This is a quick game that shows how people disagree about what rules are supposed to mean. It will take about three minutes of clicking. More in comments

submitted by ceck from novehiclesinthepark.com

all 5 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–]ceck[S] 5 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

I found this game very insightful. Apparently the creator was raised by lawyers and was inspired by famous legal cases as well as his parents' discussions. My takeaway from the game is that it is seductively easy to make a rule that sounds simple, but the interpretation of that rule in a real community quickly leads to severe disagreements. That is a phenomenon I have observed in many tabletop role-playing games. The basic games don't allow for much creativity. The deeper games that do allow for creativity are a higher risk of causing the group of participants to disagree violently with each other.

[–]NodeThis is my flair. There are many like it, but this one is mine. 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Was expecting NOMIC, but this was thought provoking. Having a clear reasoning for why no vehicles in the park would make those edge cases easier to judge.

[–]Dragonerne 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

This is typical leftist type argumentation technique actually.

You say "no vehicles in the park" and they start deconstructing what "vehicle" means and what "in" means and what "park" refers to. This is also a very jewish way of thinking and how they circumvent the law of God.

That said, I did find it interesting so thanks for sharing

[–]Alienhunter 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I'd argue the leftist argument is passing vague rules then being all like "whatever we don't need to bother figuring out what the mean it's obvious" then leaving others to deal with the mess of sorting out the practicalities. Or well, not leftist so much as progressive. Making vague laws is also a great way to ensure selective enforcement against political enemies.

You see this in modern politics constantly where progressive ram through a bill and don't bother to allow discussion and revision of it for quick political rewards only for it to end up in the courts and rescinded due to it not being written up to legal standards.

No vehicles in the park is perfectly fine so long as the enforcement arm is just asking you to leave. If the penalty is serious, like jail time or something, they'd better be pretty damn clear as to what exactly a vehicle means. Otherwise some overzealous cunt of an enforcer is gonna come about and start arresting people for wagons on a picnic or for children playing with toys.

Just look at school zero tolerance policies for a great example of this, no weapons allowed at school is a fine policy in theory, stick zero tolerance enforcement towards it and you get retarded shit like expelling students for having a spork or a kid bringing an obvious toy getting treated exactly the same as if they had brought an actual gun. Instead of just doing the smart thing of taking the toy away for the day and telling the kid the reason why it isn't allowed but otherwise not punishing them for a mistake.

I guess another real world practical example would be the idea of "stealing" garbage. This is something where cultural and civic ideas behind it vary wildly from culture to culture. In some places if someone leaves some garbage in an obvious place, say on the curb for collection, and some other random person wants to take it, nobody cares, it's not considered stealing or enforced. But in other places it is considered stealing and will be enforced because it is simply taking something that isn't yours. And the civic authority have reason to stop such behavior either due to tax reasons and the like they derive from garbage collection or simply as a way to oppress vagrants hoping they'll leave.

[–]Mcheetah 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

To me, a vehicle is something you can ride or operate that also has wheels or an engine. I just assume the tires will fuck up the grass or something, and take that logic with it. If the tires don't touch the grass or walk path, it's okay. So no on the wheelchair, but yes to the toys, horse, rowboat, and ice skates. I agree with others though; knowing WHY the rule is there, helps people follow it better.

I scored a 78% majority with the only major disagreement being other people think a rowboat on a lake is a vehicle.