That said, this assumes that all communication is between two individuals, and doesn't provide signaling to other members of the group. For instance, if both you and I adopt crocker's rules, but Bob and Susan do not, a new member of our group may assume incorrectly that this type of communication is appropriate for Bob and Susan, or create an environment where the new/less powerful member may be less willing to speak up because of the perceived tone of communication.
It also seems to be position of relative power: one adopting Crocker's rules assumes to be in a position where certain types of speech do no harm to them.
A simple example: say you already communicated with the guy in the past. If you add a reference to this previous communication, the reader will remember you better and adjust the frame.
There's so many things passing through language, many are very volatile but still important. We're not computers. Human language have very little in common with computer languages.
This is key. I wonder though, what's a good way to signal that to friends and coworkers? I personally declare Crocker's rules[0], but I rarely have the opportunity to communicate that to people I'm talking to.
[0] - https://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Crocker's_rules
"By declaring commitment to Crocker's rules, one authorizes other debaters to optimize their messages for information, even when this entails that emotional feelings will be disregarded. This means that you have accepted full responsibility for the operation of your own mind, so that if you're offended, it's your own fault. The underlying assumption is that rudeness is sometimes necessary for effective conveyance of information, if only to signal a lack of patience or tolerance: after all, knowing whether the speaker is becoming angry or despondent is useful rational evidence. Two people using Crocker's Rules should be able to communicate all relevant information in the minimum amount of time, without paraphrasing or social formatting.
Thus, one who has committed to these rules largely gives up the right to complain about emotional provocation, "flaming", "trolling", "abuse" (hopelessly subjective terms) and other alleged violations of etiquette. They give these rights up in the interest of effective debate."