2 ms·

> a lot of those uncertainty markers aren't fluff, they're essential to honest, accurate communication. > Similarly, many times when you say a variation on "I

> a lot of those uncertainty markers aren't fluff, they're essential to honest, accurate communication. > Similarly, many times when you say a variation on "I know you're the expert on the codebase" or whatever, that's because it's true and important. Something I think is a problem, which this article wants me to phrase as a short, plain declaration, might actually just be a misunderstanding on my part. This is not what the article says. The author is not advocating for removal of relevant information (including uncertainty markers and that which you describe as "true and important") - only information that is not relevant, such as "I'm not sure if I'm missing something here and sorry if this is a dumb question but" that is an example in the post. And, if the information may be relevant, the author would ask you to include it - concisely, without fluff. The main thing that Crocker's Rules are trying to cut out (in a LIMITED SPECIFIC OPT-IN BASIS) is specifically irrelevant information due to social graces/fear of offense. If it could be useful, the author (and Crocker) would have you include it.

andrewflnr 7mo ago
Look at the actual examples they give of what you should say. Everything but the bald assertion is stripped away. If you're saying the actual proper behavior is a middle ground: I agree! But that's not what the article is saying. (At least, not clearly, which would be its own irony.)
- throw10920 7mo ago
  > Look at the actual examples they give of what you should say. Everything but the bald assertion is stripped away. Right, I think the examples aren't the best. But, around the examples, look at what the author is advocating for: > to skip social cushioning > "your feelings about how I might receive this..." > bears responsibility for their own emotional reaction to its content > When you spend the first third of your message establishing that you are a nice person who means well ...etc. They're pretty clearly emphasizing the emotional content of messages, rather than informational content. Then they explicitly say that the intent is to provide relevant information: > You can document contributing factors if they are actually actionable, meaning if there is something structural that needs to change, name it specifically and attach a proposed fix to it. ...and then separate that from emotions: > But confessing your emotional state and your reasoning process and your extenuating circumstances is not documentation, it is self-absolution Yes, I agree that the author probably should have been a bit more clear, because people can get upset when it comes to workplace politics/communication, and clarity never hurts. But I'm pretty sure that the intent is what you'd want it to be.

andrewflnr 7mo ago

Look at the actual examples they give of what you should say. Everything but the bald assertion is stripped away. If you're saying the actual proper behavior is a middle ground: I agree! But that's not what the article is saying. (At least, not clearly, which would be its own irony.)

throw10920 7mo ago
> Look at the actual examples they give of what you should say. Everything but the bald assertion is stripped away. Right, I think the examples aren't the best. But, around the examples, look at what the author is advocating for: > to skip social cushioning > "your feelings about how I might receive this..." > bears responsibility for their own emotional reaction to its content > When you spend the first third of your message establishing that you are a nice person who means well ...etc. They're pretty clearly emphasizing the emotional content of messages, rather than informational content. Then they explicitly say that the intent is to provide relevant information: > You can document contributing factors if they are actually actionable, meaning if there is something structural that needs to change, name it specifically and attach a proposed fix to it. ...and then separate that from emotions: > But confessing your emotional state and your reasoning process and your extenuating circumstances is not documentation, it is self-absolution Yes, I agree that the author probably should have been a bit more clear, because people can get upset when it comes to workplace politics/communication, and clarity never hurts. But I'm pretty sure that the intent is what you'd want it to be.