Stopped playing after the first question because I don't care and i don't know why anyone would. After all this is just a website asking questions without context. It seems as interesting to me as the political debate in Star Wars Episode I that was famously mocked by the Simpsons.
The rule says, “No vehicles in the park”
631–640 of 1001 posts
Re: The rule says, “No vehicles in the park”
#632Earlier quoted context omitted.
>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) doing their jobs don't have to follow the sign. I answered that the police and ambulances were obviously breaking the rules, because they are. The difference is that ambulances/police are allowed to break the rules in an emergency - famously, ambulances have a legal ri…
> The difference is that ambulances/police are allowed to break the rules in an emergency - famously, ambulances have a legal right to speed and run red lights in an emergency, and cops obviously have a right to trespass. I think this is just a way of saying that they are not breaking the rule, simply because the rule doesn't apply to them.
It's more complex: in many countries if an ambulance hits a car while running a red light because of an emergency, the ambulance is at fault, as they were breaking the rules.
So the rules still apply to them, they just won't be pursued on theoretical grounds (getting fined/arrested sheerly because of the infraction, without any other consequences)
Re: The rule says, “No vehicles in the park”
#633Nitpick: 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…
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.
Backpack? Dog? Dog with a backpack? Horse? Riding a horse?
I say none are vehicles but I could see how one might.
Re: The rule says, “No vehicles in the park”
#634I'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…
> So if this is supposed to be an example of how content moderation rules are unclear to follow, it's achieving precisely the opposite.
Because you assume one following them does it out of good will and good intentions.
Now imagine the moderator that needs to adhere to such rules doesn't use them as guideline but as something to work around to remove the things they personally don't like. And they don't need to explain to the public why they thin it falls upon, they can just silently remove it, or put a comment "removed because rule xyz" and comments to that disabled.
Now imagine rules like /r/games, "No content primarily for humor or entertainment" or "No off-topic or low-effort content or comments". CLEARLY meant to stop memeing and spamming random game screenshots, but oh so easy to attach to nearly anything.
Same with title formatting rules. Should you copy-paste clickbaity title of the article or editorialize it to mean what the article says about? DOESN'T MATTER, if mods don't like the topic they will find an excuse. So the post gets removed but someone links to a different article with normal title that links to that as source ? Nope, LOW EFFORT, removed, should've linked to the original one (that's actual situation I saw on that subreddit, mods really don't like VNs there, and it wasn't about porn one either)
Re: The rule says, “No vehicles in the park”
#635Earlier quoted context omitted.
>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) doing their jobs don't have to follow the sign. I answered that the police and ambulances were obviously breaking the rules, because they are. The difference is that ambulances/police are allowed to break the rules in an emergency - famously, ambulances have a legal ri…
> I answered that the police and ambulances were obviously breaking the rules I think the ambiguity here is not what the rule means, but what "breaking the rules" means. IMHO it should have been phrased as "would you refuse entry to" i.e. whether you would enforce action based on the rule. If you would not bar entry to emergency vehicles, that would be the same as what others mean by "not breaking the rules" i.e. it…
The instructions read:
> Every question is about a hypothetical park. The park has a rule: "No vehicles in the park." Your job is to determine if this rule has been violated.
Violation of a rule is a logical operation. It's the answer that comes before the ", but ..." part. Things you explicitly don't have to do in the context of this game:
- You don't have to like the rule
- You don't have to consider exemptions (because that's not what the rule asks for)
You just need to answer, if the rule has been violated. I think it's absolutely fascinating that this is so controversial and a testament to the authors game design.
Re: The rule says, “No vehicles in the park”
#636The 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,…
The charts show your answer, and how popular is your answer, the bigger the more popular.
The "majority 11%" means that 1/9 of your answers were above 50% (as you can see it on the charts).
Re: The rule says, “No vehicles in the park”
#637Interpreting a law is usually done through the guidelines of a separate legislation outlining how it is to be done. E.g., Australia has an Acts Interpretation Act which outlines how to interpret laws by various means, including the context in which the words appear and the purpose of the act. I am unsure of other jurisdictions.
