This is a thing that I think is much more interesting if you just click the link before you read any comments about it, so I recommend that. With all the debates and blowups about how online...
This is a thing that I think is much more interesting if you just click the link before you read any comments about it, so I recommend that.
With all the debates and blowups about how online platforms should be moderated over the last year, I think that this gives an interesting perspective on how rules that seem simple aren't really so simple. I only agreed with the majority 11% of the time.
Also 11% but it’s not clear to me what that means. I agreed with the top 4 most common “yes this breaks the rule” and disagreed that every other one breaks the rule.
Also 11% but it’s not clear to me what that means. I agreed with the top 4 most common “yes this breaks the rule” and disagreed that every other one breaks the rule.
Odd, I guess I'm another 11%er The way I ended up on a yes or a no mostly fell down to how an object was being used, though that was partially because I painted myself into a corner by voting the...
Odd, I guess I'm another 11%er
The way I ended up on a yes or a no mostly fell down to how an object was being used, though that was partially because I painted myself into a corner by voting the wagon with stuff as "not a vehicle" near the beginning and tried to remain consistent. For instance, I rated the tank as "not a vehicle" because it could not be used to effectively transport a person in its current state.
I got 11% too... something seems off. I think I largely went by intrusiveness. Presumably, the monument would have undergone some sort of planning and consultation process. The parachute and...
I got 11% too... something seems off. I think I largely went by intrusiveness. Presumably, the monument would have undergone some sort of planning and consultation process. The parachute and quadcopter on the other hand are very invasive, out of place, and I counted them as vehicles.
I got 11% as well. I considered the definition of a vehicle to be akin to what the DMV would consider as well as intent behind actions, like how emergencies take primacy over narrow minded...
I got 11% as well. I considered the definition of a vehicle to be akin to what the DMV would consider as well as intent behind actions, like how emergencies take primacy over narrow minded regulations.
I’m feeling a little suspicious of this comment chain of fellow 11%ers as well.
The explanation att the beginning says not to take into account if the rule should be violated, only if it would be violated. All of the emergencies would violate the rule, but that would also be...
The explanation att the beginning says not to take into account if the rule should be violated, only if it would be violated. All of the emergencies would violate the rule, but that would also be the correct course of action.
I know that this is getting into the semantics of the rule and that is kinda the point of this thought exercise, but pretty much every legislation out there has rules about emergency vehicles...
All of the emergencies would violate the rule, but that would also be the correct course of action.
I know that this is getting into the semantics of the rule and that is kinda the point of this thought exercise, but pretty much every legislation out there has rules about emergency vehicles basically overriding rules like this in an actual emergency.
And this proves just how difficult it is to just have a simple set of rules for internet content, and then everyone would agree and everything would be fine. Even when the rules are explicitly...
And this proves just how difficult it is to just have a simple set of rules for internet content, and then everyone would agree and everything would be fine.
Even when the rules are explicitly telling you to ignore your sense of moral right or wrong, your local rules that some vehicles are allowed in park spaces, or even religious rules regarding the issue...
People will still disagree on what is the right or wrong answer.
I thought I was taking this into account, but thinking about your comment highlighted an inconsistency in my answers. When considering the police car and ambulance, I felt that I was following the...
I thought I was taking this into account, but thinking about your comment highlighted an inconsistency in my answers.
When considering the police car and ambulance, I felt that I was following the spirit of the rule in saying that they did not violate the rule. I generally have a view that rules exist for a reason, and it’s worth understanding the reason to properly apply the rule. (I loved learning about Chesterton’s fence.) If the point was to keep vehicles from bothering the other park users, emergency vehicles are an obvious exception what nevertheless keep the spirit of the rule, because they should only be entering for the specific benefit of a park user.⁰
On the other hand, I was stricter about the letter of the rule for other scenarios. I judged a quadcopter, though it might be detrimental to other park users and therefore against the spirit of the “no vehicles” rule, was not in violation of the rule because it wasn’t enough of a vehicle. I reasoned that if the park wanted to exclude drones, that would need a separate rule than “no vehicles”.
I guess I view the spirit of the rule as allowing for exceptions to the letter of the rule, but the spirit of the rule cannot be used to allow expansion beyond the letter of the rule.
⁰On the other hand, perhaps there was a different reason for the rule. Perhaps the ground can’t support heavy vehicles and they’d get stuck. So an ambulance wouldn’t be allowed at all (and emergencies would need some other form of transport).
The real question is, was the tank brought in using any sort of vehicles? They can't do that, it's against the rules! I counted the quadcopter but not the parachute because of the level of control...
The real question is, was the tank brought in using any sort of vehicles? They can't do that, it's against the rules!
I counted the quadcopter but not the parachute because of the level of control one has over the copter. For instance, with a camera you can have controlled transport of a video feed to different locations for you to watch, ergo via that transport it is a vehicle even if it only moves itself.
One of the interesting questions is whether or not humans count as vehicles. For people who answered no on the horse question, they could be consistent, but would one person carrying another via piggyback be counted as violating the rule?
I didn't include anything like the quad copter or plane or OSS because of the wording of the description. They all said "over the park", which means they weren't, by the question's definition, in...
I didn't include anything like the quad copter or plane or OSS because of the wording of the description. They all said "over the park", which means they weren't, by the question's definition, in the park. Had they said "in the sky at the park", or "x feet/miles in the air at the park" my answers would have been different.
I also got 11%, but I said the tank was technically a vehicle (even if it isn’t able to be used as one). I think I boiled it down to a vehicle roughly being something that can be ridden that is...
I also got 11%, but I said the tank was technically a vehicle (even if it isn’t able to be used as one).
I think I boiled it down to a vehicle roughly being something that can be ridden that is motor powered (I would’ve said human-powered but I got to the horse question and decided that I don’t think a horse is a vehicle - so this answer is post-taking the “quiz”).
I feel like a rowboat I could go either way on, but I’m not sure why I consider that different than something like a skateboard or a wagon.
I ended up at Car, Police, Ambulance, and Memorial as vehicles - and nothing else.
Either way, fun thought experiment- thanks for posting it @ispotato.
I got 85%. I began by looking up the definition of 'vehicle', and found that it is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicle I then chose to interpret "in the park" as meaning in the park, so it had...
I got 85%.
