The thing that really proved this game's point for me is the comments here from people giving slightly different versions of "well it's obvious what 'vehicle' means".
The rule says, “No vehicles in the park”
51–60 of 1001 posts
Re: The rule says, “No vehicles in the park”
#52I’m honestly not sure what the point of the exercise is. I went through and answered honestly, and looking at the end results it seems that most people agreed with me (the only significant minority disagreements were about the bike and the tank). Overall, it looks like almost all of the cases have a clear opinion?
I expected it to get into difficult edge cases, like somebody riding a motorcycle or landing a plane, but it never went there. A plane flying overhead doesn’t constitute “in the park”, and it looks like almost everybody agrees on that point.
Re: The rule says, “No vehicles in the park”
#53Earlier quoted context omitted.
I do get the point, I'm saying that the analogy was bad. The point could have been made better.
it's a nearly perfect analogy for a laymans view of what content moderation should look like. "my children will see no violence" looks wonderful on paper but there are a great many edge cases where this simple rule is plainly broken all the time in harmless ways. in reality, what crosses the line one has in mind when they create the simple rule is created is far, far more complex than anyone who makes these rules is…
Heh, I thought the quiz was almost entirely not grey areas. It seems like the police car and ambulance were about as gray as it got, the others seem pretty obviously non-gray.
Re: The rule says, “No vehicles in the park”
#54I said no to every question as even in the cases where a vehicle did enter the park, it was only one and the rule says "no vehicle s ". Remember that the No Homers Club was allowed to have one Homer.
An absolutely unarguable point. Well done.
Re: The rule says, “No vehicles in the park”
#55Earlier quoted context omitted.
The problem is that I also got 11% just saying yes to everything. It would seem surprising to me to have the same percentage of maximalists as there is for people who are in the majority on every question
Suspiciously, I also got 11% (no to everything except police, ambulance, and car)
I got 23% but I included defunct tank memorial.
Re: The rule says, “No vehicles in the park”
#56It was all about, does the rule intend to apply to thus-and-such. Clearly the intent matters; the rule is made by a park ranger, not by god.
So emergency vehicles, toys etc are only an issue to a rule-lawyer. Not to normal people.
Re: The rule says, “No vehicles in the park”
#57Nitpick: The summary at the end labels your choices as "You think it is not a vehicle" or "You think it is a vehicle" based on whether or not you said the situation violates the rule, but some of the scenarios were clearly about whether or not something was in the park , rather than whether or not it was a vehicle. I can think a plane or a space station is a vehicle without thinking it violates the rule about not bei…
Same - I used the simple "rule" that basically everything that's in the park and used to carry people or goods is a "vehicle" at least by some people's standard. But you can fly a plane across the globe without going through 15 separate immigration rituals, so for most practical purposes (obviously excluding things like no-fly zones or bomber planes) the plane is not "in" any of the areas it passes over.
Funnily enough, by your wide standard, any footwear would also be considered a vehicle.
Re: The rule says, “No vehicles in the park”
#58It would have been better if the page defined "vehicle" since people's definitions may vary. The one I used was basically "Something used to carry people or goods". That meant that a toy car wasn't a vehicle, only a representation of one, but even a toy car could conceivably be made to carry something else at which point it would become a vehicle. I also struggled a bit with the disabled tank, since it's clearly designed for the transport of people, but while it's non-functional it couldn't fill that role. A car that's parked is also incapable of transporting people, but I think most people would argue the rule was still being violated by its presence.
Re: The rule says, “No vehicles in the park”
#59Based on this I think the likelihood of me enjoying the park is inversely related to how hard the park moderators have to squint to apply the park rules. I'm totally cool with people having a park where a stroller counts as a vehicle but it's not a park I would want to spend my time. (The only one I agreed with was the one where a random person drove their kia into the park)
Re: The rule says, “No vehicles in the park”
#60I got a few questions in, and the thing that stands out is the ambiguity of what a "vehicle" is. In rules like this, vehicle is defined - often to be about being motorized or speed. This metaphor doesn't map cleanly to when rules are less specific or laid out - because in this situation, the rules have been well tested and made to be unambiguous! It also suggests that there is only one rule that should be followed. F…
It seems pretty spot on to me! A "vehicle", like "hate speech" or "words that glorify violence", is an category that humans create, and the things that fit in that category vary from person to person and situation to situation.
I'm curious — what do you think a better analogy would have been?