[matthewfcarlson]

This is showing how hard content moderation really is. It's judgement calls and very often no one is happy. Seeing more information takes an angering amount of time, which makes me think this is a fun game that makes an excellent point.

Edit: In some ways, a card that's incredibly contextual as the first one is a brilliant move.

[ianferrel]

I'm not convinced that putting a real head-scratcher as the very first choice in a tutorial mode is a brilliant move at all. Tutorials are supposed to be easy and hand-holding.

But also: this isn't actually a hard judgment call. It's just bad instructions. There's an objective difference between "content that breaks laws" and "content that promotes the breaking of laws" and the rules could easily be changed to indicate the one they want.

If you were playing a platformer tutorial and you came to a gap and the tutorial instructions said "Press A to jump over the gap" and then when you tried you fell in and died and the tutorial then said "That was too big a gap to jump over. You should have pressed [Down] to climb over it instead", would you think "Ah, what a brilliant meditation on trusting trust and how the right choice is not obvious" or would you think "this is a shitty tutorial for a dumb game"? I'm not saying there's for sure a right answer here. I could imagine a well-made game where the tutorial straight-up lies to you and gives you the wrong directions. But most games like that are just badly written and poorly thought out.

[bisby]

"Content that breaks laws" "Content that promotes the breaking of laws" "Content that is clearly satire/parody/a joke"

A lot of time context matters. In a forum thread called "What would be the worst title for a self help book?" a post that just says "Give up, kill yourself" is not actually promoting self harm. It's saying that its the worst advice.

assuming the entire point of the game is "moderation is harder than you think, stop assuming all mods are power tripping, they have tough choices to make!" -- the tutorial isn't supposed to be teaching you how to answer the questions properly, because answering questions properly isn't the point of the game. It's teaching you that about how hard moderation is.

Also, I've played plenty of games where the tutorial involves dying and then the follow up is learning how not to die (generally in games where dying is common and they want to indicate that "dying isn't the same as game over, this isn't Super Mario for NES")

[ianferrel]

I think that content moderation is in fact quite difficult, even given clear rules to follow, because so much content requires lots of context to understand.

But that makes me even more annoyed at this game which rather than presenting me with legitimately difficult judgment calls, just gave me clear rules that were not the rules that the actual game used when determining whether I did the right thing.

It's possible that this is a cleverly designed thing to make you realize that the real rules are unwritten and the whole thing is a Kafkaesque contraption with no correct answers. Or it's just a quickly-made game where no one proofread the actual instructions they were giving players.

[jeremyjh]

It seems like a very thoughtful game to me. I’m giving it the benefit of the doubt.