I've been thinking about callouts.
Callouts are the mechanism we have for settling matters. Basically, one member asks another member to back up his or her words while the other members may or may not comment in a peanut gallery. Once the callout is over, the peanut gallery will usually sort of decide who came out the winner. Other than the peanut gallery staying out of the callout and vice versa, that's about it as far as rules go.
No other preconditions, in other words. No promises of apologies, no requirement to admit anything afterwards. Nevertheless, in a callout in good faith that sort of thing frequently happens anyway because life is expected to go on and postwhoring resume.
Good faith, then. What does it mean?
Well, as far as I can determine, the above and that's it. Think about it. A callout happens when emotions are flying high and people are upset. Insults are traded and the ring is set up. Imagine two boxers warming up with the crowd cheering them on and the guy in the striped shirt barely being able to keep them apart. Can you imagine one of the boxers telling the other that he's only going to fight if the other will say he is sorry and admit defeat if he loses?
One would think that a KO would be enough. And if there's no KO, points are awarded and that should be that.
In the interest of good sportsmanship, they might still shake hands afterwards and admit whatever needs to be admitted, but that's after the fight. No way it happens before, no way it's agreed on before. It's in the nature of the fight.
The comparison is not perfect but the basics hold, IMO. Life does go on and there is usually a winner of sorts, decided here by the onlookers.
But to demand the sorry before the argument seems rather pointless to me. If anything, it feels a bit desperate and a copout, a convenient way to exit a lost cause. That, of course, is the fighter in me talking but nevertheless it's not part of the setup and nor should it be.
If we set up preconditions, I think callouts lose some of whatever meaning they have.