[zwischenzug]

I always advise my staff to simply stick to the facts. Anything that can be disputed will be. This results in statements like:

"I'd like this changed because I believe it's a mistake to use globals in this context"

rather than

"You're/It's wrong to put a global here"

The difference is subtle, but important. It allows personal opinion to be used without the debate being personal.

[gingerlime]

That seems to be the direction I was looking for. It is subtle, but I see the difference. What I noticed in your example is two things:

1. The statement is framed as a personal viewpoint, rather than absolute truth/fact. 2. You not only state the problem, but also the intent or direction for a fix.

I'll try to see if I can adopt something along those lines. Thanks.

[zwischenzug]

It's important to acknowledge personal differences while trying to see them as separate from the people themselves. It's when the two are confused that problems arise.

If you ignore personal differences, or don't understand that they're opinions (albeit based on experience) you will fail.

That's therapy training for you :)

[zeidrich]

I prefer a little explanation here.

"I've just had to track down bugs due to globals defined in this context when they don't need to be. If you use this approach it will save everyone a lot of time in the future."

Not confrontational, it's educational, and you're saying why it's wrong. Just saying "it's wrong" doesn't help if the original author didn't realize it was wrong at the time. If they did realize it was wrong and did it anyways, giving the full description just reminds them why they should go and do it the long way.