No Vehicles In The Park
February 12, 2024 8:54 AM Subscribe
Why it's impossible to agree on what's allowed.
No Vehicles In The Park is a little game by David Turner made to illustrate how difficult it is to to have policies on things like moderation, spam, fraud, and sexual content that people agree on, even in a trivial case.
Hat tip to Dan Luu
Yeah this exact scenario was day one of our legal writing and research class ("Lawyering") at NYU Law in 2008. I've used it a few times since when I've spoken to kids about what it means to be an attorney.
posted by saladin at 9:08 AM on February 12 [2 favorites]
posted by saladin at 9:08 AM on February 12 [2 favorites]
I don't know if this is revealed at the end of the game
They do mention this at the end, with more explanation of their reasoning for how the game is set up.
You don't have to answer all the questions to get to the end; after 7 questions it says "there's X more questions but you can skip to the end now".
posted by AzraelBrown at 9:08 AM on February 12 [3 favorites]
They do mention this at the end, with more explanation of their reasoning for how the game is set up.
You don't have to answer all the questions to get to the end; after 7 questions it says "there's X more questions but you can skip to the end now".
posted by AzraelBrown at 9:08 AM on February 12 [3 favorites]
Seems like there’s a fair degree of consensus on sensibly enforcing the spirit of the rule and ignoring the edge cases.
posted by Artw at 9:25 AM on February 12 [21 favorites]
posted by Artw at 9:25 AM on February 12 [21 favorites]
I was expecting a lot more edge cases there. Maybe I don't know what vehicle means, but almost none of those even vaguely seemed like they should be a question. I guess vehicle doesn't require an element of motorization or we wouldn't call some of them 'motor vehicles', but I started from the base assumption that they meant powered vehicles and expected questions like 'garbage trucks' and 'the segway-like thing that the security patrol uses' not 'is a stroller a vehicle'.
posted by jacquilynne at 9:27 AM on February 12 [11 favorites]
posted by jacquilynne at 9:27 AM on February 12 [11 favorites]
The only ones I felt were a little ambiguous were the bike and the horse. I wound up with 93% agreement with the majority, so it seems like most people do habe a pretty clear idea what the rules mean.
posted by The Manwich Horror at 9:31 AM on February 12 [7 favorites]
posted by The Manwich Horror at 9:31 AM on February 12 [7 favorites]
I was a little disappointed in the results; I wish there was a bit more information on who said what. Apparently, 10% of people agreed that an airplane was not a vehicle in the park?
Of course, as a librarian, I was less concerned with the legality aspect and more with the classification issues, which hinge on what constitutes a vehicle but also what is “in” the park. The plane is “in” the park only if you assume the park extends upwards indefinitely. The surfboard is arguably a vehicle, but the prompt only states that the beach is in the park, not the water, so, by the time it reaches the sand, it’s no longer acting as a vehicle, and so on…
So that was interesting, although possibly not in the way he’d have liked.
posted by GenjiandProust at 9:31 AM on February 12 [7 favorites]
Of course, as a librarian, I was less concerned with the legality aspect and more with the classification issues, which hinge on what constitutes a vehicle but also what is “in” the park. The plane is “in” the park only if you assume the park extends upwards indefinitely. The surfboard is arguably a vehicle, but the prompt only states that the beach is in the park, not the water, so, by the time it reaches the sand, it’s no longer acting as a vehicle, and so on…
So that was interesting, although possibly not in the way he’d have liked.
posted by GenjiandProust at 9:31 AM on February 12 [7 favorites]
I just ignored the ones someone could plausibly be a pissy little fuck over. I would probably do it differently if I was bending over backwards to be “correct” for some godawful reason.
posted by Artw at 9:34 AM on February 12 [4 favorites]
posted by Artw at 9:34 AM on February 12 [4 favorites]
I scored 100% (by deciding not to overthink it) so I honestly don't see why the question is so difficult. It was many equivalent questions, like "is flying an ISS over the park violating the rule" but these are too easy. Surely there are grey area examples that are trickier and harder to agree on?
posted by polymodus at 9:34 AM on February 12 [8 favorites]
posted by polymodus at 9:34 AM on February 12 [8 favorites]
I agreed with the majority 96% of the time. My rubric: a vehicle is an artificial self-propelled human conveyance other than one used for accessibility; "in the park" means physically inside the park's boundaries and up to an altitude that has its ordinary meaning.* Anything this allows that you don't want to be allowed (e.g. quadcopters) is a reason to create another rule, not to twist this one into knots.
My reasoning for the ambulance and police car was simple: the rule was flatly stated; it did not say "no unauthorized vehicles in the park" or the like. I also prohibited the tank, not necessarily because of the memorial per se, but because there would necessarily be a vehicle involved in getting the tank into place.
But then I'm an attorney, and while I hadn't heard of this game before, it was pretty easy to set out a simple set of rules and stick to them.
* The author should have had a question involving a helicopter flying above the park and then asked what the lowest altitude is that qualifies as "in the park". I think that's a lot closer to the grey areas of content moderation than the airplane and space station scenarios.
posted by jedicus at 9:37 AM on February 12 [6 favorites]
My reasoning for the ambulance and police car was simple: the rule was flatly stated; it did not say "no unauthorized vehicles in the park" or the like. I also prohibited the tank, not necessarily because of the memorial per se, but because there would necessarily be a vehicle involved in getting the tank into place.
But then I'm an attorney, and while I hadn't heard of this game before, it was pretty easy to set out a simple set of rules and stick to them.
* The author should have had a question involving a helicopter flying above the park and then asked what the lowest altitude is that qualifies as "in the park". I think that's a lot closer to the grey areas of content moderation than the airplane and space station scenarios.
posted by jedicus at 9:37 AM on February 12 [6 favorites]
I think you have to mentally translate it into “is this guy a Nazi?” and then pretend you’re a Twitter employee and your boss is going to fire you if you don’t give obvious Nazis a mega super to-the-letter benefit of the doubt on everything.
posted by Artw at 9:37 AM on February 12 [4 favorites]
posted by Artw at 9:37 AM on February 12 [4 favorites]
I agreed with the majority 100% of the time which is probably the first time that has ever happened.
posted by mittens at 9:40 AM on February 12 [11 favorites]
posted by mittens at 9:40 AM on February 12 [11 favorites]
Artw: Seems like there’s a fair degree of consensus on sensibly enforcing the spirit of the rule and ignoring the edge cases.
I was the goofball who only agreed with the majority 52% of the time because I followed the instructions exactly which said to take the rule as literally as possible and ignore whether or not I agreed with it. It's a stupid rule! I should not be a cop!
I wish I could have seen my own results for whether I was more likely to enforce the rule against male vs. female sounding or White vs. Black sounding names. I think it could potentially be revealing and I'm always curious about my own biases.
posted by capricorn at 9:49 AM on February 12 [5 favorites]
I was the goofball who only agreed with the majority 52% of the time because I followed the instructions exactly which said to take the rule as literally as possible and ignore whether or not I agreed with it. It's a stupid rule! I should not be a cop!
I wish I could have seen my own results for whether I was more likely to enforce the rule against male vs. female sounding or White vs. Black sounding names. I think it could potentially be revealing and I'm always curious about my own biases.
posted by capricorn at 9:49 AM on February 12 [5 favorites]
I also agreed with the majority 100%.
For what it's worth, the internal definition of "vehicle" that I was using for the purposes of interpreting that particular sign is an engine-equipped wheeled machine whose purpose is to transport people on roads at speeds that make them dangerous to pedestrians. A desire to prevent the operators of such machines from mowing down park users by accident seemed to me to be a reasonable rationale for excluding them from the park.
I would not expect any reasonably competent park administration to enforce the rule for necessary access by emergency services or park maintenance vehicles, even though there would undoubtedly exist entitled asshole drivers who complain about not getting a similar blind eye turned in their own direction.
posted by flabdablet at 9:49 AM on February 12 [5 favorites]
For what it's worth, the internal definition of "vehicle" that I was using for the purposes of interpreting that particular sign is an engine-equipped wheeled machine whose purpose is to transport people on roads at speeds that make them dangerous to pedestrians. A desire to prevent the operators of such machines from mowing down park users by accident seemed to me to be a reasonable rationale for excluding them from the park.
I would not expect any reasonably competent park administration to enforce the rule for necessary access by emergency services or park maintenance vehicles, even though there would undoubtedly exist entitled asshole drivers who complain about not getting a similar blind eye turned in their own direction.
posted by flabdablet at 9:49 AM on February 12 [5 favorites]
And to extend the metaphor to content moderation, almost 15 years now of reading MetaFilter has shifted me from a "write ironclad rules" person to a "write almost no explicit rules, talk about what you want to value, give moderators relatively broad authority to delete stuff" person because I do think trying to follow rules to the letter is overall worse for a community.
posted by capricorn at 9:50 AM on February 12 [25 favorites]
posted by capricorn at 9:50 AM on February 12 [25 favorites]
I was kind of hoping for more edge cases of the actual awkward kind. A person pulls their van into the park to unload disabled child kinda thing.
posted by AngelWuff at 9:53 AM on February 12 [4 favorites]
posted by AngelWuff at 9:53 AM on February 12 [4 favorites]
* The author should have had a question involving a helicopter flying above the park and then asked what the lowest altitude is that qualifies as "in the park". I think that's a lot closer to the grey areas of content moderation than the airplane and space station scenarios.
Yeah, this would be easy to set up. Is a traffic helicopter that passes over the park a vehicle in the park? If the helicopter lands in the park is it a vehicle in the park? What if the helicopter hovers over the park a foot in the air and its passenger jump out?
So much more interesting of a question than the ones that are actually there.
posted by jacquilynne at 9:54 AM on February 12 [2 favorites]
Yeah, this would be easy to set up. Is a traffic helicopter that passes over the park a vehicle in the park? If the helicopter lands in the park is it a vehicle in the park? What if the helicopter hovers over the park a foot in the air and its passenger jump out?
