I've got to say, I love the idea. I am always getting into trouble for not "playing nice" when I'm discussing something with somebody I don't agree with. It is very difficult to talk with people when the immediate assumption is that you are rude and offensive when all you want is a chance to get your opinion heard.

- You are are participant in society, so your preferences indeed affect other people

- the example of the project at work is benign, especially since the outcome doesn't matter to you. What happens then the issues are about personal skin-in-the-game, like someone coming after your means of living, gentrification of your neighborhood, attacking the behavior of your significant other, etc..

I think we must be interpreting the meaning of Crocker Rules differently.

You say the example I gave is benign — so is it fair to assume you believe that this behavior is useful in at least some cases?

You're right that I have the "luxury" to do so in that situation because the outcome isn't particularly painful.

And you're also right that it would be difficult to opt in to Crocker Rules when discussing something with huge stakes and emotional charge. But that's why it's opt-in ... no one should try to force you to accept it, and you can choose to accept it depending on context.

I would probably not volunteer for Crocker Rules with someone proposing something that would grievously harm my family.

(and just to be clear: I never actually use the term, I always use in-context statements like the one in the example).

I can certainly appreciate the desire to not overreact to every little thing, and try to discuss things calmly, yes

I come from somewhere where the opposite of that is the dominant culture, so I was explaining Crocker's rules as a method of us pointing out to each other when we are not capable of operating by them, rather than when we are. I had a bad head cold and was trying to work out a diplomatic method to get them to chill out a little. It half worked, some of the time.