| Author | Message | ||
| Rabrab (Rabrab)
New member Username: Rabrab Post Number: 1370 Registered: 2-2005 |
And while this one may not have an idiot, it does result from a serious lack of common sense. The mayor and town council passed an ordinance concerning something that the townsfolk did. Some months later, they passed another ordinance, also concerning something that the townsfolk did. The mayor was then dismayed to find that the two ordinances, which seemed to have no connection, effectively canceled each other out for many of the townsfolk. | ||
| Alex319 (Alex319)
New member Username: Alex319 Post Number: 74 Registered: 5-2007 |
Did the first ordinance... ...require the townsfolk to do something? ...prohibit the townsfolk from doing something? ...make the townsfolk get a license before doing something? Was the first ordinance related to... ...alcohol? ...smoking? ...traffic laws? ...building regulations? ...health? ...noise? ...government procedures? Did the second ordinance... ...require the townsfolk to do something? ...prohibit the townsfolk from doing something? ...make the townsfolk get a license before doing something? Was the second ordinance related to... ...alcohol? ...smoking? ...traffic laws? ...building regulations? ...health? ...noise? ...government procedures? Did the second ordinance make the first ordinance harder to enforce? Did the second ordinance make it so that fewer people would be in a situation where the first ordinance might apply? Does "canceled each other out" mean that many people, after the second ordinance was passed, were in the same situation they were in before the first ordinance was passed? Was the "something that the townsfolk did" the same thing in both the first and the second ordinances? | ||
| Rabrab (Rabrab)
New member Username: Rabrab Post Number: 1374 Registered: 2-2005 |
Alex319 Tuesday, June 05, 2007 - 5:13 am: Did the first ordinance... ...require the townsfolk to do something? ...prohibit the townsfolk from doing something? ...make the townsfolk get a license before doing something? none of these exactly, but "prohibit" is closest; they could no longer do something, but not because it was prohibited... Was the first ordinance related to... ...alcohol? ...smoking? ...traffic laws? ...building regulations? ...health? ...noise? ...government procedures? Yes-ish, to this one; No, to all the rest. Did the second ordinance... ...require the townsfolk to do something? ...prohibit the townsfolk from doing something? Yes. An action was prohibited. ...make the townsfolk get a license before doing something? And no to the other two. Was the second ordinance related to... ...alcohol? ...smoking? ...traffic laws? Sort of. Yes-ish. ...building regulations? ...health? ...noise? ...government procedures? And No to the rest. Did the second ordinance make the first ordinance harder to enforce? Yes, it did. But in a lateral way. Did the second ordinance make it so that fewer people would be in a situation where the first ordinance might apply? Yes. Does "canceled each other out" mean that many people, after the second ordinance was passed, were in the same situation they were in before the first ordinance was passed? A number of them were, yes, but not all. Was the "something that the townsfolk did" the same thing in both the first and the second ordinances? Yope. | ||
| Alex319 (Alex319)
New member Username: Alex319 Post Number: 76 Registered: 5-2007 |
Was the first ordinance an "executive" order - meaning, it made the government do something? Was the intent of the first ordinance to make it so that they couldn't do the thing that they could no longer do? Is the particular wording of the ordinances relevant? Is there any language in the first ordinance that was ambiguous? the second ordinance? Are any of the following relevant... ...education? ...health care? ...accessibility for the disabled? ...entertainment? ...sex? ...illegal drugs? The yesish "traffic laws" - was it related to: ...road construction? ...signage? ...which side of the road to drive on? ...getting a driver's license? ...getting your driver's license revoked? ...buying and selling a car? ...car insurance? ...bicycles or other non-car vehicles on the roads? | ||
| Rabrab (Rabrab)
New member Username: Rabrab Post Number: 1380 Registered: 2-2005 |
