> 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).
To my mind, the park just needs an additional rule that allows for 911 emergencies, but this does not make these vehicles not vehicles. I am ready to disregard rules in a bunch of cases in real life, but I would not call this following the rules. Sometimes you just disregard rules and authority because you value quality of human life more. "Rescuing" these cases after the fact as following the rules actually smells faintly authoritarian to me (so that you get rid of legitimate rebellion), though maybe it's an oversensitive take.
Also surprised that I ended up agreeing with 93% of people apparently. This is despite applying a probably idiosyncratic definition of vehicle: separate from the functioning of human being, with a mechanism of propulsion and capable of transporting things or persons. I ended up allowing almost everything. I would disallow bikes but not kick scooters. Maybe I got owned by the "bikes are vehicles" propaganda.
And for moderation, any judicial role is a form of political power. This is why making it limited and not completely concentrated is more important than trying to come with perfect rules. In practice, this means you can voice your discontent and realistically go somewhere else.
Really though, I wonder if the results are flavored by the surrounding context in which the game tends to be linked. I made what I thought were common sense exceptions I think because it was linked in an article about people not agreeing on what is allowed. The thought in my mind was: come on, people can just be reasonable.
I don't agree with that condition, and ignored it. I live in the real world, not hypothetical-land. Too much of what's wrong with the world starts with people ignoring the real world, and going hypothetical.
Fascinating. It’s a game! No Knight moves one square to the right and two up, but it seems chess players have no problem with it.
Why follow the rules of some online survey? Logically you should do whatever provides you the maximum emotional benefit, regardless of what the rules say.
Why follow the rules of the game then? I used to cheat at many games both online and offline, some casinos think I "cheat" because I always count cards, I have an explicit gain by winning in all scenarios, as I either gain more satisfaction from winning or monetary output.
The same social consequences come from the online survey, i.e. I do collect information about who you are, further you do damage the quality of the data meant to fund/explore future decisions in all kinds of venues, e.g. social studies, politics, etc.
As for giving bullshit answers on them, valid surveys have built-in protection measures. The amount of trolling in surveys has been measured this way; I've seen it refered to by at least one author as "Lizardman's constant", and it was consistently around 7% or such.
Chess rules are also different from real life, but people don't have any issues following them.
The question whether it was “well defined” doesn't come into play here, I think: the rules in the game tell you to ignore any overrides (such as that certain vehicles may be allowed in an emergency situation). And GP decided to ignore that part.
I think interesting discussion can be had even when respecting this rule. For example, I decided that a skate board is not a vehicle but a bike is.
Lets take chess and the knight, and 2 - 1 movement rules. If there are pieces in front of the knight you pick up the knight off the board in 3 dimensional space, right?! The rules of chess only define the final end point of the piece and not the physical motion in real space to reach that location.
With this said, if you're in a professional setting, and you pick up the king and fly it around like an airplane, everyone is going to get really tired of your shit.
Naturally, this rule is not interpreted literally.
Edit: I think in tournament chess there is some ill defined rules around play behavior/distractions.
Where the contention occurs is on human behaviors. Where the rules for chess are pretty simple (and yes, this does lead to difficult to compute and complex behavior), the motivations that humans follow both individually and as social structures are far more complex and contradictory.
I don't agree with the conditions of the game, because far too much damage is done by people who "both sides" or "I'm just asking questions" or otherwise hedge on normal socially accepted behavior. The post fairness doctrine[2] world is a harsh place, and it's made me grumpy.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_marshmallow_experimen...
If the author cared about getting accurate results they wouldn't be posting an anonymous online survey. Adding onto that, I don't have any faith in the author of the post to use this data in any significant way (no shade to the author I just think most of these studies go nowhere).
I don't understand why you wouldn't see how that's rude.
Obviously, no one expects the rule to cover all edge cases, so we have to extrapolate what the rule writer meant to say.
Rules are a part of how the world works as is the violation of them. Thought problems that deviate so far from reality are more a test of abstract thinking.
Rules implicitly exist for terminal goals (don't kill the grass in the park so people can enjoy it) but get abstracted into actionable decrees that are not necessarily aligned (Becky can't enjoy the grass if she's dead.)
Vehicle (in most rules) means motorized, heavy, and dangerously fast, making most of the options not vehicles. Emergency services are exempt from the rule during emergencies, and therefore not breaking it.
I mean that in a serious way. It's very clear people lie on much more serious polls than this.