There is two levels of moderation in my mind. The first is to logical/ mathematically determine if the rule is broken, with goal of amoraly just answer if the rule is broken (binary). The second step is to determine the degree of rigidity/flexibility.
So by my logic the rule is broken when the ambulance drives into the park, but the leeway of the moderator to allow this should be apparent.
The way this thought experiment is framed, it seemed that you where supposed to only determine if the rule was broken. I think a more realistic way of framing the problem for a moderator would be something like: As security guard in a park, given this rule, would you allow ...
If the game was framed in this way I'm guessing the agreement would go way up.
So by my logic the rule is broken when the ambulance drives into the park, but the leeway of the moderator to allow this should be apparent.
The way this thought experiment is framed, it seemed that you where supposed to only determine if the rule was broken. I think a more realistic way of framing the problem for a moderator would be something like: As security guard in a park, given this rule, would you allow ...
If the game was framed in this way I'm guessing the agreement would go way up.