Think of it as a debrief (of a jump in this case) instead of criticising someone. Don't say "whoa that was shketchy, you are gonna die you @$$hole!!!" but instead say "<<general remark about the jump>>, but have you considered"
- Consider "the eye of the beholder"
Often it's not what "you" intended to write, but what other people read into a given post that sets the tone. Sometimes (especially with sensitive issues) it's a good idea to write up your post, have a coffee break, reread it all trying to take into account the other person's perspective and edit accordingly.
- Sandwich your feedback
No matter how bad the jump, there is always something positive to be found.
Instead of falling into the trap of listing every mistake, focus on a few key points. Start and end with positive remarks, and alternate your criticisms with positive remarks as well. Think
- don't needlessly repeat after one another.
If what "poster X" has written pretty much covers what you were going to say and you have really nothing new to offer, there is no point in typing that stuff all over again. Just like the post, agree with the poster, or whatever. I'm mostly talking about a post which is made in a thread before the OP has responded to it. If they HAVE responded to it, first read the reaction and adjust your response accordingly.
Most of the above has a high "duh" factor. Yet.....