Explicit and implicit rules

How do you negóciate contradictions?

 

Break them all and let the people who want them enforced sort it out.

 

hhhhmmmmmmmm...

 

Can you give an example hygro?

 

Hopefully with civil discourse rather than using a weapon (either verbal or physical).

 

gangsta

 

I'm gonna assume this is a question about the spirit of cricket, like for example:

• should you voluntarily walk when dismissed
• is the bowler's end pre-delivery runout dismissal (mankad) okay and whether you should give a warning
• whether fielder honesty in catches should be expected given the difficulty of TV replay in confirming if a low catch was a half volley or clean catch

I think, fittingly, there's no hard and fast rule and that a spirit of the game animating decision making and the mood of the contest are an essential part of applying the formal rules which can only ever go so far in articulating how things should work.

In some situations, something that happens rarely gets called "against the spirit of cricket" despite being within the rules and I think that happens purely because of rareness.. A good example here is Inzamam ul Haq being dismissed for obstructing the field, a very rare event. He used his bat to block a shy at the stumps, was dismissed for obstructing the field, and then complained that the Indians shouldn't have appealed. This controversy really just mistook rareness for "not within the spirit". You can't obstruct the field, the game is played in such way this could rarely occur anyway, so it doesn't come up much. However on this occasion he did obstruct the field and it's fine that he was out as a result. No spirit violation there.

On the other hand, there's situations where confusion or misunderstandings lead to dismissals and you hate to see that impact on the games because they've occurred outside the heat of the contest.

Ian Bell being dismissed run out because he thought the ball was dead on the last ball before tea, and walked off, was ugly because he was only technically in breach of the rules as they stood. MS Dhoni rescinding the appeal and undoing Bell's dismissal over the tea break was an excellent example of the continued existence of the "spirit of cricket" because he conceded that a technical, tricksy dismissal wasn't within the intent of the game.

Sometimes people cite the loss of catcher honesty and players walking on a nick as evidence the spirit is disappearing, but I'd argue the advent of video replay has removed the need for the spirit of the game to decide these things. The spirit of cricket has always been as much a pragmatic code to help make the game function as expected, never a mere idealistic principle existing in a vacuum. As changes in rules and changes in adjudication standards have shifted, so too have the required uses and purposes of the spirit of the game. One example is, post the death of Phillip Hughes, the increasing concern around head injuries. For the most part, a blow to the head stops play and the welfar eof the player becomes priority. You wouldn't, for example, stump or run out a player who is struck and collapses outside the crease. That's a newer manifestation of the spirit of the game.

I think we're at a decent status quo right now. Mankading is the current point of contention., It's legal right now, but because it's unusual and a bit tricky due to the lack of expectation of it occurring, so there's a strong norm in favour of warning people before doing it. That ensures a batsman subsequently dismissed was cognisant of the risk just like in any other mainstream dismissal. The explicit rules are what they are, but they lay down a framework within which the game can operate in different ways. It's then the role of informal, normative culture to fill in the gaps and set a tone for how the game is played. One could imagine a different norm of the game emerging, where stealing run distance is as normalised as stealing bases in baseball and therefore preventing that with a mankad is normal, but we are not there and so correspondingly we don't have an expectation of surprise mankads.

You could argue less important things, like common law, function similarly - that there is a framework of formally articulated principles but it's conditioned and shaped by informal expectations arising from culture and an understanding of how things should work.

 

I would guess that explicit rules are like laws, ie, equality..... while implicit rules are more like common decency standards

 

There’s a matrix to this:
Ex yes, Im yes, ||||| Ex yes, Im no
Ex no, Im yes ||||| Ex no, Im no

I suppose then there’s a trendline for where the contradiction occurs in people’s lives.

So I suppose that top right corner is pretty relevant.

 

Rules need to be written down. This month I learned that talking about medicine here and on some other boards is rather vain effort. I mean - I got no phd in musicology, but I haven't got intro argument about music like EVER.

 

What about when the “rules” are written down for you/others are bogus because there are no rules in music, only guidelines? Should the rest of us abide the tyranny?

 

What I meant is that (my mom got Masters in musicology) it is hard to discuss anything if some people take some things as basic truths, because they were taught that way in University or if mainstream science says so.

Have they verified everything? In philosophy class we were taugh that it is naive to think that sun will raise every morning.

 

What?

 

I assume this question is about type checking. Explicit typing can improve readability, while avoiding many runtime errors by having the compiler catch them earlier on, at compile-time. However, it tends to make code more boilerplate-y and less flexible. Hence, less programmer freedom and reduced code reuse (eg less polymorphism). That being said, every language is mostly explicit rules. On the other hand, actual people mostly use implicit rules, but no one said this was a perfect metaphor.

 

Ex=explicit rules
Im=explicit rules

So in that 2x2 matrix, does an action abide by the explicit and implicit rules?

For example: if you do something allowed, but impolite, it would fall in the top right quadrant.
Similarly, if someone passes you the j back in 1999, to accept would be the bottom left quadrant.

 

How much of the time was Isaac Newton hanging out in the top right quadrant of your matrix? An anti-trinitarian alchemist who loved his virginity almost as much as he loved seeing counterfeiters hanged, drawn, and quartered. The top right quadrant was his natural habitat. How much should we care that's where he liked to hang out? How much does someone have to accomplish to offset that?

 

I have something to say but I already have written like 2000 words today and I do not want to write anymore (except 25 words)

 

Rules to what? Could you clarify?

 

Still don't really get it, it's kind of vague, obviously it's going to depend on the situation what rules you're gonna follow.

You could argue that a definition of power is how much a person has to respect the rules (of any kind). I've noticed many socially insecure people are obsessed w rules and hate those who get away with ignoring them.