Very cool, if true

For various values of 'fun', yes :->

I'm not even going to bother trying to work out factorial 6 billion...

From:

It reminds me of a typical "game contract" in role-playing. You say, "I run a realistic, simulationist game" and then a player gets pissed off because someone shot their character and, well, shooting is fatal and the character dies.

And then you get a few gamers saying, "Well, the true way of gaming is..." and gamers get into arguments about how their game is better than game Z because it is more exciting/is more realistic/tells a better story.

The meta-rules, or gaming contract, defines what the game should be like. It's really the same thing in a conversation: you have a set of meta-rules that say what the conversation should be.

From:

"but everyone thinks their rules are the real ones, the ones that the world should run by, I occasionally feel the need to remind people of this."

There's a massive difference between someone who thinks that their rules are the real ones, the ones that the world should run by... and someone who thinks that their rules are the real ones, the ones that the world does run by.

My views on chance, luck and coincidence could be described as the latter. My views on politics and society could be described as the former.

From:

But the rules themselves are meaningless in this context which is surely the point?

Unless you're just making this point and I'm missing it?

To say "I run a realistic, simulationist game" can mean different things to different people. I'm fairly sure my idea of realistic is different to Andy's, because I know that our world views are very, very different.

In gaming, I always thought the idea of realistic gaming within unrealistic settings was asking for trouble. But this is a discussion I won't get into ;-)

From:

It's really the same thing in a conversation: you have a set of meta-rules that say what the conversation should be.

I don't remember signing anything before starting this discussion...

From:

I'm fairly sure my idea of realistic is different to Andy's, because I know that our world views are very, very different.

Really? I'm fairly sure our opinions on politics are different - or psychology - but physics? Or are you about to come out of the closet as a fundamentalist Christian, and radically opposed to my agnosticism?

From:

greengolux.livejournal.com

No, but I suspect that you, as well as most people, operate on a set of meta-rules that invoke principles such as 'For a conversation to be successful ideas should be communicated from one person to another' and 'I should avoid causing other people unecessary pain and suffering through my words and actions'.

Certainly, when I'm conversing I'm aiming to maximise communication and not make people feel upset/angry/defensive in the process (and the latter is partly because if people are upset/angry/defensive it's likely to hinder communication).

From:

I thought you believed in science and that sort of malarkey?

You know that I oppose a large selection of important scientific principles and general statements. I was fairly sure you disagreed with me on that score.

I am not, however, a fundamentalist Christian, as far as I can tell.

You also have radically different views of people and society to me (at times, not always), and that would lead me to think our views of psychology would differ at fairly fundamental points too.

From:

You're engaged in a social activity. A social activity is one that, by definition, will have rules and codes. This social sphere is on the internet, on Livejournal, and it's on -your- livejournal. There are social rules that govern this kind of interaction that are generally abided by.

The problems that occur are where people differ in their opinions of these codes, or indeed choose to act outside them. Participation in the social activity (or social group) can be seen as accepting the codes, since to interact in a convincing way, it'll be assumed that you have knowledge of the contract/codes/whatever.

If, for instance, I launched into a wild personal attack on you and a close friend here, at a tangent to the discussion... then you would, I hope, think that I was out of line. You see where I'm going with this.

If I suddenly brought up an somewhat painful anecdote about your sex life, that was not public knowledge, to illustrate a point here.. then you'd presumably be somewhat put out. You wouldn't feel that way if you didn't accept the contract in some way. In the same way as by using this medium, you accept this without knowing first if it's been changed. Not knowing that it has been changed isn't a defence, I imagine, when you go against parts of it.

From:

surliminal.livejournal.com

everyone thinks their rules are the real ones, the ones that the world should run by

This is most explicit when playing a new person at a "family" game like Scrabble or Monpoly.. Just think of every conversation s a game of Scrabble with jane. And then worry :-)

From:

Darn it, you didn't get the memo :-).

Seriously, the meta-rules or contract in a role-playing game are rarely in writing. Usually, they're either verbally hashed out or just "assumed to be understood." The current group I'm in, well, they've gamed a long time together, they know their style, and I'm a newcomer. No one explicitly said "we can deal with out of character conversation" or "we allow weird coincedences if it helps with the story," but that's what I've seen.

Likewise, as others have pointed out, in this conversation the meta-rules are assumed. And this goes back to your statement:

As I wander through, fairly convinced that there are _no_ rules, but everyone thinks their rules are the real ones, the ones that the world should run by, I occasionally feel the need to remind people of this.

There are rules, but the rules are only "rules" as long as both parties enforce them.

From:

But the rules themselves are meaningless in this context which is surely the point?

Well, the rules aren't meaningless if the rule set is sufficiently defined and if the rules are enforced. If I say "simulationist game," then it's cutting a whole swatch of gaming styles out of what you would expect. If I specify further, like "no OOC talk," then that's something more specific.

To use another example: a debate. The rules of a debate are fixed and strictly defined. If you get out of line, others will call you out of order and throw you out.

