7 ms·

The presuppositions are what make the question interesting. It's an explicit test of pedantry.

j2kun 3y ago
I think this is the real point: it's not a test of whether people agree on what is allowed, but on how pedantic people are in an abstract setting. I think agreement would be much higher if people were told to evaluate the "spirit" of the rule, and not the "letter" of the rule.
- Dylan16807 3y ago
  Better yet, have them submit two answers for spirit and letter. Because it seems that people will ignore instructions that say to focus on just one.
- krisoft 3y ago
  > I think agreement would be much higher if people were told to evaluate the "spirit" of the rule, and not the "letter" of the rule. I think you are right. I think agreement would be even higher if you would be asking people what should happen as a result of the situation as described. There could be options with increasing level of seriousness. Things like “do nothing”, “send a park officer to ask them to leave, they get a fine if they persist”, “send a cop who asks them to leave and arrest them if they perist”, “send a cop to arrest them without warning”, “order a snipper to headshot them without any warning”. I think asking if something is a violation is too abstract, and people are bad at abstract things. On the other hand when we make it concrete people will be better at expressing what they think should happen and you are more likely to see agreement.
  - Nevermark 3y ago
    Which sheds light on why moderation is hard, given moderation hinges on serious, but in practice necessarily subjectively interpreted, abstractions. I.e. “freedom of speech”, “on topic”, “low quality speech”, “no hate speech”, “no harassment” etc.
- int_19h 3y ago
  Agreement would be much higher if people were asked whether it is okay or not, rather than asking whether it violates the rule or not. Deciding whether it violates the rule can be done in a fairly objective way. Deciding whether circumstances justify violating the rule is where the subjectivity is, but the test says nothing about that.
jodrellblank 3y ago
That’s what made it not interesting, and a better question would be “for each case do you think the police should spend taxpayer money enforcing the rule?”. Not “does this pedantically violate the rule” but “would it be good for society if this case was punished?”, “would it be good for the park?”, “would the effort of punishing it be worth the cost?”. I can’t imagine anyone seriously saying it would be worth the cost of the police trying to move an orbiting space station “out” of the park - the cost would be huge and the return negligible, but peoples views On whether a WWII tank is appropriate for a pedestrianised park are interesting, whereas people saying “yes the tank is a vehicle” are not so interesting.
- anonymouskimmer 3y ago
  This line of thinking presumes that you are the legislator, judge, or police officer. But one can easily approach the questions as to likelihood of being hassled as a park-goer.
  - jodrellblank 3y ago
    I'm not following what you mean by likelihood of being hassled?
    - yukkuri 3y ago
      Other park goers harassing you because they think you violated the rules and they think trying to deride you for it is a good idea. See most "x while black" incidents.
      - jodrellblank 3y ago
        How does that relate to "one can approach the questions as likelihood of being hassled", I don't understand it in this context. "Is a WWII tank/pram/scooter a vehicle in the park?" - those original questions? Or my suggested alternative which was "should the police should intervene*"? Is the commenter they saying that people might answer based on whether they think they would expect to be hassled for doing those things? Or answer whether people doing those things should be hassled by passers-by? Or what?

I think this is the real point: it's not a test of whether people agree on what is allowed, but on how pedantic people are in an abstract setting. I think agreement would be much higher if people were told to evaluate the "spirit" of the rule, and not the "letter" of the rule.

Dylan16807 3y ago
Better yet, have them submit two answers for spirit and letter. Because it seems that people will ignore instructions that say to focus on just one.
krisoft 3y ago
> I think agreement would be much higher if people were told to evaluate the "spirit" of the rule, and not the "letter" of the rule. I think you are right. I think agreement would be even higher if you would be asking people what should happen as a result of the situation as described. There could be options with increasing level of seriousness. Things like “do nothing”, “send a park officer to ask them to leave, they get a fine if they persist”, “send a cop who asks them to leave and arrest them if they perist”, “send a cop to arrest them without warning”, “order a snipper to headshot them without any warning”. I think asking if something is a violation is too abstract, and people are bad at abstract things. On the other hand when we make it concrete people will be better at expressing what they think should happen and you are more likely to see agreement.
- Nevermark 3y ago
  Which sheds light on why moderation is hard, given moderation hinges on serious, but in practice necessarily subjectively interpreted, abstractions. I.e. “freedom of speech”, “on topic”, “low quality speech”, “no hate speech”, “no harassment” etc.
int_19h 3y ago
Agreement would be much higher if people were asked whether it is okay or not, rather than asking whether it violates the rule or not. Deciding whether it violates the rule can be done in a fairly objective way. Deciding whether circumstances justify violating the rule is where the subjectivity is, but the test says nothing about that.

jodrellblank 3y ago

That’s what made it not interesting, and a better question would be “for each case do you think the police should spend taxpayer money enforcing the rule?”. Not “does this pedantically violate the rule” but “would it be good for society if this case was punished?”, “would it be good for the park?”, “would the effort of punishing it be worth the cost?”. I can’t imagine anyone seriously saying it would be worth the cost of the police trying to move an orbiting space station “out” of the park - the cost would be huge and the return negligible, but peoples views On whether a WWII tank is appropriate for a pedestrianised park are interesting, whereas people saying “yes the tank is a vehicle” are not so interesting.

anonymouskimmer 3y ago
This line of thinking presumes that you are the legislator, judge, or police officer. But one can easily approach the questions as to likelihood of being hassled as a park-goer.
- jodrellblank 3y ago
  I'm not following what you mean by likelihood of being hassled?
  - yukkuri 3y ago
    Other park goers harassing you because they think you violated the rules and they think trying to deride you for it is a good idea. See most "x while black" incidents.
    - jodrellblank 3y ago
      How does that relate to "one can approach the questions as likelihood of being hassled", I don't understand it in this context. "Is a WWII tank/pram/scooter a vehicle in the park?" - those original questions? Or my suggested alternative which was "should the police should intervene*"? Is the commenter they saying that people might answer based on whether they think they would expect to be hassled for doing those things? Or answer whether people doing those things should be hassled by passers-by? Or what?