[rustynails]

Can you clarify "I think some people get so combative because their identity is wrapped up in being right."? If people are discussing a topic, I want people to say "what is true" where it adds value to the discussion. I feel that "right" misses the basis of what and why and is largely irrelevant to Respect in conflict.

Conflict is good when managed and it adds value. You usually end up with more rounded or more complete ideas. This can fail when there is a lack of respect between adversaries, a lack of understanding or a lack of truth from at least one side.

On your point of community vigilance, Administrators/site owners should set the rules of engagement and a culture (eg. No ad hominem attacks). If the community determines the rules of engagement, you can have the community derail itself far too easily. I'm seeing quite a few communities lose the plot recently through political correctness or through a hostile community that self-regulates. One of the best sites I visit is very rule based. The moderators do a great job of setting the rules and when the community loses focus, the site owner/moderators recalibrate. I keep thinking of leaders vs committees as a good parallel.

I don't have simple rules about what rules should be applied to respect in conflict. There are several examples of exceptions that come to mind: Karl Popper talks about not tolerating the intolerant; Political Correctness can introduce prejudice (and has spoilt some good communities).

[lambda]

In most of these discussions, there is no one "true" answer. There are engineering tradeoffs. There are design decisions, about what will be most easy for people to work with, least likely for someone to screw up and break the whole system. There is inertia of existing systems, that would cost a lot of money to rewrite, and tradeoffs of what will be the lowest cost solution.