No Vehicles in the Park (novehiclesinthepark.com)

47 pointsby n_plus_1_accan hour ago41 comments

benrutter 19 minutes ago

I liked this as an idea, and I agree with the point at the end that content moderation is quite difficult.

That said, I'm not sure the game proved the point it intended to, for me at least.

My answers agreed 89% with the majority, and more importantly, on the visualization showing proportions of people classifying various examples as "a vehicle in the park" had a clear cut off point, before which I hadn't classified anything as a violation, and after which, I had classified everything as a violation.

The suggestion is (I'm not saying this is proven, only suggested), to me at least, that if you gave people the instructions:

> No vehicles are allowed in the park. A wagon being pulled is not a vehicle, but a rowboat is.

A very high number would come to the exact same determination as me.

Just for context, I'm just talking about the game itself, I definitely agree that moderation is a very tricky issue full of grey areas, and we'd all find it very hard to agree fully on a set of guidelines and then agree on when they're being enforced correctly.

jstanley 8 minutes ago

I think the most interesting finding from this is that some people experience their sense of what should be allowed so strongly that it blinds their sense of whether a particular action technically violates a particular rule.

chrisbuc 15 minutes ago

From a data management point of view, I have a similar question about a hypothetical sign that reads "Customer parking only"

- Am I a customer when I go into the shop?

- How about if I don't buy anything this time?

- When I receive a marketing email from the shop, based on my previous purchases, am I still a customer?

- How about 1 year later and I haven't bought anything, am I still a customer?

So when can I park there?

(obviously in the real world, there would be terms and conditions, but it's an interesting way to talk to clients about definitions in their data)

gambiting 7 minutes ago

It's the classic "no parking after midnight" sign, which obviously means you can never park there.

kristofferc 28 minutes ago

This felt very easy. And yes, a police car in the park violates the rule, but police are allowed to violate rules in certain cases.

Levitating 25 minutes ago

> This felt very easy.

There's no right or wrong answers, so can it really be easy?

po1nt 24 minutes ago

Yesn't

jstanley 17 minutes ago

The only difficult ones are where reasonable people can disagree on whether it is a "vehicle". Like the rowing boat or the bicycle, or whether "wagon" refers to a little platform or a lorry.

Otherwise it comes down to "is it a vehicle?" and "is it in the park?". There are comments from people saying they said that a police car or ambulance was not a vehicle in the park because it had a good reason to be there, which to me makes no sense at all.

The game makes very clear that it is not "would you allow this vehicle in the park?" but "is this a vehicle in the park?".

weli 21 minutes ago

My exact thought. Ambulances and police cars are vehicles. And they would violate the rules. But some rules sometimes can be violated under certain circumstances.

Same thing about the WW2 tank that's not working. A vehicle that doesn't work is still a vehicle.

Also all the questions about verticality at least under my jurisprudence land is only owned vertically up to a certain extent after that is considered state property to be administered by authorities.

masklinn 17 minutes ago

> police are allowed to violate rules in certain cases.

Probably more relevant, such services usually get legal carve outs for purpose.

But the game specifically instructs the player to ignore any such consideration.

thinkingemote 27 minutes ago

Previously: 2023 1K comments, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36453856

----

Fun game! I like how even if you know the "rules" and try to play against or with them, it still is a challenge.

_petronius 36 minutes ago

Cool concept; lots of valence to each question:

- What counts as "in the park"

- What counts as a "vehicle"

- If it is both a vehicle and in the park, is justified?

- Is a justified violation of the rules still to be considered a violation?

duckerduck 29 minutes ago

> Is a justified violation of the rules still to be considered a violation?

This is mentioned on the page:

> answer the question of whether the rule is violated (not whether the violation should be allowed)

isqueiros 28 minutes ago

I guess the rule is kept intentionally ambiguous as to test what each person thinks should pass.

I personally answered "not breaking the rule" to emergency vehicles and second-guessed the skateboard and bike ones.

