4 ms·

This line of thinking does make me wonder if the path forward might be a system of authority and variable consequences instead of trying to find consensus. Agr

by Verdex 3y ago

This line of thinking does make me wonder if the path forward might be a system of authority and variable consequences instead of trying to find consensus. Agreeing is hard but the ambulance has the authority to ignore rules in the interest of the common good. Similarly skate boarders and mothers with wagons don't have authority to violate rules but because the consequences (hypothetically imagined here) is based on weight then they can violate the rule with relative impunity because such a minor infraction of the rule only endangers them to passing enforcers to say "shame on you" to them. At this point to me it seems the hard point is objectively applying consequences in a moderation setting. I'm not sure how to make a call that someone is being only a little bit of an asshole in anyway that allows an online community to function in a way that is cohesive.

denton-scratch 3y ago
> but the ambulance has the authority to ignore rules But the game isn't about "should the rule be ignored?". That's a different game.
- Verdex 3y ago
  The game is a meta commentary on how moderation is hard. My commentary is an orthogonal commentary on moderation using the game and previous conversation comment as input. Interestingly enough, I realized that my thoughts is just a vague restating on how the criminal justice system is supposed to work (at least in the US). You have laws and then some people are allowed to ignore them and some people ignore them because the consequences aren't sufficient to be problematic to them. Judges and lawyers facilitate and split hairs.