I beg you to follow Crocker's Rules, even if you will be rude to me

> 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.

Crocker's rules are about not burying honesty beneath politeness.

Someone can maybe squint real hard and see the word "Hey", in "Hey, the site is down" as politeness obstructing communication. But at that point, I hope the person seeing it this way operates under Crocker's Rules, because I would say they are a moron. There is a world of difference between basic human pleasantries and niceness that actually obscures communication.

Crocker's rules also explicitly state that others are allowed to disregard niceness, not that they are obligated to. Indeed, if you are offended or bothered by someone being polite, then under Crocker's rules, that would be your problem.

> 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."

Adapting your communication doesn't have to imply deception or even insincerity, it just means understanding what's important to your target audience and making sure to address it. Sometimes that's something like financial impact or user focus; sometimes it's emotional reassurance or intellectual challenge.

> Factually you ascribed false motives to me

To be fair, while the motives for falsely claiming that you can read thousands of peoples' minds are pretty limited, there are other motives than just because you're offended. Do you think that you're a psychic, instead?

> 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.

Still incorrect. I described the words that you wrote in your comments. No amount of (now blatant and intentional) lies will change that. You claim here that you said it is "generally" broached - no, you didn't, you said always, and you know that very well.

> 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.

Still lying. You know I'm not pretending you're committing a war crime, and that I used "mass scale" to point out that, as egregious as it is to claim that you can read others' minds and intents, it's even worse to pretend that you can do that for hundreds or thousands of people.

> You think I was making a claim that literally, 100% of cases fit into this?

You literally said "always", so yes, that was your claim, as seen above in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47378710 :

>> Also the undertone of this topic is always “I want you to be blunt to the point of rudeness (so I can be too).”

Even if you meant 90% of the time (which you very clearly did not say), you're still making the clinically insane claim that you are able to read the minds and intentions of a huge number of people.

> It's poor taste to insult others' reading comprehension.

It's far worse taste to respond to comments without actually reading them first, as you have repeatedly now.

> But also if you can't understand nuance and you read basic statements as "literally this applies in 100% of situations"

Again, let me quote you your own words:

> Also the undertone of this topic is always “I want you to be blunt to the point of rudeness (so I can be too).”

Note the "always". Admit it - you said something insane because you thought you wouldn't get called out on it.

> 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.

>> so this isn't really relevant.

> Disingenuous nonsense on a discussion forum.

No, it's factually true. If you make an irrelevant response because you're not responding to someone's points, your response is not relevant. This is tautologically true.

> "I don't agree with your perspective so it's not relevant."

Are you one of those people that can't tell the different between opinion and fact/reason? Because it sure seems like it - it doesn't look like you're capable of understanding that, because you badly misunderstood the author's points and argued against a strawman, your response is not relevant. It's not an opinion - it's just fact.

At this point, because it's clear you cannot tell the difference between perspective/opinion and fact/logic, and because you've lied about your own words that are written above, there isn't much of a point to continuing the conversation - if you write more lies, I'll point them out so that future HN readers browsing this thread about Crocker's Rules won't be misled, but I know that I cannot convince someone who is operating emotionally, not intellectually, and is willing to lie about their own words despite them being less than a page above in the same thread.