Comment by default-kramer
3 years ago
>> You might know of some rule in your jurisdiction which overrides local rules, and allows certain classes of vehicles. Please disregard these rules; the park isn't necessarily in your jurisdiction.
But the park is somewhere on Earth, right? And the sign is written in English for humans to read and understand. Ignoring my personal locality/jurisdiction doesn't change this.
>> Or perhaps your religion allows certain rules to be overridden.
This one felt irrelevant to me.
>> Again, please answer the question of whether the rule is violated (__not whether the violation should be allowed__).
This tells me that my job is to determine whether the rule allows skateboards and not whether the rule should allow skateboards. This does not instruct me to be ridiculously literal while making that determination.
> This tells me that my job is to determine whether the rule allows skateboards and not whether the rule should allow skateboards.
No, it explicitly says your job is to determine if the rule is violated.
It gives you specific examples of where one might impart their personal bias and then says "don't do that." The you impart your bias. You'll notice that there is absolutely nowhere that it says "use your own definition of 'vehicle'" nor does it say "follow the spirit of the law, not the letter."
While I agree with you in principle, that's not what the game asked. But the fact that we disagree is exactly the point of the game. Fwiw, I agree with your definition in practice, but disagree that that's what the rules of the game were. The author was specifically careful to not be extremely explicit because that's what makes the point: that we disagree.
> But the fact that we disagree is exactly the point of the game.
> The author was specifically careful to not be extremely explicit because that's what makes the point: that we disagree.
I don't think the author intended for so much confusion at this meta-level that our disagreement is occurring at. If they did, then the content moderation analogy becomes totally unjustified. The author's point was (or should have been) that we could all play the game my way and still disagree - that is what is interesting.
Our disagreement feels more like how people get stuck arguing about the Monty Hall problem, not noticing they are using subtly different assumptions. But that kind of disagreement has little to do content moderation as far as I can tell.
> I don't think the author intended for so much confusion at this meta-level that our disagreement is occurring at.
On the other hand, I believe that this was exactly their goal and were quite clear about it.
> If they did, then the content moderation analogy becomes totally unjustified. The author's point was (or should have been) that we could all play the game my way and still disagree - that is what is interesting.
The point is that everyone has a different set of internal rules and defining those explicitly is incredibly difficult. I really do feel like they are quite clear on this, especially with their distinction from the other game.
> Our disagreement feels more like how people get stuck arguing about the Monty Hall problem, not noticing they are using subtly different assumptions.
I'm curious how you 1) see this differently than what was intended and 2) how you think this doesn't happen in moderation (or politics)
The author completely intended for this level of discussion by asking for you to dogmatically follow the rule and posing a lot of circumstances where most people would allow it to be broken. It appears to be working as intended.
I'm pretty surprised that you thought it was so black-and-white to allow things like emergency vehicles - a lot of places ban emergency vehicles (and they follow that rule) because they are too dangerous for those vehicles to enter. Personally, I assumed that might be the case given that the sign said no vehicles at all.
Also, the Monty Hall problem is not ambiguous at all. The clear answer is to switch doors thanks to how conditional probability works. The paradox is why people stick to their chosen door, and it is a weird psychology problem, but they are objectively wrong.
3 replies →
[flagged]