Comment by default-kramer
3 years ago
I did read the instructions and I also assumed that I should use my judgment to determine whether the intent of the sign was violated. If the author had wanted otherwise, they should have said something like "Forget everything you about how laws are written and interpreted in the real world and simply take the most literal interpretation you can, with no regard for how ridiculous the outcome might be."
> If the author had wanted otherwise, they should have said something like "Forget everything you about how laws are written and interpreted in the real world and simply take the most literal interpretation you can, with no regard for how ridiculous the outcome might be."
>> 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__).
Seems like they did
>> 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.
But the park is somewhere on Earth, right? And the sign is written in English for humans to read and understand. Ignoring my personal locality/jurisdiction doesn't change this.
>> Or perhaps your religion allows certain rules to be overridden.
This one felt irrelevant to me.
>> Again, please answer the question of whether the rule is violated (__not whether the violation should be allowed__).
This tells me that my job is to determine whether the rule allows skateboards and not whether the rule should allow skateboards. This does not instruct me to be ridiculously literal while making that determination.
> This tells me that my job is to determine whether the rule allows skateboards and not whether the rule should allow skateboards.
No, it explicitly says your job is to determine if the rule is violated.
It gives you specific examples of where one might impart their personal bias and then says "don't do that." The you impart your bias. You'll notice that there is absolutely nowhere that it says "use your own definition of 'vehicle'" nor does it say "follow the spirit of the law, not the letter."
While I agree with you in principle, that's not what the game asked. But the fact that we disagree is exactly the point of the game. Fwiw, I agree with your definition in practice, but disagree that that's what the rules of the game were. The author was specifically careful to not be extremely explicit because that's what makes the point: that we disagree.
6 replies →
[flagged]