Hacker News Reader

Comment by hsjqllzlfkf | Hacker News Reader

It is unclear given that you and I don't agree. The question wasnt "does the police have to follow the sign", you made that up.

View on HN

The nuance on that one felt odd. I said that it did violate the rule (even the spirit of the rule, being a large motor vehicle), because it was a binary question. I also felt the rule violation was justified and that they shouldn’t be called out on it.

The second page of instructions actually specifically addressed that: "Again, please answer the question of whether the rule is violated (not whether the violation should be allowed)."

I went with "yes, violation" with the understanding that it's one that would be allowed. Perhaps I was wrong to mix "would" and "should".

You’re absolutely right! My bad, I appear to have forgotten that rule by the time I commented. Glad I called it a violation :)

I even disagree that there was any nuance. I wasn't told "you're doing content moderation, there's a rule, the rule is violated but there could be some mitigating circumstances, do you allow the content?". I was told: is there a vehicle in the park, and I said yes because a police car is a vehicle and it's in the park.

I agree that the police car is a vehicle and and it is a violation.

That's the easiest reading. In a real example, though, there'd be law or authority quoted, and you can be sure that's there would be an exception for emergency vehicles. That doesn't change the meaning of the sign in isolation.

Could be an exception... or not. Some prohibitions come from hazards like "this won't hold your weight" or "this could flood unexpectedly". And there's no emergency vehicle exceptions.

I had my closest park in mind when answering. It has a river and multiple wooden bridges to access. Also, the ground floods sometimes in the winter and some paths are too soft for a car. No way an ambulance or firetruck is going to get in the park. They could try, but would loss more time than doing it on foot, or a bridge would collapse under their weight.

The issue this is inspired from was pretty interesting [0], and notably very few things were exempted from the rules leading to interesting debates on how the rules should be interpreted

[0] https://99percentinvisible.org/episode/the-wilderness-tool/

Yes, this is the only thing I disagreed with the majority on, and that’s because I answered “was there a vehicle in the park”. I don’t think anyone disagrees that the vehicle should be able to go to the park and we should amend the rule. I came away thinking content moderation with better rules is actually quite achievable

And the instructions very clearly state that you should not take into account whether in this case it would be OK to violate the rule. Just whether the rule was broken or not. As such, a police car or ambulance in the park very clearly violate the rule and thus you must choose that answer.

The question wasn’t about being called out on it (or punished/prosecuted/whatever). It was simply asking if it violated the rule.

Also, what sign? GP made that up too.

No one made anything up. It's obviously the intent of the question.

You can pretend that's not the case all you want.

The question specified that it was only asking whether the rule was violated, not whether the violation should be permitted (e.g. because the police doing their job is more important than the rule)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com