Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The rule says, “No vehicles in the park”

novehiclesinthepark.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

691–700 of 1001 posts

Re: The rule says, “No vehicles in the park”

#691

Post by uKVZe85V »

Two important things:

1. From the first page:

> please answer the question of whether the rule is violated (not whether the violation should be allowed).

In other words, if a question is about some kind of vehicle that you think should be allowed to go, overriding this rule, the answer is "yes, the rule is violated".

2. There is a twist in this game and it's best to not tell which it is before you try the game. (The twist is acknowledged in the result page, 4th paragraph from the bottom, not counting the P.S. line at the end).

Re: The rule says, “No vehicles in the park”

#692

Post by cj »

crazygringo wrote: post #198

I'm fascinated by the fact that my takeaway is the precise opposite of what the author intended. To me, the answer to all of the questions was crystal-clear. Yes, you can academically wonder whether an orbiting space station is a vehicle and whether it's in the park, but the obvious intent of the sign couldn't be clearer. Cars/trucks/motorcycles aren't allowed, and obviously police and ambulances (and fire trucks) do…

> and obviously police and ambulances (and fire trucks) doing their jobs don't have to follow the sign.

I disagree due to the instructions on the page before starting the quiz: "please answer the question of whether the rule is violated (not whether the violation should be allowed)."

The game is specifically asking us not to make a judgement call on whether a violation of the rule should be permitted. So, police are violating the rule (even if we think it's allowable)

Re: The rule says, “No vehicles in the park”

#694

Post by owalerys »

dec0dedab0de wrote: post #302
crazygringo wrote: post #198

I'm fascinated by the fact that my takeaway is the precise opposite of what the author intended. To me, the answer to all of the questions was crystal-clear. Yes, you can academically wonder whether an orbiting space station is a vehicle and whether it's in the park, but the obvious intent of the sign couldn't be clearer. Cars/trucks/motorcycles aren't allowed, and obviously police and ambulances (and fire trucks) do…

Cars/trucks/motorcycles aren't allowed, and obviously police and ambulances (and fire trucks) doing their jobs don't have to follow the sign. Obviously emergency vehicles are going to do what they need to do, but even if they are allowed to break the rule they are still breaking the rule. I also think a park sign that says no vehicles also applies to bicycles and skateboards.

I think it really depends on where you are located. I can't imagine personal wheeled vehicles like bikes and skateboards being prohibited from a park in the Netherlands unless explicitly stated so. On the other hand in suburban Florida biking places is so far out of the norm that it might make sense.

Re: The rule says, “No vehicles in the park”

#695

Post by Aachen »

A better example would be a private property (you're the sole source of law, not interpreting someone else's rule) where people come to network (people are here because other people are here) and there's a competitor literally next door (there is no cost for them to change platform).

These three crucial differences make the game incomparable to actual online moderation

Re: The rule says, “No vehicles in the park”

#696

Post by tsukikage »

mrtksn wrote: post #489
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #435

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Yes, you can academically wonder whether an orbiting space station is a vehicle and whether it's in the park, but the obvious intent of the sign couldn't be clearer. Cars/trucks/motorcycles aren't allowed, and obviously police and ambulances (and fire trucks) doing their jobs don't have to follow the sign. Now you're assuming the intent. The park could contain loose soil on the edge of a cliff, so any vehicle drivi…

>Now you're assuming the intent. That's true but without assuming intent you end up blindly following rules. Something struck me when first moved to UK from Turkey: Every rule in UK seemed to have an intent and that's why I think Turkey is full of rules which no one follows but in UK the rules are less numerous but followed. In Turkey, Turks like to think that the rules are not followed because the fines are too smal…

The intent of moderation is "don't be horrible to each other and/or the space".

Unfortunately, people who are horrible to other people and/or spaces generally refuse to accept this, and therefore either need more specific examples of what being horrible entails to compare their behaviours against - leading to proliferation of edges, epicycles and rule-gaming - or you have a codicil along the lines of "the decision of what is horrible is up to the moderator and is final", leading to, at best, everyone whining about how unfair, arbitrary and partial the policy is now they can't be horrible to each other any more, all at once.

Re: The rule says, “No vehicles in the park”

#697

Post by thepasswordis »

According to most Reddit moderators: no vehicles in the park (unless the vehicle is in front of a sunset or we have to save our democracy by allowing vehicles with megaphones to drive around the park spouting the exact political ideology of the moderators)

The rule “no vehicles in the park” isn’t complicated. It’s complicated when it’s “no vehicles in the park except the moderators and their friends.”

Re: The rule says, “No vehicles in the park”

#698

Post by probably_wrong »

gcmrtc wrote: post #672
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #435

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Yes, you can academically wonder whether an orbiting space station is a vehicle and whether it's in the park, but the obvious intent of the sign couldn't be clearer. Cars/trucks/motorcycles aren't allowed, and obviously police and ambulances (and fire trucks) doing their jobs don't have to follow the sign. Now you're assuming the intent. The park could contain loose soil on the edge of a cliff, so any vehicle drivi…

> The park could contain loose soil on the edge of a cliff, so any vehicle driving there could cause a landslide that topples the vehicle over the cliff and could kill anyone on the beach below. No vehicles in the park. That would be a terrible phrasing then. It should have been phrased something like "Landslide hazard, no weight more than 1ton allowed anywhere in the park." or something in that vein.

This is core to the Gricean Maxim of Quantity [1], according to which one gives as much information as needed but no more. If the sign says "No vehicles in the park" and nothing else then any reasonable person should assume that the reason for the sign is so obvious that no further clarification is needed.

Unrelated, it is also the reason why a hot-dog is not a sandwich, pragmatically speaking.

[1] https://www.sas.upenn.edu/~haroldfs/dravling/grice.html

Re: The rule says, “No vehicles in the park”

#699

Post by layer8 »

crazygringo wrote: post #198

I'm fascinated by the fact that my takeaway is the precise opposite of what the author intended. To me, the answer to all of the questions was crystal-clear. Yes, you can academically wonder whether an orbiting space station is a vehicle and whether it's in the park, but the obvious intent of the sign couldn't be clearer. Cars/trucks/motorcycles aren't allowed, and obviously police and ambulances (and fire trucks) do…

> obviously police and ambulances (and fire trucks) doing their jobs don't have to follow the sign.

I agree, but in the sense that it’s okay for them to violate the rule. However, they are still violating the rule, and thus the correct answer in the game is “yes, this violates the rule”.

Re: The rule says, “No vehicles in the park”

#700

Post by avianlyric »

crazygringo wrote: post #198

I'm fascinated by the fact that my takeaway is the precise opposite of what the author intended. To me, the answer to all of the questions was crystal-clear. Yes, you can academically wonder whether an orbiting space station is a vehicle and whether it's in the park, but the obvious intent of the sign couldn't be clearer. Cars/trucks/motorcycles aren't allowed, and obviously police and ambulances (and fire trucks) do…

An interesting counterpoint to this

> Cars/trucks/motorcycles aren't allowed, and obviously police and ambulances (and fire trucks) doing their jobs don't have to follow the sign.

Is that every year multiple people in the U.S. are killed by police driving their cars onto beaches and running over unsuspecting sun bathers. So there’s a strong argument that the signs intent is to ban even responding emergency vehicles.

Post reply on HN