No vehicles in the park

Ordinarily I’m not a fan of posts with a link and no further explanation, but I thought this was interesting and hopefully the reason I’m posting will become clear.

https://novehiclesinthepark.com/

I’ll wait for someone else to click it and tell me what it’s all about.

Wooly rules are easiest to unravel.

Interesting.

Almost immediately had me questions what exactly is a vehicle and what would denote being ‘in the park’

The outcome, there are lots of technically correct answers that might well be wrong.

That’s 3 minutes of my life I won’t get back.

Not nearly as interesting as he thought it was

74% what do I win?

74%

93%. Suck it.

Vaguely interesting. I guess it means 7% of people on the internet are wrong – would’ve figured higher! 😉 Although I also suspect that most people who are wrong would never bother to take the test in the first place, so that probably skews the results somewhat.

93%. Suck it.

Pfft, amateur 95%

Baaaaaaah Baaaaaah

93%, only one “yes” answer, I’m disappointed there was no throttle equipped and chipped e-bike question

70%

30% of you lot are wrong.

Plot twist, if I’m reading the results correctly, its not whether you were right or wrong, your results are what percentage of people agree with your opinion, regardless of actual facts.

93%er as well, pretty easy to guess which one everyone agrees is the rule breaker, bloody astronauts…

Not sure how it translates to content moderation though. I guess if you take the Junkyard position to argue the toss over what constitutes a vehicle or the extent of the park then you could but that just needs a simple “shut up” to nip in the bud. If you allow it, that’s where problems start.

Plot twist, if I’m reading the results correctly, its not whether you were right or wrong, your results are what percentage of people agree with your opinion, regardless of actual facts.

If you have to explain a joke…

67%

I think it’s a good way of explaining why pretty much any contract, however trivial, if full of small print to counteract the argumentative, the chancers or plain daft.

I got 96%.

The point, really, is that simple things aren’t always all that simple.  Moderation on STW often comes under fire from the userbase, which is why I posted it.

Moderation on STW often comes under fire from the userbase

Utter bollox!

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

;-D

I got 52%.

And I kinda cheated as I googled it was using the the following basic definition: “a thing used for transporting people or goods”

I’m pretty sure I got the answers 100% correct apart from maybe one I know I accidentally clicked the wrong answer.

Conclusion: People are stupid.

I got 96%.

The point, really, is that simple things aren’t always all that simple.  Moderation on STW often comes under fire from the userbase, which is why I posted it.

I think that actually shows the exact opposite.  96% of people agree with you – even when the definitions and situations were intentionally abstract and ill defined.  That is virtually everyone understands how basic rules work, and even nuance.  The premise of the “game” seems to be “rules are really difficult to define” but it seems that the evidence disagrees.  However the owner of “a park” can generally make rules about how people behave in the park; and to a large extent it’s their interpretation that matters.   It’s not a reason not to have rules or to enforce them.  It is a reason to be transparent about your policies or approaches.   It is also a reason why any good “rules” should have a legitimate public and transparent mechanism for any decision to be appealed.

The premise of the “game” seems to be “rules are really difficult to define”

Only in the way this particular person has decided to use the hypothetical “no vehicles in the park”.

The original intention of H.L.A. Hart who came up with hypothetical “no vehicles in the park” in 1958 was thus :

The debate around the “no vehicles in the park” hypothetical has been about the relative importance of purpose and language when applying a general rule to a specific issue. 

However the owner of “a park” can generally make rules about how people behave in the park; and to a large extent it’s their interpretation that matters.   It’s not a reason not to have rules or to enforce them.  It is a reason to be transparent about your policies or approaches.

Sure.  But as soon as you do that, there are those who would actively seek to subvert it.

I qualified to be the person that issues fines to all you rule breakers.

26%

“Vehicles include wagons, bicycles, motor vehicles (motorcycles, cars, trucks, buses, mobility scooters), railed vehicles (trains, trams), watercraft (ships, boats, underwater vehicles), amphibious vehicles (screw-propelled vehicles, hovercraft), aircraft (airplanes, helicopters, aerostats), and spacecraft.” 

And FFS don’t walk on the grass!

Sure.  But as soon as you do that, there are those who would actively seek to subvert it.

Only if your sanctions are inneffective, or your policies applied inconsistently so that large parts of it go ignored.   The difficulty in applying behaviour rules on individual internet sites is not a question of whether the rules are understood – it is resource (v’s profit) to tackle the rule breakers.

Only in the way this particular person has decided to use the hypothetical “no vehicles in the park”.

Hart was a jurisprudence theorist.  He posed the question, and much like the website linked above concluded you need specificity.  But there are alternative legal scholars who say, no “just consider the purpose” and you don’t need to get into weeds.  Clearly 96%(ish) of people can read the rule, infer the purpose, and make their own assessment and agree on interpretation.

Clicked link. Stared at page for ten seconds, sighed and clicked back here. Not interested in playing silly games. At any time.

Clicked link. Stared at page for ten seconds, sighed and clicked back here. Not interested in playing silly games. At any time.

Imagine how many seconds you would have saved if you hadn’t typed that!