So much more interesting of a question than the ones that are actually there.
posted by jacquilynne at 9:54 AM on February 12 [2 favorites]
A person pulls their van into the park to unload disabled child
Yes, this violates the rule.
posted by flabdablet at 9:55 AM on February 12 [2 favorites]
Yes, this violates the rule.
posted by flabdablet at 9:55 AM on February 12 [2 favorites]
No spaceships in or over the park. If this behaviour continues we will have to divert part of the park budget to a space shield. It’s a high price to pay, but it’s worth it.
posted by The River Ivel at 9:56 AM on February 12 [7 favorites]
posted by The River Ivel at 9:56 AM on February 12 [7 favorites]
A person pulls their van into the park to unload disabled child
Yes, this violates the rule.
You didn’t see shit.
posted by Artw at 9:57 AM on February 12 [32 favorites]
Yes, this violates the rule.
You didn’t see shit.
posted by Artw at 9:57 AM on February 12 [32 favorites]
I agreed with the majority 81%, which means a lot of people are wrong, but not as many as I'd feared.
More seriously, I see a real world parallel. What's a bicycle? When is it a motorcycle? I have arguments with people who insist a bicycle with a motor is not a motorcycle.
posted by cccorlew at 10:03 AM on February 12
More seriously, I see a real world parallel. What's a bicycle? When is it a motorcycle? I have arguments with people who insist a bicycle with a motor is not a motorcycle.
posted by cccorlew at 10:03 AM on February 12
Is a traffic helicopter that passes over the park a vehicle in the park?
No. It's an aircraft, not a vehicle, and it isn't the park.
If the helicopter lands in the park is it a vehicle in the park?
No. It's an aircraft, not a vehicle.
What if the helicopter hovers over the park a foot in the air and its passenger jump out?
No. It's an aircraft, not a vehicle.
You didn’t see shit.
Depends. If the park is so poorly designed as to make that the only non-onerous way for a disabled child to get access to it, then I agree that this particular rule violation should be ignored unless child and/or parents are giant assholes with no regard for other park users.
posted by flabdablet at 10:04 AM on February 12
No. It's an aircraft, not a vehicle, and it isn't the park.
If the helicopter lands in the park is it a vehicle in the park?
No. It's an aircraft, not a vehicle.
What if the helicopter hovers over the park a foot in the air and its passenger jump out?
No. It's an aircraft, not a vehicle.
You didn’t see shit.
Depends. If the park is so poorly designed as to make that the only non-onerous way for a disabled child to get access to it, then I agree that this particular rule violation should be ignored unless child and/or parents are giant assholes with no regard for other park users.
posted by flabdablet at 10:04 AM on February 12
TBH on the horse I was mainly thinking “that thing is going to get in the way and poop everywhere”.
posted by Artw at 10:16 AM on February 12 [2 favorites]
posted by Artw at 10:16 AM on February 12 [2 favorites]
Another thing I found interesting about this exercise is that we weren't asked "should this person be penalized for violating the rule?" or even told whether there was any kind of penalty for violation at all! We were only asked "does this violate the rule?" But I think the implicit reading for many people is that yes, there is some kind of penalty for violation, even if the penalty is just "getting asked to remove your vehicle from the park by some kind of authority figure" (the exercise doesn't say anything about whether someone was given the authority to enforce the rule, and if so, how are they chosen, do they carry a firearm, can they legally detain you - anything) and yes, we are asking if the person should be penalized.
Anyway just to be clear I realize that my previous comment suggests I think parks should not have rules. I do think parks should have rules, and those rules should be less stupid than "no vehicles". You could post a sign somewhere that says "no vehicles", sure, and then have a policy somewhere that defines it in a much less stupid way, and also have that policy be a matter of public interest that people can vote on or submit comments to because running a park is a matter of public policy that actually is enforced by people who have been given the legal authority to jail people and carry weapons that can kill people. (Assuming it's a public park, anyway.) Content moderation on internet communities isn't public policy. Ugh I guess I just talked myself into thinking the exercise is a bad metaphor when two comments ago I was saying it was a good metaphor? Oh well.
posted by capricorn at 10:16 AM on February 12 [3 favorites]
Anyway just to be clear I realize that my previous comment suggests I think parks should not have rules. I do think parks should have rules, and those rules should be less stupid than "no vehicles". You could post a sign somewhere that says "no vehicles", sure, and then have a policy somewhere that defines it in a much less stupid way, and also have that policy be a matter of public interest that people can vote on or submit comments to because running a park is a matter of public policy that actually is enforced by people who have been given the legal authority to jail people and carry weapons that can kill people. (Assuming it's a public park, anyway.) Content moderation on internet communities isn't public policy. Ugh I guess I just talked myself into thinking the exercise is a bad metaphor when two comments ago I was saying it was a good metaphor? Oh well.
posted by capricorn at 10:16 AM on February 12 [3 favorites]
Depends. If the park is so poorly designed as to make that the only non-onerous way for a disabled child to get access to it, then I agree that this particular rule violation should be ignored...
Except here you have violated the rules of the exercise. The question is not "is this appropriate?" it's "is this a vehicle?" and "is it in the park?" The emergency vehicle and the police car along with the van for the disabled child are violating the rule as written; we may assume that there are other rules that might supersede the park's rule, but that doesn't mean the rule is violated.
I also think it's weird that you think an aircraft is not a vehicle, but I think that's part of the excerise. A place I bet I disagreed with others was that I think a bicycle is definitely vehicle and ice skates are not, but I am considerably less certain about whether rollerskates are. I also consider a skateboard a vehicle but not if you are carrying it; where you fall on this might determine whether you think the tank is allowable, assuming you think it was brought to the park by a different vehicle, rather than hoist in by a crane or carried in in pieces by burly people and reassembled.
posted by GenjiandProust at 10:17 AM on February 12 [2 favorites]
Except here you have violated the rules of the exercise. The question is not "is this appropriate?" it's "is this a vehicle?" and "is it in the park?" The emergency vehicle and the police car along with the van for the disabled child are violating the rule as written; we may assume that there are other rules that might supersede the park's rule, but that doesn't mean the rule is violated.
I also think it's weird that you think an aircraft is not a vehicle, but I think that's part of the excerise. A place I bet I disagreed with others was that I think a bicycle is definitely vehicle and ice skates are not, but I am considerably less certain about whether rollerskates are. I also consider a skateboard a vehicle but not if you are carrying it; where you fall on this might determine whether you think the tank is allowable, assuming you think it was brought to the park by a different vehicle, rather than hoist in by a crane or carried in in pieces by burly people and reassembled.
posted by GenjiandProust at 10:17 AM on February 12 [2 favorites]
TBH on the horse I was mainly thinking “that thing is going to get in the way and poop everywhere”.
Is a goose a vehicle?
posted by GenjiandProust at 10:19 AM on February 12 [5 favorites]
Is a goose a vehicle?
posted by GenjiandProust at 10:19 AM on February 12 [5 favorites]
HONK
posted by capricorn at 10:26 AM on February 12 [11 favorites]
posted by capricorn at 10:26 AM on February 12 [11 favorites]
Yeah, this strikes me as "angels dancing on the head of a pin" theorycrafting that doesn't actually grasp at the actual issues of content moderation. Instead it tries to argue "isn't this hard?", and then uses that argument to argue for less moderation. The fact that the author uses euphemistic language in their summation ("yucky language and ideas") is another strike against the argument to me - if you're making the argument that "hate speech is the price of free speech" but can't be open and honest about it, that says a lot about the argument's integrity in my opinion.
Ultimately, my answer to "nebulosity" is, to take a term from table top gaming, Rule 0 - "the game master has final ruling." In the end, it is the owner of the space who makes those decisions - and many of our problems with content moderation tend to stem from choices of expedience and ease, compounded by bad faith actors using those to pressure for decisions in their favor.
posted by NoxAeternum at 10:27 AM on February 12 [4 favorites]
Ultimately, my answer to "nebulosity" is, to take a term from table top gaming, Rule 0 - "the game master has final ruling." In the end, it is the owner of the space who makes those decisions - and many of our problems with content moderation tend to stem from choices of expedience and ease, compounded by bad faith actors using those to pressure for decisions in their favor.
posted by NoxAeternum at 10:27 AM on February 12 [4 favorites]
85 percent
It's almost as if there is such a thing as common sense, but with a fifteen percent degree of uncertainty.
posted by philip-random at 10:30 AM on February 12 [5 favorites]
It's almost as if there is such a thing as common sense, but with a fifteen percent degree of uncertainty.
posted by philip-random at 10:30 AM on February 12 [5 favorites]
Well, also they talk about HN which has to be a particular kind of moderation challenge because it’s full of assholes.
posted by Artw at 10:31 AM on February 12 [1 favorite]
posted by Artw at 10:31 AM on February 12 [1 favorite]
Seems like there’s a fair degree of consensus on sensibly enforcing the spirit of the rule and ignoring the edge cases.
Oddly the Dan Luu write up seems to do a lot of arguing against this, in a somewhat fighty tone even. Feels like this thing dies not demonstrate the thing it’s creators wanted to demonstrate with it.
posted by Artw at 10:40 AM on February 12 [4 favorites]
Oddly the Dan Luu write up seems to do a lot of arguing against this, in a somewhat fighty tone even. Feels like this thing dies not demonstrate the thing it’s creators wanted to demonstrate with it.
posted by Artw at 10:40 AM on February 12 [4 favorites]
So I played and it said I matched with other people 54%, and then a blog post about content moderation, I think, tldr.
This is NOT why I played.
I wanted it to tell me I was right, dammit, because I was.
posted by signal at 10:47 AM on February 12 [8 favorites]
This is NOT why I played.
I wanted it to tell me I was right, dammit, because I was.
posted by signal at 10:47 AM on February 12 [8 favorites]
this would be a lot more fun if the rule were "no sandwiches in the park"
posted by glonous keming at 10:47 AM on February 12 [21 favorites]
posted by glonous keming at 10:47 AM on February 12 [21 favorites]
or no loitering
posted by philip-random at 10:57 AM on February 12 [1 favorite]
posted by philip-random at 10:57 AM on February 12 [1 favorite]
LOL at people in here thinking "you agreed with the majority 100% of the time" means "you are 100% correct". When was the last time you thought the majority was always right about matters of fact and law?