I began by looking up the definition of 'vehicle', and found that it is
"A vehicle (from Latin vehiculum)[1] is a piece of equipment designed to transport people or cargo. Vehicles include wagons, bicycles, motor vehicles (motorcycles, cars, trucks, buses, mobility scooters for disabled people), railed vehicles (trains, trams), watercraft (ships, boats, underwater vehicles), amphibious vehicles (screw-propelled vehicles, hovercraft), aircraft (airplanes, helicopters, aerostats) and spacecraft.[2]"
I then chose to interpret "in the park" as meaning in the park, so it had to be within an area no higher than the general height of park trees. Flying above that height would mean it is not in the park, but above it.
I mis-clicked and chose vehicle for the wheelchair, but according to the definition I found, it isn't a scooter/self-propelled thingy-for-transportation, so I would say that was not actually a vehicle.
11% here too. It all seemed obvious to me, even tanks and horses. Maybe I'm too chilled to moderate! Luckily I jumped straight in before reading comments so was very interesting reading the "why?"
11% here too. It all seemed obvious to me, even tanks and horses. Maybe I'm too chilled to moderate!
Luckily I jumped straight in before reading comments so was very interesting reading the "why?"
To me nothing of this was difficult to answer since they all lack context. I apparently only agree with 11% though, having only marked the car (duh), the bicycle (is not allowed here in parks...
To me nothing of this was difficult to answer since they all lack context. I apparently only agree with 11% though, having only marked the car (duh), the bicycle (is not allowed here in parks generally) and the quadcopter (again, usually not allowed, so easy to toss out).
The rest? All okay. Especially the emergency responses are by-low okay to drive in there.
At the start, the author clearly states that you don't have to take into account possible place- or culture-specific laws or regulations. So there's only two things to consider: What is a vehicle:...
they all lack context.
At the start, the author clearly states that you don't have to take into account possible place- or culture-specific laws or regulations.
So there's only two things to consider:
What is a vehicle: A device that transports stuff.
What are the exact dimensions of the park: In addition to a perimeter, the park must have a height, say: double the height of the highest tree in the park.
According to these definitions, I've only allowed the paper plane, toy car (the very small Matchbox type car), and the kite as they can't transport much. (Some excessive leniency, I know.)
A horse is not a device. So it's excused also.
A plane and the ISS don't enter the park.
All else were denied entrance (by shouting at them from a megaphone on an ivory tower in the middle of, and almost as high as, the park).
I do get the gist of this exercise though. By reading through the comments it's perfectly clear (even though we all have a score of 11%) we have different interpretations of rules and definitions. As such, moderating online communities needs a more fluid approach to rules and definitions and a degree of leniency to make up for miscommunication.
I disagree with that definition of a vehicle (I didn't look up an exact definition before playing). My personal definition of a vehicle was more along the lines of: Must have an engine or motor(s)...
I disagree with that definition of a vehicle (I didn't look up an exact definition before playing). My personal definition of a vehicle was more along the lines of:
Must have an engine or motor(s)
Should be able to transport supplies or people (toys don't count)
Man or animal powered modes of transport aren't really vehicles (maybe they are, I dunno)
I also basically avoided any aircraft related dilemmas, because there is no way the park would have infinite airway (spaceway?) rights all the way to the edge of the known universe. For drones usually the maximum legal height around population centers is around 400 ft above ground level, meaning anything above that is for more professional aircraft.
I also went easy on emergency vehicles, because rules are dumb meant to be broken I guess?
It's really fascinating seeing everyone's different interpretations of the one simple rule. It didn't occur to me that some people wouldn't even consider a rowboat to be a vehicle. To my mind, the...
It's really fascinating seeing everyone's different interpretations of the one simple rule. It didn't occur to me that some people wouldn't even consider a rowboat to be a vehicle. To my mind, the majority of these were vehicles. It got interesting trying to sus out the difference between a bicycle (inarguably a vehicle in my opinion), and a wheelchair (a mobility aid? But, so is the bicycle...).
And then there's the person carrying the skateboard, which is also a vehicle in my opinion. Common sense says if they aren't riding the skateboard, they're fine, but the rule is clear and simple–it doesn't say the use of vehicles isn't allowed in the park, it says no vehicles are allowed. This really does demonstrate the point the developer was making–as simple as you can make a rule, people will always be able to interpret it differently, different moderators will apply rules to different degrees, and there'll always be situations where I kick you out of my park for having a vehicle that, to you, isn't a vehicle.
Yeah, I think the key issue is the definition of a vehicle. If you define it as vaguely as "something that moves things", then the park is breaking its own rule.... because the Earth is moving...
Yeah, I think the key issue is the definition of a vehicle. If you define it as vaguely as "something that moves things", then the park is breaking its own rule.... because the Earth is moving through the universe, and any time a visitor is in the park, the park has "passengers" that it is moving through space.
Alternatively, if the park is privately owned and seen as an investment....Doesn't that make it a financial vehicle?
I posted a full length answer of my own somewhere else, but I essentially just started by looking up the definition of 'vehicle' in the English Wikipedia. According to that definition, mobility...
I posted a full length answer of my own somewhere else, but I essentially just started by looking up the definition of 'vehicle' in the English Wikipedia.
According to that definition, mobility scooters would be classified as a vehicle. So I interpreted that as a self-propelled device made to transport a human. Unlike a stroller for a baby that a parent is pushing, or a wheelchair without any motors. Although there is a small point to be made for how a stroller is created solely for the purpose of transporting children and small amounts of goods.
A vehicle (from Latin vehiculum)[1] is a piece of equipment designed to transport people or cargo. Vehicles include wagons, bicycles, motor vehicles (motorcycles, cars, trucks, buses, mobility scooters for disabled people), railed vehicles (trains, trams), watercraft (ships, boats, underwater vehicles), amphibious vehicles (screw-propelled vehicles, hovercraft), aircraft (airplanes, helicopters, aerostats) and spacecraft.[2]
(my emphasis)
It seems like there is a clear divide between people choosing to intuit what might be a vehicle (a toy car is a kind of "car"), and those that tend towards using an objective definition.
It also seems like a clear divide between people that chose with their compassion, and those that strictly followed the objective definition.
I think it's really interesting how many people know/used an actual definition to define 'vehicle' - yet used their compassion and common sense to go against the very clear instructions to begin with.
I got 93%, with my choices being car, police, ambulance, quadcopter, and horse. My approach was with regards to the spirit of the rule: why are vehicles excluded? A vehicle would typically be...
I got 93%, with my choices being car, police, ambulance, quadcopter, and horse.
