Draft:Crocker's Rules

Crocker's Rules, named after Lee Daniel Crocker, are a communication guideline that aims to remove the overhead of social norms. By declaring to adhere to Crocker's Rules, one accepts that communications addressed to them may be classically considered disrespectful or insulting — for example due to harsh moral judgement or lack of tact — and indicate that they will not get offended.

Declaring to operate under Crocker's Rules is something that one can only do for themselves. It does not force others to adapt their communications nor does it allow one to suppose others are operating under the same rules.

Origin

Crocker's Rules were introduced by Lee Daniel Crocker himself in the early 1990s in the context of the Extropian mailing list. Crocker's was an active user and invited other people to communicate with him with a focus on the content rather than the form. He valued a blunt and honest discussion unburdened by social norms or the fear of offending him ^[1]

Due to the intentionally private nature of the mailing list, there is no public record of the original definition. This lack of source may have contributed to the evolution of the rules and the different interpretations.

The most common source for the modern definition of Crocker's Rules is attributed to Eliezer Yudkowsky in the introduction to the SL4 mailing list that he own and moderates ^[2].

Interpretation and Goal of the Rules

There are two main goals for choosing to communicate under Crocker's Rules. The first, and closest to the original intention, is for the recipient to indicate their willingness to engage in discussions around topics morally subversive by promising to not let emotional responses get in the way of the arguments.

The second interpretation of the rules — closer to the two most common sources for the definitions. ^{[3] [4]} — is to optimize or lighten communication by indicating to the sender that a lack of flourish or politeness will not be considered rude, and depending on the case, may be encouraged.

By some aspect, these two interpretations are similar. They both stem from the desire or promise to forgo emotional responses to focus on the content of the communication. However, the source of the emotion is a key factor for the interpretation. In the first case, the words may be hurtful while in the second, the lack of words is.

Relation to Radical Honesty

Crocker's Rules is often described by opposition to Radical Honesty ^{[5] [6]}. A key difference between the two concepts lies in the distribution of rights and duties between the authors and the recipients. When someone practices Crocker's Rules, they give the right to others (the senders) to address them bluntly. They (the recipient) also put the duties on themselves to not be offended by blunt messages or, at least, not let their emotion affect the following conversation. When someone practices radical honesty, the distribution of rights and duties is reversed. The sender give themselves the right to address others without telling any lies. Where radical honesty conditions the messages one sends, Crocker's Rules may condition the messages they receive.

The confusion between the two concepts stems from the similarities in the resulting communications. Communications sent from a person practicing radical honesty and those received by a person operating under Crocker's Rules may be written in the say way.

References

1. "HackerNews: Crocker's Rules". Hacker News. Retrieved 9 September 2025.
2. Yudkowsky, Eliezer. "An Introduction to SL4". sl4.org. Retrieved 11 September 2025.
3. "Crocker's Rules". SL4.org.
4. "Crocker's Rules". LessWrong.com. 28 August 2013.
5. Jones, Marshall Jr. (October 2010). "Crocker's Rules and how to make Radical Honesty work". marshalljonesjr.com. Retrieved 11 September 2025.
6. Ocean, Malcolm (26 November 2013). "Communication: Trust and Crocker's Rules". malcolmocean.com. Retrieved 11 September 2025.