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

81–90 of 1001 posts

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

#81

Post by madeofpalk »

aleph_minus_one wrote: post #33
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 got a few questions in, and the thing that stands out is the ambiguity of what a "vehicle" is. Exactly. I being a non-native English speaker, just to be sure, looked up in a dictionary: the most common German translation of "vehicle" is "Fahrzeug". Of course, as it is quite common, there do exist laws in Germany > https://gesetze.io/definitionen/fahrzeug-f9r8 what is a "Fahrzeug" and what is not, and also a Germa…

The crux of this really is about whether the ambulance is violating the rule "no fahrzeug in the park".

Personally, I feel it's unamigious that the ambulance is violating the rule as written. Whether it should be granted an exception to the rule is a different question. Such is the difficulties of content moderation.

It's also apparent to me how a rule enforcer sufficiently distant from the scenarios would declare that the space station violates the "no vehicles in the park" rule, no matter how ridiculous that sounds.

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

#84

Post by paxys »

cmdli wrote: post #52

I’m honestly not sure what the point of the exercise is. I went through and answered honestly, and looking at the end results it seems that most people agreed with me (the only significant minority disagreements were about the bike and the tank). Overall, it looks like almost all of the cases have a clear opinion? I expected it to get into difficult edge cases, like somebody riding a motorcycle or landing a plane, bu…

Count the number of times you have used the words “most”, “almost”, “only disagreements…” etc. in your two paragraphs, despite the fact that all of them were relatively simple scenarios like you said. That is the point of the exercise. Yes people mostly agreed on most things, but they did not absolutely agree on everything. And those 20-30% of people arguing about 20-30% of edge cases is where all the disagreements and flame wars and toxicity comes from.

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

#85

Post by abtinf »

juujian wrote: post #18
iherbig wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

Strictly speaking, I think calling for the death penalty is advocating for a legal ruling. The violence following such a ruling is a second-order consequence.

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

#86

Post by jakelazaroff »

pessimizer wrote: post #70
dmitrygr wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

> "no hateful language," which is so vague, You don't have to have silly rules like that, though.

But also, you could have rules like that.

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

#87

Post by Scubabear68 »

MatthiasPortzel wrote: post #27
Macha wrote: 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.

I also got 11%. I suspect foul play..

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

#90

Post by lamontcg »

jefftk wrote: post #43
Macha wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is that I also got 11% just saying yes to everything. It would seem surprising to me to have the same percentage of maximalists as there is for people who are in the majority on every question

Suspiciously, I also got 11% (no to everything except police, ambulance, and car)

I got 11% but only with the car
Post reply on HN