My approach was with regards to the spirit of the rule: why are vehicles excluded? A vehicle would typically be banned from a park for being disruptive: loudness, obstruction, danger. The particulars of whether they're engine-powered or can transport things seem wholly irrelevant to the purpose of the rule.
I found it very surprising how many people consider the decommissioned tank a violation of the rule over things like bikes and skateboards, which are infinitely more disruptive to people trying to enjoy a park.
Update: The page has been fixed, so this comment is now more an attempt at explaining past confusion than accurate analysis of the site's mechanics. This is very irrelevant to the actual quiz...
Update: The page has been fixed, so this comment is now more an attempt at explaining past confusion than accurate analysis of the site's mechanics.
This is very irrelevant to the actual quiz content, but hopefully I can answer some questions about the results.
I took the quiz a couple dozen times to try to figure out why everyone's getting 11%, and here is what I think is going on:
The quiz is keeping track of responses, or is otherwise dynamically jittering data: I noticed that the statistics returned vary very slightly between instances taken.
The graphs you get at the end of the poll are the percentages of people who said "this violates the rules/this is a vehicle" regardless of your response.
The "You agreed with the majority ...% of the time" is probably somewhat broken. The % shown is likely supposed to be (# of your responses in line with the >50% majority)÷(total responses) but instead is just (# of prompts where the majority agreed it was a vehicle)÷(total responses). Since there are currently 3 "consensus vehicles" (car, ambulence, police car), if you answered all questions, this gives 3/27 = 11.1111...% ≈ 11%. Combined with 2, this leads me to believe that the graph was supposed to show the proportion of people who agreed with your answer on that particular question. For some reason it didn't, leading to the confusing framing of the results.
I got 85%, but I also very strictly followed the definition of vehicle I found on Wikipedia, and also took into account that in the park would mean only up to a certain height. So a toy car or a...
I got 85%, but I also very strictly followed the definition of vehicle I found on Wikipedia, and also took into account that in the park would mean only up to a certain height. So a toy car or a quadcopter (drone, not transportation device) was not a vehicle despite looking like their bigger sized versions that do transport people and goods.
Oh, they fixed the page. My top level comment was more of an artifact of everyone mentioning the 11% figure than my own thoughts on the experience. During my actual interaction with the survey I...
Oh, they fixed the page.
My top level comment was more of an artifact of everyone mentioning the 11% figure than my own thoughts on the experience.
During my actual interaction with the survey I was using a similar sort of squishy definition that most people were taking about here, which I would roughly summarize as "a motorized or otherwise technological means of transportation that is disrupting the normal activities of the park" (I think it was agreeing with the majority 89% of the time? I also misread one question as "piloting an airliner through the park rather than over it) and I thought it was interesting the way that even minimal context (it sounds like this is a rule meant to protect park peace) would shape a definition.
I think even if we wanted to hammer down a strict technical definition you would still run into Sorites Paradox type issues like "a drone flying 502 feet above the park is outside it but a drone flying 499 feet above it is inside" due to how we must draw an arbitrary line that some people will necessarily (and probably rightly) disagree with. Without seeing the definition myself, it sounds like your definition was close to what most people imagine when they see "no vehicles in the park" so it's likely pretty reasonable, but you could imagine people arguing and rules-lawyering about stuff like that.
The demonstration is deeply flawed because it always says 11%. This would only be an interesting exercise if most people disagreed with each other but there's no way to tell because it's not...
The demonstration is deeply flawed because it always says 11%. This would only be an interesting exercise if most people disagreed with each other but there's no way to tell because it's not actually working.
really interesting thought experiment. I think a key takeaway is that rules don't exist in a vacuum. rules always have a goal they're trying to achieve. and it's nonsensical to try to enforce the...
really interesting thought experiment.
I think a key takeaway is that rules don't exist in a vacuum. rules always have a goal they're trying to achieve. and it's nonsensical to try to enforce the rule on its own, you have to look at it in context of the goal.
in the case of "no vehicles in the park", the goal of the rule is something like "the park is for multiple people to enjoy at once, driving a vehicle like a car or motorcycle into the park detracts from that, so it's not allowed"
in the classic form of this example, someone has a heart attack in the park, and an ambulance drives in to render aid. the ambulance is violating the letter of the rule, but upholding its spirit - making sure that person can receive prompt medical attention advances the goal that everyone can enjoy the park.
in the content moderation context, looking at rules in a vacuum, disconnected from the goal they have, often leads to "rules lawyering" and nitpicking.
for example, some hypothetical reddit-like forum has a problem with people posting excessive pictures of their cats. so the moderators impose a "no more than one picture of your cat, per day" rule. some enterprising user writes a script that posts a random picture of their cat, exactly 24 hours apart. the moderators ban that user. the user responds, outraged, that they were complying exactly with the rules, so why were they banned?
the goal was "don't flood the forum with pointless cat pictures", and the 24 hour limit was just a rule of thumb the moderators came up with, not an exact limit. a different user might be training their cat to do tricks, and posting daily updates. both users, on the surface, are walking right up to the line that the rule defines. but one user gets banned, and the other doesn't. it seems "unfair" and like selective enforcement of the rules, but only if you ignore the context of the posts.
for some of the ambiguous or controversial questions in this little quiz, the part that's missing is always the broader context. that WW2 tank is clearly a vehicle, should it be banned? well, did the people who operate the park authorize it as part of a historical monument? if they did, clearly they decided the monument contributes to everyone enjoying the park, so it makes sense that it's exempted.
on the other hand, did they set up a generic WW2 monument, and John Q. Historybuff decided he could improve the monument by parking his privately-owned tank next to it for everyone to admire? yeah, that's not allowed. when the park operators tell him to remove his tank, they may cite the "no vehicles" rule, or perhaps a general prohibition against littering. neither of those rules were specifically written with this scenario in mind - because no one thought to write a "no ad-hoc additions to our WW2 monument" rule. (and if that rule did exist, would I be violating it if I leave flowers at the monument on Memorial Day?)
one of the things I've liked about Tildes, from the very beginning, is that this rule/goal dichotomy is made explicit:
the site, like the park, is for multiple people to enjoy. there are specific rules about that, but the general goal of all of them is "don't do shit that detracts from other people enjoying it".
I'm not sure what my 11% means. I basically only said no on ones that were in airspace well above the park like the ISS. I tried it again, answering yes to every question, then no to every...
