3 ms·
> My takeaway is, the rule was just bad defined To reflect real life: there is a reason why rules aren't specific and allow for judgement calls. Your clearer r
by sangnoir 3y ago
> My takeaway is, the rule was just bad defined
To reflect real life: there is a reason why rules aren't specific and allow for judgement calls. Your clearer rules for instance, allows for manned flying vehicles like helicopters.
- lukan 3y ago- no noise Also you don't have to specify rules that are covered by general law. In most states it is illegal anyway, to fly low altitude with helicopters over populated areas for fun.
- Arainach 3y agoTalk about a poorly defined rule. Cell phone goes off? Straight to jail. Your child asks a question and you answer? Straight to jail. Shoes squeak on the pavement? Believe it or not, also straight to jail. Rattling wheel on your stroller? Still jail.
- lukan 3y agoI think this is the most pedantic discussion I ever participated in. Rules for a park do not involve jail time, but leaving the park for offenders. And if it is a park excplicitely of seniors sensitive to noise, then yes - low decibel rules apply. If it is a common park, then obviously no. All that can be specified if necessary.
- sangnoir 3y ago> I think this is the most pedantic discussion I ever participated That's the point of the "No vehicles in the park" game! People interpret rules differently - some skew pedantic, others are more "spirit of the law" types, but to varying extents - which is why for any 2 random people, the chances of agreeing on 100% of scenarios is vastly less than 50%
- sangnoir 3y ago> - no noise ...and we're back in subjective territory: how many dBs would count as "noise"? Even under your additional no-noise rule, electric autogyros would be allowed at the park, which is not populated if it's of the national-park-service persuasion)