Cool concept; lots of valence to each question:
- What counts as "in the park"
- What counts as a "vehicle"
- If it is both a vehicle and in the park, is justified?
- Is a justified violation of the rules still to be considered a violation?
- What counts as "in the park"
- What counts as a "vehicle"
- If it is both a vehicle and in the park, is justified?
- Is a justified violation of the rules still to be considered a violation?
> Is a justified violation of the rules still to be considered a violation? reply
Given the introductory text, neither is relevant:
> You might know of some rule in your jurisdiction which overrides local rules, and allows certain classes of vehicles. Please disregard these rules; the park isn't necessarily in your jurisdiction. Or perhaps your religion allows certain rules to be overridden. Again, please answer the question of whether the rule is violated (not whether the violation should be allowed).
This is mentioned on the page:
> answer the question of whether the rule is violated (not whether the violation should be allowed)
I think this is key. Having a tank, even if it is nonfunctional and being used as a war memorial is still a vehicle and should be banned unless an exception granted.
Otherwise you'll end up with a hundred "tanks" in the park because they are "allowed". This is one of the things that people who want to slash red tape don't seem to get. Just because it was difficult to get one going doesn't mean that we should cut the red tape. Perhaps we don't actually want/need 27 instances of it.
The reason a tank in the park violates the rule is because a tank is a vehicle and the rule is "no vehicles in the park".
The tank violates the rule and it is why it isn't allowed.
However there is a scenario (such as the war memorial,or an ambulance) where you may want the vehicle to have access.
I was just relating it to people who claim to want to "cut red tape/remove regulations" because most of the time the red tape scenarios are these where we want to be able to carve out exceptions for particular scenarios. But we still don't want it to be the default position.
This is explicitly irrelevant, the game makes this clear.
The whole point is -- to you this is extremely clear, along one axis of interpretation. To other people it may be extremely clear along another; the issue is those two "obvious" interpretations don't actually align.
Rule: no vehicles in the park.
A vehicle in the park violates the rule. If it's a vehicle, and it's in the park, it violates the rule.
Anything else you're assuming should be added to this comes from your own experiences, not from the problem statement.
I personally answered "not breaking the rule" to emergency vehicles and second-guessed the skateboard and bike ones.
If I were to rephrase the rule, I'd write it as "No motorized vehicles in the park unless for emergencies". This way you have less ambiguity for justification.
Well, let's play "what is emergency in the park" now. It's a game about language and rules. It consists of 27 questions, but after the first seven, you can skip to the end.
> You might know of some rule in your jurisdiction which overrides local rules, and allows certain classes of vehicles. Please disregard these rules; the park isn't necessarily in your jurisdiction.
The game is entirely about what constitutes "a vehicle" and what constitutes "in the park", it explicitly instructs against "what do I personally think should be allowed in the park".
I think calling it a "rule" with a "violation" is bringing in some emotional baggage that some people can't see past.
If instead of "does this violate the rule?" the game simply asked "is this a vehicle in the park?" the disagreement would be resolved.
Some people seem to interpret "does this violate the rule?" as asking something more like "is this a vehicle that shouldn't be in the park?", even though the rule doesn't say anything about "should".
But the question is not "is this a vehicle in the park," it's "whether or not this situation constitutes 'a vehicle in the park' for the sole purpose of what was the lawmakers' intent when they made a 'no vehicles in the park' rule."
A toy vehicle in the park most definitely is "a vehicle in the park." But prohibiting toys in the park most definitely wasn't the lawmakers' intent.
If you think a toy vehicle is a vehicle then you should have answered that the toy car violated the rule.
The way the game is framed as “interpretation of the law,” it includes the supposed intent of the law.