[platz]

How silicon valley.. maximize efficiency at the expense of all culture and social norms!

No need for complex social relations, I will process information, more than ever before (because there is so much of it now!), like the great logical-positivist that I am!

Moreover, I certainly do not have any political positions embedded in my norms-steamrolling worldview, because all there is, in fact, is information.

[_dps]

This seems like an uncharitable read. The whole point of Crocker Rules is that you opt in. No one forces you to accept Crocker Rules (that would indeed be steamrolling). You declare "feel free to say things that might insult me", not "I'm going to assume you don't mind being insulted".

Personally, I've found this to be a very useful tool with people who are conflict-avoidant. I tell them "if you're afraid of offending me, please don't hesitate, I promise I won't get mad".

Sometimes I go as far as to suggest something they might be thinking that might be offensive in order to get the ball rolling and show them there won't be negative consequences.

For example: "Hey I wonder if you're concerned I'll be offended if you propose throwing out my work and replacing it. Don't worry, it's fine. I just want what's best for the project, so if you're holding back because you're concerned I'll be upset, you can relax."

[dragonsky67]

I've got to say, I love the idea. I am always getting into trouble for not "playing nice" when I'm discussing something with somebody I don't agree with. It is very difficult to talk with people when the immediate assumption is that you are rude and offensive when all you want is a chance to get your opinion heard.

[platz]

- You are are participant in society, so your preferences indeed affect other people

- the example of the project at work is benign, especially since the outcome doesn't matter to you. What happens then the issues are about personal skin-in-the-game, like someone coming after your means of living, gentrification of your neighborhood, attacking the behavior of your significant other, etc..

[_dps]

I think we must be interpreting the meaning of Crocker Rules differently.

You say the example I gave is benign — so is it fair to assume you believe that this behavior is useful in at least some cases?

You're right that I have the "luxury" to do so in that situation because the outcome isn't particularly painful.

And you're also right that it would be difficult to opt in to Crocker Rules when discussing something with huge stakes and emotional charge. But that's why it's opt-in ... no one should try to force you to accept it, and you can choose to accept it depending on context.

I would probably not volunteer for Crocker Rules with someone proposing something that would grievously harm my family.

(and just to be clear: I never actually use the term, I always use in-context statements like the one in the example).

[platz]

I can certainly appreciate the desire to not overreact to every little thing, and try to discuss things calmly, yes

[cornyNetHandle]

I come from somewhere where the opposite of that is the dominant culture, so I was explaining Crocker's rules as a method of us pointing out to each other when we are not capable of operating by them, rather than when we are. I had a bad head cold and was trying to work out a diplomatic method to get them to chill out a little. It half worked, some of the time.

[cornyNetHandle]

More Silicon Glen, if you really care about origin stories. My family tends to conduct a lot of discussion at full volume with lots of swearing, so being able to say, 'fuck off, not playing by Crocker's rules', is pretty useful.

edit: And Crocker himself is an Aussie.