9 ms·

But if you look at the graph of response sets it clearly isn’t “common sense.” Most people don’t agree and don’t come close to agreeing and, as Dan says, this i

by whakim 3y ago

But if you look at the graph of response sets it clearly isn’t “common sense.” Most people don’t agree and don’t come close to agreeing and, as Dan says, this is a fairly trivial example which doesn’t delve into corner cases.

lukan 3y ago
My takeaway is, the rule was just bad defined. If you define crystal clear rules, things are different. And they usually are much clearer defined: - no cars - no drones - no noise (emergency cars allways gets an exception) The tank example was not clear whether they just put it there because they wanted to, or because they had permission. So yes, when you have unclear rules, you get Drama. So of course there remain corner cases. But they can be the exception and not the norm. I do remember some fallout for example when at corona times a police car with high speed chased a teenager through a park for not wearing a mask - nope, this was not an emergency, justifying annoying and endangering normal people in the park. But usually this does not happen.
- sangnoir 3y ago
  > My takeaway is, the rule was just bad defined To reflect real life: there is a reason why rules aren't specific and allow for judgement calls. Your clearer rules for instance, allows for manned flying vehicles like helicopters.
  - lukan 3y ago
    - no noise Also you don't have to specify rules that are covered by general law. In most states it is illegal anyway, to fly low altitude with helicopters over populated areas for fun.
    - Arainach 3y ago
      Talk about a poorly defined rule. Cell phone goes off? Straight to jail. Your child asks a question and you answer? Straight to jail. Shoes squeak on the pavement? Believe it or not, also straight to jail. Rattling wheel on your stroller? Still jail.
      - lukan 3y ago
        I think this is the most pedantic discussion I ever participated in. Rules for a park do not involve jail time, but leaving the park for offenders. And if it is a park excplicitely of seniors sensitive to noise, then yes - low decibel rules apply. If it is a common park, then obviously no. All that can be specified if necessary.
        sangnoir 3y ago
        > I think this is the most pedantic discussion I ever participated That's the point of the "No vehicles in the park" game! People interpret rules differently - some skew pedantic, others are more "spirit of the law" types, but to varying extents - which is why for any 2 random people, the chances of agreeing on 100% of scenarios is vastly less than 50%
    - sangnoir 3y ago
      > - no noise ...and we're back in subjective territory: how many dBs would count as "noise"? Even under your additional no-noise rule, electric autogyros would be allowed at the park, which is not populated if it's of the national-park-service persuasion)
- whakim 3y ago
  But you’re just moving the goalposts. According to your rules, a toy car should be banned. Should we define in excruciating detail what a car is? Should we define an exact decibel level at which the noise threshold kicks in? People will always argue about what constitutes a rule violation - for example, you don’t believe that the police car should have been allowed to chase a teenager for failing to wear a mask, but I’m sure there’s plenty of people who disagree. Should we define “emergency” to the nth degree? Does the park need a 13-volume rulebook?
  - lukan 3y ago
    "Should we define an exact decibel level at which the noise threshold kicks in?" Possible, but usually not necessary. With noise, any unnecessary noise is meant. If a baby cries that is hard to prevent, but the parent will still try. If some hooligans howling around - that should not happen. "According to your rules, a toy car should be banned" My rules would - like usually - contain a symbol as well, making it clear with "car" a real "car" is meant. And toy cars that do produce loud noise - yes, I would ban those. They can be really annoying. It depends what kind of park it should be. There are parks, where even playing kids are not wanted. (fancy castle parks) In a city park, it depends on what the people want - and yes, you can have text under the park rule sign, which is how I know it. Usually the guidline should be common sense and not disturbing others - but for those cases where people disagree - then you can refer to the rules.
    - whakim 3y ago
      As long as you’re appealing to “common sense” at any level then people will disagree. 1 in 10 people think piloting a commercial airliner over the park violates a “no vehicles in the park” rule, which seems crazy to me but obviously logical to others.
      - lukan 3y ago
        "but for those cases where people disagree - then you can refer to the rules."
- glitchc 3y ago
  Just picking up on the tank example, I said no since the tank would need a motor vehicle to get there.
- Delk 3y ago