I'm not sure what my 11% means. I basically only said no on ones that were in airspace well above the park like the ISS.
I tried it again, answering yes to every question, then no to every question, then alternating yes and no for each question. It said I agreed with 11% every time. So... yeah. Not quite sure how to interpret that.
The general idea at the end is interesting to think about. Ultimately content moderation can have rules that offer guidelines, but they're more or less going to come down to "this is my space and I want/don't want that content here." In plenty of spaces, (noticed especially on Reddit but in other places too) I can think of lots of instances where what seemed like clear rule breaking content was allowed because the moderators liked it, or content that seemed to be well within the stated rules were removed because the moderators didn't like it.
Here we've got two questions: What counts as a "vehicle?" and what counts as "in the park?" Starting the train of thought of trying to answer those can lead to some Diogenes-like "gotcha" moments. For example: we should specifically allow wheelchairs, obviously. Cut to teenagers riding wheelchairs by standing in them like they're surfing. Okay, we should allow wheelchairs for anyone that needs them. Cut to someone using a wheelchair to carry picnic supplies in by pushing it from behind. Okay, anyone who has a disability or injury of some kind that impairs their walking can have a wheelchair in the park. Okay, how are you going to check and make sure of that? Etc. etc.
I marked even the emergency vehicle responses as violating the rule because it's a simple rule and there were no specified exceptions. I think I counted the wheelchair as a vehicle because you...
I marked even the emergency vehicle responses as violating the rule because it's a simple rule and there were no specified exceptions. I think I counted the wheelchair as a vehicle because you ride on it and it's not attached to your body in the same way an article of clothing would be. Whether the rules demand exceptions is one thing, but it is interesting to see how those value judgements affect how people respond, if not by the rule itself then by what they think the rule should mean. Understanding the spirit of a rule is one of the most important parts of enforcing it "as intended" and we're pretty deliberately not given that context to run the social experiment.
Like, I agree that someone shouldn't be parachuting through the park but I didn't count it as a vehicle because, if the person is falling anyways, then the parachute is just more of a means to control that fall than a means of getting around in and of itself. Now that I think about it though, if, say, the park had a mountain with an updraft and people parachuted to intentionally ride that updraft and stay in the air, then my answer changes to yes for some reason.
This is pretty much my go-to when moderating. After thinking about what rules the content may or may not break, I say "is this something that I want other people in my community to engage with? Is...
this is my space and I want/don't want that content here
This is pretty much my go-to when moderating. After thinking about what rules the content may or may not break, I say "is this something that I want other people in my community to engage with? Is this valuable input? Does this content make the community better?"
And I think that's really what it boils down to. It's a lot of nuance and will vary from mod to mod.
Another 11%? I think that's just a token statistic that doesn't mean anything. I decided to assiduously answer every single question, and, along the way, I found myself forced to come up with a...
Another 11%? I think that's just a token statistic that doesn't mean anything.
I decided to assiduously answer every single question, and, along the way, I found myself forced to come up with a definition of "vehicles" to be able to determine whether each example provided was or was not a vehicle. At first I did this intuitively, without really thinking about it. Then I did it more consciously. Then, as the game presented me with more variations of possible vehicles, I realised that my practical definition of "vehicle" didn't quite match the dictionary definition of a "vehicle" - and then I decided to be consistently wrong, because consistency is more important as a moderator or enforcer of rules than correctness.
That was quite an interesting exercise.
It reinforces some discussions I've had about moderating and rules - that you can never really write a rule that covers all contingencies, and you just have to wing it sometimes. And this gives some rules-lawyering pedant the opening to say "but my post doesn't literally break the rule", and then you have to somehow explain this concept about unspoken interpretations of rules, which never works because it's never in the argumentative pedant's interest to you agree with you about why their post was removed.
I think what this is missing is a reason for the rule. While a machine probably can't connect violations of a rule to the purpose behind it most people can. If the no vehicles rule exists because...
I think what this is missing is a reason for the rule. While a machine probably can't connect violations of a rule to the purpose behind it most people can. If the no vehicles rule exists because the property owners want to keep pedestrians safe from collision injury then the judgements will be far different than if the rule exists to stop a local dog from attacking everyone because it goes ballistic at seeing anything resembling a vehicle.
That's just it though. Lots of people don't tend to think too deeply past their own gut reaction to things, and the author's explanation that this came from wanting to experiment with the "just...
That's just it though. Lots of people don't tend to think too deeply past their own gut reaction to things, and the author's explanation that this came from wanting to experiment with the "just have a few, simple rules and everyone will agree" was interesting.
I think they nailed the framing of it as a very basic, no-context set of rules. Is it a vehicle, what do people consider to be vehicles? Is it in the park, what do people consider to be within park boundaries?
And even then, with a word that has clear definitions you can find in a dictionary, and with a preposition outlining the area to be considered "the park" - people will see more nuance. Right down to willfully breaking the rules because emergency vehicles should be allowed in a park. Rules be damned.
Another 11%er here. Maybe the game hasn’t received enough responses yet to crunch the data. The scenario, like moderation, has nuance. It’s not black or white, good moderators have to be able to...
Another 11%er here. Maybe the game hasn’t received enough responses yet to crunch the data.
The scenario, like moderation, has nuance. It’s not black or white, good moderators have to be able to operate in the grey area and use their own best judgement. It’s why auto-moderation systems are criticized unless they have a real person in the loop, too many false positives.
I thought the further discussion at Hacker News was also quite interesting. I've never been a moderator and I thought the exercise was intriging. Personally, I excluded anything motorized,...
I thought the further discussion at Hacker News was also quite interesting.
I've never been a moderator and I thought the exercise was intriging. Personally, I excluded anything motorized, including the quadcopter but not the airplane as I figured that was too high to worry about. I didn't see a wheelchair as a vehicle for this purpose, but I did enforce the rule against emergency vehicles.
It's too bad that the statistics are buggy, but overall, nice thought experiment.
I saw this posted on Hacker News and it got a big response but I don't think it says anything particularly interesting. As a society, we already know the rule systems for shaping societal behavior...
I saw this posted on Hacker News and it got a big response but I don't think it says anything particularly interesting. As a society, we already know the rule systems for shaping societal behavior are brittle. Just look at legal systems; a large part of law is the interpretation of rules and events by judges, lawyers, and a jury.
Putting up a sign at a park that says "no vehicles allowed inside of the park" is a perfectly fine idea as most people will understand that a vehicle is a motorized construct and that the rule is meant to prevent people from driving their Pintos onto the grass of the park.
