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

661–670 of 1001 posts

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

#661

Post by Version467 »

Over the years I've come across a few online communities that have noticeably higher conversation quality than the rest of the internet. The one thing all of those places had in common is a very strict moderation policy.

Not every forum/community/website should tolerate literally all people. It's never helpful to engage with trolls and if people aren't willing to argue in good faith than they need to go. I've seen tons of communities slowly lose their identity because they were too accepting of counterproductive conversations and bad faith arguments.

The idea of this form of tolerance comes from the goal be open minded and listen to opposite arguments, as well as to prevent a community from turning into an echo-chamber (or a cult), but I think it's better to lean towards heavy moderation. Banning someone who would be a good fit for the community is unfortunate, but ultimately not a huge loss. Not banning even one troll can drag down a whole community.

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

#662

Post by ilyt »

pyb wrote: post #594
Ruarl wrote: post #501

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wasn't the point of the experiment not that you could come up with answers that seemed sensible to you, but that different people came up with different answers that seemed sensible to them? I too felt the line was fairly clear in this case, but I was very surprised that others thought differently. It isn't mentioned in the discussion on the results page, but one facet of effective moderation this shines a light on i…

Yes, but then the experiment kinda proves the opposite of the point it was trying to prove. As it were, people largely agree with each other as to what's reasonable and what is not.

The people do.

But the moderator can still use vague rules to do what people would not agree upon while still claiming it is within rules, and there always will be someone agreeing with it

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

#663

Post by oezi »

ckolkey wrote: post #432
oezi wrote: post #412

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is funny that you say so because for me the primary axis was about whether the rule was violated or not. This is why some people (including myself) chose that an ambulance driven into a park wouldn't be a violation of the rule.

But it is a violation. I guess from my perspective it was a justified violation of the rule, but it was still a violation

Depends on the meaning of rule and violation I guess. I interpreted it as a sign posted at the entrance of the park. I interpreted violation as something that would be stopped by the park rangers.

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

#664

Post by whelp_24 »

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…

The intent isn't super clear. Personally, I don't think that emergency vehicles are obviously exempt, we don't know why the rule is there. I don't that bicycles are obviously exempt either, they are clear vehicles that go faster than normal human speeds and the line between motorcycle and bicycle is rather unclear. (Ask five of your friends and associates whether ebikes should be allow on a bike path, then ask about ebikes that hit 45mph, then ice mopeds, then those e unicycle things, then the faster versions...) Likewise with boats, it seems that there are many cases where no watercraft at all should be allowed, and other cases where a motorboat is fine even if they don't want cars and whatnot in the park. And while flying aover a park is arguably not in it, a helicopter hovering a few feet over a field obviously is in the park and far more disruptive than the other vehicles.

And if i want to say no skateboarding, roller blading, scootering, pogoing, or any alternative in the park?

I agreed with 11% of people, but that is 1 in 10 who agree your take isn't correct. (granted i think a small wagon is ridiculous to enforce under like 90% of circumstances)

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

#665

Post by danielfoster »

Version467 wrote: post #661

Over the years I've come across a few online communities that have noticeably higher conversation quality than the rest of the internet. The one thing all of those places had in common is a very strict moderation policy. Not every forum/community/website should tolerate literally all people. It's never helpful to engage with trolls and if people aren't willing to argue in good faith than they need to go. I've seen to…

I came to a different conclusion and said no police or ambulance should enter the park. Obviously there should be an exception for true emergencies, but stretchers exist for a reason. Police can walk or ride a bike.

The fact that respondents are so sure of the obviousness of their answers highlights common problems in moderation— rules are ambiguous and everyone has different standards.

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

#666

Post by dTP90pN »

jaza wrote: post #452
Qwertious wrote: post #400

Earlier 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 in the same way. I chose to interpret the rule as "no functioning registered terrestrial road vehicles", in which case emergency vehicles are violating the rule.

So you would've considered the Honda Civic to not be violating the rule, if it had been unregistered?

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

#667

Post by graftak »

denysvitali wrote: post #651
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…

"obviously police and ambulances (and fire trucks) doing their jobs don't have to follow the sign" They basically said to ignore local jurisdiction laws. Depending on where the sign is placed, this might not be so obvious. If you take the sign rule to the letter, an ambulance is a vehicle and thus cannot enter the park as well. Police can enter the park, but without a vehicle.

