implicit rules and explicit rules

any given society has explicit rules and implicit rules.

the explicit rules are hard enough to deal with.

the imlicit rules are much more difficult, less fixed, and very much open to debate.

the latest land greifing thread exemplifies this.

social rules generally imply "don't do things to annoy your neighbors." this is given a nod by LL in the cs.

the explicit rules disallow specific things and allow others. this even includes creating a build with the intent of encouraging (or coerce or extorting) someone else to buy sl land. this even includes posting about one's sense of being aggrieved by said build to encourage, coerce, or extorting the landowner into modifying the build.

these things are allowed according to the explicit rules.

what is often asserted is that the explicit rules should codify the implicit (and contested) rules.

a society that depends solely on explicit rules is naive and dysfunctional - simply because the breadth and depth of human interactions cannot be captured by any formal set of explicit rules.

the question is largely about how one deals with the implicit rules. the tension between the assertion of an implicit rule and the denial of said assertion. neither position is certain. and in the end is measured by what actually happens is accepted by most.

most of the issues of implicit center around the desires of the individual and the desires of the collective. most people will frame these as rights, but rights, as such, are social constructions, not brute facts. which is to say rights are constructed and negotiated.

the ability to do a thing is not the same as the right to do that thing - desires aside.

Fantastic post - I am so often struck by the arguments "well, it's not against the TOS" or "It's my land so I can do what I want", as if this removes someone from any responsibility to think about those around them. It's not about what you can get away with, it's about what kind of person you want to be. There is more to being in a community with people than just what we can do - it is often what we should do. Your post summarized exactly how I have been feeling - thank you.

SSK:

But then you have to show tolerance and maturity in measuring what is accepted by most. Sure, you do this to protect minorities or free expression, but mostly you do it to benefit the majority, who need change and challenge as protection against censorship and stagnation, much more than the minority. And that's where the greatest problem is. So how do you encourage tolerance and maturity without furious debate between those who accept your take on the rules, and those who would try to codify everything?

And while I agree that rights are social constructions, not all people believe that. Nor would they characterize them as brute facts, but rather as innate human characteristics.

I think this is a very slippery issue.

Very well stated, StoneSelf.

Another problem we face here is the same as its always been on the intar-webs... almost limitless anonynimity makes people act like they're guests on the Jerry Springer show. It happens in email, on the web, web based forums, IRC... not to mention hellholes like AOL and YahooChat.

A/S/L?

-Flip

I think it's important to challenge the system: firmly but respectfully. Some things are not clearly stated so it's fundamental to go forth, ask questions, investigate the situation and hopefully make things better.

After all, if we never informed the Linden family of bugs or inconsistencies and other problematic things jamming up the works, they -- and we as a community -- would not improve. This is how progress is made, sparked by seeming fires of conflict that perhaps can be likened to the following:

Short-term pain can lead to long-term healing.

Thing is, Cristiano, some people have no desire to be in a community, but the community is inflicted upon them whether they like it or not.
There is a recurring pattern in SL, where people want to impose their views on others, expand at the cost of kicking their neighbors out, etc.
If only there wasn't so much money to be made selling land to people, we could focus on giving people their own personal space hosted on their own personal computer, where they could have full control over everything, and not put up with undesirable neighbors, communities, and rules.
Philip's vision of a continuous world is flawed in that people should not be forced to lump against each other unless they WANT to - otherwise it just ends up generating friction.

I think that the reason we so often hear "Well, it's not against the rules, and they can do what they want with their land, so....." is because the people who issue the complaints so often seem to be asking for help from the Lindens; "If I complain loud enough maybe the (explicit) rules will be changed."

This isn't to say that the unsocial behavior is "OK". It isn't. It's often rude or inconsiderate. Asking the Lindens to help you remove an eyesore that doesn't violate the rules, however, is not the appropriate way to go about things. Left without a means to enforce social behavior via the Lindens, people should find other ways to achieve their ends, including negotiation, compromise, and at worst, patience.

The biggest problem with these sets of "implicit rules" that people violate, is that they are protected from being identified and, where appropriate, given a thumbs-down by the community. It's downright silly not to allow the sharing of public chat-logs, or of the names of people who misbehave. You cannot enforce "implicit rules" in a community that doesn't allow "naming of names".

Unhygienix what you say is so very true, I won't even post anymore cause I am worried about the Censorship that will soon follow even though it would be the truth.

I have caught myself attempting to reply and rereading what I said over n over trying to keep it in line but I can't anymore.

I have little bit to say on this subject. But I will keep them to myself for a change considering the fence sitters out there that try to kiss both sides of the debates ass. Cant have it both way folks sorry thats not how life is be it first or second.

Shadow

Eggy,

I have never been someone who is against freedom to build, however ugly. It is the behaviors that affect those around you that bother me. If you put a giant green light on your build that turns builds on others land green as well, then you are no longer just affecting yourself. If you build a club that lags the fuck out of a sim daily, with no consideration of how it affects anyone around you, again you are affecting others. You want to be a hermit who scripts inside your giant dinosaur build in the midst of victorian homes, more power to you. You can even make it spin and shoot smoke out of it. However, it does not give you license to affect those around you. I have no tolerance for that, and no amount of justification changes that. There is a such thing as being a decent, considerate person, and that doesn't stop just because you are in SL.

What are you implying?

It's true that it's impossible to spell out each and every case to which one rule or another would apply ahead of time. You might call these cases implied by the more general rules, though.

However, contrary to your statement, societies actually become dysfunctional when the rules and general principles are not clearly stated and made known! We can't rely on a bunch of unwritten "rules" to guide us. That in itself can result in serious abuse.