  "No noise" is certainly not clear-cut. It may seem that way from any subjective perspective of what counts as noise, and it can seem so obviously right, but it's certainly not objective or universal. Which, I believe, is part of the point of the post. Apart from that, let me give a real-world example of how clear-cut things become not so clear-cut, from a legal or rules point of view. Where I live, vehicles and other means of traffic used to be clearly divided into categories: - Cars are, well, cars - A motorcycle is a motorized two-wheeled vehicle with an engine displacement greater than 50 cubic centimetres or with a maximum speed of more than 45 km/h - A moped is a motorized two-wheeled vehicle with both engine displacement and maximum speed less than above. (It's still a motorized vehicle but the legislation is somewhat laxer in parts due to lower power and speed.) - A bicycle is a non-motorized, human-powered vehicle with at least two wheels - Roller skates, skateboards, kick scooters etc. are not considered vehicles, so any person travelling on them is considered a pedestrian. There may have been some other categories but you get the general idea. Cars and motorcycles aren't allowed on bike paths. That would also include parks. Mopeds may be allowed on bike paths by an explicit sign, although you aren't likely to see one on a park path. Then someone comes up with the electric bicycle. Since the bicycle is defined as non-motorized, and an electric bike clearly has a motor, does it count as a bicycle or a moped? Is it allowed on bike paths? Or in parks? It's not entirely an academic matter of definitions either. An e-bike running 30 or 35 km/h may not be fast enough to ride on the street among car traffic, and most people probably wouldn't be comfortable riding one there. Also, it's slow enough that most car drivers probably wouldn't want those in the street. But in addition to being motorized by definition, such an e-bike might also be practically kind of fast for urban bicycle paths. People on bicycle paths started feeling uncomfortable with e-bikes zooming by, not to mention pedestrians on shared pedestrian/bike paths. So, where do e-bikes belong? Where are they allowed? And once you've solved that one way or another, someone comes up with the electric scooter. Their speed may also vary from somewhat faster than walking speed to something resembling fast e-bikes. Is the person riding one a pedestrian? A bicyclist, similarly to e-bikes? Is the vehicle a moped instead? Should you be allowed to ride an electric scooter going 30 km/h in a park? One with a maximum speed of 25 km/h? If not, what about the lycra-wearing dude on a bike going upwards of 30 km/h? If all of the above are allowed, why aren't mopeds or motorbikes if they stick to riding no more than 30 km/h? Because of the noise? What if they're electric? And this is while still staying reasonably objective. If the electric bicyclist or scooter rider is disallowed from parks or bike paths but a road cyclist going over 30 km/h is allowed, in some significant number of people that's going to spark a sense of unfairness. If their views aren't heard, that can lead to resentment. Some of the people who don't care for any two-wheeled vehicles and who just want to enjoy a stroll don't want to be scared by anyone going too fast. What should or shouldn't be allowed, or indeed what's reasonable and what isn't, definitely isn't clear-cut in a sense that people in general can agree on. Forum or social media moderation is certainly going to be a lot more up to interpretation than that depending on people's values, personal experiences, context, etc.
noqc 3y ago
What don't they agree on? They don't agree that you should take a common sense approach to moderation, provided that you are actually doing the job of moderation? Or they don't agree that those were the instructions of the "no vehciles in the park game"? If the game has instructed you to "pretend you are an enforcement official, and your only official guidance is this sign, understand that the purpose of this rule is to keep the park safe, but you might get reprimanded if you kick someone out of the park and you can't convince a jury that they were breaking this rule". This would probably be sufficient context to get everyone to agree that none of the examples given were examples. It seems like a lot of caveats, but most of these are implicit if you're an officer, which is a fair context to apply to moderators.
- whakim 3y ago
  If more than 1 in 10 people think that a commercial airliner flying an airplane over the park constitutes a "vehicle in the park" (which I think is ridiculous but apparently plenty of other folks don't!) I'm not sure how you can logically conclude that anyone would come close to agreeing even given your modified set of instructions.
  - noqc 3y ago
    Suppose I ask you to play the game as an extremely petty and literal dictator, whose goal is to give as many citations as possible, any tenuous justification will do. Can you find a justification for giving that airliner a ticket? Since that parameter of the game is completely unspecified, it's at least among the explanations for why someone might have answered that way. I haven't logically concluded anything except that the experiment does a terible job of being an experiment.
    - whakim 3y ago
      Sure. But you're just moving the goalposts from "what counts as a vehicle in the park" to "what counts as a vehicle in the park using even the most tenuous logic you could imagine." And I'm sure people could disagree about that, too - does the logic contain even a kernel of truth, or is it totally specious? The game simply shows that whenever you make a rule that requires any level of judgment whatsoever, what seems like "common sense" to one person may seem ludicrous to another.

