3 ms·

”What it means in practice is that your colleague can write "this approach is wrong, here's why" instead of "hey, hope you're doing well, I had some time to loo

”What it means in practice is that your colleague can write "this approach is wrong, here's why" instead of "hey, hope you're doing well, I had some time to look at your PR and I just wanted to shared a few small thoughts, please take these as just one perspective, and of course you know the codebase better than I do, but I was wondering if maybe we could potentially consider [useful thing here]" and then bury the actual point six paragraphs deep. Both messages contain the same information, however one of them respects time.” The author argues brevity is more efficient even if it is rude so he argues for brevity. This is why engineers suck at politics and relationships. Brevity and efficiency is a false mantra to live by. It is better to be effective and get what you want without pissing off everyone. The authors’s example is a non starter. When he writes this approach is wrong…, he is starting a flame war even if he argues he isn’t. It would be better to say something like I disagree with this approach, then give your assumptions and reasoning. Even if you don’t get your way, you got it off your chest and came across as professional.

dpark 7mo ago
> It is better to be effective This is the key to this whole topic. It doesn’t matter what should be. It matters what is. Humans are emotional in nature and ignoring that is not effective. Also the undertone of this topic is always “I want you to be blunt to the point of rudeness (so I can be too).”
- cineticdaffodil 7mo ago
  [dead]
- throw10920 7mo ago
  > Also the undertone of this topic is always “I want you to be blunt to the point of rudeness (so I can be too).” No, it's not. I've met multiple people who subscribe to Crocker's Rules and none of them are intentionally rude. One of them is one of the more polite people I've met. Don't malicious ascribe false motives to others because you're offended at the idea that they're proposing. That's extremely bad form. That's not even what Crocker's Rules are. If you had read the article, you would know that.
  - dpark 7mo ago
    > Don't malicious ascribe false motives to others because you're offended at the idea that they're proposing. Literally doing what you accuse me of in the same sentence. > That's not even what Crocker's Rules are. If you had read the article, you would know that. This article isn’t really about Crocker’s rules. It links to them but rather misunderstands the point.
    - throw10920 7mo ago
      > Literally doing what you accuse me of in the same sentence. Factually incorrect. Did you forget what you wrote in your own comment? >> Also the undertone of this topic is always “I want you to be blunt to the point of rudeness (so I can be too).” You are claiming to speak for everyone who supports Crocker's Rules. You are asserting that you can read the minds and motives of the few people you've met who've talked about this and hundreds or thousands of others that you've never met and will never meet. You are engaging in a blatantly bad-faith and indefensible mindset on a mass scale. I, am not. I merely read your comment and what you wrote, and pointed it out. That's not ascribing false motives, that's just reading comprehension, which is something you appear to lack, given your failure to read the original article, Crocker's Rules, or my comments. > This article isn’t really about Crocker’s rules. It links to them but rather misunderstands the point. You failed to correctly characterize (or argue against) either the author's points or Crocker's Rules, so this isn't really relevant.
      - dpark 7mo ago
        > Factually incorrect. Factually you ascribed false motives to me because you're offended at the idea that I proposed. You are upset because I said that this is topic is generally broached by people who wish they could be blunt and rude, so you're mischaracterizing both my words and intent. > You are engaging in a blatantly bad-faith and indefensible mindset on a mass scale. You could just disagree and say I'm wrong instead of pretending like I'm committing a war crime with a comment on HN. "Mass scale" is some over the top dramatic nonsense. > You are claiming to speak for everyone who supports Crocker's Rules. You think I was making a claim that literally, 100% of cases fit into this? It's poor taste to insult others' reading comprehension. Just in general it's a childish ad hominem. But also if you can't understand nuance and you read basic statements as "literally this applies in 100% of situations", you live in a glass house. (I don't think your house is literally made of glass.) See also: "BOCTAOE" > You failed to correctly characterize (or argue against) either the author's points or Crocker's Rules The very fact that the author is "begging" others to "follow Crocker's rules" in their communication says the author doesn't understand Crocker's rules. Crockers rules are specifically an obligation to the person operating under Crocker's rules. NOT an obligation to anyone else. No one else is obligated to forgo politeness because the author says the follow Crocker's rules. "Please follow Crocker's rules when you send me messages!" "I am dumbass, and I hope you had a great weekend." > so this isn't really relevant. Disingenuous nonsense on a discussion forum. "I don't agree with your perspective so it's not relevant."
scoofy 7mo ago
There are even practical ways to allow this type of exchange. However, they require a truly egalitarian business relationship, mutual respect, and signaling mechanism to note when to be blunt and when to be decent. If these conditions aren't met, then a subordinate could trivially get fired because they're superior hadn't had breakfast or lunch that day and was just hangry.

