My understanding is that Crocker’s Rules are usually declared for the duration of a conversation. In the case of Less Wrong, a conversation in the comments can last for as long as people keep posting, but I think that it’s implied that most people intend Crocker’s Rules to apply to a specific situation, rather than living under them indefinitely. That said, I’d be interested to hear how living under them turns out for you if you decide to go through with it.
My general feeling has been that we explicitly declare Crocker’s Rules or act as though they are an implicit norm so frequently that we might as well add the declaration to the site banner. I always considered this to be a byproduct of a community whose group knowledge includes acknowledgment of emotional biases, debate-as-warfare conceptual metaphors, etc.
No. Surely it’s an essential aspect of Crocker’s Rules that the person who gets to decide whether it’s OK for X to be rude to Y in the service of optimal communication is Y, not X. Some people may be more bothered than others by very frank criticism, and they should not be made unwelcome here.
On the other hand, I value immensely the frank criticisms of posters like thomblake and Vladimir_Nesov, both to myself and to others. I’d hate to miss out on their insights because they felt they had to restrain themselves.
My understanding is that Crocker’s Rules are usually declared for the duration of a conversation. In the case of Less Wrong, a conversation in the comments can last for as long as people keep posting, but I think that it’s implied that most people intend Crocker’s Rules to apply to a specific situation, rather than living under them indefinitely. That said, I’d be interested to hear how living under them turns out for you if you decide to go through with it.
My general feeling has been that we explicitly declare Crocker’s Rules or act as though they are an implicit norm so frequently that we might as well add the declaration to the site banner. I always considered this to be a byproduct of a community whose group knowledge includes acknowledgment of emotional biases, debate-as-warfare conceptual metaphors, etc.
No. Surely it’s an essential aspect of Crocker’s Rules that the person who gets to decide whether it’s OK for X to be rude to Y in the service of optimal communication is Y, not X. Some people may be more bothered than others by very frank criticism, and they should not be made unwelcome here.
On the other hand, I value immensely the frank criticisms of posters like thomblake and Vladimir_Nesov, both to myself and to others. I’d hate to miss out on their insights because they felt they had to restrain themselves.
I do try to phrase things in a way that does not sound insulting/rude/acidic. In the presence of Crocker’s Rules I often do not make that effort.