by whakim 3y ago

lukan 3y ago

My takeaway is, the rule was just bad defined. If you define crystal clear rules, things are different. And they usually are much clearer defined: - no cars - no drones - no noise (emergency cars allways gets an exception) The tank example was not clear whether they just put it there because they wanted to, or because they had permission. So yes, when you have unclear rules, you get Drama. So of course there remain corner cases. But they can be the exception and not the norm. I do remember some fallout for example when at corona times a police car with high speed chased a teenager through a park for not wearing a mask - nope, this was not an emergency, justifying annoying and endangering normal people in the park. But usually this does not happen.

sangnoir 3y ago
> My takeaway is, the rule was just bad defined To reflect real life: there is a reason why rules aren't specific and allow for judgement calls. Your clearer rules for instance, allows for manned flying vehicles like helicopters.
- lukan 3y ago
  - no noise Also you don't have to specify rules that are covered by general law. In most states it is illegal anyway, to fly low altitude with helicopters over populated areas for fun.
  - Arainach 3y ago
    Talk about a poorly defined rule. Cell phone goes off? Straight to jail. Your child asks a question and you answer? Straight to jail. Shoes squeak on the pavement? Believe it or not, also straight to jail. Rattling wheel on your stroller? Still jail.
    - lukan 3y ago
      I think this is the most pedantic discussion I ever participated in. Rules for a park do not involve jail time, but leaving the park for offenders. And if it is a park excplicitely of seniors sensitive to noise, then yes - low decibel rules apply. If it is a common park, then obviously no. All that can be specified if necessary.
      - sangnoir 3y ago
        > I think this is the most pedantic discussion I ever participated That's the point of the "No vehicles in the park" game! People interpret rules differently - some skew pedantic, others are more "spirit of the law" types, but to varying extents - which is why for any 2 random people, the chances of agreeing on 100% of scenarios is vastly less than 50%
  - sangnoir 3y ago
    > - no noise ...and we're back in subjective territory: how many dBs would count as "noise"? Even under your additional no-noise rule, electric autogyros would be allowed at the park, which is not populated if it's of the national-park-service persuasion)
whakim 3y ago
But you’re just moving the goalposts. According to your rules, a toy car should be banned. Should we define in excruciating detail what a car is? Should we define an exact decibel level at which the noise threshold kicks in? People will always argue about what constitutes a rule violation - for example, you don’t believe that the police car should have been allowed to chase a teenager for failing to wear a mask, but I’m sure there’s plenty of people who disagree. Should we define “emergency” to the nth degree? Does the park need a 13-volume rulebook?
- lukan 3y ago
  "Should we define an exact decibel level at which the noise threshold kicks in?" Possible, but usually not necessary. With noise, any unnecessary noise is meant. If a baby cries that is hard to prevent, but the parent will still try. If some hooligans howling around - that should not happen. "According to your rules, a toy car should be banned" My rules would - like usually - contain a symbol as well, making it clear with "car" a real "car" is meant. And toy cars that do produce loud noise - yes, I would ban those. They can be really annoying. It depends what kind of park it should be. There are parks, where even playing kids are not wanted. (fancy castle parks) In a city park, it depends on what the people want - and yes, you can have text under the park rule sign, which is how I know it. Usually the guidline should be common sense and not disturbing others - but for those cases where people disagree - then you can refer to the rules.
  - whakim 3y ago
    As long as you’re appealing to “common sense” at any level then people will disagree. 1 in 10 people think piloting a commercial airliner over the park violates a “no vehicles in the park” rule, which seems crazy to me but obviously logical to others.
    - lukan 3y ago
      "but for those cases where people disagree - then you can refer to the rules."
glitchc 3y ago
Just picking up on the tank example, I said no since the tank would need a motor vehicle to get there.
Delk 3y ago
"No noise" is certainly not clear-cut. It may seem that way from any subjective perspective of what counts as noise, and it can seem so obviously right, but it's certainly not objective or universal. Which, I believe, is part of the point of the post. Apart from that, let me give a real-world example of how clear-cut things become not so clear-cut, from a legal or rules point of view. Where I live, vehicles and other means of traffic used to be clearly divided into categories: - Cars are, well, cars - A motorcycle is a motorized two-wheeled vehicle with an engine displacement greater than 50 cubic centimetres or with a maximum speed of more than 45 km/h - A moped is a motorized two-wheeled vehicle with both engine displacement and maximum speed less than above. (It's still a motorized vehicle but the legislation is somewhat laxer in parts due to lower power and speed.) - A bicycle is a non-motorized, human-powered vehicle with at least two wheels - Roller skates, skateboards, kick scooters etc. are not considered vehicles, so any person travelling on them is considered a pedestrian. There may have been some other categories but you get the general idea. Cars and motorcycles aren't allowed on bike paths. That would also include parks. Mopeds may be allowed on bike paths by an explicit sign, although you aren't likely to see one on a park path. Then someone comes up with the electric bicycle. Since the bicycle is defined as non-motorized, and an electric bike clearly has a motor, does it count as a bicycle or a moped? Is it allowed on bike paths? Or in parks? It's not entirely an academic matter of definitions either. An e-bike running 30 or 35 km/h may not be fast enough to ride on the street among car traffic, and most people probably wouldn't be comfortable riding one there. Also, it's slow enough that most car drivers probably wouldn't want those in the street. But in addition to being motorized by definition, such an e-bike might also be practically kind of fast for urban bicycle paths. People on bicycle paths started feeling uncomfortable with e-bikes zooming by, not to mention pedestrians on shared pedestrian/bike paths. So, where do e-bikes belong? Where are they allowed? And once you've solved that one way or another, someone comes up with the electric scooter. Their speed may also vary from somewhat faster than walking speed to something resembling fast e-bikes. Is the person riding one a pedestrian? A bicyclist, similarly to e-bikes? Is the vehicle a moped instead? Should you be allowed to ride an electric scooter going 30 km/h in a park? One with a maximum speed of 25 km/h? If not, what about the lycra-wearing dude on a bike going upwards of 30 km/h? If all of the above are allowed, why aren't mopeds or motorbikes if they stick to riding no more than 30 km/h? Because of the noise? What if they're electric? And this is while still staying reasonably objective. If the electric bicyclist or scooter rider is disallowed from parks or bike paths but a road cyclist going over 30 km/h is allowed, in some significant number of people that's going to spark a sense of unfairness. If their views aren't heard, that can lead to resentment. Some of the people who don't care for any two-wheeled vehicles and who just want to enjoy a stroll don't want to be scared by anyone going too fast. What should or shouldn't be allowed, or indeed what's reasonable and what isn't, definitely isn't clear-cut in a sense that people in general can agree on. Forum or social media moderation is certainly going to be a lot more up to interpretation than that depending on people's values, personal experiences, context, etc.

