Re:The rule says, “No vehicles in the park”
by hsjqllzlfkf on Friday June 23, 2023 @10:35PM
(#36454909)
I even disagree that there was any nuance. I wasn't told "you're doing content moderation, there's a rule, the rule is violated but there could be some mitigating circumstances, do you allow the content?". I was told: is there a vehicle in the park, and I said yes because a police car is a vehicle and it's in the park.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:The rule says, “No vehicles in the park”
by emmelaich on Friday June 23, 2023 @11:00PM
(#36455046)
I agree that the police car is a vehicle and and it is a violation.
That's the easiest reading. In a real example, though, there'd be law or authority quoted, and you can be sure that's there would be an exception for emergency vehicles. That doesn't change the meaning of the sign in isolation.
Re:The rule says, “No vehicles in the park”
by otherme123 on Saturday June 24, 2023 @03:19AM
(#36456391)
Could be an exception... or not. Some prohibitions come from hazards like "this won't hold your weight" or "this could flood unexpectedly". And there's no emergency vehicle exceptions.
I had my closest park in mind when answering. It has a river and multiple wooden bridges to access. Also, the ground floods sometimes in the winter and some paths are too soft for a car. No way an ambulance or firetruck is going to get in the park. They could try, but would loss more time than doing it on foot, or a bridge would collapse under their weight.
Re:The rule says, “No vehicles in the park”
by makeitdouble on Saturday June 24, 2023 @05:24AM
(#36457044)
The issue this is inspired from was pretty interesting [0], and notably very few things were exempted from the rules leading to interesting debates on how the rules should be interpreted
[0] https://99percentinvisible.org/episode/the-wilderness-tool/