Alex319 Wednesday, June 06, 2007 - 5:46 am Was the first ordinance an "executive" order - meaning, it made the government do something? no Was the intent of the first ordinance to make it so that they couldn't do the thing that they could no longer do? please clarify: who's "they"? Is the particular wording of the ordinances relevant? No, Is there any language in the first ordinance that was ambiguous? no, the second ordinance? and no. Are any of the following relevant... ...education? ...health care? ...accessibility for the disabled? ...entertainment? ...sex? ...illegal drugs? None of them are relevant The yesish "traffic laws" - was it related to: ...road construction? ...signage? ...which side of the road to drive on? ...getting a driver's license? ...getting your driver's license revoked? ...buying and selling a car? ...car insurance? ...bicycles or other non-car vehicles on the roads? None of these. Sorry. | ||
| Livejackiilaugh (Livejackiilaugh)
New member Username: Livejackiilaugh Post Number: 3 Registered: 6-2007 |
anything to do with a ban on tea? or a ban on an item? | ||
| Alex319 (Alex319)
New member Username: Alex319 Post Number: 80 Registered: 5-2007 |
Was the intent of the first ordinance to make it so that the townsfolk couldn't do the thing that the townsfolk could no longer do? | ||
| Rabrab (Rabrab)
New member Username: Rabrab Post Number: 1382 Registered: 2-2005 |
Livejackiilaugh Wednesday, June 06, 2007 - 9:08 pm: anything to do with a ban on tea? No. or a ban on an item? No. Alex319 Thursday, June 07, 2007 - 1:29 am: Was the intent of the first ordinance to make it so that the townsfolk couldn't do the thing that the townsfolk could no longer do? Yope. but I'm not feeling picky enough to make you chase it down...The intent of the first ordinance was to change the way that the townsfolk did something, not to prohibit them from doing it entirely. | ||
| Woodworm (Woodworm)
New member Username: Woodworm Post Number: 963 Registered: 3-2006 |
Does this have to do with pedestrians? Crossing the road? Using crossings? Jaywalking? | ||
| Enjay (Enjay)
New member Username: Enjay Post Number: 580 Registered: 4-2007 |
Did the first ordinance make the people do something a different way, and the second banned them from doing that thing at all, in any way? Or did it ban them from doing it in the way that the first ordinance made them, do it? Did the first ordinance say, "you must do it like this" or "you cannot do it like this...you can do it any otherway though"? | ||
| Rabrab (Rabrab)
New member Username: Rabrab Post Number: 1383 Registered: 2-2005 |
Woodworm Thursday, June 07, 2007 - 10:37 am: Does this have to do with pedestrians? Crossing the road? Using crossings? Jaywalking? No, neither ordinance has anything to do with pedestrians or with crossing the road. Enjay Thursday, June 07, 2007 - 10:42 am: Did the first ordinance make the people do something a different way, and the second banned them from doing that thing at all, in any way? Or did it ban them from doing it in the way that the first ordinance made them, do it? No to both. Did the first ordinance say, "you must do it like this" No, or "you cannot do it like this...you can do it any otherway though"? and YES! Very nice distinction to make. | ||
| Alex319 (Alex319)
New member Username: Alex319 Post Number: 83 Registered: 5-2007 |
The yesish "government procedures" - related to... ...parliamentary procedures? ...voting? ...taxes? ...licensing of any sort? | ||
| Rabrab (Rabrab)
New member Username: Rabrab Post Number: 1384 Registered: 2-2005 |
Alex 319 Friday, June 08, 2007 - 2:18 am: The yesish "government procedures" - related to... ...parliamentary procedures? ...voting? ...taxes? ...licensing of any sort? The yesish "government procedures" - related to... ...parliamentary procedures? ...voting? ...taxes? ...licensing of any sort? I didn't say yes-ish to "government procedures". I said sort of yes-ish to "traffic laws" and no to the rest of the list. | ||
| Alex319 (Alex319)
New member Username: Alex319 Post Number: 85 Registered: 5-2007 |
For the first ordinance you said "yes-ish" to government procedures, for the second you said "yes-ish" to traffic laws. At least that's what it looked like from your post on June 05, 2007 - 7:35 am. | ||
| Rabrab (Rabrab)
New member Username: Rabrab Post Number: 1385 Registered: 2-2005 |
I'm sorry, I looked back to see what I'd said and misread my own post. The yes-ish "government procedures" for the first ordinance - related to... ...parliamentary procedures? ...voting? ...taxes? ...licensing of any sort? None of these. | ||
| Alex319 (Alex319)
New member Username: Alex319 Post Number: 89 Registered: 5-2007 |
