Standards and self-regulation

Dazzle369

Standards
Self-Regulation:
Self-control
Self-policing

Standardisation came about during the industrial revolution to help with independence of single suppliers (commoditization), compatibility, interoperability, safety, repeatability, or quality.

Self regulation is making rules that tell you how to behave. It matters more when you're expecting others to follow those same rules.

I'm heavily quoting from wikipedia, but hopefully that doesn't hinder this discussion.


The reason why I want to discuss this is because it effects off matters of life. The end goal is to find standards and regulations that every person can follow and live by, that we can all still benefit from our freedoms yet maintain control over radical behaviour.

I understand that the journey to reach that goal is complicated, but the discussion is how do we get to a point in humanity where we can just have a law and language that is universal and timeless so that each generation can benefit from following these rules.


But more selfishly, how can we employ standards to gaming? Should we bother enforcing standards on games? Or anything else for that matter. Who gets to decide what and why? What makes a good standard?

Matt

Regulations - yes. I think games can have rules and you can define activity outside those bounds as cheating (or if agreed upon prior, experimenting with play)

Standards - No. I don't think we need to set standards for what a game should be. Let people create whatever they want, and celebrate whatever great content comes out of their creative process, whether it is a standard game or not. The only standards gaming should have are the already a existing basic consumer protection standards.

Walker

I don't think a timeless, complete code of conduct is possible. If it is possible, I don't think it would be a good thing. Standards of behavior have to change along with societal and economic reality. When they don't we get stuff like Christianity and republicans.

Dazzle369

Rules should be descriptive and not prescriptive.

There must be rules everyone can agree on, the problem is when people can't agree.

I think rules like not killing are generally accepted by everyone, the problem arises when people try to make exceptions.

If exceptions need to be made, what logical process is the best way of determining what's right and wrong?


There should be a rule like, no rule can be enforced unless everyone agrees to this rule.

I think that rule can be made universal, because if you don't agree and you can't form a stronger argument that persuades others to agree then, it makes sense to default to the former.

Getting everyone to agree is impossible, so getting that to work may require a voting system.

But the the voting system has to account for ignorant people. A test of understanding should be taken before voting, so it's not just a simple matter of putting down an X. A small test should be implemented to determine if the person understands the consequence of the choice.


Countries already have governing bodies, laws and ways to enforce those laws. We have international laws. The problem is they're all still conflicting each other.

Laws are diverse but people aren't, in the sense that we're all human, we just have different cultures. A universal law should be able to account for freedom and cultural diversity, without compromising it's fundamental philosophies.

I think fundamentally a universal law should strive for peaceful coexistence of all humans, animals and nature.

We all share this planet there's no escaping that, we should be doing a better job of looking after this planet and each other I think.

Walker

Can you think of examples beyond anti-murder rules?

DevilUknow

You should probably just read Atlas Shrugged, get way into objectivism and then give it up when you realize that A != A.

Dazzle369

A personal example for me would be crossing a junction while cycling.

So there are traffic lights to make it safe for cars and pedestrians to cross. You hear about or have seen cyclists cross junctions in live traffic with no consideration for other people safety.

I've crossed junctions when I'm not supposed to, but have never caused anything like that. For one reason, If car traffic has stopped and it's safe for pedestrians to cross, it's safe for me to cross as long as I'm not intersecting anyones path.

Technically both cases of crossing the junction whilst cycling are wrong, but clearly there's a wrong way to do it that is right.


So there must be something wrong with the rules, that it penalises someone who's being safe. Yet the frequency of dangerous cyclists does not decrease.


We can all agree that people using the roads must do so safely. I don't think any country has addressed this appropriately yet.


Most cities have roads and cyclists, why do we need different rules for different places. It's the same thing everywhere is it not?

There must be simple solutions to these problems that can just be deployed everywhere for as long as cyclists, cars and pedestrians exist.

Dazzle369

YoshoKatana

Isn't it the rule in Chicago for cyclists that they should treat stoplights as stop signs (come to a complete stop, look both ways, then procees) and stop signs as yeilds (slow down, make sure the crossing is safe, then proceed)? I think I heard it was so.

