" do not advance the discussion.

Most to the point, we don't want "flame wars" here. The strict real-names requirement is an element of this; I've found that people in general behave better online when they can't hide behind a nick, pseud, screen name or handle.

The bartender is prepared to step in if things get out of line, and as much as I hate to censor, I WILL delete posts or even consider temporary or permanent bans for frequent, egregious offenders. I am very happy that I've rarely had to do this.

I would really like it if this doesn't turn into a lengthy debate. The commandments above are pretty much written in stone and I don't intend to change them, so I'll just get cranky if people try to persuade me.

One thing I became aware of early on was the fact that if I'm critical of a place or their food, I'm ultimately writing about a real person in my community. The vast majority of these people are overworked and underpaid. It's obvious most get their reward from providing satisfaction to their patrons. So I try to keep in mind that these folks have feelings and opinions do differ. I'm certain I've crossed the line from time to time.

Thank God there is no equivalent forum in my line of work....I don't think I could stand to read it.