Even better are those thinking that agreeing with the majority means the answers aren't contentious. Look at the graph! There are plenty of values near enough the center that there is not a clear consensus.
posted by agentofselection at 11:11 AM on February 12 [4 favorites]
Even better are those thinking that agreeing with the majority means the answers aren't contentious. Look at the graph! There are plenty of values near enough the center that there is not a clear consensus.
posted by agentofselection at 11:11 AM on February 12 [4 favorites]
This is, I guess, tangentially about content moderation. What it's really about is the ambiguity inherent in the terms "vehicle" and "in the park." And it only goes to prove something we already know to be true: if you want to create rules that are unambiguous, logical and consistent, then buddy, English is the wrong tool for the job.
posted by Faint of Butt at 11:12 AM on February 12 [8 favorites]
posted by Faint of Butt at 11:12 AM on February 12 [8 favorites]
So I played and it said I matched with other people 54%... I wanted it to tell me I was right, dammit, because I was.
Yeah, I got 63% and I think maybe I have a very strict definition of vehicle: Yes, a parachute is a vehicle because a person is operating it to transport themself in the active area of the park, no the wagon is not a vehicle because those kids are not operating it, they may as well be cans of paint; it's interesting there appears to be disparity of opinion between it and the stroller though it's the same thing.
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 11:12 AM on February 12 [1 favorite]
Yeah, I got 63% and I think maybe I have a very strict definition of vehicle: Yes, a parachute is a vehicle because a person is operating it to transport themself in the active area of the park, no the wagon is not a vehicle because those kids are not operating it, they may as well be cans of paint; it's interesting there appears to be disparity of opinion between it and the stroller though it's the same thing.
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 11:12 AM on February 12 [1 favorite]
Wait, less than 50% of people think a bike is a vehicle? As a bike commuter, I’m pretty sure my bike is a vehicle. It’s not a *powered* vehicle, but that’s not what the question asked.
They didn’t ask about a unicycle, which is a bit more of an edge case (although I have known a few unicycle commuters too). (Unicycles actually can be an edge case legally— sometimes a “bicycle” is defined as having a chain, which most unicycles don’t; so, is a mountain unicycle to be regulated the same as a mountain bike?)
Anyhow, for that matter I’ve know roller skate commuters, but those usually only in the confines of a college campus. So, sure. There are some gray areas. But mostly the issue we have here is not knowing at all why the restriction is in place. Is it to prevent injury, prevent noise, prevent pollution, increase park quietness, prevent damage to the park flora and fauna, etc? Even just a bit more of a def of “vehicle”, or some inkling of what the rule is trying to do, would help with deciding edge cases.
And this does actually map well to moderation. Different fora have different moderation goals, everything from “promote and protect the nazis” to “sex is bad” to “build a welcoming community to groups x, y, z” to “no one person should dominate the conversation”, and so on.
Maybe I just believe in the right to privacy living in the penumbras, what do I know.
posted by nat at 11:13 AM on February 12 [4 favorites]
They didn’t ask about a unicycle, which is a bit more of an edge case (although I have known a few unicycle commuters too). (Unicycles actually can be an edge case legally— sometimes a “bicycle” is defined as having a chain, which most unicycles don’t; so, is a mountain unicycle to be regulated the same as a mountain bike?)
Anyhow, for that matter I’ve know roller skate commuters, but those usually only in the confines of a college campus. So, sure. There are some gray areas. But mostly the issue we have here is not knowing at all why the restriction is in place. Is it to prevent injury, prevent noise, prevent pollution, increase park quietness, prevent damage to the park flora and fauna, etc? Even just a bit more of a def of “vehicle”, or some inkling of what the rule is trying to do, would help with deciding edge cases.
And this does actually map well to moderation. Different fora have different moderation goals, everything from “promote and protect the nazis” to “sex is bad” to “build a welcoming community to groups x, y, z” to “no one person should dominate the conversation”, and so on.
Maybe I just believe in the right to privacy living in the penumbras, what do I know.
posted by nat at 11:13 AM on February 12 [4 favorites]
I got 100% matching with most people, which is the cop car, the ambulance, and the private automobile were all vehicles, and nothing else was. The rule is intended to prevent road accident type harm from happening in a low-key recreational space. (That the ambulance and the cop car are vehicles and would be breaking the rule doesn't mean that a greater need might allow the rule to be broken, but this wasn't asked.)
No further analysis, except that if you don't want vehicles in your park then don't post signs about rules and regulations about vehicles, build a fence and/or put bollards up that prevent vehicles from entering without a key.
Change the system so that safety and correct behaviour is the easiest thing to do.
Change the system so that fucking up and doing harm requires determined effort.
posted by seanmpuckett at 11:18 AM on February 12 [9 favorites]
No further analysis, except that if you don't want vehicles in your park then don't post signs about rules and regulations about vehicles, build a fence and/or put bollards up that prevent vehicles from entering without a key.
Change the system so that safety and correct behaviour is the easiest thing to do.
Change the system so that fucking up and doing harm requires determined effort.
posted by seanmpuckett at 11:18 AM on February 12 [9 favorites]
if you want to create rules that are unambiguous, logical and consistent, then buddy, English is the wrong tool for the job.
brings to mind a conversation I had in Berlin maybe five years after The Wall came down with a guy from former Yugoslavia, who'd gotten his first degree (in physics) somewhere in Russia. "Russia is a hideous language for science, everything too precise, they have at least five words for what you have only one in English. You'd think this would be good. It isn't. You go insane. You can be too precise. I think this is the real reason the Soviet Union failed."
posted by philip-random at 11:24 AM on February 12 [3 favorites]
brings to mind a conversation I had in Berlin maybe five years after The Wall came down with a guy from former Yugoslavia, who'd gotten his first degree (in physics) somewhere in Russia. "Russia is a hideous language for science, everything too precise, they have at least five words for what you have only one in English. You'd think this would be good. It isn't. You go insane. You can be too precise. I think this is the real reason the Soviet Union failed."
posted by philip-random at 11:24 AM on February 12 [3 favorites]
I don't want everywhere to require safety fences and bollards, kid-glove society is boring and lame. Places like that should exist for those who need it, but I view your system as a different kind of oppression and it's slow to adapt to emergent issues (like the ambulance, or an individual on an double-wide power-chair).
Recognition is a context-dependent task, and were this my jurisdiction -- I'd judge the rule's author as a total knob.
posted by grokus at 11:24 AM on February 12 [1 favorite]
Recognition is a context-dependent task, and were this my jurisdiction -- I'd judge the rule's author as a total knob.
posted by grokus at 11:24 AM on February 12 [1 favorite]
I got 46% matching, and reading the comments here it is because most people gladly ignore the instructions. I'll concede that this is also where the whole content moderation analogy breaks down, as the instructions are to be entirely morally neutral and only answer the two parts of the rule as a logic puzzle: "Is it a vehicle?" and "Is it in the park?".
For this reason, there are silly edge case examples like carrying a skateboard through the park. Yes, a skateboard is a vehicle. (The first Dictionary.com definition of vehicle simply puts it as "A thing used for transporting people or goods, especially on land, such as a car, truck, or cart." A skateboard is a low flat cart and can certainly be used for transporting people. Likewise it is being carried through the park, and I'd consider this to be in the park.
Does this mean that the rule is dumb and/or shouldn't be enforced literally? Of course it does! But that's the error of this thought exercise.
Mostly, it just reminded me that even when you give people a very narrowly tailored thought exercise, most would rather disregard the rules than go along with conclusions of the thought exercise they disagree with due to considerations they were specifically told to disregard.
posted by meinvt at 11:27 AM on February 12 [5 favorites]
For this reason, there are silly edge case examples like carrying a skateboard through the park. Yes, a skateboard is a vehicle. (The first Dictionary.com definition of vehicle simply puts it as "A thing used for transporting people or goods, especially on land, such as a car, truck, or cart." A skateboard is a low flat cart and can certainly be used for transporting people. Likewise it is being carried through the park, and I'd consider this to be in the park.
Does this mean that the rule is dumb and/or shouldn't be enforced literally? Of course it does! But that's the error of this thought exercise.
Mostly, it just reminded me that even when you give people a very narrowly tailored thought exercise, most would rather disregard the rules than go along with conclusions of the thought exercise they disagree with due to considerations they were specifically told to disregard.
posted by meinvt at 11:27 AM on February 12 [5 favorites]
reading the comments here it is because most people gladly ignore the instructions
Rules exist for reasons in service of the human condition, not for fun or unto themselves, so most of us are following the spirit of the law (the important part) rather than the letter. If you follow the letter, then an ant riding on leaf in the water is also a vehicle.
posted by The_Vegetables at 11:31 AM on February 12 [7 favorites]
Rules exist for reasons in service of the human condition, not for fun or unto themselves, so most of us are following the spirit of the law (the important part) rather than the letter. If you follow the letter, then an ant riding on leaf in the water is also a vehicle.
posted by The_Vegetables at 11:31 AM on February 12 [7 favorites]
Is the ant steering the leaf?
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 11:38 AM on February 12 [3 favorites]
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 11:38 AM on February 12 [3 favorites]
I did one run through where I got 93% and then I did another where I changed two of my answers (the ambulance and police car) and got 100%.
My definition of "vehicle" was a that would be allowed to drive on the road. So technically both the ambulance and police car violated the rule. But then the question is would they face any consequences from breaking that rule, which is probably a whole other discussion.
I think the game would have been more interesting to play with a bunch of people negotiating which answer to pick together.
In terms of content moderation, even though the exercise is imperfect, I can see how in a group it would lead to discussions about rule enforcement, exceptions, etc. And how human vs. AI rule enforcement would have vastly different social consequences. So, overall a good conversation starter if not a great analog.
posted by eekernohan at 11:40 AM on February 12
My definition of "vehicle" was a that would be allowed to drive on the road. So technically both the ambulance and police car violated the rule. But then the question is would they face any consequences from breaking that rule, which is probably a whole other discussion.