Nice post, SSK.

especially this:



I fall firmly on the side of freedom on your own land. But I also try to be respectful of my neighbor and appreciate it when they do the same for me. But its a courtesy on my part and a courtesy on their part. Which means its optional, and I can stop, or they can stop for any reason at all. Which is how I like it. Courtesy - the largest opt-in group in SL

I dont want to make hard and fast rules governing things like aesthetics. and i definitely don't want to encourage LL to make rules. We get silly things like the "no Name Rules" when they get to brainstorming on "resident management"

It's a community. Act like one. Communicate with people. And accept it when they listen, and dont agree.

Rules have to be based on objective metrics, not subjective ones. Cristiano, in the other thread you made the analogy between the "ugly griefing build" argument and freedom of speech. I couldn't agree with that assertion more. If we want to be free to pursue our creative whims then we have to accept the price, just as with freedom of speech... we're not going to like every way people choose to express themselves. The objective freedoms must outweigh subjective opinions. The whole of SL's creative foundation rests on that simple truth. If that ever changes SL will lose a great deal of what makes it great. If people want to live in a suburban neighborhood simulator, where their aesthetics are never at odds with their surroundings, there's a lovely game called TSO they may want to consider trying out.

I think there's a wonderful, and manageable solution to this, if LL chooses to implement it. I'm sure it's been suggested before, but it seems most recently to have been put forward by Chip Midnight and Cross Lament:

Turn off rendering by plot (or by avatar)


If you could designate a parcel or owner whose objects you don't wish to see, why not be able to? This would save bandwidth to LL for all the textures that it doesn't have to stream, and it would CUT THE LEGS OUT from under people who wish to grief-by-building. The only thing that these "grief-builders" have to count on at the moment, is that their eyesores will be seen, day in and day out. In fact, although they pay (tier) in order to be able to build persistant objects, they are hoping to achieve something other than just having their things there. They're aiming for the ability to bother and annoy others with the visual ugliness of their builds. Why take away their ability to build, when it is just as possible (probably, I'm not a tech expert; Eggy, Adam, Chris, Cath, want to comment?) to take away their "right" to be seen? If you can "turn off" my builds visually, I can't bother you with them so easily; I'm likely to bore of my "build griefing" and move on to some other amusement; even if I don't, this solution allows both you and I to co-exist while LL collects the monthly bills for each of our tiers, AND requires little or no intervention from their staffers. It both keeps their expenses to a minimal, and gives the greatest chance for all landowners to stay happy (and keep paying tier), AND tends to passively encourage good behavior among neighbors.

This solution is so far-and-away better than appearance-geared zoning ordinances that I'm suprised it hasn't received repeated vocal support from the community.

Unhygienix, thats a good idea. I endorse it enthusiastically

/signed here too.

By plot is a good idea, as is by builder. On by default, but just a little checkbox in the about land dialog or in the player profile. This couldn't be that hard. Post this idea in the suggestion forum.

In SL, as in RL, in the end, you are and should be free to do whatever you want with the limitation of being as respectful to others as you want them to be to you.

Second, the world moves on by compromise. If two parties never got past a deadlock, the world would not move forward.

Other than that:

1. I also think blocking by plot is a great idea.

2. Here's a crazy idea that quickly came into my head: Those that own land on a sim (or whatever space makes the most sense) should develop an owner's association where the rules and norms for that sim are agreed upon by a group of landowners.

Excellent post.

Now, as to your motives... which person do you really feel was the griefer? The person who build a wall, or the person who built the mall?

While the wall is 2-D, it appears to be textured with a tasteful stone blocks with ivy and plants growing out of it. The rest of the wall person's plot is a residential house.

If you, in RL, had a nice suburban house, and a huge mall moved in and built it right up to the property line, wouldn't you put up a wall, too?

What if the case was reverse? What if the person decided to put up a wall... then the mall moved in next door? Could the person then complain that the mall was building too close to their wall?

I think it's a shame that the person with the residential plot is labeled a griefer. It's not like the wall had slogans of hate against the mall owner, or like it was porn or brightly colored crap. It was a tasteful stone wall with plants growing.

Now, reasonable options for the mall to have done would be:
A. Not built right up to the property line of a residential settlement
B. Provided a nice-looking view for the house on that wall of the mall
C. Spoken to the wall-builder and sought out alternatives to the wall
D. Offered to help relocate the wall-builder

But moreover, it should have never wound up on the forums.

Now, this thread... it's a great discussion, for sure, and I could be wrong about the motivation, but I really hate to just have everyone discuss something like this on the assumption that someone was a griefer.

And yeah, okay, it sounds like I'm butting in, but if I had someone move into Varney and build a mall on flattened land right next to me, I'd be raising a wall too.

Yes, and YES!

given that sl is a new social domain it's worth considering what is going on, beyond reacting to it with habits from the first life.

when people come together, there is society, but not necessarily community.

i agree with this. i'm not sure the enforced contiguous sl geography is necessary.

i don't necessarily disagree with this, but there are trade-offs for each decision of this time. i'm be more convinced if this kind of argument include the trade-offs.

clearly stated is not the same and heavy reliance.

serious abuse occurs the situation disregards either aspect.

if that were the case, society would no rules.

what people do and how they interpret their meaning is largely subjective.

i think vigorous debate is necessary.

the right to do something is often conflated with the ability to do something.

humans are innately able to do numerous things, but rights only exists in relation to other entities with desires.

should? ought? why? this falls in the very difficulty between rules and attempts to establish rules.

you know? i have no idea what you are talking about. looks like you're projecting something.