6 ms·

But you’re just moving the goalposts. According to your rules, a toy car should be banned. Should we define in excruciating detail what a car is? Should we defi

by whakim 3y ago

But you’re just moving the goalposts. According to your rules, a toy car should be banned. Should we define in excruciating detail what a car is? Should we define an exact decibel level at which the noise threshold kicks in? People will always argue about what constitutes a rule violation - for example, you don’t believe that the police car should have been allowed to chase a teenager for failing to wear a mask, but I’m sure there’s plenty of people who disagree. Should we define “emergency” to the nth degree? Does the park need a 13-volume rulebook?

lukan 3y ago
"Should we define an exact decibel level at which the noise threshold kicks in?" Possible, but usually not necessary. With noise, any unnecessary noise is meant. If a baby cries that is hard to prevent, but the parent will still try. If some hooligans howling around - that should not happen. "According to your rules, a toy car should be banned" My rules would - like usually - contain a symbol as well, making it clear with "car" a real "car" is meant. And toy cars that do produce loud noise - yes, I would ban those. They can be really annoying. It depends what kind of park it should be. There are parks, where even playing kids are not wanted. (fancy castle parks) In a city park, it depends on what the people want - and yes, you can have text under the park rule sign, which is how I know it. Usually the guidline should be common sense and not disturbing others - but for those cases where people disagree - then you can refer to the rules.
- whakim 3y ago
  As long as you’re appealing to “common sense” at any level then people will disagree. 1 in 10 people think piloting a commercial airliner over the park violates a “no vehicles in the park” rule, which seems crazy to me but obviously logical to others.
  - lukan 3y ago
    "but for those cases where people disagree - then you can refer to the rules."
    - whakim 3y ago
      I'm pretty sure we're just going round in circles now. The point is that people disagree about everything, so anything you leave up to "common sense" will cause disagreement. Any you can't possibly define rules for everything either.
      - lukan 3y ago
        No, "common sense" is the default. And where that is not enough - you can have rules for most common cases, to settle any dispute. And if there are edge cases that frequently cause disturbance where no clear rules cover them - then those cases can be put into the rules. It is not that complicated.
        joshuamorton 3y ago
        Now assume the park contains a billion people, some of whom are explicitly interested in doing things you wish to disallow, and some are explicitly interested in annoying you. Both of these groups continually do antisocial things not defined by the rules, even as you add more. Then then start a political party to defend the parks service for discriminating against them when you create rules seemingly targeted at their legitimate misbehavior. Is it still simple?
        lukan 3y ago
        A park does not contain a billion people. A very big nation does. That is the slight difference in between the 2 things. The difference in simple and complicated. Because the more people you have, yes, the more complicated it gets.

by whakim 3y ago

lukan 3y ago

"Should we define an exact decibel level at which the noise threshold kicks in?" Possible, but usually not necessary. With noise, any unnecessary noise is meant. If a baby cries that is hard to prevent, but the parent will still try. If some hooligans howling around - that should not happen. "According to your rules, a toy car should be banned" My rules would - like usually - contain a symbol as well, making it clear with "car" a real "car" is meant. And toy cars that do produce loud noise - yes, I would ban those. They can be really annoying. It depends what kind of park it should be. There are parks, where even playing kids are not wanted. (fancy castle parks) In a city park, it depends on what the people want - and yes, you can have text under the park rule sign, which is how I know it. Usually the guidline should be common sense and not disturbing others - but for those cases where people disagree - then you can refer to the rules.

whakim 3y ago
As long as you’re appealing to “common sense” at any level then people will disagree. 1 in 10 people think piloting a commercial airliner over the park violates a “no vehicles in the park” rule, which seems crazy to me but obviously logical to others.
- lukan 3y ago
  "but for those cases where people disagree - then you can refer to the rules."
  - whakim 3y ago
    I'm pretty sure we're just going round in circles now. The point is that people disagree about everything, so anything you leave up to "common sense" will cause disagreement. Any you can't possibly define rules for everything either.
    - lukan 3y ago
      No, "common sense" is the default. And where that is not enough - you can have rules for most common cases, to settle any dispute. And if there are edge cases that frequently cause disturbance where no clear rules cover them - then those cases can be put into the rules. It is not that complicated.
      - joshuamorton 3y ago
        Now assume the park contains a billion people, some of whom are explicitly interested in doing things you wish to disallow, and some are explicitly interested in annoying you. Both of these groups continually do antisocial things not defined by the rules, even as you add more. Then then start a political party to defend the parks service for discriminating against them when you create rules seemingly targeted at their legitimate misbehavior. Is it still simple?
        lukan 3y ago
        A park does not contain a billion people. A very big nation does. That is the slight difference in between the 2 things. The difference in simple and complicated. Because the more people you have, yes, the more complicated it gets.