And, sure, there will be outliers where there are people who don't understand the culture of the majority, don't have a firm graps of the language that the sign is written in, or just aren't very bright and they'll run afoul of the rules. That's fine. They can either be informed or suffer minor consequences.
This is why forums have moderators. They exist to interpret the rules and act accordingly - with hopefully nuance and understanding. On that note, I'm really interested in Tildes response of removing moderators eventually in favor of giving pseudo-moderator power to active, reliable users.
As others suggest, try the quiz before reading here. And yes you are the 11%. Spoilers follow ... I've seen much discussion (here and at Hacker News) of what a vehicle is, and some of what is "in"...
As others suggest, try the quiz before reading here.
And yes you are the 11%.
Spoilers follow ...
I've seen much discussion (here and at Hacker News) of what a vehicle is, and some of what is "in" the park.
I've not yet seen (though not yet reading all 1197 + 35 extant comments) discussion of the goal and/or purpose of the rule.
Considering the discussion on Hacker News and my growing obsession with what makes that site tick (and occasionally sends it off the rails), contrast with HN's "real standard": "to engage one's intellectual curiosity" (http://www.paulgraham.com/hackernews.html).
And, in fact, reading those search results just now turned up a ... interesting, now deleted ... response by dang on this thread which explains the "intended spirit" nature of HN moderation. I'm not going to quote the full item (respecting the deletion), but this bit seems to echo my concept here:
[H]aving the set of first principles (the site guidelines) be organized around "intended spirit" rather than formal precision is the best bulwark I know.
In the case of laws, the purpose or intent is often explicitly stated. In US tradition, the "whereas" clauses typically preceding the main body of legislation.
And for this game, the posted rule would benefit greatly by a clarification as to why it was enacte_d an_d what the rule is intended to accomplish. This would also clarify, even without specifically enumerating classes of vehicles or conveyances, and/or proximity to the park which specific cases might be permitted or excluded.
I found the explanation at the end to be clear and consise. A good explanation for the why of the rules for this game. The author wanted to challenge the statements people make about only needing...
I found the explanation at the end to be clear and consise. A good explanation for the why of the rules for this game. The author wanted to challenge the statements people make about only needing a few good rules for online spaces, and then everything will be fine.
There will never be just a few rules that 100% of people will agree on 100% of the time.
Without more context, it's even worse. Even with more context, people see things differently. But context is key, and better context will make more people agree. So people claiming that "just slap a couple of simple rules on it, and call it a day" is missing the point you're making here. You also need to know why you want to implement the rules, and other people also have to know why.
Like how I think almost anyone would agree that emergency services should be allowed in the park under special circumstances. Because that is not just disrupting the space and causing danger for individual convenience.
I think most of us could agree that in a real world situation, parks are spaces to enjoy that can still accomodate vehicles for different reasons. Bicycling along? Please, just use your bell before you pass others (a pet peeve of mine, so many don't!). Someone almost dying? Houses burning down? Park is significantly faster to go through than around? Emergency services, go right ahead! Safety demonstrations that need ample space (water in burning oil for example), public appearances to foster better connection with the community? Come one, come all!
Also an 11%er. Either the game is comparing results against a static dataset instead of including our decisions in the dataset or it's bugged. Potential bug aside, I appreciate this view into the...
Also an 11%er. Either the game is comparing results against a static dataset instead of including our decisions in the dataset or it's bugged.
Potential bug aside, I appreciate this view into the difficulties of moderation.
This is a thing that I think is much more interesting if you just click the link before you read any comments about it, so I recommend that.
With all the debates and blowups about how online platforms should be moderated over the last year, I think that this gives an interesting perspective on how rules that seem simple aren't really so simple. I only agreed with the majority 11% of the time.
Also 11% but it’s not clear to me what that means. I agreed with the top 4 most common “yes this breaks the rule” and disagreed that every other one breaks the rule.
Odd, I guess I'm another 11%er
The way I ended up on a yes or a no mostly fell down to how an object was being used, though that was partially because I painted myself into a corner by voting the wagon with stuff as "not a vehicle" near the beginning and tried to remain consistent. For instance, I rated the tank as "not a vehicle" because it could not be used to effectively transport a person in its current state.
I got 11% too... something seems off. I think I largely went by intrusiveness. Presumably, the monument would have undergone some sort of planning and consultation process. The parachute and quadcopter on the other hand are very invasive, out of place, and I counted them as vehicles.
I got 11% as well. I considered the definition of a vehicle to be akin to what the DMV would consider as well as intent behind actions, like how emergencies take primacy over narrow minded regulations.
I’m feeling a little suspicious of this comment chain of fellow 11%ers as well.
The explanation att the beginning says not to take into account if the rule should be violated, only if it would be violated. All of the emergencies would violate the rule, but that would also be the correct course of action.
I know that this is getting into the semantics of the rule and that is kinda the point of this thought exercise, but pretty much every legislation out there has rules about emergency vehicles basically overriding rules like this in an actual emergency.
They specifically say not to take rules like that into account when answering the questions.
And this proves just how difficult it is to just have a simple set of rules for internet content, and then everyone would agree and everything would be fine.
Even when the rules are explicitly telling you to ignore your sense of moral right or wrong, your local rules that some vehicles are allowed in park spaces, or even religious rules regarding the issue...
People will still disagree on what is the right or wrong answer.
Very interesting experiment!
I thought I was taking this into account, but thinking about your comment highlighted an inconsistency in my answers.
When considering the police car and ambulance, I felt that I was following the spirit of the rule in saying that they did not violate the rule. I generally have a view that rules exist for a reason, and it’s worth understanding the reason to properly apply the rule. (I loved learning about Chesterton’s fence.) If the point was to keep vehicles from bothering the other park users, emergency vehicles are an obvious exception what nevertheless keep the spirit of the rule, because they should only be entering for the specific benefit of a park user.⁰
On the other hand, I was stricter about the letter of the rule for other scenarios. I judged a quadcopter, though it might be detrimental to other park users and therefore against the spirit of the “no vehicles” rule, was not in violation of the rule because it wasn’t enough of a vehicle. I reasoned that if the park wanted to exclude drones, that would need a separate rule than “no vehicles”.
I guess I view the spirit of the rule as allowing for exceptions to the letter of the rule, but the spirit of the rule cannot be used to allow expansion beyond the letter of the rule.