The first ordinance said "you cannot do X like this - you can do it any other way though." Correct? Is X something people usually do... ...at home? ...at school? ...at work? ...on the street? ...outside? ...in a restaurant? store? Did the second ordinance say... ..."You have to do X like this?" ..."You can't do X at all?" After both ordinances were passed, would it have been impossible to do X without breaking at least one of the ordinances? Would it have been possible at all to avoid breaking at least one of the ordinances? | ||
| Rabrab (Rabrab)
New member Username: Rabrab Post Number: 1386 Registered: 2-2005 |
Alex319 Saturday, June 09, 2007 - 8:34 am: The first ordinance said "you cannot do X like this - you can do it any other way though." Correct? Correct. Technically, it said "You can no longer do X like this. We don't care how else you do it, but this method will no longer be available to you." Is X something people usually do... ...at home? Mostly here. ...at school? Some students might do it, but not at school precisely. ...at work? Occasionally it would be done here. ...on the street? Definitely here. ...outside? ...in a restaurant? store? Possibly here as well.. Did the second ordinance say... ..."You have to do X like this?" ..."You can't do X at all?" This one, but there's a big FA here. The important thing about Ordinance 2 was what the penalty imposed for doing breaking it was. After both ordinances were passed, would it have been impossible to do X without breaking at least one of the ordinances? No. Would it have been possible at all to avoid breaking at least one of the ordinances? It would have been relatively easy to do X and avoid breaking either ordinance. A bit more expensive, but easy. | ||
| Enjay (Enjay)
New member Username: Enjay Post Number: 582 Registered: 4-2007 |
Would the penalty imposed breaking for Ordinance 2 have required someone to break Ordinance 1 by doing X in the forbidden way? | ||
| Rabrab (Rabrab)
New member Username: Rabrab Post Number: 1388 Registered: 2-2005 |
Enjay Saturday, June 09, 2007 - 2:27 pm: Would the penalty imposed breaking for Ordinance 2 have required someone to break Ordinance 1 by doing X in the forbidden way? Yes, but may mislead. | ||
| Bentarm (Bentarm)
New member Username: Bentarm Post Number: 994 Registered: 6-2001 |
Would most of the townsfolk have been happy to comply with the first ordinance? With the second? Would any particular people be more likely to break O1? the young? the old? the employed? people who drive cars? people who take public transport? people who have college degrees? people who are married? people who have some sort of disability? ditto O2. Is refuse collection relevant? | ||
| Rabrab (Rabrab)
New member Username: Rabrab Post Number: 1395 Registered: 2-2005 |
I'm glad you've come to play, Bentarm. I was beginning to feel rather neglected... Bentarm Thursday, June 14, 2007 - 6:33 pm: Would most of the townsfolk have been happy to comply with the first ordinance? Happy to? Not particularly. It wouldn't affect very many of them at any one time, but it would affect most of them at some time or another. Some would be very unhappy about having to comply, some wouldn't be bothered at all. There would be a few who would be happy about the ordinance. With the second? Many of them would be very unhappy about the second one - at a rough guess I'd say 50% at least Would any particular people be more likely to break O1? FA, the townspeople don't really have a choice about obeying it. the young? the old? the employed? people who drive cars? people who take public transport? people who have college degrees? people who are married? people who have some sort of disability? ditto O2. Yes, there is a particular group who would be very inclined and very likely to break O2. the young? Not particularly, no. the old? Not particularly, the employed? Quite a few of them, yes. people who drive cars? Ohhhh, YES. Lots of them people who take public transport? Maybe some, but not really. people who have college degrees? Yeah. some of them, too. people who are married? Not all married people, but a good number of them... people who have some sort of disability? No, not really. Is refuse collection relevant? YES, it is. To one of the ordinances. | ||
| Bentarm (Bentarm)
New member Username: Bentarm Post Number: 999 Registered: 6-2001 |
so is refuse collection relevant to O1? to O2? Whichever one it is - does it mean that refuse is collected less regularly? In a different manner? Is collection of household rubbish relevant? Does it have anything to do with recycling? Does 02 affect anyone who doesn't drive a car? Are speed limits relevant? adding petrol to cars? paying road tax? is public transport relevant? | ||
| Rabrab (Rabrab)
New member Username: Rabrab Post Number: 1397 Registered: 2-2005 |
