[inimino]

That's not a side effect but rather the point, isn't it? To allow others to communicate to you more directly by committing to not responding emotionally.

Edit: to be perfectly clear, by "not responding emotionally" I mean not sending a nasty email while angry. I don't mean suppressing any emotional response.

[CamperBob2]

Well, one criticism of Postel's principle is that it's contributed to the security hazards of the modern-day Internet. We have a lot of ill-behaved software, written by programmers who felt free to take the easy way out because everyone else bent over backwards to accommodate them. The critics argue that a more formal, RFC-respectful approach -- the equivalent of what we'd call "political correctness" in a conversational context -- would bring about a safer Internet (or safer world) for everyone.

I don't subscribe to that point of view because I disagree with the idea that safety and security should be prioritized above virtually everything else including freedom. But I think it's worth acknowledging in a devil's-advocate sense. The question, "What's the minimum level of standards enforcement / political correctness that's required to enable technological development / human progress?" is an interesting one. Clearly the answer isn't "Zero" in either case.

[inimino]

Political correctness is about being conservative in what you say. Crocker's rules is about being liberal in what you accept. You could do both, then you'd be following a conversational equivalent of Postel's principle.

The analogy breaks down pretty quickly though.