But you’re just moving the goalposts. According to your rules, a toy car should be banned. Should we define in excruciating detail what a car is? Should we define an exact decibel level at which the noise threshold kicks in? People will always argue about what constitutes a rule violation - for example, you don’t believe that the police car should have been allowed to chase a teenager for failing to wear a mask, but I’m sure there’s plenty of people who disagree. Should we define “emergency” to the nth degree? Does the park need a 13-volume rulebook?

"Should we define an exact decibel level at which the noise threshold kicks in?"

Possible, but usually not necessary. With noise, any unnecessary noise is meant. If a baby cries that is hard to prevent, but the parent will still try. If some hooligans howling around - that should not happen.

"According to your rules, a toy car should be banned"

My rules would - like usually - contain a symbol as well, making it clear with "car" a real "car" is meant. And toy cars that do produce loud noise - yes, I would ban those. They can be really annoying.

It depends what kind of park it should be. There are parks, where even playing kids are not wanted. (fancy castle parks) In a city park, it depends on what the people want - and yes, you can have text under the park rule sign, which is how I know it.

Usually the guidline should be common sense and not disturbing others - but for those cases where people disagree - then you can refer to the rules.

As long as you’re appealing to “common sense” at any level then people will disagree. 1 in 10 people think piloting a commercial airliner over the park violates a “no vehicles in the park” rule, which seems crazy to me but obviously logical to others.

"but for those cases where people disagree - then you can refer to the rules."

I'm pretty sure we're just going round in circles now. The point is that people disagree about everything, so anything you leave up to "common sense" will cause disagreement. Any you can't possibly define rules for everything either.

No, "common sense" is the default. And where that is not enough - you can have rules for most common cases, to settle any dispute. And if there are edge cases that frequently cause disturbance where no clear rules cover them - then those cases can be put into the rules. It is not that complicated.

Now assume the park contains a billion people, some of whom are explicitly interested in doing things you wish to disallow, and some are explicitly interested in annoying you. Both of these groups continually do antisocial things not defined by the rules, even as you add more.

Then then start a political party to defend the parks service for discriminating against them when you create rules seemingly targeted at their legitimate misbehavior.

Is it still simple?

A park does not contain a billion people.

A very big nation does.

That is the slight difference in between the 2 things. The difference in simple and complicated. Because the more people you have, yes, the more complicated it gets.

> My takeaway is, the rule was just bad defined

To reflect real life: there is a reason why rules aren't specific and allow for judgement calls. Your clearer rules for instance, allows for manned flying vehicles like helicopters.

- no noise

Also you don't have to specify rules that are covered by general law. In most states it is illegal anyway, to fly low altitude with helicopters over populated areas for fun.

Talk about a poorly defined rule.

Cell phone goes off? Straight to jail. Your child asks a question and you answer? Straight to jail. Shoes squeak on the pavement? Believe it or not, also straight to jail. Rattling wheel on your stroller? Still jail.

I think this is the most pedantic discussion I ever participated in. Rules for a park do not involve jail time, but leaving the park for offenders. And if it is a park excplicitely of seniors sensitive to noise, then yes - low decibel rules apply. If it is a common park, then obviously no. All that can be specified if necessary.

> I think this is the most pedantic discussion I ever participated

That's the point of the "No vehicles in the park" game! People interpret rules differently - some skew pedantic, others are more "spirit of the law" types, but to varying extents - which is why for any 2 random people, the chances of agreeing on 100% of scenarios is vastly less than 50%

> - no noise

...and we're back in subjective territory: how many dBs would count as "noise"?

Even under your additional no-noise rule, electric autogyros would be allowed at the park, which is not populated if it's of the national-park-service persuasion)

Just picking up on the tank example, I said no since the tank would need a motor vehicle to get there.

"No noise" is certainly not clear-cut. It may seem that way from any subjective perspective of what counts as noise, and it can seem so obviously right, but it's certainly not objective or universal. Which, I believe, is part of the point of the post.

Apart from that, let me give a real-world example of how clear-cut things become not so clear-cut, from a legal or rules point of view. Where I live, vehicles and other means of traffic used to be clearly divided into categories:

- Cars are, well, cars

- A motorcycle is a motorized two-wheeled vehicle with an engine displacement greater than 50 cubic centimetres or with a maximum speed of more than 45 km/h

- A moped is a motorized two-wheeled vehicle with both engine displacement and maximum speed less than above. (It's still a motorized vehicle but the legislation is somewhat laxer in parts due to lower power and speed.)

- A bicycle is a non-motorized, human-powered vehicle with at least two wheels

- Roller skates, skateboards, kick scooters etc. are not considered vehicles, so any person travelling on them is considered a pedestrian.

There may have been some other categories but you get the general idea.

Cars and motorcycles aren't allowed on bike paths. That would also include parks. Mopeds may be allowed on bike paths by an explicit sign, although you aren't likely to see one on a park path.

Then someone comes up with the electric bicycle.

Since the bicycle is defined as non-motorized, and an electric bike clearly has a motor, does it count as a bicycle or a moped? Is it allowed on bike paths? Or in parks?

It's not entirely an academic matter of definitions either. An e-bike running 30 or 35 km/h may not be fast enough to ride on the street among car traffic, and most people probably wouldn't be comfortable riding one there. Also, it's slow enough that most car drivers probably wouldn't want those in the street. But in addition to being motorized by definition, such an e-bike might also be practically kind of fast for urban bicycle paths. People on bicycle paths started feeling uncomfortable with e-bikes zooming by, not to mention pedestrians on shared pedestrian/bike paths.

So, where do e-bikes belong? Where are they allowed?

And once you've solved that one way or another, someone comes up with the electric scooter. Their speed may also vary from somewhat faster than walking speed to something resembling fast e-bikes. Is the person riding one a pedestrian? A bicyclist, similarly to e-bikes? Is the vehicle a moped instead? Should you be allowed to ride an electric scooter going 30 km/h in a park? One with a maximum speed of 25 km/h? If not, what about the lycra-wearing dude on a bike going upwards of 30 km/h?

If all of the above are allowed, why aren't mopeds or motorbikes if they stick to riding no more than 30 km/h? Because of the noise? What if they're electric?

And this is while still staying reasonably objective. If the electric bicyclist or scooter rider is disallowed from parks or bike paths but a road cyclist going over 30 km/h is allowed, in some significant number of people that's going to spark a sense of unfairness. If their views aren't heard, that can lead to resentment. Some of the people who don't care for any two-wheeled vehicles and who just want to enjoy a stroll don't want to be scared by anyone going too fast.

What should or shouldn't be allowed, or indeed what's reasonable and what isn't, definitely isn't clear-cut in a sense that people in general can agree on.

Forum or social media moderation is certainly going to be a lot more up to interpretation than that depending on people's values, personal experiences, context, etc.

Well, you can have speed limits. Forbid ICE engines (noise).

Also forbid or allow skateboarding (noise)

etc.

"What should or shouldn't be allowed, or indeed what's reasonable and what isn't, definitely isn't clear-cut in a sense that people in general can agree on."

Yeah, it is not. It depends what the park aims for to please and what the majority of its visitors expect. But you can have clear rules that cover most common cases.

Same with social media.

No need to cover ALL cases. Reality is complicated. And if a edge case happens often - you can make a new rule.