I think the game would have been more interesting to play with a bunch of people negotiating which answer to pick together.
In terms of content moderation, even though the exercise is imperfect, I can see how in a group it would lead to discussions about rule enforcement, exceptions, etc. And how human vs. AI rule enforcement would have vastly different social consequences. So, overall a good conversation starter if not a great analog.
posted by eekernohan at 11:40 AM on February 12
I got 100% match thanks to a very restrictive (but consistently applied) definition of "vehicle" and "in the park".
I'm not sure that this thought exercise tells me much, tbh. Yes, content moderation is hard. I agree with that. Not everyone is going to agree on everything or even that much. But how much does that matter?
Let's say that you and I disagreed on roller blades. I think they are allowed under the rules and you think they aren't. Does this mean we can't come up with a generally agreed upon policy? Perhaps not. First, our answers to this question don't say whether we think they should be allowed. Second, our answers to this question don't say how strongly we feel about the issue. I don't care too much about roller blades. I think they should be allowed, but whatever.
How much do people disagree and care about the disagreement over the gray areas of content moderation? Is it a lot? Maybe it's a lot, and that's going to make it hard. Maybe it isn't so much, and we can focus on the large areas over which we either don't disagree that much or don't care too much.
posted by It's Never Lurgi at 11:40 AM on February 12
I'm not sure that this thought exercise tells me much, tbh. Yes, content moderation is hard. I agree with that. Not everyone is going to agree on everything or even that much. But how much does that matter?
Let's say that you and I disagreed on roller blades. I think they are allowed under the rules and you think they aren't. Does this mean we can't come up with a generally agreed upon policy? Perhaps not. First, our answers to this question don't say whether we think they should be allowed. Second, our answers to this question don't say how strongly we feel about the issue. I don't care too much about roller blades. I think they should be allowed, but whatever.
How much do people disagree and care about the disagreement over the gray areas of content moderation? Is it a lot? Maybe it's a lot, and that's going to make it hard. Maybe it isn't so much, and we can focus on the large areas over which we either don't disagree that much or don't care too much.
posted by It's Never Lurgi at 11:40 AM on February 12
LOCAL PARK SHOOTS DOWN INTERNATIONAL SPACE STATION
posted by Artw at 11:41 AM on February 12 [11 favorites]
posted by Artw at 11:41 AM on February 12 [11 favorites]
I googled “legal definition of vehicle” before playing and used “The word “vehicle” includes every description of carriage or other artificial contrivance used, or capable of being used, as a means of transportation on laud. Rev. St. U. S. 5 4 (U. S. Comp. St 1901, P. 4).” this as my guide with the assumption that “laud” should be “land”. Which means I was wrong about the surfboard, but right on about every other one, even if only 52% of people agreed. The rule is badly written though, but that was the intent. And that’s why laws often seem more complicated than needed.
posted by TedW at 11:45 AM on February 12 [2 favorites]
posted by TedW at 11:45 AM on February 12 [2 favorites]
LOCAL PARK SHOOTS DOWN INTERNATIONAL SPACE STATION
Please don’t give Governor Abbott any ideas!
posted by TedW at 11:46 AM on February 12 [2 favorites]
Please don’t give Governor Abbott any ideas!
posted by TedW at 11:46 AM on February 12 [2 favorites]
I think the analogy breaks down because the kind of material you are asked to moderate is generally close to or actually what we used to call malum in se (we think these things are bad independent of legal rules and sometimes even when legal rules permit them, choose your own appalling example), whereas vehicles in the park are much closer to malum prohibitum (these things are bad because they're forbidden, but if there was no rule, they'd be acceptable, like a truck on a street).
If the point is that any rule addressing any modestly complex area of human conduct can be vigorously lawyered, well, yes.
posted by praemunire at 11:47 AM on February 12 [1 favorite]
If the point is that any rule addressing any modestly complex area of human conduct can be vigorously lawyered, well, yes.
posted by praemunire at 11:47 AM on February 12 [1 favorite]
The rule is badly written though
It's not like this is never or rarely true, but turns out it's a lot easier to say that than to write a rule well, especially if it's one being vigorously contested by interested parties.
posted by praemunire at 11:48 AM on February 12 [3 favorites]
It's not like this is never or rarely true, but turns out it's a lot easier to say that than to write a rule well, especially if it's one being vigorously contested by interested parties.
posted by praemunire at 11:48 AM on February 12 [3 favorites]
I ruled against the skateboard being carried on the grounds that the person carrying it is a vehicle as far as the skateboard is concerned. Needless to say, I didn't agree very strongly with the majority view on my first attempt.
I took the test a second time, imagining it was my job to actually enforce the rule and found that I was much more relaxed about what counts as a vehicle, and my agreement with the majority went way up.
posted by surlyben at 11:50 AM on February 12
I took the test a second time, imagining it was my job to actually enforce the rule and found that I was much more relaxed about what counts as a vehicle, and my agreement with the majority went way up.
posted by surlyben at 11:50 AM on February 12
the prompt only states that the beach is in the park, not the water, so, by the time it reaches the sand, it’s no longer acting as a vehicle
Does a vehicle cease to be a vehicle is it's not being ridden? If I ghost rode my whip through the park, would that be a violation? What if I shift my ATV into neutral and give it a firm shove?
Does a beach end where the water begins? Is the sand under the wading-depth water not also beach?
posted by Plutor at 11:50 AM on February 12 [1 favorite]
Does a vehicle cease to be a vehicle is it's not being ridden? If I ghost rode my whip through the park, would that be a violation? What if I shift my ATV into neutral and give it a firm shove?
Does a beach end where the water begins? Is the sand under the wading-depth water not also beach?
posted by Plutor at 11:50 AM on February 12 [1 favorite]
if you want to create rules that are unambiguous, logical and consistent, then buddy, English is the wrong tool for the job.
Naw, it's fine. But the resulting ruleset won't be small enough to fit on a sign.
If you want to express ideas in general that are nuanced enough to be unambiguous, logical and consistent, then slogans are the wrong form to choose. If you want to express ideas in ways that a wide audience won't completely ignore, you can't expect to communicate much nuance. This is kind of a natural language analogue for the Uncertainty Principle.
posted by flabdablet at 11:51 AM on February 12 [3 favorites]
Naw, it's fine. But the resulting ruleset won't be small enough to fit on a sign.
If you want to express ideas in general that are nuanced enough to be unambiguous, logical and consistent, then slogans are the wrong form to choose. If you want to express ideas in ways that a wide audience won't completely ignore, you can't expect to communicate much nuance. This is kind of a natural language analogue for the Uncertainty Principle.
posted by flabdablet at 11:51 AM on February 12 [3 favorites]
Most of the questions were straight forward for me with the caveat that some activities could have been permitted/allowed while still being against the rule.
However the equestrian question really made me think. I came down on the side of not a vehicle but it might have been harder if they'd followed with
I also consider an airplane, if observable by plain sight (including vapour trails) or sound, to be in the park and a vehicle. That we allow planes to transit no motors and road less preservation/recreation areas in my province is a big pet peeve.
posted by Mitheral at 12:16 PM on February 12
However the equestrian question really made me think. I came down on the side of not a vehicle but it might have been harder if they'd followed with
- What about a horse pulling a wagon?
- What if the wagon was a single seat, single axle cabriolet?
- A dog pulling a cart hauling a picnic basket?
- A dog sled?
- A group of kids pulling a dog sled
- One of those Boston Dynamics robodogs pulling a dog cart?
- A Boston Dynamics robot pulling a radio flyer?
- Pushing a wheelbarrow?
- A pack llama?
I also consider an airplane, if observable by plain sight (including vapour trails) or sound, to be in the park and a vehicle. That we allow planes to transit no motors and road less preservation/recreation areas in my province is a big pet peeve.
posted by Mitheral at 12:16 PM on February 12
I have been both a content moderator and a legislative drafter and I now write regulatory policies, so I'm pretty well versed in the intricacies of writing rules that mean what they were supposed to. Most of what you can get out of this exercise is that highly simplistic and poorly defined rule sets don't work that well unless they're back up by something else.
In the government world a rule like 'no vehicles in the park' would be backed up by the rest of the bylaw that explains what vehicles are which would take care of half the problem. It would probably also have exceptions for emergencies which would take care of a small percentage of the problem. There are probably also existing land-use and real property laws that dictate what 'in' means for the purposes of specific parcels of land. Doesn't mean that some power hungry cop won't over-enforce the rules against kids on skateboards but there will be a lot more meaning behind the rule than just whatever is written on the sign.
In the content moderation world, you hope that they are backed up by a good faith effort to comply on the part of users and a good faith effort to be fair and moderate in how they are applied. That breaks down pretty quickly, though, as communities grow in size. It takes very few rules lawyers and line pushers to break a simple rule system. So then they end up backed up by the ultimate rule, which is enforced by whoever actually owns the site and can be summed up as 'my way or the highway'.
posted by jacquilynne at 12:19 PM on February 12 [8 favorites]
In the government world a rule like 'no vehicles in the park' would be backed up by the rest of the bylaw that explains what vehicles are which would take care of half the problem. It would probably also have exceptions for emergencies which would take care of a small percentage of the problem. There are probably also existing land-use and real property laws that dictate what 'in' means for the purposes of specific parcels of land. Doesn't mean that some power hungry cop won't over-enforce the rules against kids on skateboards but there will be a lot more meaning behind the rule than just whatever is written on the sign.
In the content moderation world, you hope that they are backed up by a good faith effort to comply on the part of users and a good faith effort to be fair and moderate in how they are applied. That breaks down pretty quickly, though, as communities grow in size. It takes very few rules lawyers and line pushers to break a simple rule system. So then they end up backed up by the ultimate rule, which is enforced by whoever actually owns the site and can be summed up as 'my way or the highway'.
posted by jacquilynne at 12:19 PM on February 12 [8 favorites]
> The rule is intended to prevent road accident type harm from happening in a low-key recreational space.
