Why? Maybe I misunderstand, but it seems like someone willing to set the bit should also be willing to live with the fact that other people haven’t. If I were blunt to someone who had set such a bit I would not expect any sort of reciprocal bluntness, although in reality I would probably set the bit and not expect to administer any reciprocal bluntness.
Maybe I misunderstand, but it seems like someone willing to set the bit should also be willing to live with the fact that other people haven’t.
You do. I speak of those in carebear mode who are rude to other carebear types. In such cases I don’t consider the perpetrator to have any special rights regardless of any special bit set. Incidentally it is precisely this kind of individual who I would expect to make most aggressive use of appeals to their carebear rights.
I think it’s more productive to think in terms of information than of rights.
That is, if you know that I prefer to be treated a certain way, then you can make an informed decision about whether to treat me as I would prefer. If you don’t know, then you can’t. But just because you know what I’d prefer doesn’t mean you have to pay any attention to my preferences.
Similarly, if I know that you know my preferences, then I can infer from the fact that you violate them that you either don’t care about my preferences, that you actively wish to violate them, or (in some cases) that you lack the social aptitude to comply with them. If you don’t know, then I can’t infer any of that. (The same goes for third parties.)
And, yes, I agree that it’s a mistake to infer from you being rude to someone who was rude first the same things that I would infer from you being rude to someone who wasn’t, independent of what I know about their preferences.
I think it’s more productive to think in terms of information than of rights.
We can also consider information about the social moves that will be employed in which circumstance. “Rights” are just a form of information about political alliances and agreements, in this case informal, about how and when the technique of taking offence may be successfully executed. When combined with information about how an individual chooses to use such mechanisms I can infer a lot.
I would take some information from a bit stored in a profile but only a little. In terms of my interactions I would still take my bearings from observations of social dynamics. The dominant factors when it comes to determining to what extent I am willing to coddle people is their level of arrogance, awareness, goodwill and pro-social action.
For curiosity’s sake I note the I would personally decline to set the Crocker’s Rules bit even though I don’t object to having the option available. Not because I don’t appreciate bluntness and candor. Rather because rules of any kind are made to be exploited (often literally). Context matters, as does subtle nuance and visible intent. To me anything spoken from a position of mutual respect is welcome. Smarmy reference to Crocker’s Rules as a way to excuse disrespect would not be welcome but would be inevitable.
Yeah, I agree with all of this, both in the sense that it’s true of me as well and the sense that it seems reasonable.
I decline to operate based on Crocker’s Rules because I find that they make me more uncomfortable and less willing to attend to the message of a communication than the rules they replace.
Why? Maybe I misunderstand, but it seems like someone willing to set the bit should also be willing to live with the fact that other people haven’t. If I were blunt to someone who had set such a bit I would not expect any sort of reciprocal bluntness, although in reality I would probably set the bit and not expect to administer any reciprocal bluntness.
You do. I speak of those in carebear mode who are rude to other carebear types. In such cases I don’t consider the perpetrator to have any special rights regardless of any special bit set. Incidentally it is precisely this kind of individual who I would expect to make most aggressive use of appeals to their carebear rights.
I think it’s more productive to think in terms of information than of rights.
That is, if you know that I prefer to be treated a certain way, then you can make an informed decision about whether to treat me as I would prefer. If you don’t know, then you can’t. But just because you know what I’d prefer doesn’t mean you have to pay any attention to my preferences.
Similarly, if I know that you know my preferences, then I can infer from the fact that you violate them that you either don’t care about my preferences, that you actively wish to violate them, or (in some cases) that you lack the social aptitude to comply with them. If you don’t know, then I can’t infer any of that. (The same goes for third parties.)
And, yes, I agree that it’s a mistake to infer from you being rude to someone who was rude first the same things that I would infer from you being rude to someone who wasn’t, independent of what I know about their preferences.
(I for most part like what you are saying here.)
We can also consider information about the social moves that will be employed in which circumstance. “Rights” are just a form of information about political alliances and agreements, in this case informal, about how and when the technique of taking offence may be successfully executed. When combined with information about how an individual chooses to use such mechanisms I can infer a lot.
I would take some information from a bit stored in a profile but only a little. In terms of my interactions I would still take my bearings from observations of social dynamics. The dominant factors when it comes to determining to what extent I am willing to coddle people is their level of arrogance, awareness, goodwill and pro-social action.
For curiosity’s sake I note the I would personally decline to set the Crocker’s Rules bit even though I don’t object to having the option available. Not because I don’t appreciate bluntness and candor. Rather because rules of any kind are made to be exploited (often literally). Context matters, as does subtle nuance and visible intent. To me anything spoken from a position of mutual respect is welcome. Smarmy reference to Crocker’s Rules as a way to excuse disrespect would not be welcome but would be inevitable.
Yeah, I agree with all of this, both in the sense that it’s true of me as well and the sense that it seems reasonable.
I decline to operate based on Crocker’s Rules because I find that they make me more uncomfortable and less willing to attend to the message of a communication than the rules they replace.