Picture a scale, with 1.0 being a debate and 0.0 being a blind date between two people of different cultures. Most of our conversations are somewhere in this scale. I talk with a new client, I'm at 0.2. Then I go home and have dinner with my wife, we're at a 0.9. Now, my wife and I haven't written down rules to talk about how we're going to talk, but we know each other and have a common culture/ideals/mindset. These rules, whether written or understood, are what count.

From:

You know that I oppose a large selection of important scientific principles and general statements.

Actually, no. You've _once_ mentioned not being convinced by evolution. Other than that I had no idea. What principles do you oppose, and why?

From:

A social activity is one that, by definition, will have rules and codes.

I'd say that is will have expectations and preferences. "Rules" strikes me as far too strong a word.

There are social rules that govern this kind of interaction that are generally abided by.

Clearly we're living on different internets, there aren't many social conventions that I don't see ignored on a regular basis.

If I suddenly brought up an somewhat painful anecdote about your sex life, that was not public knowledge, to illustrate a point here..

Amusingly this has happened twice in the last week. Admittedly, not online, but that's possibly because I haven't had conversations about sex online with people that know how bad I am in bed.

From:

Seriously, the meta-rules or contract in a role-playing game are rarely in writing. Usually, they're either verbally hashed out or just "assumed to be understood."

and

Well, the rules aren't meaningless if the rule set is sufficiently defined

Seeing as I've never defined the rules for this journal _at all_, and I've never seen you define the ones for yours, I'm going to have to assume there aren't any, according to what you said in those two quotes.

From:

channelpenguin.livejournal.com

heh heh heh

I've always been of the "why should *I* change" school of thought. And perfectly happy that other people might think the same of themselves.

Doesn't/didn't stop the shouting about it - always was of the 'argument as entertainment persuasion (as in 'loud but logical', not 'pointless row').

From:

laserboy.livejournal.com

"You've _once_ mentioned not being convinced by evolution"

What?! Well that revelation certainly took me by surprise. As opposed to Intelligent Design? Creationism? Yikes.

From:

Seeing as I've never defined the rules for this journal _at all_, and I've never seen you define the ones for yours, I'm going to have to assume there aren't any, according to what you said in those two quotes.

Well...I do have defined (though not written, not until now :-) ) rules, and I believe you have as well. Things like "don't talk in leet-speak" and "use proper punctuation." Then there are more "Internet rules" that we've both picked up on, like "don't use all capitals." And then there are more socially understood rules, like "stay on topic, don't be insulting, etc." Finally, there are community-specific rules, like "discussions like this are OK" (some journals wouldn't allow this type of discussion; they're focused more on information and connection rather than debate). There are whole layers of rules that we bring to our livejournals, and our lives.

In LiveJournal, we can delete posts and prevent anonymous posters. We are, in a sense, lord of our own community, and we have the privilege that, say, a teacher has in an academic environment. We get to define the rules unilaterally for our journals, and it's up to others (me, in this case, because I'm commenting on your journal) to conform to those rules.

In real life, there often isn't that power differential -- conversations are on a more equal footing. This means we have to find out what the rules are, or rely on assumptions that don't necessarily fit.

From:

gomichan.livejournal.com

Any rules both parties agree to play by are 'real rules'. So if you can set and declare a standard of communication and get others to adhere to it, within that context, everybody wins.

Hard to do in meatspace, but not impossible. It's taken years to convince my friends and family that, for instance, when I'm scowling and giving monosyllabic answers, it means I'm working on a complicated thought, not that it's time for a game of 'are you mad at me?' 20-questions. But pretty much everyone groks it now. They play by my rules when they're playing with me. Two reasons for this: one, I'm a stubborn jackass and won't play by anyone else's if I can help it, and two, my rules are simpler.

I don't know anything about the fellow you linked except what he wrote in his post and responses to comments, but he comes across as very clear and thoughtful, and I suspect anyone who has a problem with his communications style is accustomed playing by passive-aggressive, backstabbing, office-politics rules. It would, indeed, be irritating to spend years developing the finesse to tapdance on eggshells, then find that one of your co-workers simply doesn't bother. And when one is playing office-politics, the correct response to a co-worker who tweaks your ego by existing is to undermine his confidence. Common tactics include taking him aside and telling him, in a timid, sympathetic tone, that everyone else finds him abrasive.

So yeah, I don't know the guy, but I reckon he should stick to his guns.

From:

Well...I do have defined (though not written, not until now :-) ) rules, and I believe you have as well. Things like "don't talk in leet-speak" and "use proper punctuation."

Actually, I'm fine with both those rules being broken on occasion.

And then there are more socially understood rules, like "stay on topic, don't be insulting, etc."

I'm totally fine with things going off-topic. And insulting is fine, in some circumstances, in some ways.

We get to define the rules unilaterally for our journals, and it's up to others (me, in this case, because I'm commenting on your journal) to conform to those rules.

I'm still not convinced that I have strict rules, or that they're at all clear. I'd be much happier with the word 'guidelines', I think.

From: