Clarification of the new advertisement rule.

[Ben.]

As far as selling weapons is concerned, all weapons dealers are hackers, or have bought from hackers. That is what Aragorn told me.
Thus doing /ad Selling cheap weapons would be bannable anyway.

[Gandalf]

As far as selling weapons is concerned, all weapons dealers are hackers, or have bought from hackers. That is what Aragorn told me.
Thus doing /ad Selling cheap weapons would be bannable anyway.

Lets say it this way... you know the prices of weapons and ammo in ammunation, and to this you must add the entrance fee.
If you have the weapon and buy huge loads of ammo, the price of ammo would make the entrance fee neglectible. This means that in theory you could sell a little bit above the price of ammo and make a profit.
This does not explain people who sell at prices lower than ammo, and the general idea of players that you must make a huge profit on a deal to make it worth while...

[Mikro]

Being inside Ammunation doesn't make the weapon deal legal because Ammunation itself has to be the one selling the weapons, hence why it's still illegal and thus couldn't be used in /ad. I'm not here to argue details Grzes, I'm really not in the mood. I just posted an example to answer his question.

Act VII: Trading weapons in public space (unless in a weapon shop) is an illegal act.

I think no explanation is needed Sugar, your statement was totally false.

Explanation if needed:...
Trading is selling it to an other person in general, or buying it from an other person. There is no need for a business to be involved in this selling and buying (aka trading). Thus it is not the ammunation that has to be the one selling the weapons. It can also be person to person, according to the above part from the constitution.

[Gandalf]

Boom baby boom! I think no explanation is needed Sugar, your statement was totally false.

Explanation if needed:...
Trading is selling it to an other person in general, or buying it from an other person. There is no need for a business to be involved in this selling and buying (aka trading). Thus it is not the ammunation that has to be the one selling the weapons. It can also be person to person, according to the above part from the constitution.

The constitution is not made for wannabe nitpickers....

EDIT:
Question... (trick question) : who is responsible for transactions done in a shop if you see transactions inside any shop as legal trading ?

[SkyHawk]

The constitution is not made for wannabe nitpickers....

EDIT:
Question... (trick question) : who is responsible for transactions done in a shop if you see transactions inside any shop as legal trading ?

Im guessing that would be the owner of that said ammunation. If the owner is not present during the deal wouldn't that make the trade illegal?

[newton_alex]

If the owner is not present during the deal wouldn't that make the trade illegal?

What if it is un-owned ?

[[NP]Monte Montague]

 Firstly, /ad is overpriced.

Secondly, Aragorn said in-game to someone how is a legal product illegal to sell - guns - so kind of said that they are not il-legal to sell, this is what I understood.

SA:MP Law, government and general setup is just primitive and unorganized.

Actual server rules are also unorganized.
It says somewhere if a rule is not written down then it's not a rule (not in reference to this specific topic) .

IVMP is adopting a much more better choice in such affairs, it's not limiting peoples role-play but providing much more of it - and unlike in samp it does not always rely on scripts (like formerly /engine and current fire missions).

Look how long it took for the constitution to be made... (no offense to the ones who made it but it could also be changed a bit)


@ Gandalf: I actually can grow cucumbers on a farm, I role-play (in) a farm for many months ... You may or not remember but I wrote about an icdenent where I was roleplaying farmer and then FBI/SAPD/ARPD came upto me and was starting to ahrass me and saying I'm selling drugs because I sell "Oregano", and you or someone said I should take them to court for it (but it's a waste of time)
 Also  /ad is too expensive and it's already already littered with these dumb events for "CRAZYYYYYY DD". People don't role-play DD they just use it as another way to cause destruction - pretty much dming and ramming but with "EVENT" label.

[Mikro]

The constitution is not made for wannabe nitpickers....

It was from my side not meant that way. It was my interpretation of the constitution/law that I think would be used in court. And since I am FBI, I already quite fast think in such ways.

EDIT:
Question... (trick question) : who is responsible for transactions done in a shop if you see transactions inside any shop as legal trading ?

If I have to interpret this question, you are saying that I see a transaction in any shop as legal. In this case I was speaking about a weapon transaction in an ammunation. I definitely do not think that like a heroin transaction in a burger shot is legal, neither a weapon deal in a bistro.

As I don't really know how this question is ment, regarding the above thing I stated, I will answer this as a transaction of weapons inside any ammunation. And yes indeed, now you say, in this combination, it is tricky. This question can be seen and answered in many ways in my opinion. In general you can say about a transaction done in a shop that the final responsible person is the owner. However, direct responsible is the one behind the cash register. I would say that both (staff behind the cash register and owner) are responsible.