56 comments and only one person brought up the common sense reason for the "No Vehicles In The Park" rule.
If you know the reason for the rule, it makes it MUCH easier to enforce the rule.
However, 99% of politics is NOT admitting the real reason you are passing the laws that you do.
posted by AlSweigart at 12:21 PM on February 12 [5 favorites]
56 comments and only one person brought up the common sense reason for the "No Vehicles In The Park" rule.
If you know the reason for the rule, it makes it MUCH easier to enforce the rule.
However, 99% of politics is NOT admitting the real reason you are passing the laws that you do.
posted by AlSweigart at 12:21 PM on February 12 [5 favorites]
56 comments and only one person brought up the common sense reason for the "No Vehicles In The Park" rule.
Nothing about the problem indicates that is the reason for the rule.
It might be to prevent environmental damage, for example.
Or a combination of factors that includes both of those things.
posted by jacquilynne at 12:24 PM on February 12 [6 favorites]
Nothing about the problem indicates that is the reason for the rule.
It might be to prevent environmental damage, for example.
Or a combination of factors that includes both of those things.
posted by jacquilynne at 12:24 PM on February 12 [6 favorites]
People are wonderful at backfilling context in roleplaying settings.
posted by Artw at 12:30 PM on February 12 [8 favorites]
posted by Artw at 12:30 PM on February 12 [8 favorites]
Nothing about the problem indicates that is the reason for the rule.
Common sense indicates that is the reason for the rule. Common sense also indicates that there are probably other common sense reasons for the rule.
One can disagree with that if one likes, but that person would also punish the ambulance driver for breaking the "No Vehicles In The Park" rule too. So I don't know how seriously that person should be taken.
posted by AlSweigart at 12:36 PM on February 12 [1 favorite]
Common sense indicates that is the reason for the rule. Common sense also indicates that there are probably other common sense reasons for the rule.
One can disagree with that if one likes, but that person would also punish the ambulance driver for breaking the "No Vehicles In The Park" rule too. So I don't know how seriously that person should be taken.
posted by AlSweigart at 12:36 PM on February 12 [1 favorite]
Oh, hey, that's why I'm suddenly getting texted about this!
I should probably put Dan's number (that is, percent of people in 100% agreement with you) front and center, but I didn't write the data storage to make that straightforward (Dan is working off an old database dump that I sent him). I guess I could redesign and backfill.
But yes, as some have noted, what you might call "vibes-based" moderation is another way to do it -- at a small scale. MetaFilter's willingness to say, "this thread is not producing a conversation that I think is productive even though it doesn't explicitly violate a rule" works for MetaFilter. Well, it sort of barely works, in the sense that MetaFilter is constantly on the verge of running out of money (yes, I donate). MetaFilter seems to me to have a relatively homogeneous community: politically left of US center, educated (or at least self-educated), articulate. MetaFilter is willing to lose members who don't agree on certain things -- or more precisely who want to argue about them instead of just staying out of those threads. This is easy mode for content moderation, and there are still acrimonious debates..
posted by novalis_dt at 12:42 PM on February 12 [4 favorites]
I should probably put Dan's number (that is, percent of people in 100% agreement with you) front and center, but I didn't write the data storage to make that straightforward (Dan is working off an old database dump that I sent him). I guess I could redesign and backfill.
But yes, as some have noted, what you might call "vibes-based" moderation is another way to do it -- at a small scale. MetaFilter's willingness to say, "this thread is not producing a conversation that I think is productive even though it doesn't explicitly violate a rule" works for MetaFilter. Well, it sort of barely works, in the sense that MetaFilter is constantly on the verge of running out of money (yes, I donate). MetaFilter seems to me to have a relatively homogeneous community: politically left of US center, educated (or at least self-educated), articulate. MetaFilter is willing to lose members who don't agree on certain things -- or more precisely who want to argue about them instead of just staying out of those threads. This is easy mode for content moderation, and there are still acrimonious debates..
posted by novalis_dt at 12:42 PM on February 12 [4 favorites]
There is no punishment here. The rule is a test of observational skills and consistency.
If the question had been set up that I was a judge and needed to determine which situations required that the rule be enforced through punishments (say ranging from admonishin to fines), I would certainly have answered much differently.
posted by meinvt at 12:43 PM on February 12 [5 favorites]
If the question had been set up that I was a judge and needed to determine which situations required that the rule be enforced through punishments (say ranging from admonishin to fines), I would certainly have answered much differently.
posted by meinvt at 12:43 PM on February 12 [5 favorites]
If the penalty for violation was $100,000/wheel, no one could do anything about that horse on the surfboard!
posted by GenjiandProust at 12:53 PM on February 12 [3 favorites]
posted by GenjiandProust at 12:53 PM on February 12 [3 favorites]
In real life, you put up a simple sign. "No motorized vehicles" would cover most cases sufficiently. Give people an easy way to check a web page for details and exceptions.
If you thought you deserved an exception, public safety and environmental concerns be damned, then you could pull your patented coal-fired steam-powered all-terrain serpentine conveyor shoes out of line, turn them off, go to the web page, and start searching and scrolling until you found your "I swear it's not a motorized vehicle" vehicle with a motor. As long as you didn't block others or cause a commotion, you could scroll all morning.
And if you were driving an emergency vehicle to an actual emergency, you could just drive right through, no matter what the regulations said. Tell Goofus at the gate to send the cops after you if he doesn't approve.
posted by pracowity at 12:56 PM on February 12 [1 favorite]
If you thought you deserved an exception, public safety and environmental concerns be damned, then you could pull your patented coal-fired steam-powered all-terrain serpentine conveyor shoes out of line, turn them off, go to the web page, and start searching and scrolling until you found your "I swear it's not a motorized vehicle" vehicle with a motor. As long as you didn't block others or cause a commotion, you could scroll all morning.
And if you were driving an emergency vehicle to an actual emergency, you could just drive right through, no matter what the regulations said. Tell Goofus at the gate to send the cops after you if he doesn't approve.
posted by pracowity at 12:56 PM on February 12 [1 favorite]
I was 86% in agreement because, probably, I don't consider bicycles or horses or surfboards to be vehicles in the "keep this out of the park" sense of the term.
posted by grumpybear69 at 1:01 PM on February 12 [1 favorite]
posted by grumpybear69 at 1:01 PM on February 12 [1 favorite]
TBH I don't think this was a good example.
The law is designed for a reasonable arbiter to interpret the intent of the law. That arbiter is typically a judge.
If you're worried about enforcement of edge cases, ask the rule enforcer. If you disagree, sue.
Reality of living in the USA: if you can't afford to sue, you're out of luck.
posted by constraint at 1:09 PM on February 12
The law is designed for a reasonable arbiter to interpret the intent of the law. That arbiter is typically a judge.
If you're worried about enforcement of edge cases, ask the rule enforcer. If you disagree, sue.
Reality of living in the USA: if you can't afford to sue, you're out of luck.
posted by constraint at 1:09 PM on February 12
Wait, less than 50% of people think a bike is a vehicle?
No, they think it doesn't break the rule; participants don't get to say why. An airplane flying overhead doesn't count because the park ends at 1000 feet up, not because it's not a vehicle (despite vehement protests above).
posted by pwnguin at 1:57 PM on February 12
No, they think it doesn't break the rule; participants don't get to say why. An airplane flying overhead doesn't count because the park ends at 1000 feet up, not because it's not a vehicle (despite vehement protests above).
posted by pwnguin at 1:57 PM on February 12
I got 93% because I looked at this as The rule is intended to prevent road accident type harm from happening in a low-key recreational space because that seems like common sense.
But I guess, following in the theme of 99% of politics is NOT admitting the real reason you are passing the laws that you do and "vibes-based" moderation I think something they don't really articulate is that it's hard to rely on "common sense" if (1) it's not that common, actually, or (2) some people are assholes.
And the "we're trying to slow down the assholes" take made me think a better rule for them to explore would have been "no animals in the supermarket" with options like:
The other other thing is that part of the reason content moderation sucks is because the people looking to do it at scale also need there to be no recourse, or else that would mess up the "at scale" part, and the no recourse seems to be a lot of what ends up upsetting people.
posted by pulposus at 1:58 PM on February 12 [2 favorites]
But I guess, following in the theme of 99% of politics is NOT admitting the real reason you are passing the laws that you do and "vibes-based" moderation I think something they don't really articulate is that it's hard to rely on "common sense" if (1) it's not that common, actually, or (2) some people are assholes.
And the "we're trying to slow down the assholes" take made me think a better rule for them to explore would have been "no animals in the supermarket" with options like:
- can I come in with my trained seeing-eye dog?
- can I bring in my dog, who's really friendly, and would defo get stolen if I tied him up outside?
- can I bring in my dog, who's a little shit, but I'll hold her the whole way around, except when I'm on my phone and need to check the dates on something?
- can I bring in my dog, who's got a cute little vest, and doesn't like being outside in the rain?
- can I push my dog around the supermarket in a pusher?
- can I push my dog around the supermarket in a pusher if my kid is also in the pusher?
- can I keep my dog in my handbag while I walk around the supermarket?
The other other thing is that part of the reason content moderation sucks is because the people looking to do it at scale also need there to be no recourse, or else that would mess up the "at scale" part, and the no recourse seems to be a lot of what ends up upsetting people.
posted by pulposus at 1:58 PM on February 12 [2 favorites]
a better rule for them to explore would have been "no animals in the supermarket" with options like:
* this dog is a tiny dog
posted by praemunire at 2:02 PM on February 12 [9 favorites]
* this dog is a tiny dog
posted by praemunire at 2:02 PM on February 12 [9 favorites]
I agreed with the majority of people 93% of the time, or, to put it another way, I disagreed about two answers: the quadcopter and the rowboat.
