Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by Hygro, Jan 12, 2020.
I always lose
@Hygro In Path of Exile gear has implicit modifiers and explicit ones.
Implicit cannot be changed
Explicit are RNG created and can be changed.
Context here is very important. Are we talking philosophy or real life or law or something else?
Okay, the OP is clearly about the rules of Scrabble. The rules do not explicitly say that foreign words aren't allowed. Therefore, when my boyfriend and I used to play, we'd agree on house rules for foreign words. If the other person challenged, we had to have that language's dictionary or some other reference book handy to prove that it's a valid word that does not violate any explicit rule of Scrabble (ie. not a proper noun or abbreviation).
That made it difficult to use Klingon words, because when translated into the North American English alphabet, too many words have capital letters in weird places.
The implicitly-understood rules that most people use don't allow most foreign words. For some reason, the Greek alphabet is allowed. Most of the contents of my French dictionary aren't.
Serious answer: Explicit rules are what's written down in a formal list or law or on a sign. Implicit rules are those that people agree to follow, or are "socially understood to be correct". There could be serious legal consequences for breaking explicit rules. The consequences for breaking implicit rules could be anywhere from being thought rude to reaping physical consequences.
So far we seem to be talking about a lot of it, and I feel like I’m learning things from the different takes of the issue.
I'll assume this is about tipping. I don't tip.
I don't get the OP or subsequent posts by @Hygro .
A good example of this because it should be familiar to most of us is when you join a MP game that says "no exploits".
There are of course explicit rules, things that are banned from the start and everyone joining agrees. The implicit rule is that the host can define nearly any particular action as an exploit and give consequences for that regardless of whether he has any coherent basis or semblance of standards.
Unfortunately, implicit junk extends to actual law too. You have stuff like obscenity laws (which have serious issues even in principle), or where judge/jury gets to affix intent to the accused despite accused claims otherwise and no hard evidence. Sometimes, this estimation of intent has standards that allow something approximating consistency between cases. Other times, there is no apparent standard. In extreme cases people get crimes made up for them even though they didn't do anything illegal by any consistent standard (that UK case where a guy touched a girl on the arm once and got a pretty serious sentence comes to mind).
Implicit rules are sometimes necessary since we can't consider every contingency, but should be used as infrequently as possible to limit abuses and generally be lax on the "rule breaker" when there was nothing explicitly established against the action previously.
You're bringing back some amusing memories. For some reason, people I know have gotten pretty salty over Scrabble. Probably the only board game I've played that resulted in more conflict was Risk.
In scrabble I got a fair amount of flak for intentionally blocking valuable squares from my next closest competitor in a multi-person game, sometimes sacrificing points of my own just to deny it since that was more valuable to holding/extending my lead over #2. Apparently that was "cheap" . But I see no reason to hand point opportunities to other players for free...
I am highly offended as a former recipient of tips and highly validated by your understanding of the thread which I will clarify now that even Hobbs is confused (although get your game on folks, @Valka D'Ur gets it and she generally prefers more explicit threads than many of you )
There are explicit rules for things. Laws, consistent customs like waiting in line. There are implicit rules like how to behave, how not to, who to follow and who to lead, how to address people. I just got addressed by the corporate coffee shop as “man” and another dude got addressed as “sir”. While I would have (oh lord I’m getting old/got converted by the south) preferred “sir”, the implicit rules of here in Berkeley earns me the camaraderie of “man”.
Sometimes there’s a contradiction. It’s illegal to speed, but it’s against the implicit rules of speed laws to go slower than the speed limit in the faster two lanes in many places. So explicitly correct, implicitly incorrect.
Sometimes it’s different: the explicit rules of society is we’re all equal, study what you want. But the implicit rules our social circles grow or stagnate straight up with our incomes and work, so study accordingly. In this case what’s “explicit” is slightly less concrete, we can call it the mainstream of public discourse vs. the less loud but more predictive quieter popular opinion.
So I’m asking how you all feel about the difference and how to resolve the contradictions when they don’t align.
Go with reality.
For example when a girl says "I'm not going to sleep with you tonight, you know" if you take it literally and stop flirting and act all platonic well they're your gonna end up making her statement literal.
What she actually is saying is "I want to make sure you're not some rapist who only wants one thing, I probably will sleep with you but you need to make me feel comfortable and safe and show me you have social skills and that you really want me".
