Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The rule says, “No vehicles in the park”

novehiclesinthepark.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 1001 posts

Re: The rule says, “No vehicles in the park”

#11

Post by parl_match »

version_five wrote: post #8
parl_match wrote: post #3

I got a few questions in, and the thing that stands out is the ambiguity of what a "vehicle" is. In rules like this, vehicle is defined - often to be about being motorized or speed. This metaphor doesn't map cleanly to when rules are less specific or laid out - because in this situation, the rules have been well tested and made to be unambiguous! It also suggests that there is only one rule that should be followed. F…

Yeah, he needs a better example. Vehicle has some ambiguity when you hint about it in the introduction, but not much. If he'd said "mode of transportation" that night be more ambiguous- skating could be one or could be recreational and not to go anywhere. But then I don't know how people would get into the park. And separately, a lot of the ambiguity in content moderation comes from people trying to frame what they d…

Or even something along the lines of "Susan said x."

Re: The rule says, “No vehicles in the park”

#12

Post by parl_match »

djsavvy wrote: post #7
parl_match wrote: post #3

I got a few questions in, and the thing that stands out is the ambiguity of what a "vehicle" is. In rules like this, vehicle is defined - often to be about being motorized or speed. This metaphor doesn't map cleanly to when rules are less specific or laid out - because in this situation, the rules have been well tested and made to be unambiguous! It also suggests that there is only one rule that should be followed. F…

Did you get through the game to the end text? This is specifically addressed.

Yes. I stand by what I said.

Re: The rule says, “No vehicles in the park”

#13

Post by dmitrygr »

parl_match wrote: post #3

I got a few questions in, and the thing that stands out is the ambiguity of what a "vehicle" is. In rules like this, vehicle is defined - often to be about being motorized or speed. This metaphor doesn't map cleanly to when rules are less specific or laid out - because in this situation, the rules have been well tested and made to be unambiguous! It also suggests that there is only one rule that should be followed. F…

You completely totally and absolutely missed the point. It is about moderation, and rules there are usually MORE vague than "no vehicles," they are usually things like "no hateful language," which is so vague, that "no vehicles" is beginning to look pretty cut-and-dry by comparison

Re: The rule says, “No vehicles in the park”

#14

Post by pacaro »

parl_match wrote: post #9
coolestguy wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think you do get the point - the point is that unless you define every single word in a rule (like how legislation has a definitions page), it's very hard to do simple content moderation in a way that everyone agrees

I do get the point, I'm saying that the analogy was bad.

Regardless of whether you do actually get the point, when multiple comments indicate that they think that you didn't get the point that tells you that you have failed to communicate that you got the point. Doubling down doesn't help

Re: The rule says, “No vehicles in the park”

#15

Post by taeric »

coolestguy wrote: post #4
parl_match wrote: post #3

I got a few questions in, and the thing that stands out is the ambiguity of what a "vehicle" is. In rules like this, vehicle is defined - often to be about being motorized or speed. This metaphor doesn't map cleanly to when rules are less specific or laid out - because in this situation, the rules have been well tested and made to be unambiguous! It also suggests that there is only one rule that should be followed. F…

I don't think you do get the point - the point is that unless you define every single word in a rule (like how legislation has a definitions page), it's very hard to do simple content moderation in a way that everyone agrees

This is silly, though? Rules and legislation is also usually layered in such a way that other rules can supercede.

Such that, if your model of how rules and regulations work is that they are all active at all times.... I have really bad news for you. For fun, consider that there is still the 18th amendment to the US constitution. There is just also now the 21st amendment to go with it. And at no point did we have to redefine words for that trick.

Re: The rule says, “No vehicles in the park”

#16

Post by Macha »

The number at the end is unclear - it says I agreed with the majority 11%, but then it shows a bunch of charts. Yet the three I said were vehicles (the car, the police vehicle, and the ambulance) are the only 3 above 50% support, so it seems I agreed with the majority 100%. I even opened a second session in another browser and hit yes to everything to see if the numbers in the chart was the amount that agree with me, and no, the numbers didn't invert so it seems the chart is measuring yes answers.

Re: The rule says, “No vehicles in the park”

#18

Post by juujian »

iherbig wrote: post #5
parl_match wrote: post #3

I got a few questions in, and the thing that stands out is the ambiguity of what a "vehicle" is. In rules like this, vehicle is defined - often to be about being motorized or speed. This metaphor doesn't map cleanly to when rules are less specific or laid out - because in this situation, the rules have been well tested and made to be unambiguous! It also suggests that there is only one rule that should be followed. F…

I'm not sure if you do, honestly. The point of the exercise is exactly the ambiguity that stood out to you. Also, the question was very explicitly not asking if an ambulance in the park is "okay." The question is asking is it a rule violation. It's an excellent analogy, in my opinion, because what it's trying to be analogous to is the general ambiguity of language that makes content moderation difficult. It's hardly…

That makes a ton of sense. I was always confused by that. Reddit has a ton of rules in place, particularly against advocating for violence. I reported a few comments that called for death penalty for someone. Those comments were always greenlit. Maybe I just take stuff to literal. But some people sure have a hard-on for the death penalty...

Re: The rule says, “No vehicles in the park”

#19

Post by Yenrabbit »

Perfect illustration of how tricky it can be to draw a firm line. Another survey in this same genre is "the rape spectrum" with >5k respondents ranking scenarios: https://aella.substack.com/p/the-rape-spectrum-survey-result... Tough topics to discuss (I see why the OP went with vehicles in the park). I'm glad I'm not in the content moderation business!

Re: The rule says, “No vehicles in the park”

#20

Post by bhaney »

Nitpick: The summary at the end labels your choices as "You think it is not a vehicle" or "You think it is a vehicle" based on whether or not you said the situation violates the rule, but some of the scenarios were clearly about whether or not something was in the park, rather than whether or not it was a vehicle. I can think a plane or a space station is a vehicle without thinking it violates the rule about not being in the park.

Yes, I'm aware this has nothing to do with the point of the exercise.

Post reply on HN