A vehicle is, to my mind, a way to get from here to there. A rowboat on a lake that's wholly contained inside the park can't quite get you to a second location. Maybe I'd reconsider if the lake had a playground on one side and a parking lot on the other or something. (I would also reconsider if the lake was like Lake Superior, though the use of a rowboat would seem to suggest it is not.)
Absent further information, I decided to give the quadcopter the benefit of the doubt and conclude that it is, like the plane and the ISS, not in the park but above it. (How high do the park's air rights extend?) While I agree that these machines are often annoying and occasionally unsafe to people near them, I feel like if we don't want them in the park, we need a clearer rule.
This quiz reminds me of my complicated feelings about ebikes on protected bike paths--you could make a whole quiz just about different examples of those.
posted by box at 2:08 PM on February 12 [1 favorite]
A vehicle is, to my mind, a way to get from here to there. A rowboat on a lake that's wholly contained inside the park can't quite get you to a second location. Maybe I'd reconsider if the lake had a playground on one side and a parking lot on the other or something. (I would also reconsider if the lake was like Lake Superior, though the use of a rowboat would seem to suggest it is not.)
Absent further information, I decided to give the quadcopter the benefit of the doubt and conclude that it is, like the plane and the ISS, not in the park but above it. (How high do the park's air rights extend?) While I agree that these machines are often annoying and occasionally unsafe to people near them, I feel like if we don't want them in the park, we need a clearer rule.
This quiz reminds me of my complicated feelings about ebikes on protected bike paths--you could make a whole quiz just about different examples of those.
posted by box at 2:08 PM on February 12 [1 favorite]
METAFILTER: Is the ant steering the leaf?
posted by philip-random at 2:20 PM on February 12 [5 favorites]
posted by philip-random at 2:20 PM on February 12 [5 favorites]
I didn't agree with the majority much. I read the instructions, which repeatedly asked me not to apply common sense or take into my account whether something should be done about the violation. We were just supposed to say whether or not the literal text rule has been violated.
Again, please answer the question of whether the rule is violated (not whether the violation should be allowed).
A skateboard is a vehicle. If it is in the park, it is violating the rule of "No vehicles in the park". It's true that almost certainly nothing needs to be done about that violation, and that's the whole point of this thing.
Mostly, it just reminded me that even when you give people a very narrowly tailored thought exercise, most would rather disregard the rules than go along with conclusions of the thought exercise they disagree with due to considerations they were specifically told to disregard
Yeah...
posted by Urtylug at 3:06 PM on February 12 [2 favorites]
Again, please answer the question of whether the rule is violated (not whether the violation should be allowed).
A skateboard is a vehicle. If it is in the park, it is violating the rule of "No vehicles in the park". It's true that almost certainly nothing needs to be done about that violation, and that's the whole point of this thing.
Mostly, it just reminded me that even when you give people a very narrowly tailored thought exercise, most would rather disregard the rules than go along with conclusions of the thought exercise they disagree with due to considerations they were specifically told to disregard
Yeah...
posted by Urtylug at 3:06 PM on February 12 [2 favorites]
can I keep my dog in my handbag while I walk around the supermarket?
Which spawned the delightful NYC system where you can bring your dog on the subway as long as it fits in your bag.
posted by Mitheral at 3:13 PM on February 12 [2 favorites]
Which spawned the delightful NYC system where you can bring your dog on the subway as long as it fits in your bag.
posted by Mitheral at 3:13 PM on February 12 [2 favorites]
I'm surprised that only 11% of the people taking the survey understood that all 27 questions involved a vehicle in the park.
posted by zymil at 4:34 PM on February 12 [1 favorite]
posted by zymil at 4:34 PM on February 12 [1 favorite]
It’d be a lot more work, but I bet a version that allowed you to refine the rule would make the point better. Like, okay, the EMTs violate the basic rule, that means we have to change it to “…except medical emergencies.” Oh, now it’s the police chasing a murderer. “Or other emergencies.” Now it’s them chasing a robber who exclusively targets stores that sell shock collars for dogs, and donates his ill-gotten loot to orphans. Now there’s a runaway train with clear tracks running through the park and another set of parallel tracks outside the park with three people tied to them. Etc. etc.
posted by No-sword at 5:11 PM on February 12
posted by No-sword at 5:11 PM on February 12
Throw me in with the chorus of, (i) fun, complex idea but (ii) executed clumsily
posted by Reasonably Everything Happens at 5:12 PM on February 12
posted by Reasonably Everything Happens at 5:12 PM on February 12
A bicycle is a vehicle like a tomato is a fruit. In one sense yes, but if someone says "they don't like fruit on pizza" they're not talking about tomato sauce.
posted by Pyry at 5:13 PM on February 12 [1 favorite]
posted by Pyry at 5:13 PM on February 12 [1 favorite]
I would have liked a LOT more clarity on how the graph worked.
It said “here’s whether you thought this item was a vehicle” and the total percentage of people I agreed with across the whole test, and the bars had some lengths, but it had nothing about whether I agreed or disagreed with the majority of people on each bar, which is data I would have been able to understand, and not just have to guess and wish for a better explanation, or any explanation at all, really. It might as well have been just the bars with no words at all.
The rule is “no vague infographics in the park.”
posted by Mister Moofoo at 5:15 PM on February 12 [1 favorite]
It said “here’s whether you thought this item was a vehicle” and the total percentage of people I agreed with across the whole test, and the bars had some lengths, but it had nothing about whether I agreed or disagreed with the majority of people on each bar, which is data I would have been able to understand, and not just have to guess and wish for a better explanation, or any explanation at all, really. It might as well have been just the bars with no words at all.
The rule is “no vague infographics in the park.”
posted by Mister Moofoo at 5:15 PM on February 12 [1 favorite]
>THROW PAPER AIRPLANE
Right before you throw the paper airplane, a park ranger drives up and angrily snatches it out of your hand. "Can't you read the sign? NO VEHICLES!" He then drives away, leaving you without your possession.
posted by credulous at 5:16 PM on February 12
Right before you throw the paper airplane, a park ranger drives up and angrily snatches it out of your hand. "Can't you read the sign? NO VEHICLES!" He then drives away, leaving you without your possession.
posted by credulous at 5:16 PM on February 12
I ended up at 96% after answering all; I think because I called the father pulling his kids in a wagon as a vehicle. There was no spam, fraud, or sexual content to get to through the survey; but maybe at the end? TLDR since the setup was softball.
posted by achrise at 5:58 PM on February 12
posted by achrise at 5:58 PM on February 12
>LAUNCH QUADCOPTER
The quadcopter ascends like a hot air balloon. Your range of vision is slightly extended.
posted by box at 6:06 PM on February 12
The quadcopter ascends like a hot air balloon. Your range of vision is slightly extended.
posted by box at 6:06 PM on February 12
seanmpuckett: "The rule is intended to prevent road accident type harm from happening in a low-key recreational space."
In my case, I'm a programmer. I don't care about some nebulous 'intent', I care about rules, about clarity, beautiful, beautiful clarity.
For instance if you asked me "Do you want a Coke or a Pepsi?", I'd answer "Yes, thank you." (because being a programmer and correct doesn't excuse you from being polite.)
posted by signal at 7:00 PM on February 12
In my case, I'm a programmer. I don't care about some nebulous 'intent', I care about rules, about clarity, beautiful, beautiful clarity.
For instance if you asked me "Do you want a Coke or a Pepsi?", I'd answer "Yes, thank you." (because being a programmer and correct doesn't excuse you from being polite.)
posted by signal at 7:00 PM on February 12
Do you also say to people who ask if they can go to the bathroom "I don't know, can you?"
posted by Audreynachrome at 7:51 PM on February 12 [1 favorite]
posted by Audreynachrome at 7:51 PM on February 12 [1 favorite]
correct
You're not, though. Your rules subset is incomplete.
posted by praemunire at 8:03 PM on February 12 [1 favorite]
You're not, though. Your rules subset is incomplete.
posted by praemunire at 8:03 PM on February 12 [1 favorite]
I only did 8, so this may have come up later on, but if he wanted to make his point he should have included:
Electric bicycles (this is a real area of controversy in parks and other areas as to whether it is a "vehicle")
Motorized wheelchair
Motorized scooter vs regular scooter
Smart car
Classic car or Model-T for a car show
Horse and buggy ridden by tourists
Horse and buggy ridden by Amish
Unicycle
Motorized skateboard (sorry they must have a real name, but I see them all over now)
A Roomba
A cat riding a Roomba
I have more...
These are cases with potentially different interpretations that would have gotten the point more clearly.
posted by Toddles at 8:48 PM on February 12
Electric bicycles (this is a real area of controversy in parks and other areas as to whether it is a "vehicle")
Motorized wheelchair
Motorized scooter vs regular scooter
Smart car
Classic car or Model-T for a car show
Horse and buggy ridden by tourists
Horse and buggy ridden by Amish
Unicycle
Motorized skateboard (sorry they must have a real name, but I see them all over now)
A Roomba
A cat riding a Roomba
I have more...
These are cases with potentially different interpretations that would have gotten the point more clearly.
posted by Toddles at 8:48 PM on February 12
can mister lycra ride his regular road bike at 50mph while flipping off everyone and screaming at them for getting in his way?
Costumed bicyclists are the worst.
Mr dog and I have been nearly run over several times on the narrow walking trails in our fav park by gung-ho bicyclists going 789mph around blind corners. And they're not as bad as the fucking e-bikers, who think their motorbikes are not such because they have bicycle frames. They silently go close to the speed of sound, asshole, where people are not expecting them. (Our park has a "no motorized vehicles allowed" signs, e-bikers ignore them. Then again, an embarrassingly large number of dog people ignore the extremely clear and frequent "dogs must be on leash" signs and don't clean up after their pets despite numerous bag dispensaries and special waste cans. Humans, ugh.)
posted by maxwelton at 8:49 PM on February 12 [2 favorites]
Costumed bicyclists are the worst.
