6 ms·

I think the police and ambulance examples are interesting. To me, they're clear and blatant violations of the rule. To be sure, I certainly think it's ok that t

• code_duck 3y ago
  One thing that makes this exercise fairly useless is that any real world law or rule would have exemptions for such circumstances, and a definition of “in the park” and what a vehicle is… not just one sentence with no clarification. Beyond that, also a history of previous legal interpretation to which one could refer.
  • ComputerGuru 3y ago
    I actually disagree. I assume every law is subject to "at the discretion of the DA/judge" (or whoever is in charge). Do you think everyone needs to account for every emergency circumstance possible in every law? In real life, there's the law and then there are mitigating circumstances. (A few years ago I could have said "we don't get ticketed by an AI that only follows the rules it was given." Well, we do now in many places and that's a problem.)
    • code_duck 3y ago
      Legal decisions are made based on historical interpretation, assumed intent of lawmakers and legal precedent. If needed legal interpretation can go back the English Common Law or the Magna Carta. A law or rule like this could be challenged in court as so vague as to be meaningless, and unenforceable.
      • anikom15 3y ago
        Only in Common Law countries is this true. In Civil Law countries, you actually do need to account for all exceptions.
  • paxys 3y ago
    This exercise is not about a court of law but any random online forum, for example the kind we are on right now. If you look up the HN participation guidelines you will find they are exactly as vague as the rule in the exercise and open to endless interpretation.
    • code_duck 3y ago
      I understand the point of the exercise is to shed light on the vagaries of internet moderation. It’s not a very precise analogy. HN is essentially private property, and nobody needs to wonder things like “is flying a satellite over HN the same as posting on HN?” or “what is a a comment?”
      • ComputerGuru 3y ago
        No one said the park wasn’t private property either, conditionally open to the public just like HN ;)
        • ClumsyPilot 3y ago
          For some reason people think that once it's private property, there is no need to rules or consistency. It's an excuse for intellectual laziness.
          • code_duck 3y ago
            Different rules apply to private vs. public property. I personally believe that is appropriate.
            • ClumsyPilot 3y ago
              How is it relevant in this case?
        • code_duck 3y ago
          Indeed... As noted, the regulation is quite vague.
• wzdd 3y ago
  My reasoning was that in emergencies, typically, certain rules don't apply to certain groups of people if their actions are related to the emergency. Therefore, a police officer driving a police car into the park (assuming they're doing it because of the emergency) is not a violation of "no vehicles in the park" because for that officer, in that situation, there effectively is no such rule. In the real world, we might debate whether it was actually an emergency and so on, but here we're told straight up.
  • paxys 3y ago
    This is very jurisdictional dependent, and the exercise was pretty clear that you are not in any of those jurisdictions.
  • tedunangst 3y ago
    I thought the instructions were pretty clear that it's a violation, even if e.g. your religion says it's okay.
    • comex 3y ago
      I think the instructions are ambiguous. The instructions first say to disregard any "rule in your jurisdiction which overrides certain rules", or whether your "religion allows certain rules to be overridden". But both of these hypotheticals are reasons why you might disregard the desires of the hypothetical park owner who instituted the rule. This is different from the police and ambulance examples, where the park owner would almost certainly want to allow those vehicles. The instructions then continue, "Again, please answer the question of whether the rule is violated (not whether the violation should be allowed)." But again this could be interpreted two ways. One interpretation is that an emergency vehicle entering the park would technically violate the rule, but everyone (including legal and religious authorities and the park owner) would agree that the violation "should" be allowed. However, I interpreted "should" more in line with the previous statements as referring to some kind of controversy (park owner says it's not allowed, but for legal or religious or moral reasons I think it should be allowed). Under this interpretation, the rule has an implicit exception for emergency vehicles, so they are not violating it. The exception is just so obvious that it's not worth including (especially given the text length limits of the signs where park rules tend to be written down). My interpretation might sound like a stretch. But imagine if the rule instead said "No vehicles in the park, including emergency vehicles." Wouldn't that be materially different? Yet the difference doesn't affect whether a violation should be legally/religiously/morally allowed. At most, it might hint that there might be some practical reason why emergency vehicles shouldn't enter (perhaps it's dangerous), and perhaps a reasonable emergency vehicle operator should take that information into account when determining whether violating the rule would be justified. But that's only an indirect effect, and there's clearly more to it than that. Regardless of whether there is any justification, the clause would clarify that the park owner really doesn't want emergency vehicles, when otherwise we would assume they do. And to me that difference is best interpreted as affecting "whether the rule is violated".
