implicit rules and explicit rules

I would say that Bel is correct, and that the best working definition between an explicit rule and an implicit rule is that the explicit one is the one that you can be "jailed" or "fined" or, in the case of SL, suspended/banned for. This doesn't mean that there are written, codified rules for every possible thing that LL would ban you for, but if you happen to show enough ingenuity to find an as-yet-untried action, they would ban you and then proceed to add it to the codified sets of rules.

Similiarly, I would say that an implicit rule is one that there is no official punishment for, should you break it. The only thing that is left is social punishments, which are impotent at best in SL.

A complex mathematical proof need not be able to show how a set of explicit rules and set of interactions can always result in an unpredicted combination, when there are administrators willing to step forward and say, "Welly well, I guess we didn't predict that someone would try to do THAT. You're suspended for a week, and now this is one of our new, explicit rules: Don't do (X) or you'll get punished too."

Really? How do our implicit rules stop people from grief-building ugly structures, from attempting to force their neighbors out of a sim or to buy them out at higher-than-normal prices? How has it stopped groups like W-Hat, whose builds are often the talk-about-town in terms of ugliness and poor taste?

I do not see implicit rules having any effect on the actions of people who decide to flaunt them, save that they seem to delight further at the ruckus that their actions cause.


Make no mistake, I do not support the idea that these people should have to conform; I'm just putting forth that the mere existence of implicit rules does not eliminate "margin-griefers", and in fact the inability to enforce these implicit rules encourages these people.

they don't stop everyone, but it does stop some.

Stoneself, you are correct.

Implicit rules stop some of us from doing ass things, just because they might give us a momentary chuckle.

The reason that these implicit rules stop us from doing these things is because we value the SL community and our relation to it; we wish to facilitate our relations with other members of the community in order to get along, or at the least not bother one another.

Unfortunately, all of us, ALL of us are subject completely to the actions of those who do not follow the same implicit rules that we do. These people find ways to grief in the margins of the rules; they deliberately do things that aren't quite against the TOS (the explicit rules) and yet disrupt a sense of community. We're not allowed to "out" them, to say so-and-so did such-and-such, even it it's true because that is an explicit rule and we'd get slapped down for doing it.


Implicit rules do have their use, in facilitating community. But they are either not rules, or they are useless rules, because they are unable to resolve situations in which individuals refuse to follow the implicit rules. Remember (this is important) there will ALWAYS be individuals who refuse to follow the implicit rules; and (even more important) in online communities that percentage of people will almost always be larger than you would find in RL society.

your argument presupposes your conclusion.

explicit rules themselves are sufficient to control behavior, for much the same reasons.
and in some cases, if one is particularly clever one can justify one's actions as being explicity allowed, even though it is apparent the intent of the explicit rule was other wise - hence we have lawyers.

implicit rules have implicit means of enforcement.

rule have consequence, generally.

the distinction you're making is between rule and non-rule. the distinction i'm making is between that is explicitly stated and what is implicitly stated.

another reason rules can be implicitly stated is that language allows you to literally say one thing and actually mean another.

While this is an interesting philosophical argument, I'm not sure what the point is. The implicit rules in Second Life boil down to common sense and common courtesy which, of course, we all hope the majority of residents are endowed with. That said, in terms of enforceable rules, they are meaningless. Not everyone is going to be on the same page and to expect people to not only grasp but follow implicit rules is to expect them to be psychic and all of the same mindset. It's a highly unrealisitc expectation for obvious reasons. The importance of creative freedom trumps any individual subjective notions of implicit rules. If it didn't then instead of a vehicle for creative expression SL would be nothing more than a petty argument simulator. In my opinion, those that expect others to conform to their subjective tastes and expectations are commiting a greater transgression against harmonious creativity than those who build something you may not like within the confines of the TOS using the resources they pay for. It's up to you as an individual to temper your expectations rather than expect others to conform to them.

I keep coming back to this because the subjuct is enraging, and I'm trying to figure out why. Here's what I came up with:

There's no such thing as an implicit rule! It is an oxymoron. The statement of any rule is in that moment making it explicit. Prior to that moment, the rule wasn't implicit - it didn't exist.

If an unstated rule is in effect, it can only mean that it was held secret as a means of hidden control or exclusion of certain people from the community. That is oppression.

I think what you are arguing is that certain conditions and behavior are logically implied by the rules. That doesn't make these conditions rules, just cases in which the rule is applied.

If it's unstated or implicit and yet all or most know it, it can only be instinctual. It's offensive, because most of us like to think of ourselves as reasonable creatures who behave by choice. It's also absurd, because the species you and I belong to does have the capacity to think, create, make choices, and learn.

