I beg you to follow Crocker's Rules, even if you will be rude to me
Engineers are debating “Crocker’s Rules,” a norm where you explicitly invite others to give you information as bluntly and efficiently as possible, without softening or social niceties. Supporters argue this kind of directness reduces ambiguity, respects people’s time, and can enable more honest technical and even taboo conversations. Critics counter that it ignores how most people process feedback, can come across as hostile or arrogant, erodes psychological safety, and is better treated as an opt‑in personal preference than a universal standard for workplace communication.
Scope and Meaning of Crocker’s Rules
- Several commenters argue Crocker’s Rules are self-imposed: they apply only to how others speak to the invoker, not a license to tell others how they must communicate.
- Some say the blog post blurs this, reading as prescriptive or contemptuous toward people who value politeness or cushioning.
- Others recall the rules’ original context as enabling frank discussion of “taboo” topics, not micro-optimizing message length.
Directness vs. Politeness
- Supporters of directness emphasize:
- Respect for time and focus, especially in technical contexts.
- Reduced fear of “shooting the messenger,” making it easier to surface problems.
- Personal preference for blunt feedback and fast problem resolution.
- Critics counter that:
- Directness is often used as cover for rudeness or personal attacks.
- Many people genuinely experience blunt messages as hostile, regardless of intent.
- The author’s tone itself feels judgmental and brittle, undermining their point.
Context, Relationships, and Culture
- Many insist direct, terse style works best when there is already trust, cohesion, and emotional safety.
- Others note cultural variation: some European environments are naturally more blunt, while US workplaces often expect more social lubrication.
- Several say people who loudly claim to want extreme directness often react poorly when on the receiving end.
Technical Communication and Incident Reports
- There is disagreement about what counts as “noise”:
- Some see stress, unclear docs, or bad handoffs as irrelevant detail.
- Others argue those factors are crucial for postmortems, systemic fixes, and avoiding blame.
- Commenters stress the importance of expressing uncertainty (“seems to,” “looks like”) and context rather than making absolute declarations.
Hybrid and Audience‑Sensitive Approaches
- Many propose a middle ground:
- Be concise, clear, and honest.
- Add minimal but genuine human context and hedging where appropriate.
- Tailor style to the recipient; a skilled communicator adjusts rather than enforces a single mode.
- Several conclude that insisting others drop cushioning purely for one person’s preference is itself selfish or socially naive.