Going w the explicit and literal is the safe way to go thru life but you won't be able to make many breakthrus or have much fun (don't do anything illegal, don't trust strangers, follow the book... these approaches won't maximize life)
Laws and rules have nothing to do w reality. Try to figure out the deeper "rules", rules itself is a problematic, stifling word, I like guidelines betters.
"One ring to rule them all, One ring to find them,
One ring to bring them all, and in the darkness bind them."
Three Rings for the Elven-kings under the sky,
Seven for the Dwarf-lords in their halls of stone,
Nine for Mortal Men doomed to die,
One for the Dark Lord on his dark throne
In the Land of Mordor where the Shadows lie.
One Ring to rule them all, One Ring to find them,
One Ring to bring them all, and in the darkness bind them,
In the Land of Mordor where the Shadows lie.[/spoiler]
Explicit rules help maintain order in a chaotic world. They are written and subject to change. They get litigated and avoided and ignored.
Implicit rules are our humanity and reflect how we interact with others. They are culture and manners. They are the grease that allows us to work and play together.
At CFC, moderators manage the explicit and the community manages the implicit.
They are intertwined, often seamlessly. When you get stopped by a cop for speeding, you might well rely on implicit communications to persuade them that you really don't deserve a ticket. this might involve groveling or admitting fault. Or, you might try the explicit route of denying that you actually broke a law and make a case based on some objective data.
We need both, but the implicit rules are more important to community.
I feel that this depends on the scale. I feel it's hard to say that most of Reddit is a community in the same way CFC is and that explicit rules are much more important for keeping some order there because there's no real coherent community to set up implicit rules in the first place. A lot of the individual subrredits do end up with implicit rules/etiquette and culture but as a whole, Reddit does not.
OK. In the same way, the US/states have lots of explicit rules for all, but the implicit rules that build local communities are defined at the local level. Like Reddit and its subreddits.
When I'm confident that I can beat my opponent, I will sometimes go for a game of creativity or style, over points. There are times when I just want to play a cool word or figure out the most creative way to get points with certain letters. It helps that the Greek alphabet is legal and I know the Greek alphabet (mind you, that and a few words are about all I know of that language; as I've mentioned to @Kyriakos, he and I could not have even the most basic elementary conversation in his language because I have no grammar to string even a two-word sentence together).
I've played a fair bit of Risk (not many people around anymore to play with ), and the only time I got angry was when it was about 4 am, I had about two territories left and my opponent wouldn't just finish me off and end the game. So I yelled at him, "Would you just kill me already? It's late!" So there is something to be said about house rules regarding time limits.
At this point I have to ask which definition of "explicit" you're talking about
(but it's nice to know I understood you )
So much depends on context and what each speaker regards as normal. I've discovered that as I get older, I'm more comfortable with a certain level of formality in day-to-day interactions, if I don't know the other person. There have been times when people got testy wondering how to address me - Ms. or Miss or Mrs. and if they get obnoxious about it, I tell them, "Ma'am will do."
As for tipping... I tip some people. Not all. I see no reason to leave a tip at the food court in a mall, for instance. After all, nobody is bringing my food to me, I have to serve myself for my beverage, and the person working there isn't the same person who cleans the tables.
Or she just might mean she doesn't want to sleep with you tonight but would be willing some other night.
Or she might really just not want to sleep with you at all. It can happen (so I have heard).
I disagree that mankading is an apt example of the tension between spirit and law, as it's more the expression of majoritarian privilege; the batsman must be allowed to continue his pursuit in the face of minority behaviour which is seen as aberrant solely for the advantage it gives to the oppressed. It isn't unfair for the dominant actor in the social construct (the "innings") to push his advantage past its limits; but it is downright immoral for the opponent to insist upon their rights. The true tension with spirit arises where the dominant actor seeking to take unfair advantage does so within the explicit laws.
Hence the distinction between Inzamam and Stokes/Starc - in the former, the lack of physical danger left the batsman as the dominant, in control party, seeking to avoid the imposition of a clear law through disingenuous resort to convention. In the latter, there was simply defensive and reflexive action, with the aggressor seeking to take (arguably) unfair advantage of technicality.
Separate names with a comma.