3 ms·
It's exactly the point of the exercise. Whether something is a vehicle and whether said thing is "in" the park are both separate dimensions of logic that each i
by ssnistfajen 3y ago
It's exactly the point of the exercise. Whether something is a vehicle and whether said thing is "in" the park are both separate dimensions of logic that each individual applies differently towards their decision making. This is exactly why content moderation has trouble to stay consistent and rarely pleases everyone, because so many nuances from non-intersecting aspects of logic/context/culture/opinions are forced to consolidate into a binary choice (violation vs. non-violation).
- flaminHotSpeedo 3y agoNo, you missed the point entirely. The question was whether the scenario is a violation but the answers were not labeled accordingly. For an exercise that is, by it's own admission, pedantic by design that's a pretty glaring fault
- ssnistfajen 3y agoTell me you've never done (or thought about) content moderation without telling me you've never done or thought about content moderation. Rules are pedantic by their nature, that's the whole point of interpreting them.
- flaminHotSpeedo 3y agoYou've missed the point of my comment too. We all agree that the exercise is pedantic by design, and that the goal of the exercise is to show how much variance there is in interpreting them. The point, that you've missed twice now, is that the results are presented using incorrect language.
- ssnistfajen 3y agoA point that does not exist is a point that's not possible to be missed. It's okay to admit you don't know anything about content moderation, and frankly it's a blessing to not know anything about it. Best of luck.