⁰On the other hand, perhaps there was a different reason for the rule. Perhaps the ground can’t support heavy vehicles and they’d get stuck. So an ambulance wouldn’t be allowed at all (and emergencies would need some other form of transport).
The real question is, was the tank brought in using any sort of vehicles? They can't do that, it's against the rules!
I counted the quadcopter but not the parachute because of the level of control one has over the copter. For instance, with a camera you can have controlled transport of a video feed to different locations for you to watch, ergo via that transport it is a vehicle even if it only moves itself.
One of the interesting questions is whether or not humans count as vehicles. For people who answered no on the horse question, they could be consistent, but would one person carrying another via piggyback be counted as violating the rule?
I didn't include anything like the quad copter or plane or OSS because of the wording of the description. They all said "over the park", which means they weren't, by the question's definition, in the park. Had they said "in the sky at the park", or "x feet/miles in the air at the park" my answers would have been different.
I also got 11%, but I said the tank was technically a vehicle (even if it isn’t able to be used as one).
I think I boiled it down to a vehicle roughly being something that can be ridden that is motor powered (I would’ve said human-powered but I got to the horse question and decided that I don’t think a horse is a vehicle - so this answer is post-taking the “quiz”).
I feel like a rowboat I could go either way on, but I’m not sure why I consider that different than something like a skateboard or a wagon.
I ended up at Car, Police, Ambulance, and Memorial as vehicles - and nothing else.
Either way, fun thought experiment- thanks for posting it @ispotato.
I got 85%.
I began by looking up the definition of 'vehicle', and found that it is
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicle
I then chose to interpret "in the park" as meaning in the park, so it had to be within an area no higher than the general height of park trees. Flying above that height would mean it is not in the park, but above it.
I mis-clicked and chose vehicle for the wheelchair, but according to the definition I found, it isn't a scooter/self-propelled thingy-for-transportation, so I would say that was not actually a vehicle.
11% here too. It all seemed obvious to me, even tanks and horses. Maybe I'm too chilled to moderate!
Luckily I jumped straight in before reading comments so was very interesting reading the "why?"
To me nothing of this was difficult to answer since they all lack context. I apparently only agree with 11% though, having only marked the car (duh), the bicycle (is not allowed here in parks generally) and the quadcopter (again, usually not allowed, so easy to toss out).
The rest? All okay. Especially the emergency responses are by-low okay to drive in there.
At the start, the author clearly states that you don't have to take into account possible place- or culture-specific laws or regulations.
So there's only two things to consider:
According to these definitions, I've only allowed the paper plane, toy car (the very small Matchbox type car), and the kite as they can't transport much. (Some excessive leniency, I know.)
A horse is not a device. So it's excused also.
A plane and the ISS don't enter the park.
All else were denied entrance (by shouting at them from a megaphone on an ivory tower in the middle of, and almost as high as, the park).
I do get the gist of this exercise though. By reading through the comments it's perfectly clear (even though we all have a score of 11%) we have different interpretations of rules and definitions. As such, moderating
onlinecommunities needs a more fluid approach to rules and definitions and a degree of leniency to make up for miscommunication.I disagree with that definition of a vehicle (I didn't look up an exact definition before playing). My personal definition of a vehicle was more along the lines of:
I also basically avoided any aircraft related dilemmas, because there is no way the park would have infinite airway (spaceway?) rights all the way to the edge of the known universe. For drones usually the maximum legal height around population centers is around 400 ft above ground level, meaning anything above that is for more professional aircraft.
I also went easy on emergency vehicles, because rules are
dumbmeant to be broken I guess?I also got 11% like everyone else here. Weird.
It's really fascinating seeing everyone's different interpretations of the one simple rule. It didn't occur to me that some people wouldn't even consider a rowboat to be a vehicle. To my mind, the majority of these were vehicles. It got interesting trying to sus out the difference between a bicycle (inarguably a vehicle in my opinion), and a wheelchair (a mobility aid? But, so is the bicycle...).
And then there's the person carrying the skateboard, which is also a vehicle in my opinion. Common sense says if they aren't riding the skateboard, they're fine, but the rule is clear and simple–it doesn't say the use of vehicles isn't allowed in the park, it says no vehicles are allowed. This really does demonstrate the point the developer was making–as simple as you can make a rule, people will always be able to interpret it differently, different moderators will apply rules to different degrees, and there'll always be situations where I kick you out of my park for having a vehicle that, to you, isn't a vehicle.
Yeah, I think the key issue is the definition of a vehicle. If you define it as vaguely as "something that moves things", then the park is breaking its own rule.... because the Earth is moving through the universe, and any time a visitor is in the park, the park has "passengers" that it is moving through space.
Alternatively, if the park is privately owned and seen as an investment....Doesn't that make it a financial vehicle?
:/
I posted a full length answer of my own somewhere else, but I essentially just started by looking up the definition of 'vehicle' in the English Wikipedia.
According to that definition, mobility scooters would be classified as a vehicle. So I interpreted that as a self-propelled device made to transport a human. Unlike a stroller for a baby that a parent is pushing, or a wheelchair without any motors. Although there is a small point to be made for how a stroller is created solely for the purpose of transporting children and small amounts of goods.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicle
It seems like there is a clear divide between people choosing to intuit what might be a vehicle (a toy car is a kind of "car"), and those that tend towards using an objective definition.
It also seems like a clear divide between people that chose with their compassion, and those that strictly followed the objective definition.
I think it's really interesting how many people know/used an actual definition to define 'vehicle' - yet used their compassion and common sense to go against the very clear instructions to begin with.
I got 93%, with my choices being car, police, ambulance, quadcopter, and horse.
My approach was with regards to the spirit of the rule: why are vehicles excluded? A vehicle would typically be banned from a park for being disruptive: loudness, obstruction, danger. The particulars of whether they're engine-powered or can transport things seem wholly irrelevant to the purpose of the rule.
I found it very surprising how many people consider the decommissioned tank a violation of the rule over things like bikes and skateboards, which are infinitely more disruptive to people trying to enjoy a park.
Update: The page has been fixed, so this comment is now more an attempt at explaining past confusion than accurate analysis of the site's mechanics.
This is very irrelevant to the actual quiz content, but hopefully I can answer some questions about the results.
I took the quiz a couple dozen times to try to figure out why everyone's getting 11%, and here is what I think is going on:
Since there are currently 3 "consensus vehicles" (car, ambulence, police car), if you answered all questions, this gives 3/27 = 11.1111...% ≈ 11%.
