421–430 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"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.
I mean, who's surprised that it's not effective to do content moderation by imposing ambiguous rules with a complete lack of training, examples of correct and incorrect enforcement, documentation, context about the rules, why they're needed, why they were created, what problem they were solving...
Going through this is useful I guess, but it seems very low level. But maybe our understanding of content moderation is also very low level.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Given that the whole exercise was about meticulous line drawing I think this bit of nitpicking is entirely appropriate. Clearly “is a vehicle” and “is in the park” were the two major axes that each question needed to be plotted on.
Interestingly, some people added others that weren't explicit in the rule. For example, the person riding a skateboard was considered a violation by roughly twice as many people as the person carrying one, despite both being identical on the "is a vehicle" and "in the park" axes. I suppose unless someone's definition of vehicle depends on it being in use.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> If the author had wanted otherwise, they should have said something like "Forget everything you about how laws are written and interpreted in the real world and simply take the most literal interpretation you can, with no regard for how ridiculous the outcome might be." >> You might know of some rule in your jurisdiction which overrides local rules, and allows certain classes of vehicles. Please disregard these rul…
>> You might know of some rule in your jurisdiction which overrides local rules, and allows certain classes of vehicles. Please disregard these rules; the park isn't necessarily in your jurisdiction. But the park is somewhere on Earth, right? And the sign is written in English for humans to read and understand. Ignoring my personal locality/jurisdiction doesn't change this. >> Or perhaps your religion allows certain…
No, it explicitly says your job is to determine if the rule is violated.
It gives you specific examples of where one might impart their personal bias and then says "don't do that." The you impart your bias. You'll notice that there is absolutely nowhere that it says "use your own definition of 'vehicle'" nor does it say "follow the spirit of the law, not the letter."
While I agree with you in principle, that's not what the game asked. But the fact that we disagree is exactly the point of the game. Fwiw, I agree with your definition in practice, but disagree that that's what the rules of the game were. The author was specifically careful to not be extremely explicit because that's what makes the point: that we disagree.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> If the author had wanted otherwise, they should have said something like "Forget everything you about how laws are written and interpreted in the real world and simply take the most literal interpretation you can, with no regard for how ridiculous the outcome might be." >> You might know of some rule in your jurisdiction which overrides local rules, and allows certain classes of vehicles. Please disregard these rul…
>> You might know of some rule in your jurisdiction which overrides local rules, and allows certain classes of vehicles. Please disregard these rules; the park isn't necessarily in your jurisdiction. But the park is somewhere on Earth, right? And the sign is written in English for humans to read and understand. Ignoring my personal locality/jurisdiction doesn't change this. >> Or perhaps your religion allows certain…
All rules are easy to apply when you're the moderator. Just say "I'm the moderator" and then do whatever you want. That's how US law works. They can say "this is how the rule works", and then a few years later say "hahaha! yeah, that's not how the rule works anymore, now it works this other way".
My own conclusion is that the rule is not clear enough. Define "vehicle" and "in the park". Sure it's probably hard to think of all the use cases when you first write the rule. Simply iterate and add exceptions and clearer definitions as needed (seems like it's exactly how laws are made, and nobody is saying "we should not have any laws because it's hard to think of all the use cases")
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…
I felt the exact same way. I found there was exactly one example of a vehicle being in the park, and everything else was fine. That didn't seem to be their intent
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…
I felt the exact same way. I found there was exactly one example of a vehicle being in the park, and everything else was fine. That didn't seem to be their intent