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.
The rule says, “No vehicles in the park”
21–30 of 1001 posts
Re: The rule says, “No vehicles in the park”
#22Earlier 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
Re: The rule says, “No vehicles in the park”
#23Re: The rule says, “No vehicles in the park”
#24Earlier 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
They think I didn't get the point, but they're wrong. Hope that helps!
Re: The rule says, “No vehicles in the park”
#25Re: The rule says, “No vehicles in the park”
#26Earlier 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
Re: The rule says, “No vehicles in the park”
#27The 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,…
Re: The rule says, “No vehicles in the park”
#28The 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,…
Edit: Okay I have no idea what it's meant to be (other than "11")
Re: The rule says, “No vehicles in the park”
#29What 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”
#30Nitpick: 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…