We are explicitly told that there is only one relevant rule. So, the only relevant determinations in each case should be to the definitions of "vehicle" and "in the park". No interpretation of the intent can influence the decision. I thought the aim was to determine the scope of the definitions, then be consistent with the applications of those definitions.
Personally, I defined "vehicle" as anything that can transport people or goods, and "in the park" as a reasonable area above and below the ground. But, this ended up with unsatisfactory answers like the tank being not violating the rule because it could no longer transport, and skates being in violation.
Re: The rule says, “No vehicles in the park”
#638I'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 agree 100% with the spirit of your point and I think imagining a forced bet scenario can help to clarify things. There are three main concepts we want to interpret within the context of the phrasing of the rule: (1) the intended referrent of 'vehicle'; (2) the intended meaning of 'in' the park; (3) the actual intention of the rule regarding emergency vehicles.
This is the scenario: imagine you're forced to wager a nontrivial sum of money on the following bet. You have to write down how you interpreted (1), (2), and (3). Then we randomly pick a real park that has this exact rule phrased in this exact way (I'm hopeful there'll be at least one out there), find the person who wrote the rule, give them your written interpretation, and ask if they agree. You lose if they don't. Notice we're not asking them to also write down a longer interpretation and comparing word-for-word. Just whether they think you got the gist of it.
I would write down that 'vehicle' was intended to refer to motorized passenger vehicles, 'in' was intended to mean that the vehicles shouldn't be in/on water or land within park boundaries, and that the rule wasn't intended to restrict passage to emergency vehicles responding to emergency situations. I expect most people would write something similar if they had real money on the line.
The trouble with the horrible website is it's trying to prove that nebulosity makes content moderation difficult by forcing people to disagree, but this disagreement almost entirely pertains to a point that has nothing to do with nebulosity: the park rule would only ever be written within a wider legal framework and doesn't make sense in isolation.
If I take my answers to (1) and (2), I'm forced to conclude that the emergency vehicles were violating the rule within the ridiculously artificial scenario presented. However, I'm also confident that this rule would only have been written verbatim within a wider legal framework that provided exceptions for emergency vehicles.
Consider self-defence in the context of murder or manslaughter. In the UK at least, the first thing the court does is establish whether the defendant would fit the criteria for murder / manslaughter ignoring the self-defence aspect, because otherwise it's a moot point. Once this is done, they would then establish whether the defence of self-defence also applies, which would then negate the conviction. If you wanted to prove that law is complex because it's hard to define words, would you really make a website that says "Ignore everything else you know and suppose that murder is only defined as killing a person" and then think you're being really smart when people disagree on the scenario involving clear self-defence? Hopefully not, because they're really only disagreeing with being forced to invoke your artificially-restricted definition.
That said, the website demonstrates the real reason why online moderation is hard: because it disproportionately attracts the sorts of people who answered 'yes' to the ISS question in this quiz. So you often end up with lots of users sharing a reasonable consensus on what the rules mean being moderated by a tiny group of... we'll say 'non-representative' moderators. It's a common problem with any banal form of authority, and isn't specific to website moderation at all.
Re: The rule says, “No vehicles in the park”
#639Earlier quoted context omitted.
I even disagree that there was any nuance. I wasn't told "you're doing content moderation, there's a rule, the rule is violated but there could be some mitigating circumstances, do you allow the content?". I was told: is there a vehicle in the park, and I said yes because a police car is a vehicle and it's in the park.
I agree that the police car is a vehicle and and it is a violation. That's the easiest reading. In a real example, though, there'd be law or authority quoted, and you can be sure that's there would be an exception for emergency vehicles. That doesn't change the meaning of the sign in isolation.
The issue this is inspired from was pretty interesting [0], and notably very few things were exempted from the rules leading to interesting debates on how the rules should be interpreted
[0] https://99percentinvisible.org/episode/the-wilderness-tool/
Re: The rule says, “No vehicles in the park”
#640The vehicle has to be consistent with all others to decide on it but certainly with all previous judged vehicles on your shift. Who is bringing the vehicle might also be objectively relevant. Time is also relevant.
One day one might accept car tires to play with, the next the kids bring 2 tires with an axle, the 3rd day they tie a rope between 2 axles, day 4 tires are banned. If the events are in stead of a day a year apart it might be different.