noqc 3y ago

What don't they agree on? They don't agree that you should take a common sense approach to moderation, provided that you are actually doing the job of moderation? Or they don't agree that those were the instructions of the "no vehciles in the park game"? If the game has instructed you to "pretend you are an enforcement official, and your only official guidance is this sign, understand that the purpose of this rule is to keep the park safe, but you might get reprimanded if you kick someone out of the park and you can't convince a jury that they were breaking this rule". This would probably be sufficient context to get everyone to agree that none of the examples given were examples. It seems like a lot of caveats, but most of these are implicit if you're an officer, which is a fair context to apply to moderators.

whakim 3y ago
If more than 1 in 10 people think that a commercial airliner flying an airplane over the park constitutes a "vehicle in the park" (which I think is ridiculous but apparently plenty of other folks don't!) I'm not sure how you can logically conclude that anyone would come close to agreeing even given your modified set of instructions.
- noqc 3y ago
  Suppose I ask you to play the game as an extremely petty and literal dictator, whose goal is to give as many citations as possible, any tenuous justification will do. Can you find a justification for giving that airliner a ticket? Since that parameter of the game is completely unspecified, it's at least among the explanations for why someone might have answered that way. I haven't logically concluded anything except that the experiment does a terible job of being an experiment.
  - whakim 3y ago
    Sure. But you're just moving the goalposts from "what counts as a vehicle in the park" to "what counts as a vehicle in the park using even the most tenuous logic you could imagine." And I'm sure people could disagree about that, too - does the logic contain even a kernel of truth, or is it totally specious? The game simply shows that whenever you make a rule that requires any level of judgment whatsoever, what seems like "common sense" to one person may seem ludicrous to another.