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

211–220 of 1001 posts

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

#211

Post by hsjqllzlfkf »

crazygringo wrote: post #198

I'm fascinated by the fact that my takeaway is the precise opposite of what the author intended. To me, the answer to all of the questions was crystal-clear. Yes, you can academically wonder whether an orbiting space station is a vehicle and whether it's in the park, but the obvious intent of the sign couldn't be clearer. Cars/trucks/motorcycles aren't allowed, and obviously police and ambulances (and fire trucks) do…

It is unclear given that you and I don't agree. The question wasnt "does the police have to follow the sign", you made that up.

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

#212

Post by rmorey »

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,…

Did anyone not get 11?

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

#213

Post by hsjqllzlfkf »

derefr wrote: post #149

To me, if I see a rule trying to ban "vehicles" without defining "vehicles", I take my concept of "vehicles" by deduction: I think about all the ways that things that I know of as being "vehicle-esque" could be problematic in various different ways such that you'd want to ban them — being loud; having a lot of inertial momentum when colliding with pedestrians; littering (the horse example); property damage (skateboar…

But this depends on "in what context am I being asked whether a rule is violated"? I didn't start out knowing I was doing content moderation for a website or I might've answered those differently.

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

#214

Post by ngngngng »

I appreciate the point the author is trying to make, although I find the method kind of confusing.

There's a community I recently watched spring up on Reddit with the entire goal being to have a space to discuss Utah without every second comment being "Fuck Mormons". It grew pretty quick within the first day, but then the creator and community had a couple discussions on the best way to describe and enforce that rule. No discussion of Mormonism at all? No positive or negative sentiment towards the religion, but you can mention it in passing? It's certainly not an easy problem.

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

#216

Post by predictabl3 »

bhaney wrote: post #181
racked wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is why Reddit is banned in Indonesia; because there's a bit of porn. Now laypeople just use Twitter instead...

"a bit"

Hehe, that's a fair take, but I must also mention that I've encountered far more porn unwittingly/unexpectedly on Twitter than I EVER, ever, ever have on reddit. Again speaking to the utility of moderation in general.

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

#217

Post by arp242 »

opportune wrote: post #157
kccqzy wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Social norms are quite culture-specific. Online people from all countries and cultures interact, and that's where some misunderstandings come from. It's not a big problem if everyone is civil and existing moderation mechanisms aren't overwhelmed; people quickly learn from online faux pas and the online social norm is restored.

I think it goes even beyond that. Online you can get a lot more socioeconomic, age-related mixing than IRL. On some websites there is a large contingent of actual children/college students who have never worked or don't understand certain social norms due to inexperience. Or, if you live in a bubble of highly paid professionals like many on this site (honestly, including me), you can be completely shocked seeing how…

I found some old posts of mine from when I was 15. If anyone ever finds them I will have to kill them.

It's not that I was mean or nasty, or pushing any boundaries – I was never like that – I was just ... 15.

Also turns out what people meant with "your English is very good" was "your English is very good for a 15 years old non-native speaker", and not "your English is very good".

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

#218

Post by ComputerGuru »

Graffur wrote: post #150
ComputerGuru wrote: post #62

I think the police and ambulance examples are interesting. To me, they're clear and blatant violations of the rule. To be sure, I certainly think it's ok that they broke the rule, but they still broke the rule. Yet some (45% of respondents) clearly think the rule wouldn't apply to them in the first place?

No vehicles in the park is a rule for the people that use the park. The emergency vehicles aren't 'using' the park so it doesn't apply to them.

> No vehicles in the park is a rule for the people that use the park

Says who? So I can park my car in the park and take the train so long as I don’t “use” the park? Or drive through it on my way to work?

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

#219

Post by ComputerGuru »

seized wrote: post #207
ComputerGuru wrote: post #62

I think the police and ambulance examples are interesting. To me, they're clear and blatant violations of the rule. To be sure, I certainly think it's ok that they broke the rule, but they still broke the rule. Yet some (45% of respondents) clearly think the rule wouldn't apply to them in the first place?

It's about common sense. Police/fire/ambulances are there for emergencies, their drivers have better training (theoretically) in safe driving, and the vehicles bring attention to themselves. Uncle Jim Bob trying to drive his Buick around is what's obviously prohibited as that's the vehicle/driver most likely to cause harm...

> Police/fire/ambulances are there for emergencies, their drivers have better training (theoretically) in safe driving, and the vehicles bring attention to themselves.

By this logic, it’s ok for a police officer to drive through the park’s green on his way to work, with no emergency.

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

#220

Post by anikom15 »

sangnoir wrote: post #179
nitwit005 wrote: post #124

This proves that deliberately bad instructions produce bad results. That's not surprising. If this included a definition of a vehicle, and asked if a vehicle was in the park, I'd expect consistent answers outside of the oddball aircraft and space station questions. I'd note my local park has such a rule, and the sign has pictures of what are and are not allowed, including a picture of a drone.

> This proves that deliberately bad instructions produce bad results. That's not surprising. Here's a common example from real life: "No pornography". Even SCOTUS famously couldn't define obscenity ("I know it when I see it")

It’s a legitimate definition though. The whole is greater than the sum of its parts. There are many fundamental things that can’t be defined, where we have to rely on social norms and common sense.
Post reply on HN