Bentarm Friday, June 15, 2007 - 12:45 am: so is refuse collection relevant to O1? to O2? To O1 only. Whichever one it is - does it mean that refuse is collected less regularly? No. In a different manner? Yes-ish for svv of "in a differnt manner" Is collection of household rubbish relevant? I think we're having a language gap. <sad> Please define "rubbish"? Does it have anything to do with recycling? Not directly, but tangentally it does... Does 02 affect anyone who doesn't drive a car? Yes, but could mislead. Explore... Are speed limits relevant? adding petrol to cars? paying road tax? is public transport relevant? None of these. Sorry. | ||
| Alex319 (Alex319)
New member Username: Alex319 Post Number: 118 Registered: 5-2007 |
For O1, are any of the following affected: ...the frequency of refuse collection? ...who is responsible for refuse collection? ...what types of vehicles are used to collect refuse? ...how refuse is processed after it is collected? ...what types of containers refuse can be put in? where those containers have to be to get collected? ...what materials are allowed to be discarded as refuse? For O2, are any of the following affected: ...right of way? ...parking? ...when drivers are allowed to drive? Is the penalty for violating O2... ...a fine? ...jail time? ...community service? ...confiscation of property? is the confiscated property a vehicle? hazardous materials? ...loss of a driver's license? | ||
| Bentarm (Bentarm)
New member Username: Bentarm Post Number: 1002 Registered: 6-2001 |
I meant "is household refuse affected specifically"? As opposed to say... business rubbish, or rubbish from public dustbins. Does a binman who goes out on his rounds do anything differently as a result of O1? Does he do his rounds a different time? Do homeowners have to put their garbage out in a different way? If I didn't own a car, could I break O2? If I didn't have a driving licence? If I had a car, but never drove it? If I had a motorbike? A pedal bike? | ||
| Rabrab (Rabrab)
New member Username: Rabrab Post Number: 1398 Registered: 2-2005 |
Alex319 Friday, June 15, 2007 - 1:59 am: For O1, are any of the following affected: ...the frequency of refuse collection? No. ...who is responsible for refuse collection? No. ...what types of vehicles are used to collect refuse? No. ...how refuse is processed after it is collected? No. ...what types of containers refuse can be put in? No. ...where those containers have to be to get collected? No. ...what materials are allowed to be discarded as refuse? Soooooooooo close. Come at it from the other direction... For O2, are any of the following affected: ...right of way? No. ...parking? YES. ...when drivers are allowed to drive? No. Is the penalty for violating O2... ...a fine? ...jail time? ...community service? ...confiscation of property? This one only. ...is the confiscated property a vehicle? No. ...hazardous materials? Possibly, but only by chance. Don't bother to pursue this angle unless you really want to. ...loss of a driver's license? No. Bentarm Friday, June 15, 2007 - 2:52 am: I meant "is household refuse affected specifically"? Pretty much. Businesses wouldn't generally have to worry about O1, but they might on occasion. As opposed to say... business rubbish, or rubbish from public dustbins. Public bins would be unaffected. Does a binman who goes out on his rounds do anything differently as a result of O1? Not really, no. Does he do his rounds a different time? No. Do homeowners have to put their garbage out in a different way? No, but you're approaching the right forest... If I didn't own a car, could I break O2? Yes. you could. You'd be very unlikely to, though. If I didn't have a driving licence? Yes, but you'd be unlikely to. If I had a car, but never drove it? Strictly speaking, No. The car would have to be driven at least once for you to break O2. If I had a motorbike? Yes. A pedal bike? If all you owned was a pedal bike, you could but the the likelyhood that you would is so small as to be effectively nonexistent. | ||
| Bentarm (Bentarm)
New member Username: Bentarm Post Number: 1003 Registered: 6-2001 |
So, to summarise: O2 has something to do with parking - does it ban me from parking in certain places? at certain times? Does it require me to have a residence permit to park? O1 has something to do with refuse collection - does it affect what I'm allowed to put in my household rubbish bin? Where I have to dispose of certain items that i'm already not allowed to put in my bin? The amount of rubbish i'm allowed to put in my bin? Does refuse collection work the same as here - I fill up a household bin, take it out (say) once a week, and the binmen come and empty it? Is any of this process affected by O1? | ||