dpark 7mo ago

> It is better to be effective This is the key to this whole topic. It doesn’t matter what should be. It matters what is. Humans are emotional in nature and ignoring that is not effective. Also the undertone of this topic is always “I want you to be blunt to the point of rudeness (so I can be too).”

cineticdaffodil 7mo ago
[dead]
throw10920 7mo ago
> Also the undertone of this topic is always “I want you to be blunt to the point of rudeness (so I can be too).” No, it's not. I've met multiple people who subscribe to Crocker's Rules and none of them are intentionally rude. One of them is one of the more polite people I've met. Don't malicious ascribe false motives to others because you're offended at the idea that they're proposing. That's extremely bad form. That's not even what Crocker's Rules are. If you had read the article, you would know that.
- dpark 7mo ago
  > Don't malicious ascribe false motives to others because you're offended at the idea that they're proposing. Literally doing what you accuse me of in the same sentence. > That's not even what Crocker's Rules are. If you had read the article, you would know that. This article isn’t really about Crocker’s rules. It links to them but rather misunderstands the point.
  - throw10920 7mo ago
    > Literally doing what you accuse me of in the same sentence. Factually incorrect. Did you forget what you wrote in your own comment? >> Also the undertone of this topic is always “I want you to be blunt to the point of rudeness (so I can be too).” You are claiming to speak for everyone who supports Crocker's Rules. You are asserting that you can read the minds and motives of the few people you've met who've talked about this and hundreds or thousands of others that you've never met and will never meet. You are engaging in a blatantly bad-faith and indefensible mindset on a mass scale. I, am not. I merely read your comment and what you wrote, and pointed it out. That's not ascribing false motives, that's just reading comprehension, which is something you appear to lack, given your failure to read the original article, Crocker's Rules, or my comments. > This article isn’t really about Crocker’s rules. It links to them but rather misunderstands the point. You failed to correctly characterize (or argue against) either the author's points or Crocker's Rules, so this isn't really relevant.
    - dpark 7mo ago
      > Factually incorrect. Factually you ascribed false motives to me because you're offended at the idea that I proposed. You are upset because I said that this is topic is generally broached by people who wish they could be blunt and rude, so you're mischaracterizing both my words and intent. > You are engaging in a blatantly bad-faith and indefensible mindset on a mass scale. You could just disagree and say I'm wrong instead of pretending like I'm committing a war crime with a comment on HN. "Mass scale" is some over the top dramatic nonsense. > You are claiming to speak for everyone who supports Crocker's Rules. You think I was making a claim that literally, 100% of cases fit into this? It's poor taste to insult others' reading comprehension. Just in general it's a childish ad hominem. But also if you can't understand nuance and you read basic statements as "literally this applies in 100% of situations", you live in a glass house. (I don't think your house is literally made of glass.) See also: "BOCTAOE" > You failed to correctly characterize (or argue against) either the author's points or Crocker's Rules The very fact that the author is "begging" others to "follow Crocker's rules" in their communication says the author doesn't understand Crocker's rules. Crockers rules are specifically an obligation to the person operating under Crocker's rules. NOT an obligation to anyone else. No one else is obligated to forgo politeness because the author says the follow Crocker's rules. "Please follow Crocker's rules when you send me messages!" "I am dumbass, and I hope you had a great weekend." > so this isn't really relevant. Disingenuous nonsense on a discussion forum. "I don't agree with your perspective so it's not relevant."

scoofy 7mo ago

There are even practical ways to allow this type of exchange. However, they require a truly egalitarian business relationship, mutual respect, and signaling mechanism to note when to be blunt and when to be decent. If these conditions aren't met, then a subordinate could trivially get fired because they're superior hadn't had breakfast or lunch that day and was just hangry.