Basic civility, respect and decorum go a lot further than mere "kindness" IME. The latter I can't even properly define in the context of a computer-mediated debate. I suppose it's largely a way of saying "don't personally attack other users, or you'll get booted" which ought to be plain common sense.

As I see it, being kind means being empathetic, asking ourselves how the other person is going to feel when receiving our communication, and therefore adjusting in a way to avoid emotional damage. I believe this is especially important when being critical. The goal of a criticism should be to help the other/the community/the discourse grow, keeping our ego out of the equation.

Agree. Expanding on ‘emotional damage’ - I’d say principally this would be softening the blow by not putting someone’s sense of who they are/sense of worth under threat.

Failing that, you get one of two counterproductive effects: a) They feel a compulsive need to deny the threat and defend against it, doing something dumb or unwarranted as a result. b) They lose that sense of worth, and become impotent. Recovery from this depends on their environment and ability to build themselves back up.

That said, if you’re too ‘nice’, there’s a chance you’re being too subtle and the message doesn’t get through.

Oh, I agree for sure that we shouldn't taunt or bait other users, in ways that would hurt them emotionally and tempt them to attack in turn. That's just as bad as an overt attack - it destroys the spirit of a robust debate. But this all falls under a proper understanding of respect and decorum, at least as far as I'm concerned. These words just feel more precise and accurate when referencing these things. Which helps making the norm stick.

Interesting. The author of that piece isn't exactly know for producing what's commonly understood as kind communication himself.

All the more reason for the self reflection that went into that document ;-). I think these days, he pretty much follows it, at least in written communications. In person he used to get upset easily, which could lead to unkindness. I don't know if he is still like that, N years later.

Yes. And in any case: even a hypocrite could give good advice some times.

That isn't nice. Not always succeeding at something is different than saying others should do it but you don't have to.

Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that the author was a hypocrite.

I just meant, even if he was a hypocrite, that wouldn't necessarily undermine the text. A world class coach doesn't have to be a world class athlete. Or someone not practicing what they preach doesn't necessarily invalidate what they preach.