Rules should be made clear because "hidden" rules are often abused. But not all rules can be law because of inefficiency and volume. As with almost everything, the answer is in the balance that is struck between the many extremes.

as a parallel example, there are ad hoc categories.

an ad hoc category is one like "things you would talk out of a burning house" "things one takes camping" "things one puts into storage" "topic i will include in my book". these are categories

these categories don't exist before you need to use them. the fact that don't exist until needed does change their status as categories.

implicit rules are similar in that.

no, it can also mean that application didn't come into effect.

it can also be inferred through the logic and/or reason.

should? why should? where does this shouldness come from?
is that an explicit or implicit rule?

i will say it beneficial for rules to be explicit in many cases. but not all.\

explicit rules can be abused, too.

Now you're being Aristotelian, as in there's your cake, and you can eat it, too! Besides, few commonalities can be inferred through logic or reason if the initial set of assumptions are different. And with a diverse, international population such as SL's, I guarantee they can be.



It's an explicit proposal for a rule. Which means it does not contradict what has been said.



I agree. But I will say there's less chance for abuse with explicit rules.

Stoneself, unless we're talking about SL society and its interactions, this is off-topic. I'm going to assume that your statements are geared towards the functions of SL.

Can you give an example of how an explicit rule in SL is being abused, but not being dealt with? Not taken advantage of, but abused, as in violated.

Can you give an example of an implicit rule in SL that has the ability to correct undesirable behavior when it is violated? Basically, consequences? I'm interested specifically in examples where implicit rules have been violated, and the "aggressor" has no desire to correct their behavior. Have implicit rules been able to either enact corrective measures on the aggressor, or remove him/her from their ability to annoy?

it's an aristotelian position if one uses aristotelian position that one is aristotelian. a non-aristotelian position is one where one can use aristotelian sometimes. which is to say, i can have my cake and eat it too in this case.

in a more serious note, just because the world is not aristotelian doesn't mean that one can't use aristotelian principles part of the time. it isn't that aristotelian principles are always wrong, just that they are wrong in certain cases.

the differences in inference is one of the points - implicit rules are difficult.

a very aristotelian position, if this, then that.

talking about society and how it functions even, if i don't mention sl specifically, still applies to sl.

thus is germane to sl, and is thus on topic.

my comments are geared towards discovery and understanding.

a very use of abuse.

but i will point to previous abuses of the event system. it was abused until a new explicit rule was created. the explicit rules did not cover the situation. after the fact additions are not explicit at the time of the abuse.

shunning people works quite well.

LOL! Aristotelian.

I'm going to have to remember that one, Stoneself. That's a very sophisticated way of bashing someone for trying to use logic and reason in an argument.

Pardon me, but how is this an example? I'm hoping that you can point to a specific case where an Explicit Rule in Second Life was abused, and the Rule (or its associated punishment) was unable to correct the behavior. What is the rule that you refer to? How was it violated? How was it shown to not be effective in stopping the behavior? In the case that you are talking about, is the behavior still going on?



Again, a specific example please? What is the implicit rule? Describe the actions that violated the rule. How was the application of this rule effective in curbing the behavior, or removing the person responsible?


As an aside, I would argue that if you are faced with a person who has dedicated some time and effort towards making you uhappy, shunning is unlikely to work. If shunning works quite well, does it do so because it actually causes them to reverse their poor behavior (like taking down an intentionally ugly build), or because you treat them as if they don't exist, and therefore deliberately ignore their provocations? Is shunning effective in a managed society like SL where we are not permitted to publicly float the name or actions of the transgressor? If shunning works quite well, can you explain the still-existing "grief builds" that people complain about? Have they ceased to exist, or ceased to cause consternation?

Better than the "you suck" approach I've seen many times on these forums, I'll give him that.

if you want to see it that way.

the point is the world is not aristotelian, though it is a useful model in many cases.

but when it's not, then it's worth knowing the world isn't aristotelian and other things should be considered.

i've been trying think of a specific example that won't reopen old wounds.

not all abuse is about getting away with breaking a rule.
there was a policy of locking and deleting threads that had personal attacks.
some clever people used this rule to post attacks into threads they wanted to terminate. the effect was that the threads would be closed because of possibly one one person's misdeeds. that is an abuse of an explicit rule, and the effect was entirely unintended in the original policy. the policy has since changed.

violations of explicit rules are much harder to come up with without openning old wounds and without violating the no names policy.

however, the consequences of a implicit rule need not be punitive. if you follow a set of implicit rules, then one might get a job offer.

at this point, i will simply say that shunning works, because i've used it and it's worked. the mechanism works differently for each situation, but i will say it is effect. more than that i will not say because i don't want to name names.