Live data from Hacker News

The rule says, “No vehicles in the park”

novehiclesinthepark.com

21–30 of 1001 posts

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

#21

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.

[deleted]

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

#22
post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Or he has a different opinion than you. What is the point of your post, just a lame scolding?

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

#23
What this highlights is that online we have lost - or at least eroded - social norms. If I see a sign that says "no vehicles allowed", it's obvious they don't mean wagons and strollers. In almost all cases the police and the public are 99% in sync. Online, though, the moderators are forced to do a careful study of every action and become asinine literalists lest a horde of boundary-pushers ruin it for everyone.

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

#24
post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I do not know how to communicate "I got the point" more than "I got the point". Please tell me how to communicate "I got the point" better than saying "I got the point".

They think I didn't get the point, but they're wrong. Hope that helps!

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

#26
post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

In this case, there are just three angry internet commenters who want to tell someone else they're wrong. It's not GP's problem. I agree with GP -- it's a bad metaphor. GP doesn't owe you litigating that in depth.

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

#27
post #16

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,…

I think that the 11% majority are the people that had the exact same answers as you for all questions.

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

#28
post #16

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,…

I think it's giving you a percentage of people who answered exactly the same as you on all questions.

Edit: Okay I have no idea what it's meant to be (other than "11")

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

#29
post #23

What this highlights is that online we have lost - or at least eroded - social norms. If I see a sign that says "no vehicles allowed", it's obvious they don't mean wagons and strollers. In almost all cases the police and the public are 99% in sync. Online, though, the moderators are forced to do a careful study of every action and become asinine literalists lest a horde of boundary-pushers ruin it for everyone.

I think what it highlights is that the meaning of words depends on context and stripping all context from a rule and situation makes that ambiguous. Reading more into it than that seems silly.

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

#30
post #20

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 bei…

Seems like a very fair nitpick to me considering the semantic nature of the game in the first place!
Post reply on HN