Clearly, this is all about driving cars or trucks in the park. The roads there are intended for pedestrians, cyclists, etc. It seems that 93% agree with me. Well done, everyone. ;-)
The rule says, “No vehicles in the park”
991–1000 of 1001 posts
Re: The rule says, “No vehicles in the park”
#992All the discussions over interpretation are missing the point of the exercise, which is to show how hard it is to find agreement over something as emotionally neutral as "is the vehicle in the park". Communication and interpretation is hard. This is a blind spot for many techies, who think there are "right answers".
Except the top comments aren’t doing that. They’re all saying it’s a flawed contrived example and despite that the actual results show most people agree. And not only that, the questions get ranked by decreasing agreement which shows that it’s pretty easy to make a cut off if put up to vote. Are bitcoins allowed in the park or beanie babies since people consider them investment vehicles? Are pill capsules allowed in…
We agree that it is flawed and it is obviously contrived, because the difficult decisions happen at scale and in edge cases. This is content moderation on easy mode; difficult stuff happens at scale and in the greyest of areas and have to be applied consistently.
Re: The rule says, “No vehicles in the park”
#993I 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?
My reasoning was that in emergencies, typically, certain rules don't apply to certain groups of people if their actions are related to the emergency. Therefore, a police officer driving a police car into the park (assuming they're doing it because of the emergency) is not a violation of "no vehicles in the park" because for that officer, in that situation, there effectively is no such rule. In the real world, we migh…
The exception for emergency vehicles is just another rule. And even that rule can be more complex, like a police car could be not allowed to drive on railways. Or military rules that are above emergency vehicle exceptions. A police officer is not above the rules.
And in the given case we had none of them. It was just one simple rule - no vehicles inside the park.
Re: The rule says, “No vehicles in the park”
#994For me, where English isn't my native language, the answer to all the questions was no, because of the lack of a verb on the sign.
Re: The rule says, “No vehicles in the park”
#995Earlier quoted context omitted.
I voted that a police car/ambulance driving into the park _was_ breaking the rules, though breaking the rules may be justifiable in some circumstances. The smoke signal example you gave is similar - if I’m lost, I care more about being found than the punishment for starting a fire. If the ‘no campfires’ rule was punishable by death (and enforced), perhaps I wouldn’t risk a smoke signal
For anyone who has read the introduction, that's the only valid answer to that question in the context of this game: "You might know of some rule in your jurisdiction which overrides local rules, and allows certain classes of vehicles. Please disregard these rules [...]. Again, please answer the question of whether the rule is violated (not whether the violation should be allowed)."
I did read the intro, but I considered police/ambulance to be a "universal" exception, not a "local" one (i.e. not idiosyncratic to a particular jurisdiction.)
(*Certainly there exist failed states where the police/paramedics are corrupt and the park owner is warlord from a rival tribe, etc. but I think that goes beyond a normative reading of the question.)
Re: The rule says, “No vehicles in the park”
#996Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'd like to know what they think is unsafe about this.
if the car behind or in front of you crashes into you, a human on a bicycle, the damage is much greater than if it crashes into another car. If you assume the other driver is drunk, and stomps on the gas pedal instead of the brake pedal, in some ridiculous souped up sports car or truck, the human goes squish.
What are the chances though? I doubt it's any less safe than biking down a normal road.
Re: The rule says, “No vehicles in the park”
#997Earlier quoted context omitted.
The instructions for the exercise tell you straight up to ignore any and all exceptions, yet 30% of people chose to apply their own judgment in the police and ambulance case because it felt right to them. Very telling.
I'm far more worried about the people who think a man should die because the sign must be obeyed at all costs. It's telling that 70% would apply immoral guidance. "Just following orders."
Just because we acknowledge an ambulance would break the rule doesn't mean we wouldn't break the rule anyways.
Re: The rule says, “No vehicles in the park”
#998Earlier quoted context omitted.
>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 an…
"Lived in Australia and New Zealand which are disgustingly, obsequiously devoted to following tiny guidelines."
As someone born in, and having spent most of my life in New Zealand, I have no idea what this means. I'm not being defensive, but I just don't understand. Maybe I'm 'too close' to see it. Perhaps I'm thinking about civic rules (e.g. jay-walking, speeding) and you're thinking of, e.g. industry like construction?
Re: The rule says, “No vehicles in the park”
#999Earlier quoted context omitted.
Same, the only three I marked as violating the rule were the car, the police and the ambulance. And it told me I agreed with 11% but showed a bar chart showing that basically everyone agreed with me. It was confusing. Also breaking a rule is fine for an emergency vehicle. I also took away the opposite of what the author tried to convey. But I also got a bad impression of their argumentative integrity because they tri…
Hah, I got 11% and I selected the car, the police, the ambulance and the tank. Does everyone just get 11% no matter what? Edit: reading further, yes, everyone gets 11%.
I got 48%, so no not everyone does.
Re: The rule says, “No vehicles in the park”
#1000I don't know that this had the intended effect for me. I answered the questions as I would like the 'rule' enforced. The important thing isn't about believing the rule to be entirely valid and merely enforcing it, it's about which way you want it applied and why. Then you have to try to make everything else also fit into the oddly shaped boundaries that are forming. It's also way better if you can be transparent abou…
The opening statement spectically addresses this: > Again, please answer the question of whether the rule is violated (not whether the violation should be allowed).
It's small-minded actions like this that would ruin any attempts to moderate meaningfully. It can be effective by its own definition, but not serve the community's best interests. This 'rule' and blind applications is what makes moderation easier and worse. The exercise should instead be demonstrating how moderation is hard to do well because it's not always cut-and-dried.