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

891–900 of 1001 posts

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

#891

Post by drc500free »

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…

The website closes with a graph objectively showing how people disagree with each other on these questions. People thinking that interpretation is obvious and that there is no reasonable disagreement is exactly the problem.

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

#892

Post by [deleted] »

13of40 wrote: post #860
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…

Where I live, vehicles like police cars have the letters "xmt" on the left side of their license plate. That's because they are exempt from rules like "no vehicles in the park". Per the questionnaire, if the SWAT team drove their tank into the park that would be a vehicle in the park, but they get a pass.

[deleted]

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

#893

Post by sam0x17 »

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…

You didn't follow the instructions. He specifically says forget all existing rules you may know. There are no vehicles allowed in the park. That includes ambulances, fire trucks, orbiting space stations that pass through the border of the park, etc.

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

#894

Post by roelschroeven »

wuiheerfoj wrote: post #585
dudeinjapan wrote: post #564

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If a vehicle entering the park would directly endanger lives--rather than just being a nuisance--the sign would (should) give the extra context to make a stronger discouragement. Otherwise, it is fair game to assume the "intent" of any such sign is to make guidelines to enhance the public's mutual enjoyment/safety at the park, and that such guidelines may be discarded when lives are endangered (police/ambulance). As…

I voted that a police car/ambulance driving into the park _was_ breaking the rules, though breaking the rules may be justifiable in some circumstances. The smoke signal example you gave is similar - if I’m lost, I care more about being found than the punishment for starting a fire. If the ‘no campfires’ rule was punishable by death (and enforced), perhaps I wouldn’t risk a smoke signal

For anyone who has read the introduction, that's the only valid answer to that question in the context of this game:

"You might know of some rule in your jurisdiction which overrides local rules, and allows certain classes of vehicles. Please disregard these rules [...]. Again, please answer the question of whether the rule is violated (not whether the violation should be allowed)."

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

#895

Post by kelnos »

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…

I think it achieved its purpose. I only got 11% right, because in my mind, the majority of those things were not vehicles.

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

#896

Post by jasonlotito »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #435
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…

> 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.

The funny thing is, the game itself assumes intent. And even you assume intent.

What is a vehicle? "a thing used to express, embody, or fulfill something" is one of the definitions. So, no books allowed.

But then, the rule doesn't say vehicles aren't allowed to enter the park.

It simple describes the state. That there are "No vehicles in the park."

> But the larger point is that people can adopt the "obvious intent" version of the rule when it suits them and the pedantic version of the rule when it suits them.

At the very least, the other point is that it's challenging to come up with a rule that can't be misinterpreted even when being pedantic.

"No vehicles in the park."

No, there are no books current in the park. Just a bunch of cars.

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

#897

Post by gameshot911 »

msm_ wrote: post #834
willsmith72 wrote: post #378

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What??? Please explain. I can't fathom how a no vehicles sign would apply to bicycles or skateboards

I can't fanthom how a "no vehicles" sign would NOT apply to bicycles. What else would you call a bicycle if not a vehicle? It would be clear to me that park is catering to pedestrians and not cyclists (or car drivers).

I'd call it a bicycle.

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

#898

Post by Ihateyouall1234 »

tsukikage wrote: post #696
mrtksn wrote: post #489

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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…

[dead]

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

#899

Post by wellpast »

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…

But the ambulance DOES break the rule. Clearly and unambiguously.

But breaking rules like this in cases of emergency is the correct thing to do.

This is where the moderation difficulty comes in.

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

#900

Post by hotpockets »

Additional suggestions that i think would make the game better/harder because the answer distribution is currently pretty skewed and many of your options are just clearly not covered by the rule (though all respect to rule sticklers, general contrarians, and everythings-a-vehicle hipsters):

construction equipment for park improvements (backhoe, etc)

gas powered moped

electric moped

gas powered rc car

4-wheeler/atv/dune buggy

golf cart

segway/monowheel

antique cars for some kind of demo/event

shriner guys in those mini cars in a local parade (at least i think most americans know what i'm talking about)

anti-drunk driving display (they have these sometimes at colleges, and maybe high schools, but it's basically a wrecked car and there are police there to do pr)

Note: i think many of your options are just clearly not covered by the rule, maybe keep some of them but not so many?

Post reply on HN