Mr dog and I have been nearly run over several times on the narrow walking trails in our fav park by gung-ho bicyclists going 789mph around blind corners. And they're not as bad as the fucking e-bikers, who think their motorbikes are not such because they have bicycle frames. They silently go close to the speed of sound, asshole, where people are not expecting them. (Our park has a "no motorized vehicles allowed" signs, e-bikers ignore them. Then again, an embarrassingly large number of dog people ignore the extremely clear and frequent "dogs must be on leash" signs and don't clean up after their pets despite numerous bag dispensaries and special waste cans. Humans, ugh.)
posted by maxwelton at 8:49 PM on February 12 [2 favorites]
I got 89% agreement, possibly because I gave the cop a pass despite having a hard time coming up with a reason they'd need to endanger people in a park with their pursuit.
posted by maxwelton at 8:52 PM on February 12
posted by maxwelton at 8:52 PM on February 12
I should have added that I created that list because in my state, the vehicle code has horse and buggy as a vehicle you need to register, but electric bicycle is not.
posted by Toddles at 9:00 PM on February 12
posted by Toddles at 9:00 PM on February 12
gung-ho bicyclists going 789mph around blind corners ... the fucking e-bikers ... silently go close to the speed of sound ... dog people ignore the ... "dogs must be on leash" signs and don't clean up after their pets
posted by flabdablet at 9:35 PM on February 12 [10 favorites]__________________ | | | NO ASSHOLES | | IN THE PARK | |_________________|
I'm surprised that only 11% of the people taking the survey understood that all 27 questions involved a vehicle in the park.
How the hell does the ISS in orbit count as IN the park? Above 100KM, it's beyond any ground-based national ownership at all. You might as well argue something 100KM away from the boundary on the ground is still 'in' the park and with about as much justification. Depending upon jurisdiction, there is likely a fairly small height limit too before your air rights cease and it belongs to the government, so that applies to airplanes too.
Though I guess arguing about basic property limits and the definition of 'in' is probably in the spirit of the question.
posted by Absolutely No You-Know-What at 2:21 AM on February 13 [1 favorite]
How the hell does the ISS in orbit count as IN the park? Above 100KM, it's beyond any ground-based national ownership at all. You might as well argue something 100KM away from the boundary on the ground is still 'in' the park and with about as much justification. Depending upon jurisdiction, there is likely a fairly small height limit too before your air rights cease and it belongs to the government, so that applies to airplanes too.
Though I guess arguing about basic property limits and the definition of 'in' is probably in the spirit of the question.
posted by Absolutely No You-Know-What at 2:21 AM on February 13 [1 favorite]
If we discover Aliens on Betelgeuse 5, and they have vehicles, are those vehicles sometimes "in" the park?
posted by Audreynachrome at 2:34 AM on February 13
posted by Audreynachrome at 2:34 AM on February 13
This cute game was supposed to teach me something about content moderation, but all it did was bring out the little dictator in me.
Rule 1: No vehicles in the park.
Rule 2: No fucking vehicles in the fucking park.
Rule 3: I decide what a vehicle looks like; I also decide where the park ends.
posted by Termite at 3:02 AM on February 13 [4 favorites]
Rule 1: No vehicles in the park.
Rule 2: No fucking vehicles in the fucking park.
Rule 3: I decide what a vehicle looks like; I also decide where the park ends.
posted by Termite at 3:02 AM on February 13 [4 favorites]
Mountain... unicycle... ?
Huh, well that's a new one on me.
posted by Molesome at 3:34 AM on February 13
Huh, well that's a new one on me.
posted by Molesome at 3:34 AM on February 13
I'm surprised that only 11% of the people taking the survey understood that all 27 questions involved a vehicle in the park.
As well as the ISS and aeroplane not meeting the definition of being 'in' the park, a horse may or may not meet the definition of 'vehicle' (dictionaries split about 50/50 here).
posted by Urtylug at 4:41 AM on February 13
As well as the ISS and aeroplane not meeting the definition of being 'in' the park, a horse may or may not meet the definition of 'vehicle' (dictionaries split about 50/50 here).
posted by Urtylug at 4:41 AM on February 13
At this point I should also link the Lowering the Bar archive for "Driving Something Unusual While Intoxicated".
posted by Urtylug at 4:52 AM on February 13 [1 favorite]
posted by Urtylug at 4:52 AM on February 13 [1 favorite]
In real life, you put up a simple sign. "No motorized vehicles" would cover most cases sufficiently
Nope. eBike people will argue with you until their batteries die.
posted by cccorlew at 5:06 AM on February 13 [2 favorites]
Nope. eBike people will argue with you until their batteries die.
posted by cccorlew at 5:06 AM on February 13 [2 favorites]
This is a rough one in the UK, because bicycles have been legally classified as "vehicles" since before motorcars were even invented.
posted by rum-soaked space hobo at 6:47 AM on February 13 [2 favorites]
posted by rum-soaked space hobo at 6:47 AM on February 13 [2 favorites]
Though I guess arguing about basic property limits and the definition of 'in' is probably in the spirit of the question.
Certainly it's in the spirit of property law, where how far ownership rights extend above and below the surface has been intensely litigated (though more on the "below" side, for obvious reasons).
posted by praemunire at 7:05 AM on February 13 [1 favorite]
Certainly it's in the spirit of property law, where how far ownership rights extend above and below the surface has been intensely litigated (though more on the "below" side, for obvious reasons).
posted by praemunire at 7:05 AM on February 13 [1 favorite]
Do you also say to people who ask if they can go to the bathroom "I don't know, can you?"
posted by Audreynachrom
I'm a programmer, not a pedant.
posted by signal at 8:23 AM on February 13
posted by Audreynachrom
I'm a programmer, not a pedant.
posted by signal at 8:23 AM on February 13
I'm a programmer, not a pedant.
Then you've surely heard of duck typing.
posted by pwnguin at 8:39 AM on February 13 [1 favorite]
Then you've surely heard of duck typing.
posted by pwnguin at 8:39 AM on February 13 [1 favorite]
Of course. I'm a python programmer. I duck type every day three times before breakfast.
posted by signal at 8:46 AM on February 13 [1 favorite]
posted by signal at 8:46 AM on February 13 [1 favorite]
Altering the parameters to make the exercise “overthink this plate of beans” changes the outcome considerably.
posted by Artw at 10:19 AM on February 13 [1 favorite]
posted by Artw at 10:19 AM on February 13 [1 favorite]
Basically, what this proves is content moderation can't be automated. AI can't solve for it, expert systems can't solve for it. The bigger a platform gets, the more human moderators you need. I think this is part of the reason why we're seeing something of a backlash against the big social networks and a (admittedly slow) return to more atomized socialization online - spend any time on Facebook, YouTube, Tiktok - you're going to run into the most hateful atrocious shit, and just try reporting any of it. I make a habit of reporting LGBTQ hatred on TikTok, maybe 1 in 100 reports results in any action. Same thing on Facebook. They just don't have enough human moderators, and the ones they do have are overworked, underpaid, and undertrained.
Ideal moderation looks like this - you have a small enough volume of posters/posts that your moderation team have time to read or at least glance at the majority of what is posted. You employ folks in all the timezones you have active posters in and keep an eye on things during active hours - anything that escapes the notice of the mods can be flagged by trusted user volunteers to put in a queue for the mods to go through. When you need more mods, you recruit from the volunteers with the best hit/miss ratio. It's not a perfect system, but with small enough populations of posters it works fairly well. I've been part of more than one web forum which used this system and most of them avoided descending into complete chaos as long as the mods didn't go awol or lose their minds from the stress of it all and go on deleting sprees.
Anyway, point being, none of the social media giants want to pay a living wage to the number of people it would take to truly effectively moderate the big platforms, so it's never going to happen, ergo, we're going to keep dealing with people who are vulnerable to it getting radicalized online and the things they end up doing in the real world because of it. I don't have kids but for those of you who do, I pray you're giving them the tools to think critically about what they see online and I hope you're keeping close tabs on what they're consuming.
I hope this is all not too off topic, but I think the point of the vehicle/park game is: fair laws cannot be written if you expect the letter of them to be enforced without thinking, feeling beings that understand the spirit of them making exceptions. It's an analogy that maps perfectly onto the cold, inflexible moderation that's done by scripts with lists of "bad" keywords v.s the (ideally) thoughtful moderation done by humans.
posted by signsofrain at 11:26 AM on February 13 [4 favorites]
Ideal moderation looks like this - you have a small enough volume of posters/posts that your moderation team have time to read or at least glance at the majority of what is posted. You employ folks in all the timezones you have active posters in and keep an eye on things during active hours - anything that escapes the notice of the mods can be flagged by trusted user volunteers to put in a queue for the mods to go through. When you need more mods, you recruit from the volunteers with the best hit/miss ratio. It's not a perfect system, but with small enough populations of posters it works fairly well. I've been part of more than one web forum which used this system and most of them avoided descending into complete chaos as long as the mods didn't go awol or lose their minds from the stress of it all and go on deleting sprees.
Anyway, point being, none of the social media giants want to pay a living wage to the number of people it would take to truly effectively moderate the big platforms, so it's never going to happen, ergo, we're going to keep dealing with people who are vulnerable to it getting radicalized online and the things they end up doing in the real world because of it. I don't have kids but for those of you who do, I pray you're giving them the tools to think critically about what they see online and I hope you're keeping close tabs on what they're consuming.
I hope this is all not too off topic, but I think the point of the vehicle/park game is: fair laws cannot be written if you expect the letter of them to be enforced without thinking, feeling beings that understand the spirit of them making exceptions. It's an analogy that maps perfectly onto the cold, inflexible moderation that's done by scripts with lists of "bad" keywords v.s the (ideally) thoughtful moderation done by humans.
posted by signsofrain at 11:26 AM on February 13 [4 favorites]
You didn’t see shit.
Depends. If the park is so poorly designed as to make that the only non-onerous way for a disabled child to get access to it, then I agree that this particular rule violation should be ignored unless child and/or parents are giant assholes with no regard for other park users.
