Recent events have led me to see a few more issues that need to be addressed, so I thought I might make add a few insights as far as responses go.
Respond to the post, not the person posting
You might very well now the person on the other side of the keyboard, but the vast majority of the people reading your post most likely do not. Does this mean you should inform the public of all your dealings with this person? No, you're trying to make clear your own insights and opinions. Surely the person you've responded to has made some points, so deal with those, otherwise it looks like a personal attack, which has nothing to do with the issue at hand. Why should I take the time to hear what you have to say when you're just perpetuating a grudge? Over time, with enough of these types of responses, no one will ever listen to what you have to say, which is unfortunate, as everyone has something to contribute, although not on every issue.
Ignore personal attacks
This goes hand in hand with my last point - there's no reason to respond to derogatory statements aimed directly at you, as they serve no purpose in furthering your argument. By completely (by which I mean not even acknowledging an attack in the first place), not only do you maintain the focus of your message, but you weaken the argument of whoever attacked you. Credibility is established when you prove that you are above petty bickering and devoted to your goals, while it is lost when you cloud your words with statements designed solely to lash out at others. Don't even bother with statements like, "It's good to know that <insert name here> has to resort to personal attacks, but I'll stay on topic." This is the same as a personal attack, it's just a different way of wording it, and by trying to prove you're above that sort of thing, you've just demonstrated that you're not. If a message is solely filled with a personal attack, then it's not even worth responding to at all.
Quoting
This can be an effective method when dealing with specific points, but I recommend being conservative in their use. People have already read the original message, and being burdened with too much of the same can try anyone's patience. Plus, when you dissect a message piece by piece, it begins to look like a veiled attack on the original poster, and can cloud your message. While I appreciate the need at times to target certain portions of the message to avoid confusion, if there's so much there that you feel needs to be addressed that you find yourself pulling out more than three or four sections of it, you probably ought to just consider the post as a whole and divide your response into paragraphs for clarity. Perception of an attack, even if that's not what you intended, can be every bit as damaging to your position as an actual attack.
Conclusion
There are a lot of heated discussions going on right now, and I know how easy it can be to get swept up in the moment. But consider who it is that you're trying to reach, so that you know your message will be heard. A lot of people right now want the developers to listen to what they have to say - if that's the case, then you don't want to get bogged down with personal reprisals, as I can promise you they will lose patience and not hear what you are trying to say. If you are trying to convince other players that your ideas are sound, then know that you will never be able to convince everyone, and just because your idea is not well received doesn't mean that they necessarily disrespect the person behind the idea. You are not your argument...your argument is just one of the many things that make you who you are.