• paxys 3y ago
  The instructions for the exercise tell you straight up to ignore any and all exceptions, yet 30% of people chose to apply their own judgment in the police and ambulance case because it felt right to them. Very telling.
  • zarzavat 3y ago
    If you believe that the spirit of rules is more important than the text, then those people were obeying the spirit of the rule to not include exceptions, not the text.
    • Dylan16807 3y ago
      Those people failed to follow the spirit of the quiz.
      • mint2 3y ago
        Following the letter of the law or rule to an absurd conclusion without any common sense is a typical example of bureaucratic nightmares. It should be comforting that people are able to use independent judgement when faced with a nonsensical situation, situations that illustrates a glaring lack of detail to the law or rule rather than anything else. Basically the more terse a rule is, the more it requires the enforcer to use their own judgment. That game would only be supportive of the point the author wants to make if the rule had a few paragraphs of examples and defined vehicle. Instead the author hand waved away the case of a rule with examples by saying that nit picker could always find ambiguity. So instead they gave a overt terse rule that defies common sense. It’s a strawman attempt of a example.
        • acyou 3y ago
          We should first examine the origins of morality. That will allow us to understand the goals and motivations behind rules. If one of the goals of a moral system is also to get across the message that "We are in charge, remember it and don't mess with us or with the system", then deliberately vague rules are a feature of the system for those that can benefit and wield the law and social opinion against others. Rules can be interpreted to the advantage of the group that runs the show.
• Graffur 3y ago
  No vehicles in the park is a rule for the people that use the park. The emergency vehicles aren't 'using' the park so it doesn't apply to them.
  • ComputerGuru 3y ago
    > No vehicles in the park is a rule for the people that use the park Says who? So I can park my car in the park and take the train so long as I don’t “use” the park? Or drive through it on my way to work?
    • chii 3y ago
      But then you'd be "using" the park (for parking), which means you fall under the definition of "use"!
• seized 3y ago
  It's about common sense. Police/fire/ambulances are there for emergencies, their drivers have better training (theoretically) in safe driving, and the vehicles bring attention to themselves. Uncle Jim Bob trying to drive his Buick around is what's obviously prohibited as that's the vehicle/driver most likely to cause harm...
  • ComputerGuru 3y ago
    > Police/fire/ambulances are there for emergencies, their drivers have better training (theoretically) in safe driving, and the vehicles bring attention to themselves. By this logic, it’s ok for a police officer to drive through the park’s green on his way to work, with no emergency.
    • monocasa 3y ago
      I mean, having seen pissing matches between civic authorities and cops play out, that's what I'd expect at the end of the day.
    • xigoi 3y ago
      I'd argue that: * if the siren is off, then “the vehicles bring attention to themselves” doesn't apply. * if the siren in on, then they're not violating the park's rules, but they are violating the rules of their emergency vehicle.
    • seized 3y ago
      Except most jurisdictions have rules governing things like that.
• wilg 3y ago
  I agree with you, but also the first time I did it I started answering in a different way, before realizing I should change my interpretation. I started answering by interpreting the choice as "is this allowed in the park", not "does this violate the rule". I'm not sure if this page makes its point better or worse if you know what it's testing. It's interesting though how explicit you have to be if you want people to not add any additional context. But also, so much of the questions rely on context. So it feels like an unfair test, but it's hard to say exactly why.
• ketzu 3y ago
  I think a questionaire telling you to ignore all preconceived notions about a topic in a note and then ask fairly unspecific questions about that, will have a lot of people answer without ignoring their preconceived notions about that. I'd assume the answers would be different if the questions was phrased differently, restating the assumptions and some of the consequences, e.g., that there might be exceptions, we just don't look at them yet.