In that scenario the duty to help citizens in need simply supersedes the rule that vehicles are not allowed in the park. So pedantically the EMT and police officer are breaking the rule, but breaking the rule of idly standing by in an emergency is worse.

The reason to allow emergency vehicles to go through the park must then outweigh the benefit of the ‘no vehicles allowed rule’. Something trivial like a pedestrian illegally crossing the street should not warrant the police going on a car chase through said park.

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

#668

Post by noduerme »

mrtksn wrote: post #489
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #435

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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) doing their jobs don't have to follow the sign. Now you're assuming the intent. The park could contain loose soil on the edge of a cliff, so any vehicle drivi…

>Now you're assuming the intent. That's true but without assuming intent you end up blindly following rules. Something struck me when first moved to UK from Turkey: Every rule in UK seemed to have an intent and that's why I think Turkey is full of rules which no one follows but in UK the rules are less numerous but followed. In Turkey, Turks like to think that the rules are not followed because the fines are too smal…

Two things really jump out at me..

I grew up in America which is fairly rule-obeying. Lived in Australia and New Zealand which are disgustingly, obsequiously devoted to following tiny guidelines. Spent a few weeks in Munich where I was shouted at for crossing a totally empty street against a crosswalk light.

On the plus side, I lived in Argentina and Spain for a long time where basically there is no enforcement of anything.

I will say I am proud of people there (in the Latin world) for being humans. mostly ... usually... trying not to make dumb decisions, but... well, having to make decisions, and making them. You see if you live in England or the US or Commonwealth for awhile, people have forgotten how to make any decisions if there isn't a rule for it.

And yet the freest society I ever lived in, judged on the day to day freedom of individuals violating petty laws, was Vietnam. At the same time, it was the most totalitarian place I ever lived as far as what information you could access or what you could say. Still, if you wanted to drive the wrong way down a highway with an child on the back of your motorcycle, you can do that in Vietnam.

Personally I don't like the UK / Australia model where everyone obeys some stupid rule written on the wall over their own intelligence. Of course, I also don't love the Argentinian model where everyone thinks they're smart enough to bang on the button that says "don't touch". Also, it's not cool to wantonly endanger your child while being terrified of mentioning the name of the dictator. But I am a fan of man... and I would definitely take the Turkish way of shrugging off rules when they don't suit you over the British way of following them to the point of worship.

I think I was going to get to some great conclusion here, but I don't have one.

I like when no one is watching me, but I also like when someone is watching other people.

[edit] my conclusion! privacy and freedom come at the cost of people ignoring rules. People from rule-bound countries experience a burst of freedom when going somewhere that lives as people live, not by the rule-book. People from "chaotic societies" as you said, who have a mind for all the corruption they see around them, find some relief in escaping to ordered societies. Neither is good or bad, they are both modes of existence; both modes are necessary. If either were to disappear, we would have far too much chaos or far too much order, and no one would be able to escape to where they belong.

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

#669

Post by ilyt »

jachee wrote: post #253
dmattia wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the author should have made the statement "A sandwich is an item of food consisting of two pieces of bread with meat, cheese, or other filling between them". And then asked questions like: - Is a grilled cheese a sandwich? - Is two pieces of bread with a third piece of bread in the middle a sandwich? - Is a hotdog a sandwich? - Is a taco a sandwich? - Is a breadbowl a sandwich? - Is a poptart a sandwich? - Is…

Are ravioli sandwiches?

No, they are small dumplings

Sandwiches have open sides

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

#670

Post by graftak »

Rebelgecko wrote: post #312
emmelaich wrote: post #280

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would say the tank is no longer a vehicle. More like a statue than a vehicle.

how is it getting into the park? If it's rolling, IMO it's still a vehicle. If a truck is dropping it off, still a no-no

Are you being serious? Obviously the rule is not meant to outlaw that specific scenario and local authorities or the company that provides the transport will put measures in place to make sure it goes safe and sound; they will close the park, drive at walking speed, etc...
Post reply on HN