Combined with 2, this leads me to believe that the graph was supposed to show the proportion of people who agreed with your answer on that particular question. For some reason it didn't, leading to the confusing framing of the results.
I got 85%, but I also very strictly followed the definition of vehicle I found on Wikipedia, and also took into account that in the park would mean only up to a certain height. So a toy car or a quadcopter (drone, not transportation device) was not a vehicle despite looking like their bigger sized versions that do transport people and goods.
Oh, they fixed the page.
My top level comment was more of an artifact of everyone mentioning the 11% figure than my own thoughts on the experience.
During my actual interaction with the survey I was using a similar sort of squishy definition that most people were taking about here, which I would roughly summarize as "a motorized or otherwise technological means of transportation that is disrupting the normal activities of the park" (I think it was agreeing with the majority 89% of the time? I also misread one question as "piloting an airliner through the park rather than over it) and I thought it was interesting the way that even minimal context (it sounds like this is a rule meant to protect park peace) would shape a definition.
I think even if we wanted to hammer down a strict technical definition you would still run into Sorites Paradox type issues like "a drone flying 502 feet above the park is outside it but a drone flying 499 feet above it is inside" due to how we must draw an arbitrary line that some people will necessarily (and probably rightly) disagree with. Without seeing the definition myself, it sounds like your definition was close to what most people imagine when they see "no vehicles in the park" so it's likely pretty reasonable, but you could imagine people arguing and rules-lawyering about stuff like that.
I also got 11%? I would assume this is either a bug or some bias. I can't imagine some sinister intention that wouldn't immediately be recognized.
The demonstration is deeply flawed because it always says 11%. This would only be an interesting exercise if most people disagreed with each other but there's no way to tell because it's not actually working.
I just got 29%, so not always. Though I only did the first 7.
really interesting thought experiment.
I think a key takeaway is that rules don't exist in a vacuum. rules always have a goal they're trying to achieve. and it's nonsensical to try to enforce the rule on its own, you have to look at it in context of the goal.
in the case of "no vehicles in the park", the goal of the rule is something like "the park is for multiple people to enjoy at once, driving a vehicle like a car or motorcycle into the park detracts from that, so it's not allowed"
in the classic form of this example, someone has a heart attack in the park, and an ambulance drives in to render aid. the ambulance is violating the letter of the rule, but upholding its spirit - making sure that person can receive prompt medical attention advances the goal that everyone can enjoy the park.
in the content moderation context, looking at rules in a vacuum, disconnected from the goal they have, often leads to "rules lawyering" and nitpicking.
for example, some hypothetical reddit-like forum has a problem with people posting excessive pictures of their cats. so the moderators impose a "no more than one picture of your cat, per day" rule. some enterprising user writes a script that posts a random picture of their cat, exactly 24 hours apart. the moderators ban that user. the user responds, outraged, that they were complying exactly with the rules, so why were they banned?
the goal was "don't flood the forum with pointless cat pictures", and the 24 hour limit was just a rule of thumb the moderators came up with, not an exact limit. a different user might be training their cat to do tricks, and posting daily updates. both users, on the surface, are walking right up to the line that the rule defines. but one user gets banned, and the other doesn't. it seems "unfair" and like selective enforcement of the rules, but only if you ignore the context of the posts.
for some of the ambiguous or controversial questions in this little quiz, the part that's missing is always the broader context. that WW2 tank is clearly a vehicle, should it be banned? well, did the people who operate the park authorize it as part of a historical monument? if they did, clearly they decided the monument contributes to everyone enjoying the park, so it makes sense that it's exempted.
on the other hand, did they set up a generic WW2 monument, and John Q. Historybuff decided he could improve the monument by parking his privately-owned tank next to it for everyone to admire? yeah, that's not allowed. when the park operators tell him to remove his tank, they may cite the "no vehicles" rule, or perhaps a general prohibition against littering. neither of those rules were specifically written with this scenario in mind - because no one thought to write a "no ad-hoc additions to our WW2 monument" rule. (and if that rule did exist, would I be violating it if I leave flowers at the monument on Memorial Day?)
one of the things I've liked about Tildes, from the very beginning, is that this rule/goal dichotomy is made explicit:
the site, like the park, is for multiple people to enjoy. there are specific rules about that, but the general goal of all of them is "don't do shit that detracts from other people enjoying it".
I too think there's something odd with the percentage reading, having also gotten 11% despite saying the only thing that broke the rules was the car.
I'm not sure what my 11% means. I basically only said no on ones that were in airspace well above the park like the ISS.
I tried it again, answering yes to every question, then no to every question, then alternating yes and no for each question. It said I agreed with 11% every time. So... yeah. Not quite sure how to interpret that.
The general idea at the end is interesting to think about. Ultimately content moderation can have rules that offer guidelines, but they're more or less going to come down to "this is my space and I want/don't want that content here." In plenty of spaces, (noticed especially on Reddit but in other places too) I can think of lots of instances where what seemed like clear rule breaking content was allowed because the moderators liked it, or content that seemed to be well within the stated rules were removed because the moderators didn't like it.
Here we've got two questions: What counts as a "vehicle?" and what counts as "in the park?" Starting the train of thought of trying to answer those can lead to some Diogenes-like "gotcha" moments. For example: we should specifically allow wheelchairs, obviously. Cut to teenagers riding wheelchairs by standing in them like they're surfing. Okay, we should allow wheelchairs for anyone that needs them. Cut to someone using a wheelchair to carry picnic supplies in by pushing it from behind. Okay, anyone who has a disability or injury of some kind that impairs their walking can have a wheelchair in the park. Okay, how are you going to check and make sure of that? Etc. etc.
I marked even the emergency vehicle responses as violating the rule because it's a simple rule and there were no specified exceptions. I think I counted the wheelchair as a vehicle because you ride on it and it's not attached to your body in the same way an article of clothing would be. Whether the rules demand exceptions is one thing, but it is interesting to see how those value judgements affect how people respond, if not by the rule itself then by what they think the rule should mean. Understanding the spirit of a rule is one of the most important parts of enforcing it "as intended" and we're pretty deliberately not given that context to run the social experiment.
Like, I agree that someone shouldn't be parachuting through the park but I didn't count it as a vehicle because, if the person is falling anyways, then the parachute is just more of a means to control that fall than a means of getting around in and of itself. Now that I think about it though, if, say, the park had a mountain with an updraft and people parachuted to intentionally ride that updraft and stay in the air, then my answer changes to yes for some reason.
