4 ms·
If people don't agree on it, then the clarity you feel is an illusion. The point of rules is common understanding of what is acceptable. Notably, you pulled a b
by andrewflnr 3y ago
If people don't agree on it, then the clarity you feel is an illusion. The point of rules is common understanding of what is acceptable. Notably, you pulled a bunch of special cases and refinements from thin air. The way I read the setup, it was "crystal clear" that the rule was violated by emergency services, even if we could agree afterwards not to enforce it there.
And, yes, of course, moderation questions are much harder. At least with the vehicle thing people aren't usually aren't deliberately constructing tricky cases.
- cmdli 3y agoI feel the same way as the above comment. If you were an actual administrator in charge of fining people for violating the rule, almost none of these examples should give you pause. You wouldn't be trying to give a ticket to planes flying overhead, for example. With these examples, there really isn't much disagreement on whether action should be taken, so any discussion of whether a rule is technically violated is moot.
- raldi 3y agoIf you didn't think a bicycle violated the rule, what about an e-bike? Or a fully battery-powered bike that doesn't require pedaling?
- MontyCarloHall 3y agoThose are exactly the questions the quiz should have asked, not clearly absurd examples that are unambiguously not vehicles in the park, like the ISS passing over the park.
- bowsamic 3y agoYeah that’s what I expected. Not a bunch of silly questions, but actually ambiguous ones
- growse 3y ago> Yeah that’s what I expected. Not a bunch of silly questions, but actually ambiguous ones The fact that there's no clear consensus on most of the questions means they are ambiguous, no?
- bowsamic 3y ago[flagged]
- whelp_24 3y agoThis is a mix of ad hominem and no true Scotsman. And the iss had a clear purpose, if space is excluded, and civics are included, how high counts as "in the park"?
- bowsamic 3y ago[flagged]
- growse 3y agoWow, it's been a while since I saw a genuine "my opinion is objectively right" in the wild.
- bowsamic 3y ago[flagged]
- TaylorAlexander 3y agoI love my fully battery powered ebike but I am well aware they are prohibited pretty much everywhere. When filling out the form I figured a bike is not a vehicle because they tend to be explicitly spelled out, but ebikes are more often prohibited (though in my area, not enforced), and my overpowered ebike is illegal everywhere, but I am respectful of others and there is no enforcement.
- raldi 3y agoWhat about a bike that can provide thrust without pedaling, but you're not making use of that feature in the park?
- TaylorAlexander 3y agoGenerally it is too difficult to enforce whether someone was or was not using a feature so in my area (SF Bay Area) they would just outlaw anything with a capability to do something undesired, regardless of whether it was being used. The thinking would go that if they catch someone they can point to the feature and say "you're breaking the law". No need to prove the feature was in use. Plus if you let people in with a bike with some undesired feature, people are going to end up using it and that would be what such a law would be trying to avoid.
- 9dev 3y agoYou made the assumption the start screen explicitly asked users to not make, that is apply their local laws to the question.
- TaylorAlexander 3y agoI don't see it as applying my local laws. Everywhere I have ever seen that I can recall will explicitly spell out bicycles if they are prohibited. I have never seen a prohibition on "vehicles" that included bicycles. So I applied my understanding of the word vehicle. Of course I have not seen everywhere in the world, and the whole point of the survey is that people have to apply their own perspectives in order to even make a judgement, and this is the problem of content moderation.
- chii 3y ago> You wouldn't be trying to give a ticket to planes flying overhead except you have just applied an assumption (which is often true) that may not be true depending on circumstances - that the planes were excluded because it couldn't have caused any negative effect. For example, if the park had been https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sentinelese#Isolation_and_uncontacted_status https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sentinelese#Isolation_and_unco... , and the intention was to keep the indigenous peoples isolated. But this isn't a part of the rule, and it is an interpretation of the rule by the administrator. A different administrator might interpret planes that fly higher than audible altitude would be OK, while another one might consider a visual detection altitude to be a violation. And another might consider no altitude to be permissible (because if they crashed right there, they'd be falling into the park).
- hunter2_ 3y ago> they'd be falling into the park That phrasing sure makes it sound like they're not in the park until they fall. Does it occur the moment they hit the ground, or sooner? If ground, then that tells us that the quadcopter isn't in the park while off the ground either; it's above the park.
- jvanderbot 3y agoPlanes are usually required to fly above the height defined by property laws, and so it makes sense that "park" is deines by the areas that planes don't fly in.
- resolutebat 3y agoI fully agreed with the GP for the same reasons: in my book everything except the Civic was OK, because that matches the intent of the sign. In both law and real life, there is a common understanding (to use your term) that rules may be violated for the greater good. Does driving an ambulance into the park violate the letter of the rule? Yes, but it's still OK because we give emergency vehicles wide leeway to break rules so they can save lives. Judaism even encodes this in a general principle: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pikuach_nefesh https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pikuach_nefesh
- TaylorAlexander 3y agoWell my view was that the answer is yes the ambulance violates the rule, but violating the rule is morally fine there. But still pedantically yes the ambulance does violate the no vehicles rule.
- aerio 3y agoYes, the instructions say to not moralize, justify, or apply local laws. Strictly enforce the stated rule. It's amazing how many people can't follow the instructions, without realising their proving the creators point. Even while arguing the creator is wrong!
- mbork_pl 3y agoThe game was pretty clear that the question was not if it "should be allowed to violate the rule", but if it violates the rule in the first place.
- arrrg 3y agoDoes something violate the rule if it’s allowed based on common sense? I don’t think so.
- emodendroket 3y agoLots of people are in jail or fired after following that logic.
- paulclinger 3y agoI'm with the parent comment, as I think the context is important here. If you think the emergency service vehicles violate the rule, how about a park maintenance vehicle or a park ranger vehicle? Would you say "no vehicles in the park" rule applies to them too, so they would be violating it?
- plorkyeran 3y agoYes? I don’t understand the idea that being allowed to disregard a rule means that you aren’t violating it at all.
- andrewflnr 3y agoThe whole exercise specifically asked us to ignore context, "common sense", etc. If we were supposed to consider an exception for park services, it would have been explicitly stated. Of all the forums for an insistence on rigidly, literally following rules to make people's heads explode, HN is not exactly the most surprising, but it is one of the funniest.
- paulclinger 3y agoTo me that's precisely the point: since vehicle itself is not defined and is a subject to interpretation, excluding emergency services is less of a problem than carving out an accurate boundary around what is or is not a vehicle.
- tshaddox 3y ago> If people don't agree on it, then the clarity you feel is an illusion. Well, no, people can just be wrong.
- bowsamic 3y ago[flagged]