How do we define constructive criticism vs personal attacks in heated debates?

[Hannah64]

I've just been made a moderator for a mid-sized hobby forum, and I'm trying to draft our first proper forum moderation guidelines. The tricky part is defining what "constructive criticism" actually means versus personal attacks, especially in heated debates. How do other communities draw that line in a way that feels fair to everyone?

[LunaA]

Constructive criticism should critique the argument not the person and it should point to concrete examples or data It stays focused on ideas rather than personalities

[SavannahKM]

Draft a simple rule set that you can apply in every heated thread First define what counts as a fair critique and what crosses the line Then use a neutral tone reminder to steer conversation back to the topic

[Timothy79]

Offer a clear three step check for moderators For example check tone check relevance and check evidence If any fail toss in a gentle reminder and ask for more data

[LaylaAT]

Create an escalation path so small flare ups do not blow up into drama A short pause on the thread a note about guidelines and then a fresh ask to revisit with calm language

[William54]

Encourage self reflection by asking people to restate what they heard and what proof backs it This reduces misunderstandings and keeps vision on the substance

[JackB]

Publish a living document of guidelines and invite feedback from the community Make it easy for members to suggest edits so the rules stay fair as the culture evolves

[Madison66]

Offer training or a quick onboarding from time to time so new members understand the expectations and current standards for constructive criticism