This is pretty much my go-to when moderating. After thinking about what rules the content may or may not break, I say "is this something that I want other people in my community to engage with? Is this valuable input? Does this content make the community better?"
And I think that's really what it boils down to. It's a lot of nuance and will vary from mod to mod.
Another 11%? I think that's just a token statistic that doesn't mean anything.
I decided to assiduously answer every single question, and, along the way, I found myself forced to come up with a definition of "vehicles" to be able to determine whether each example provided was or was not a vehicle. At first I did this intuitively, without really thinking about it. Then I did it more consciously. Then, as the game presented me with more variations of possible vehicles, I realised that my practical definition of "vehicle" didn't quite match the dictionary definition of a "vehicle" - and then I decided to be consistently wrong, because consistency is more important as a moderator or enforcer of rules than correctness.
That was quite an interesting exercise.
It reinforces some discussions I've had about moderating and rules - that you can never really write a rule that covers all contingencies, and you just have to wing it sometimes. And this gives some rules-lawyering pedant the opening to say "but my post doesn't literally break the rule", and then you have to somehow explain this concept about unspoken interpretations of rules, which never works because it's never in the argumentative pedant's interest to you agree with you about why their post was removed.
I think what this is missing is a reason for the rule. While a machine probably can't connect violations of a rule to the purpose behind it most people can. If the no vehicles rule exists because the property owners want to keep pedestrians safe from collision injury then the judgements will be far different than if the rule exists to stop a local dog from attacking everyone because it goes ballistic at seeing anything resembling a vehicle.
That's just it though. Lots of people don't tend to think too deeply past their own gut reaction to things, and the author's explanation that this came from wanting to experiment with the "just have a few, simple rules and everyone will agree" was interesting.
I think they nailed the framing of it as a very basic, no-context set of rules. Is it a vehicle, what do people consider to be vehicles? Is it in the park, what do people consider to be within park boundaries?
And even then, with a word that has clear definitions you can find in a dictionary, and with a preposition outlining the area to be considered "the park" - people will see more nuance. Right down to willfully breaking the rules because emergency vehicles should be allowed in a park. Rules be damned.
Another 11%er here. Maybe the game hasn’t received enough responses yet to crunch the data.
The scenario, like moderation, has nuance. It’s not black or white, good moderators have to be able to operate in the grey area and use their own best judgement. It’s why auto-moderation systems are criticized unless they have a real person in the loop, too many false positives.
I thought the further discussion at Hacker News was also quite interesting.
I've never been a moderator and I thought the exercise was intriging. Personally, I excluded anything motorized, including the quadcopter but not the airplane as I figured that was too high to worry about. I didn't see a wheelchair as a vehicle for this purpose, but I did enforce the rule against emergency vehicles.
It's too bad that the statistics are buggy, but overall, nice thought experiment.
I saw this posted on Hacker News and it got a big response but I don't think it says anything particularly interesting. As a society, we already know the rule systems for shaping societal behavior are brittle. Just look at legal systems; a large part of law is the interpretation of rules and events by judges, lawyers, and a jury.
Putting up a sign at a park that says "no vehicles allowed inside of the park" is a perfectly fine idea as most people will understand that a vehicle is a motorized construct and that the rule is meant to prevent people from driving their Pintos onto the grass of the park.
And, sure, there will be outliers where there are people who don't understand the culture of the majority, don't have a firm graps of the language that the sign is written in, or just aren't very bright and they'll run afoul of the rules. That's fine. They can either be informed or suffer minor consequences.
This is why forums have moderators. They exist to interpret the rules and act accordingly - with hopefully nuance and understanding. On that note, I'm really interested in Tildes response of removing moderators eventually in favor of giving pseudo-moderator power to active, reliable users.
As others suggest, try the quiz before reading here.
And yes you are the 11%.
Spoilers follow ...
I've seen much discussion (here and at Hacker News) of what a vehicle is, and some of what is "in" the park.
I've not yet seen (though not yet reading all 1197 + 35 extant comments) discussion of the goal and/or purpose of the rule.
Considering the discussion on Hacker News and my growing obsession with what makes that site tick (and occasionally sends it off the rails), contrast with HN's "real standard": "to engage one's intellectual curiosity" (http://www.paulgraham.com/hackernews.html).
HN's somewhat famously brief and loose guidelines (https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html) augmented by dang's moderation comments (viewable via search) provide much of that.
And, in fact, reading those search results just now turned up a ... interesting, now deleted ... response by dang on this thread which explains the "intended spirit" nature of HN moderation. I'm not going to quote the full item (respecting the deletion), but this bit seems to echo my concept here:
In the case of laws, the purpose or intent is often explicitly stated. In US tradition, the "whereas" clauses typically preceding the main body of legislation.
And for this game, the posted rule would benefit greatly by a clarification as to why it was enacte_d an_d what the rule is intended to accomplish. This would also clarify, even without specifically enumerating classes of vehicles or conveyances, and/or proximity to the park which specific cases might be permitted or excluded.
I found the explanation at the end to be clear and consise. A good explanation for the why of the rules for this game. The author wanted to challenge the statements people make about only needing a few good rules for online spaces, and then everything will be fine.
There will never be just a few rules that 100% of people will agree on 100% of the time.
Without more context, it's even worse. Even with more context, people see things differently. But context is key, and better context will make more people agree. So people claiming that "just slap a couple of simple rules on it, and call it a day" is missing the point you're making here. You also need to know why you want to implement the rules, and other people also have to know why.
Like how I think almost anyone would agree that emergency services should be allowed in the park under special circumstances. Because that is not just disrupting the space and causing danger for individual convenience.
I think most of us could agree that in a real world situation, parks are spaces to enjoy that can still accomodate vehicles for different reasons. Bicycling along? Please, just use your bell before you pass others (a pet peeve of mine, so many don't!). Someone almost dying? Houses burning down? Park is significantly faster to go through than around? Emergency services, go right ahead! Safety demonstrations that need ample space (water in burning oil for example), public appearances to foster better connection with the community? Come one, come all!
Also an 11%er. Either the game is comparing results against a static dataset instead of including our decisions in the dataset or it's bugged.
Potential bug aside, I appreciate this view into the difficulties of moderation.
Discussion on HN: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36453856
"Ohhh moderation is so hard"
Just don't be an asshole.