Now the question were this was all coming from. If it is legal for any person to do a weapon transaction in an ammunation? You make me doubt... Since I am FBI and sometimes I have to interpret the constitution directly as it is read and as only law way, then I would still say it is legal. However, common sense here would answer the opposite. With common sense it is weird that trading of weapons outside an ammunation is not allowed, but inside it is. So then it would only be the ammunation (so the staff/owner) that can trade weapons. But in a court case I probably can not win with this kind common sense since constitution clearly (for me) says it is allowed and I think more would see it this way.

I have no clear answer on your question and I hope you can enlighten me of your interpretation.

To go on a side road: Constitution could be changed, a good alternative for this, so the common sense comes more forward, would be in my eyes:
"Distribution of weapons is not allowed by anyone or anything, except ammunations."
Note that I said distribution here, not trading. Trading would be in exchange of something (as it is now), distribution any change of owner, also those changes involving a gift.

Or maybe I should look at the question in a totally different way.. Surprise me. 

[Louis_Keyl]

Firstly, /ad is overpriced.

Secondly, Aragorn said in-game to someone how is a legal product illegal to sell - guns - so kind of said that they are not il-legal to sell, this is what I understood.

SA:MP Law, government and general setup is just primitive and unorganized.

Actual server rules are also unorganized.
It says somewhere if a rule is not written down then it's not a rule (not in reference to this specific topic) .

IVMP is adopting a much more better choice in such affairs, it's not limiting peoples role-play but providing much more of it - and unlike in samp it does not always rely on scripts (like formerly /engine and current fire missions).

Look how long it took for the constitution to be made... (no offense to the ones who made it but it could also be changed a bit)

Leave for IVMP then and stop moaning.

[SugarD]

It was from my side not meant that way. It was my interpretation of the constitution/law that I think would be used in court. And since I am FBI, I already quite fast think in such ways.

[This is not meant in a provoking way, but] it is not you who interprets the laws, it is the courts who do that. As a member of FBI, you just enforce them.

[Pandalink]

it is not you who interprets the laws, it is the courts who do that. As a member of FBI, you just enforce them.

What?
How can he enforce them without first interpreting them? :conf:

That doesn't make any sense.

[SugarD]

What?
How can he enforce them without first interpreting them? :conf:

That doesn't make any sense.

It's kind of hard to explain without first knowing how officers work IRL, but basically the law is laid out to officers based on reasonable suspicion and probable cause. Officers cannot make an arrest for a crime or detain someone without valid reasoning, and proof of the crime committed being linked to the person. Because of this, they cannot interpret the law itself, but just instead prove that it was broken, similar to a lawyer in court who does the same thing, but proves it to the judge and jury in a way they can understand, alongside the evidence collected by police. Going further into this, the branch of government, usually Executive in some countries, although may be different in others, writes the laws. There is the final branch of government, the court system, (also known as the Judicial Branch), which interprets the laws and any crimes committed as valid or invalid because of such. That is why you must prove a case in court of crimes committed in the United States Of America. If we follow the same basic idea, seeing as ARPD is based roughly off of LAPD, and that the United States Of Argonath in some aspects has basings from the United States Of America, then the same general idea would apply here, but since we are a free RP community that does not handle strict RP nor enforce it, my explanation holds little meaning to those who are wishing to understand the reasoning because I cannot explain it in a simple way that would make sense to our community.

In short though, there are many unwritten rules and ideas in Argonath which are just the way they are because of how things are set up here, and although they are based on things from RL at many times, from many countries and cultures, we cannot possibly explain every reasoning for the things we do and how we do them here because in itself it would be entirely confusing, so we rely on our "common sense" of knowledge of these basic ideas and tend to not question them, such as why police were allowed to arrest suspects before the Constitution was created to state such. Sometimes things here are just based on an idea and never really written down.

I know this is long and confusing, and I do apologize for that, but it was the most simple way I can explain how it works. As for asking specifically on how they can enforce them without interpreting them, everything in life always has to be interpreted, so I understand your reason for asking, however, from an "officialized" standpoint, it is not law enforcement's job to interpret what is legal or illegal, but rather enforce what is legal and illegal, and if someone does something illegal, prove it with evidence, including being a witness to the crime if the criminal is caught breaking the law in front of them. Obviously our court system here is different, so proving it only goes as far as an arrest and jailing, rather than a court hearing and conviction, but it is just a simplified form of many real-life situations that hold the same, general idea.

[9r2e5i3k]

Seriously Sugar, tl;dr.

[SugarD]

Seriously Sugar, tl;dr.

If you don't want to read my response, don't bother posting a response to it.

[newton_alex]

Seriously Sugar, tl;dr.

im with him for that one... can anyone tell us the main points made in that jumble of Chinese lettering?