If we ignore the law of universal gravitation the ambulance can hover over the park.

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.)

I can't ignore everything that is not mentioned in the game description. I would not know the definition of the words used, like the meaning of "rule". Obviously you are supposed to use _some_ external context. Everything in reality has context.

>The game explicitly says to ignore everything except...

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.

> I don't agree with that condition, and ignored it.

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.

Because chess has a throughout specification (at least now, not sure if it was always that way). A knight is only a night and cannot fall under any other category. Can you think of a rule in chess that is not well defined?

I think which player gets white is ill defined by the game proper, and selected by the various organizers/players.

Edit: I think in tournament chess there is some ill defined rules around play behavior/distractions.

But it's kind of the point that the well defined parts such as movement allowed per piece aren't really up for discussion.

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.

Well, GP compared the rules against real life and decided that they are different from real life, so they shouldn't be followed.

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.

I disagree.

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.

They’d be tired of your shit because you’d be acting like an ass, not because you’d be breaking any game rules.

FIDE Laws of Chess: 11.5 - "It is forbidden to distract or annoy the opponent in any manner whatsoever. This includes unreasonable claims, unreasonable offers of a draw or the introduction of a source of noise into the playing area."

Naturally, this rule is not interpreted literally.

There are reasons not to cheat at a game. It'll have negative social consequences, and you might get barred from further games.

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 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.

Online surveys are not valid research tool anyway, because of heavy selection bias.

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.

It's unlikely to be a constant amount. There have been, somewhat ironically, surveys about lying on surveys. One result is that people will indicate being more or less likely to lie, depending on the sort of question: https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-magazine-monitor-29206289

This isn't just a game, it's a political analogy. If we treat it as a game without connection to real life then we can't fairly connect behavior in it to its real life analog. It's like telling someone "Counterstrike is just a game" then acting morally outraged when they shot someone in-game with an AK.

Just as chess is a political analogy of real war.

So your saying, what if the game was not hypothetical?

It's like the Stanford Marshmallow experiment[1]. The experiment measured the wrong thing, the credibility of the experimenters in the eyes of the subjects. If you didn't believe they would deliver on their promise, you took the first reward.

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...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_doctrine

There's a big gap between "they measured the wrong thing" and showing up to play a game but not following any of the rules. If you object to the game then why are you pretending to play it?

Perhaps the same reason there are trolls on the internet. The game you are playing and want me to play is not the game I wish to play, so I shall do my own thing in your game space.

You have to go out of your way to get to this game space, so that's pretty rude and hard to defend.

Why is it rude?

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).

Lack of faith in the author doesn't affect whether it's rude to barge in to someone's thing, a thing that put zero impositions on you and you had to go out of your way to reach, just to ignore the simple rules and make a mess of it.

I don't understand why you wouldn't see how that's rude.

> If the author cared about getting accurate results they wouldn't be posting an anonymous online survey.

"They don't care enough" doesn't stop it being rude to break their stuff on purpose. It's still rude. I don't understand your logic.

Then why on earth are you playing a game which is purely about hypotheticals to begin with? It's like if someone were to sit down to play Monopoly but refuse to hand over rent because "I believe that having a dwelling should be free". Ok, good for you, but then it's really foolish to play the game to begin with.

The point of the game is to illustrate this behavior. That is why they use a real-world example, to produce different results when different people are asked the same question. It's not a math problem.

I'm also somewhat surprised how people flatly refuse to handle being asked to apply rules as written, which the game does. (Otherwise I would assume they just haven't read the introduction closely.)

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.

Well, it is self consistent at least to ignore rules that are dumb, both in the case of the park and the case of the game, haha.

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.

But if something is an exception then by definition it's breaking the baseline rule, right?

Most legal systems have the concept of necessity as a defense to breaking laws. If the only/best way to prevent some worse outcome is to break the law, then the lawbreaking is excused. There's usually no need for each law to have its own exception for life-threatening emergencies.

Sounds like they were trying to forced their desired outcome instead of getting the real one.

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.

The way I (and I think the majority) interpreted it, was: "What did the person who wrote this rule intend?" i.e. The spirit of the rule, not the letter.

Obviously, no one expects the rule to cover all edge cases, so we have to extrapolate what the rule writer meant to say.

People are under no obligation to follow the instructions. They're free to pick the answer that appeals to them regardless.

I mean that in a serious way. It's very clear people lie on much more serious polls than this.