| Rabrab (Rabrab)
New member Username: Rabrab Post Number: 1402 Registered: 2-2005 |
Bentarm Friday, June 15, 2007 - 3:12 pm: So, to summarise: O2 has something to do with parking Yes, indeed - does it ban me from parking in certain places? No at certain times? No Does it require me to have a residence permit to park? No O1 has something to do with refuse collection And indeed, again. Yes- does it affect what I'm allowed to put in my household rubbish bin? Not exactly, but very close. Where I have to dispose of certain items that i'm already not allowed to put in my bin? No-ish, but also close. Explore The amount of rubbish i'm allowed to put in my bin? No. Does refuse collection work the same as here - I fill up a household bin, take it out (say) once a week, and the binmen come and empty it? Yes, it does. Is any of this process affected by O1? The actual picking up of trash? No. O1 affects special-case pick-ups | ||
| Bentarm (Bentarm)
New member Username: Bentarm Post Number: 1006 Registered: 6-2001 |
Does O2 affect parking by the roadside? in car parks? does it affect parking you have to pay for? how you pay for it? are parking meters relevant? If I wanted to dipose of an eggbox, would this be affected by O1? If I wanted to dispose of a fridge? a car? furniture? | ||
| Rabrab (Rabrab)
New member Username: Rabrab Post Number: 1403 Registered: 2-2005 |
Bentarm Friday, June 15, 2007 - 4:45 pm: Does O2 affect parking by the roadside? in car parks? does it affect parking you have to pay for? how you pay for it? are parking meters relevant? I may have mislead with my answer; it doesn't affect parking itself. It does affect something to do with parking at the curb. It does not affect parking in lots, nor does it have anything to do with paying for parking in any way. If I wanted to dipose of an eggbox, would this be affected by O1? No, If I wanted to dispose of a fridge? YES, a car? no, furniture? and YES again. | ||
| Bentarm (Bentarm)
New member Username: Bentarm Post Number: 1008 Registered: 6-2001 |
If I wanted to dispose of a fridge before O1 could I take it to a specific place? Leave it on the road outside my house? Would I need to contact the council to organise its collection? After O1? If I got into my car and moved it from where it was to park it by the side of the road somewhere, is it possible that in doing so I might have broken ordinance 1? | ||
| Rabrab (Rabrab)
New member Username: Rabrab Post Number: 1405 Registered: 2-2005 |
Bentarm Friday, June 15, 2007 - 6:02 pm: If I wanted to dispose of a fridge before O1 could I take it to a specific place? Leave it on the road outside my house? This one, Would I need to contact the council to organise its collection? and this one as well. After O1? Nope. Not anymore. To explain, since the exact mechanism isn't vital to know, but could be helpful, residents had previously been able to buy a sticker from the city at a nominal fee and use it to mark pieces of furniture or appliances for pick-up by the municipal trash department. These items could then be left at the curb, and the trash guys would take them away. It was decided that the trash department would no longer provide this service, and Ordinance 1 was passed, prohibiting residents from putting furniture and appliances on the curb. They had to find other ways to dispose of them. There weren't very many people affected at any one time, but most residents were affected sooner or later; and some few, who owned salvage yards or private removal services, were happy about it, as it meant more business for them. That's all you need to know about Ordinance 1. If I got into my car and moved it from where it was to park it by the side of the road somewhere, is it possible that in doing so I might have broken ordinance 1? Ordinance 1? no. Ordinance 2? Not solely by moving it, nor solely by parking it on the side of the road. | ||
| Woubit (Woubit)
Moderator Username: Woubit Post Number: 20 Registered: 5-2007 |
If I left my car by the side of the road for some considerable time, would officialdom remove it? | ||
| Rabrab (Rabrab)
New member Username: Rabrab Post Number: 1411 Registered: 2-2005 |
Woubit, you've come to visit me. Lovely. How's life treating you? <smile> Woubit Friday, June 15, 2007 - 10:14 pm: If I left my car by the side of the road for some considerable time, would officialdom remove it? Not because of Ordinance 2, they wouldn't. Officialdom being the way it is, though, there's no guarantee they wouldn't remove it for some other reason. | ||