But we weren't asked to decide if the rule should be applied - just whether it has been violated. The application of rules is way beyond the level of deciding whether a rule has been violated. I know this from over 40 years of being a decider of whether rules have been broken and, if so, what penalty may apply based on a 90-year-old set of rules clearly written by sporting gentlemen over several fine whiskeys rather than by the biggest cheats you can find (which is who all rules should be written by) and mangled beyond belief by 89 years of tinkering by people with various and competing vested interests.
This link also led me to Semantle. I highly recommend you don't go anywhere near it.
posted by dg at 7:59 PM on February 13 [2 favorites]
Depends. If the park is so poorly designed as to make that the only non-onerous way for a disabled child to get access to it, then I agree that this particular rule violation should be ignored unless child and/or parents are giant assholes with no regard for other park users.
But we weren't asked to decide if the rule should be applied - just whether it has been violated. The application of rules is way beyond the level of deciding whether a rule has been violated. I know this from over 40 years of being a decider of whether rules have been broken and, if so, what penalty may apply based on a 90-year-old set of rules clearly written by sporting gentlemen over several fine whiskeys rather than by the biggest cheats you can find (which is who all rules should be written by) and mangled beyond belief by 89 years of tinkering by people with various and competing vested interests.
This link also led me to Semantle. I highly recommend you don't go anywhere near it.
posted by dg at 7:59 PM on February 13 [2 favorites]
I think some of you who are strict about the rule are being a bit too lazy with the definition of 'vehicle'. The 2nd and third definitions have nothing to do with transportation but rather the conveyance of ideas, ie: "Taylor Swift's voice and guitar are the vehicles which convey her fame"; therefore, you you have to interrogate every person who comes to the park and make sure they haven't brought any tools which fulfills their destiny to the park. But the interrogator cannot be someone for whom interrogation is their destiny, because vehicles are not allowed in the park.
posted by The_Vegetables at 7:31 AM on February 14 [3 favorites]
posted by The_Vegetables at 7:31 AM on February 14 [3 favorites]
It's almost as if there is such a thing as common sense,
Oh, yes, I’ve heard of this: it’s that thing everyone thinks that they and only they possess.
The question about whether bicycles are vehicles reminded me that a decade ago my mom gifted our then-teenaged daughter with a bicycle. Our family car spends its nights in the underground parking garage of the complex (two or three low-rise apartments, a dozen or so townhouses), so the obvious spot to park the bicycle seemed to be against the wall in our spot, in behind where the car gets parked.
This situation endured for perhaps 36 hours before we got an angry note from the superintendent of the complex stating that the bicycle had to be moved elsewhere as the parking spots were only for vehicles.
I surmised this was an echo of a years-earlier situation where someone was parking elsewhere and using their underground parking space as general storage for their off-season tires, pallets of bottled water* etc. In any event, I saw no better place to park the thing so I went over to the office and explained the thinking in parking there — a bicycle is a vehicle, we pay for a parking spot for vehicles…
The super threw up her hands and repeatedly said, “I don’t make the rules!” I countered that in fact she did, and by pure chance I happened to have the Highway Traffic Act in my bag, and look at this, in this province a bicycle is a vehicle and she seemed to be overriding this.
She changed tactics and said that it was clearly unsafe to park two vehicles in the same spot. I offered to go with her to the parking and examine the spot where our neighbours had parked two motorcycles in a single car-sized spot for several years with no repercussions, official or otherwise. “But that is different!” Ah.
Eventually she admitted that there was in fact a bicycle storage room in one of the apartments and we could use that. We could have saved a lot of time if she’d opened with this.
*The memo from that incident dealt with how tenants could not store bottled water there because it presented a fire hazard. The flammability of water was not expanded on.
posted by ricochet biscuit at 2:03 PM on February 14 [7 favorites]
Oh, yes, I’ve heard of this: it’s that thing everyone thinks that they and only they possess.
The question about whether bicycles are vehicles reminded me that a decade ago my mom gifted our then-teenaged daughter with a bicycle. Our family car spends its nights in the underground parking garage of the complex (two or three low-rise apartments, a dozen or so townhouses), so the obvious spot to park the bicycle seemed to be against the wall in our spot, in behind where the car gets parked.
This situation endured for perhaps 36 hours before we got an angry note from the superintendent of the complex stating that the bicycle had to be moved elsewhere as the parking spots were only for vehicles.
I surmised this was an echo of a years-earlier situation where someone was parking elsewhere and using their underground parking space as general storage for their off-season tires, pallets of bottled water* etc. In any event, I saw no better place to park the thing so I went over to the office and explained the thinking in parking there — a bicycle is a vehicle, we pay for a parking spot for vehicles…
The super threw up her hands and repeatedly said, “I don’t make the rules!” I countered that in fact she did, and by pure chance I happened to have the Highway Traffic Act in my bag, and look at this, in this province a bicycle is a vehicle and she seemed to be overriding this.
She changed tactics and said that it was clearly unsafe to park two vehicles in the same spot. I offered to go with her to the parking and examine the spot where our neighbours had parked two motorcycles in a single car-sized spot for several years with no repercussions, official or otherwise. “But that is different!” Ah.
Eventually she admitted that there was in fact a bicycle storage room in one of the apartments and we could use that. We could have saved a lot of time if she’d opened with this.
*The memo from that incident dealt with how tenants could not store bottled water there because it presented a fire hazard. The flammability of water was not expanded on.
posted by ricochet biscuit at 2:03 PM on February 14 [7 favorites]
Flashing back to the day in school when we tore the sleeves off my flannel shirt, turning it into a smart vest, and put the sleeves on our heads, sparking a ten-minute discussion with our heroically patient teacher about what, really, when you got right down to it, counted as a hat, because we clearly weren't wearing hats, we were wearing sleeves and how could anyone object to that?
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 6:28 PM on February 14 [2 favorites]
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 6:28 PM on February 14 [2 favorites]
So if I'm hearing you right, then the 1979 sitcom "Hello, Larry" would not be allowed into the park, being a vehicle for McLean Stevenson after his ill-fated decision to leave M*A*S*H?
posted by credulous at 7:37 PM on February 14 [5 favorites]
posted by credulous at 7:37 PM on February 14 [5 favorites]
Mod note: *Pulls up and parks this thread over in the Sidebar and Best Of blog!*
posted by Brandon Blatcher (staff) at 7:40 AM on February 15 [3 favorites]
posted by Brandon Blatcher (staff) at 7:40 AM on February 15 [3 favorites]
So I took the test, didn't really read the rules, got the 100% (which I don't think is a big deal or badge of honor), had no concrete concept of what a vehicle is in my head as I took the test, but am very firm in my belief that the ambulance in the park was an obvious breaking of the rules, but so what, it's there to help people, not to flaunt the rule or do harm. Thought most of the examples were fairly silly, I mean a space station flying overhead, come on?! Do you have any idea how precise they'd have to get that space station and it would mess up the planning for future launches and landings of visiting space craft. Jesus people, please remember your orbital mechanics!
After reading these comments I realize my nebulous idea of a vehicle in this particular exercise was "something that harms the park for no greater good". So yeah, emergency vehicles are ok.
Also, when looking for art to post this thread on the Best Of blog, almost every sign said "No Motorized Vehicles In The Park". Which is a better way of putting it, but still doesn't apply to space stations.
Hello, my name is Brandon Blatcher, and I'm an actual moderator on MetaFilter.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 11:25 AM on February 15 [3 favorites]
After reading these comments I realize my nebulous idea of a vehicle in this particular exercise was "something that harms the park for no greater good". So yeah, emergency vehicles are ok.
Also, when looking for art to post this thread on the Best Of blog, almost every sign said "No Motorized Vehicles In The Park". Which is a better way of putting it, but still doesn't apply to space stations.
Hello, my name is Brandon Blatcher, and I'm an actual moderator on MetaFilter.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 11:25 AM on February 15 [3 favorites]
The space station question has some Powers of Ten energy.
posted by kirkaracha at 1:07 PM on February 15
posted by kirkaracha at 1:07 PM on February 15
The man selling ice cream and singing Italian songs could be in trouble depending on how he gets the ice cream around. An ice cream truck would definitely be Not Allowed, but maybe there's a Mr. Freeze situation happening.
posted by kirkaracha at 1:12 PM on February 15 [1 favorite]
posted by kirkaracha at 1:12 PM on February 15 [1 favorite]
What I'm enjoying most about this is people thinking the percentage they got has something to do with whether or not they did "well", when it's really just a number showing how many people responded to the prompt the same way.
posted by oneirodynia at 4:09 PM on February 20
posted by oneirodynia at 4:09 PM on February 20
as I suggested long ago (only somewhat ironically), the percentages could be seen to indicate a metric for "common sense". So what amuses me is how the more one sticks to the hard and fast directives (specifically "please answer the question of whether the rule is violated not whether the violation should be allowed"), the further one deviates from this "common sense".
But what do I know? I'm an artist.
posted by philip-random at 6:08 PM on February 20 [2 favorites]
But what do I know? I'm an artist.
posted by philip-random at 6:08 PM on February 20 [2 favorites]
Which is why this experiment fails, because it argues that moderation is primarily about building consensus as opposed to setting the tenor of your online salon. And while consensus is important to a degree (unpopular rules without justification will kill online communities), most communities will recognize rules if they have some sort of logic and support the larger goals of the community.
posted by NoxAeternum at 11:15 AM on February 22
posted by NoxAeternum at 11:15 AM on February 22
All this rules lawyering reminds me of the time I was told I couldn't enter Saint Peter's in the Vatican wearing shorts or a sleeveless shirt.
"Is there a rule about shoes?" I asked innocently.
Reader, there was no rule about shoes.
The marble floors of Saint Peter's feel amazing with bare feet.
posted by signal at 6:44 PM on February 22 [1 favorite]
"Is there a rule about shoes?" I asked innocently.
Reader, there was no rule about shoes.
The marble floors of Saint Peter's feel amazing with bare feet.
posted by signal at 6:44 PM on February 22 [1 favorite]
« Older [STOP in the name of HUMANITY] | you’re so good at it, you could be a professional Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by praemunire at 9:05 AM on February 12 [3 favorites]