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

231–240 of 1001 posts

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

#231

Post by monocasa »

jrockway wrote: post #147
l0b0 wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Same - I used the simple "rule" that basically everything that's in the park and used to carry people or goods is a "vehicle" at least by some people's standard. But you can fly a plane across the globe without going through 15 separate immigration rituals, so for most practical purposes (obviously excluding things like no-fly zones or bomber planes) the plane is not "in" any of the areas it passes over.

> But you can fly a plane across the globe without going through 15 separate immigration rituals, so for most practical purposes (obviously excluding things like no-fly zones or bomber planes) the plane is not "in" any of the areas it passes over. But you were specifically instructed to not use any laws local to your jurisdiction, and that's why this can happen. The 15 countries it flew over are members of the ICAO,…

But it's not really a local thing; I'd be shocked if there was a park which meaningfully controlled it's airspace. Practically the bounds of a park only go so high.

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

#233

Post by codetrotter »

bhaney wrote: 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…

They’ve updated the labels now I think. Unless there are some other labels I am not seeing.

The labels at the end now say:

> You think it is not a vehicle in the park

> You think it is a vehicle in the park

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

#234

Post by denkmoon »

I find the results confusing. I said a wheelchair is not a vehicle in the park. On the results page I see wheelchair has a score of 16.3. So this means 16.3% of people said the wheelchair is allowed in the park and 83.7% of people think the wheelchair is not allowed in the park?

If so, I now understand why moderator decisions seem insane. It's because they are.

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

#235

Post by robinson7d »

hsjqllzlfkf wrote: post #211
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.

The nuance on that one felt odd. I said that it did violate the rule (even the spirit of the rule, being a large motor vehicle), because it was a binary question. I also felt the rule violation was justified and that they shouldn’t be called out on it.

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

#236

Post by lkbm »

rmorey wrote: post #212
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?

You can get not-11% by choosing to skip before the end. IF you skip after 7 questions, it's "You agreed with the majority: 29%" — same whether I say yes to all or no to all.

So I don't think it's related to yours answers. It's just the weighted average of what people said for the set of questions you answered, or something like that. Not actually your score at all.

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

#237

Post by warthogschool »

It would help a lot to know the reason for the rule. Perhaps the park is filled with lots of rare, delicate plants and only narrow dirt pathways. Or perhaps the pathways are somewhat wider and allowing in a wheelchair or a small wagon wouldn't be a problem.

Without knowing the reason, it is hard to make a wise decision. At least for a problem like content moderation, people will have some idea about the goals or reasons for the rule, although certainly different people may have different opinions about how important the various goals and reasons are. But trying to enforce an arbitrary rule without a good understanding of why, on which to base judgement calls, sounds foolishly futile.

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

#238

Post by SheinhardtWigCo »

petercooper wrote: post #25

I said no to every question as even in the cases where a vehicle did enter the park, it was only one and the rule says "no vehicle s ". Remember that the No Homers Club was allowed to have one Homer.

You're overthinking this. To recap the rules of the game:

1. Every question is about a hypothetical park. The park has a rule: "No vehicles in the park."

2. Your job is to determine if this rule has been violated.

Your job was to determine if rule 2 ("this rule") has been violated. By playing the game, you are fulfilling your job and thus the rule is never violated.

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

#239

Post by eyelidlessness »

As a metaphor for content moderation, there’s a clear bias to the examples, which I don’t object to per se, but there’s also a fairly large blind spot in the way the bias is presented.

Depending on interpretation, all or nearly all of the examples fall into these categories:

- Subjective categorization of restricted content, good intent

- Subjective interpretation of scope, neutral intent

- Clear intent to flout rule if subjective interpretations apply

What isn’t present in any of the examples is a case where the rule is clear but breaking the rule is intended and masked. That’s where a lot of content moderation struggles, and (because?) it’s where a lot of malicious and abusive users concentrate, and intentionally create ambiguities where there wouldn’t be any without such malicious intent.

And knowing that doesn’t make content moderation any clearer, probably the opposite, but it’s worth recognizing that that’s the point. A few clever jerks can convince well meaning people to reinforce or excuse their abuse, and can convince well meaning moderators that obvious dog whistles are hard to interpret, and then they turn rules over on themselves without any recourse.

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

#240

Post by jsd1982 »

rmorey wrote: post #212
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?

i got 29 percent but i stopped after 7 questions
Post reply on HN