3 ms·

To all those responding that "if they didn't want 999, they should have set a lower number:" Whenever you make rules, you define some region of acceptability t

To all those responding that "if they didn't want 999, they should have set a lower number:" Whenever you make rules, you define some region of acceptability that's recommended and then if people go too far from that region, you say that's against the rules. The boundary is set some distance from what's recommended. You don't set the number at exactly recommended because people working in good faith still sometimes have honest reasons they need to go past that. But then you get bad faith actors going to the limit too. If you don't have a good reason not to play it safe during a pandemic, then play it safe. Otherwise, screw you. Just because the law lets you be a dick, doesn't mean it's okay.

remcob 7y ago
It's unclear to me from your comment whether you advocate over or under specifying the norm. "some distance" is ambiguous. In order to say "that's against the rules" but allow some leeway, you need it to be under-specified so you can enforce it selectively. But the next part suggest you over-set the norm, so people with honest reasons can go beyond the ideal without breaking the rules and everyone has an moral duty to stay well within the specified norms.
- pbourke 7y ago
  Anyone who engages in rules lawyering (hey, my group is only 999 people, we're all good) is being unethical. Anyone who brings a large group of people together for frivolous reasons or without taking precautions is being unethical. What's a large group? It's like porn - you know it when you see it.
  - __s 7y ago
    To give depth here: limiting people isn't the only relevant dimension. You could argue cities are a gather of more than 1000 people. More important is density, how many people each person is expected to interact with, is there a buffet, etc. If you're running an event with 999 people, hopefully you're organizing to be less bulging at the seams with these other dimensions

remcob 7y ago

It's unclear to me from your comment whether you advocate over or under specifying the norm. "some distance" is ambiguous. In order to say "that's against the rules" but allow some leeway, you need it to be under-specified so you can enforce it selectively. But the next part suggest you over-set the norm, so people with honest reasons can go beyond the ideal without breaking the rules and everyone has an moral duty to stay well within the specified norms.

pbourke 7y ago
Anyone who engages in rules lawyering (hey, my group is only 999 people, we're all good) is being unethical. Anyone who brings a large group of people together for frivolous reasons or without taking precautions is being unethical. What's a large group? It's like porn - you know it when you see it.
- __s 7y ago
  To give depth here: limiting people isn't the only relevant dimension. You could argue cities are a gather of more than 1000 people. More important is density, how many people each person is expected to interact with, is there a buffet, etc. If you're running an event with 999 people, hopefully you're organizing to be less bulging at the seams with these other dimensions