If I were to rephrase the rule, I'd write it as "No motorized vehicles in the park unless for emergencies". This way you have less ambiguity for justification.

maratc 26 minutes ago

> No motorized vehicles in the park unless for emergencies

Well, let's play "what is emergency in the park" now. This is a game about language and rules. It consists of 27 questions, but after the first seven, you can skip to the end.

jstanley 20 minutes ago

But the game wasn't asking what your preferred rule is? It was only asking whether they break the stated rule, which a police car or ambulance plainly do.

masklinn 15 minutes ago

> I personally answered "not breaking the rule" to emergency vehicles

> 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.

The game is entirely about what constitutes "a vehicle" and what constitutes "in the park", it explicitly instructs against "what do I personally think should be allowed in the park".

happymellon 26 minutes ago

> Is a justified violation of the rules still to be considered a violation

I think this is key. Having a tank, even if it is nonfunctional and being used as a war memorial is still a vehicle and should be banned unless an exception granted.

Otherwise you'll end up with a hundred "tanks" in the park because they are "allowed". This is one of the things that people who want to slash red tape don't seem to get. Just because it was difficult to get one going doesn't mean that we should cut the red tape. Perhaps we don't actually want/need 27 instances of it.

jstanley 21 minutes ago

> If it is both a vehicle and in the park, is justified?

This is explicitly irrelevant, the game makes this clear.

_petronius 16 minutes ago

The game makes it clear, but the interpretation is still a result of what view on "violation" the user brings (as people are saying in other comment threads, not everyone views a "justfied violation" as a subcategory of "violation", but rather as a subcategory of "not violation").

The whole point is -- to you this is extremely clear, along one axis of interpretation. To other people it may be extremely clear along another; the issue is those two "obvious" interpretations don't actually align.

jstanley 12 minutes ago

You're bringing in a whole load of baggage that isn't actually there.

Rule: no vehicles in the park.

A vehicle in the park violates the rule. If it's a vehicle, and it's in the park, it violates the rule.

Anything else you're assuming should be added to this comes from your own experiences, not from the problem statement.

masklinn 20 minutes ago

> If it is both a vehicle and in the park, is justified?

> Is a justified violation of the rules still to be considered a violation? reply

Given the introductory text, neither is relevant:

> 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. Or perhaps your religion allows certain rules to be overridden. Again, please answer the question of whether the rule is violated (not whether the violation should be allowed).

cirrhosis 36 minutes ago

The choice of names (Tyrone vs Brett) made me wonder whether this was an experiment about racial prejudice.

9dev 35 minutes ago

If only there was an exhaustive explanation offered answering this exact question after the quizz.

Gravityloss 27 minutes ago

> I don't yet have enough data to give an answer on whether the names affect anything, but stay tuned

po1nt 27 minutes ago

I thought this was about AI alignment. But the analogy could still work

pablogancharov 20 minutes ago

Did anyone tried jev on this?

anonymous908213 14 minutes ago

Not interesting even as a thought experiment. From context, "vehicle" is clearly inferred to mean "automobile" rather than literally "vehicle". All of the subsequent pedantry about vehicles then misses the point, because the common understanding is that you clearly meant automobiles. It is weird one can be so pedantic and yet fail to draw the obvious connection that the word is effectively substituted for a different word in context. Surely one could come up with a better example to use for your game.

mzajc 8 minutes ago

> From context, "vehicle" is clearly inferred to mean "automobile" rather than literally "vehicle".

From what context? At no point does the game say that, and from both the questions and the epilogue it's made clear that the game is about finding edge cases for what passes as "a vehicle" and "in the park".

lifestyleguru 28 minutes ago

For Mediterranean people:

"Francesca drives her car into the park with hazards lights on"

Does this violate the rule?

po1nt 26 minutes ago

You have to respect the sanctity of park-anywhere button.

lifestyleguru 22 minutes ago

Honestly I'm observing a culture shift in the region. People don't use hazard lights that often anymore but instead they're loudly and expressively speaking with their phone. As in saying "I can do whatever I'm doing, because I'm too busy with an important conversation".

neutronicus 12 minutes ago

How else would you Uber Eats your picnic?

masklinn 19 minutes ago

The game specifically instructs to disregard justification, overrides, carve-outs, etc...

It only asks two questions, strictly: is it a vehicle, and is it in the park.

So yes, francesca's car being a vehicle and in the park is a violation.

m0op 25 minutes ago

i really liked this small project :) made me think.