| Bentarm (Bentarm)
New member Username: Bentarm Post Number: 1012 Registered: 6-2001 |
So was ordinance 1 intended to clear the kerb? And somehow as a result of Ordinance 2 the kerb is no longer clear? | ||
| Rabrab (Rabrab)
New member Username: Rabrab Post Number: 1413 Registered: 2-2005 |
Bentarm Friday, June 15, 2007 - 11:50 pm: So was ordinance 1 intended to clear the kerb? Why it was passed is really irrelevant. You've got all you really need to know about O1 -- furniture and appliances were no longer as easy to dispose of as they had been before it was passed. And somehow as a result of Ordinance 2 the kerb is no longer clear? No. O2 concerns the roadway directly, and parking on the roadway in a lateral way. | ||
| Rabrab (Rabrab)
New member Username: Rabrab Post Number: 1414 Registered: 2-2005 |
HINT: a necessary piece of information is something many of the residents did about parking. | ||
| Bentarm (Bentarm)
New member Username: Bentarm Post Number: 1017 Registered: 6-2001 |
Would O2 make it more difficult for residents to dispose of large items? More difficult to get to the tip? Would O2 still have been passed if O1 had never been passed? | ||
| Rabrab (Rabrab)
New member Username: Rabrab Post Number: 1415 Registered: 2-2005 |
Bentarm Saturday, June 16, 2007 - 12:24 am: Would O2 make it more difficult for residents to dispose of large items? No. More difficult to get to the tip? No. Would O2 still have been passed if O1 had never been passed? Yes. As far as the mayor and town council were concerned, there was no connection between O1 and O2. | ||
| Zenith (Zenith)
New member Username: Zenith Post Number: 413 Registered: 10-2004 |
Did Ordinance 1 invalidate ordinance 2? visa versa? or both invalidate each other? Did Ordinance 2 designate the roads clearways/towaway zones? | ||
| Alex319 (Alex319)
New member Username: Alex319 Post Number: 121 Registered: 5-2007 |
I have an idea: Ordinance 2 said that you were not allowed to block certain curbside parking spaces, and the penalty for doing so is that whatever you put there was removed. Therefore, people with large objects that they wanted to dispose of would simply put them in the forbidden area and wait for them to be confiscated. | ||
| Rabrab (Rabrab)
New member Username: Rabrab Post Number: 1417 Registered: 2-2005 |
Zenith Saturday, June 16, 2007 - 6:04 am: Did Ordinance 1 invalidate ordinance 2? visa versa? or both invalidate each other? b{Not really. To read them, they don't appear to have anything to do with each other} Did Ordinance 2 designate the roads clearways/towaway zones? No Alex319 Saturday, June 16, 2007 - 8:21 am: I have an idea: Ordinance 2 said that you were not allowed to block certain curbside parking spaces, and the penalty for doing so is that whatever you put there was removed. Therefore, people with large objects that they wanted to dispose of would simply put them in the forbidden area and wait for them to be confiscated. And an excellent idea it is, too. In fact, it's so excellent that it is a ****************SPOILER******************* A smallish town decided one summer that they could no longer afford the expense of having the trashmen pick up appliances and furniture, so they discontinued that service. This meant that the townsfolk could no longer buy a tag at City Hall and simply put the large items on the curb for pick-up; they had to find another method of disposal. For many, this was either more expensive or more inconvenient, or both. Many of the residents therefore just stashed the large items in the garages or sheds. There was something else about the town: it had been founded many years ago, and the houses were close together, on small lots, and didn't have enough off-street parking, especially since so many families with two or more cars had moved in. During the winter, after a snowfall, it was standard practice for a homeowner (or member of the family) to shovel out parking spaces by the curb, then set a chair, or the trash bin, or some other item in each spot to reserve it. The Town Council passed an ordinance forbidding this practice, and the penalty was confiscation of any items (other than properly parked cars) found in curb-side parking spots. It didn't take long for someone to figure out that they could work the two ordinances against each other by marking their shoveled-out parking spots with items they wanted to dispose of anyway. No real idiots, but a marked lack of common sense on the part of the mayor and council members. Nicely done, all, and thanks for playing. |
