From my experience I have found that people who are bonafide jerks produce lousy product. Their attitude carries over into what they do. Those who are perceived as jerks by some are another matter.
I've met Sean Reynolds and John Wick. They were courteous, respectful, and good people. Because I was courteous, respectful, and did my best to be a good person. They are the same way online, as long as you are courteous, respectful, and do you best to be a good person.
But, if you're rude - either in response to what they've said or in your initial contact - they will respond in kind. A failing most people have. Then again, some people need to get their asses whooped.
I also have a policy concerning what somebody says regarding a subject, I ask myself, "Could he be right?" John said a few things about running game sessions. People got upset about what he said. Things got quite vitrolic over at the Pyramid newsgroups about it. I don't recall anybody saying, "You know ... "
People saw John as violating the social contract between playing and GM, giving no consideration to the possibility that John's suggestions could produce an experience that people actually enjoy. That anger at the GM could get the player so involved in the game he is eager to return week after week so he can engage the GM in a contest.
It comes down to, how do you engage your players? But that's a topic for another thread.
Now I haven't met Gareth Michael Skarka in person. I have corresponded with him in the past. I have found him to be courteous, respectful, and a good person. Because I approach courteously, respectfully, and with the goal of being a good person. I don't agree entirely with his politics, but I learned a long time ago that what one person thinks about brands of chili has nothing to do with his ability to produce things I might be interesting in buying.
Orson Scott Card on the other hand is an interesting case. Orson was raised Mormon. He is a practicing Mormon and follows the tenets to the best of his ability. When he first came on the scene he said things others vehemently disagreed with. Much to Orson's surprise. Most important of all, they backed up what they said with facts.
Orson Scott Card learned things he'd never known before. He learned his religion got some things wrong. Now here's an interesting thing about Mormonism, Mormonism has a mechancism in place whereby it can change it's mind. The Church of Jesus Christ and the Latter Day Saints (to use its proper name) can and will its Word of God when convinced those who wrote the words down on God's behalf got it wrong. Thus Orson has the tools he needs to amend and revise his opinion about subjects. Because his faith allows it.
I've learned it's possible to disagree with someone on a subject and still like them. A real jerk is going to be a jerk regardless of the situation. It's their modus operandus. How most people behave depends on how they are treated. You're a jerk to them, they'll be a jerk right back. You don't like that sort of response, then don't be a jerk in the first place.
Then there are times when a person is having a bad day. We tend to do things we'll later regret when we've had a bad day. When you meet somebody who's had a bad day and is being rotten to you because of it here's a bit of advice from way long ago, a soft answer turns away wrath.
And if he is a real jerk, then his response to your soft answer will tell you what you need to know.