Any Chicagoans want to shed some light on this? How has it worked out?

Walker

If I'm getting this, what you want is a cultural shift to selfless self-responsibility. That is to say, a situation where everyone involved regulates themselves for the sake of everyone else and, in a roundabout way, for the sake of their well-being within a stable society. Way back when there were a few hundred thousand humans and we didn't know how to grow things, people formed that sort of culture naturally. Everyone had a personal, survival-based context for their lives. There were very few people to a tribe, so everyone had a say, face to face.

From this point forward I'm spitballing, but I posit that maintaining consistent regulatory standards is easier in a small, personal social environment. Even during the agricultural revolution there were too many people participating in society at once for everyone to have a conversation with everyone else. When industrialization came around the world got so big we had to turn standards into a science with it's own Wikipedia article. Standards weren't invented during the industrial revolution; they were destroyed, rebuilt, and, well, standardized.

Our current predicament arises when people get their own ideas about how to self-regulate. Laws can affect how people act, but opposing cultural norms will remain and materialize underneath them. The medicine, the cure that I don't claim to understand, would have to come from a major shift in the socioeconomic realities of our world. I'm thinking of something egaltarian and socialistic brought on by a dark age followed by the proliferation of post-human, post-scarcity technology.

Dazzle369

In regards to the cycling example, my point was self-responsibility is the only thing in between you and causing an incident.

There's no external forces to intervene and stop an incident from occurring. Unless Superman exists.

Things like traffic likes are there just to automate, okay it's your turn to cross. When someone who's simply being careful, slowing down/ stopping before the junction, checking if it's clear and continuing (using common sense). Which is far more efficient. As opposed to just blazing right through dodging dangerously.

Traffic lights aren't physically going to stop you from crossing when you're not supposed to. Video cameras might be a better way of detecting dangerous road users, but requires technology and intelligent systems. Or low tech, someone employed to stop an fine any cyclist seen to be behaving dangerously.


The main point is that the problem that I see is, employing technology and other people to police the problem can treat the problem it doesn't prevent it.

Especially if you're an adult and you're seen not to be using common sense, especially in matters of safety, it's infuriating. Cos w d f?

lol

I don't know why using your common sense isn't in your best interest, but back to the point. The problem is attitude. When I was studying theory for driving (a car), the videos you watch tell you things like, leave aggressive and speedy driving for the racetrack, because it makes sense if you want to drive dangerously the racetrack is made for that.

There's a place for everything, there's a proper way to do everything. If you don't know the proper way, you need to be taught by someone who does.

The intricacies of each individual matter needs to be addressed individually, but not independently.

Doing science. 'Okay we're piloting a scheme to eliminate all cyclist related incidents from the road. The pilot scheme is limited to area X, we'll publish the results to the world after period Y'

Imagine the results being, after period of time Y we discovered this to work and that not not to work. World, have you also found this be the case?

Ok we all agree. Ok do we all agree that this is the best course of action? Do we need more tests? etc. etc.

Ok we've tested the shit out of all scenarios, these methods are effective... This method is 100%. This method doesn't make any fricking sense... blah blah

Curricula (curriculum) could be produced that say, ok if you want to cycle on these types of roads you need to learn these things blah blah. If you're a governing body these are the best way to enforce what is taught in the curriculum. If you're a parent this is how you can teach your child how to cycle.

Pristine curricula is possibly the most valuable legacy humans can leave behind.

It's like having a problem already solved for you, you never have to solve it again. You can just follow what a thing says and have the freedom outside of that to do what you actually want to do.

Studying this curriculum I can cycle from A to B without hurting myself, anyone, damaging anything, scaring some to death. Have full peace of mind. Then played with my yo-yo.


The best example of standardisation as a benefit, is language. Imagine speaking the same language as someone and still not understanding what their saying, because they're speaking some janked up dialect. That's why we have standard English. This word means this! You're free to use it to mean something else, as long as you acknowledge it's true meaning. If not, then who do you plan on speaking with.

Then it's the major issue of who decides what words even mean! How da fuq do we decide anything.

Dazzle369