A tension a lot of orgs have is encouraging lively debate with direct, concrete critiques while also making sure that the folks leveraging critiques are doing so in a comradely way. Usually things are fine but there are a few squeaky wheels that will provide critiques in a way that sure seem like they are intended to be hurtful. I'm ND and try my best to assume everything is in good faith, so when I perceive the critiques as more personal than they should be I can imagine the comrade (often NT) receiving the critique feels directly attacked.
Typically I try to step into the chat and remind folks something like "Please keep providing critique but avoid language like [specific example 1, specific example 2]. Use language that the proposal uses unless your different terminology is meaningfully distinct." to attempt to correct behavior without targeting a specific person. However, that doesn't always pass the "tone police" smell test and some folks (often Cishet white men in the org, but tbf they are in the majority) tend to push back that tone policing is squashing debate.
How do your orgs keep critiques candid, direct, and actionable without causing interpersonal conflicts? Obviously, as communists we want to avoid practicing any forms of liberalism that would have us avoiding conflicts. My goal is to encourage more debate while also encouraging new people to engage in these debates and feel like they contribute to the org without having someone jump down their throat.
What experiences do y'all have? What works well and leads to real progress and what stunts debates?
Thank you!