Clarification of the new advertisement rule.

[Gandalf]

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.

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. 

As said this is a trick question.

If you would tell the owner of the shop is responsible for trading that happens in his shop, then if you find an illegal deal the owner of the shop could be held responsible for not having staff or security to stop illegal trading in his shop.
This would not be alarming for ammunation owners (as with the pricing system buying illegal weapons while paying two entrance fees will make the deal pretty useless) however this would be extremely alarming news for casino owners, considering the ammount of non-staff gambling is done. With the rule that casino owners will lose their casino if staff or owner is found scamming, this interpretation would almost certainly cost them a big headache, after all they could be held responsible for any scam going on in a casino.

As said when considering the amount of profit to be made from dealing if weapons were to be purchased in legal way, taking away an entrace fee from the profit would mean that no deal with non-hacked weapons would be made between players in an ammunation. As such, this is not a matter for the constitution, but for the admin team.

[Gandalf]

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).

It seems I must check the IVMP rules and delete a lot.

[SugarD]

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

Welcome to the forum. We post ideas and topics here with which we read and discuss. If you don't like this web software, don't use it. Pure and simple.

[Comrade]

How did you guys go this off-topic? If you want to discuss about guns being legal or illegal to trade make a topic for it, and don't spam this one down.

My question still remains; are we or are we not allowed to disguise an illegal advertisement to look like a legal one?
In case we are not, then why? The rule is about illegal ads, and not about illegal deals. As long as the /ad is legal it does not conflict with the rule at all. If the legal ad leads to an illegal deal then it's not the administrators problem because it does not conflict with a rule.
Let the cops handle the crimes, god dammit. That what they're here for.

[9r2e5i3k]

Told you before. Better not watch if ad content is "legal" or not, but what the deal is about. If you're dealing illegal stuff, no matter what is the ad content, you're still dealing illegal stuff (redundant, yes I know).

One thing is advertising a legal business that is a front for illegal actions, another is advertising illegal items with plays on words.

[SugarD]

Told you before. Better not watch if ad content is "legal" or not, but what the deal is about. If you're dealing illegal stuff, no matter what is the ad content, you're still dealing illegal stuff (redundant, yes I know).

One thing is advertising a legal business that is a front for illegal actions, another is advertising illegal items with plays on words.

Exactly.

To answer your question Comrade about going off-topic with the weapon dealing legality, Grzesiek's post pretty much covers why we were discussing it. It's somewhat off-topic, yes, but it held relevancy to a user's question regarding the topic's original post.

[Pandalink]

it is not law enforcement's job to interpret what is legal or illegal, but rather enforce what is legal and illegal,

These are the same process. You cannot arrest someone if you have not first interpreted the law and analysed the situation around this interpretation.

It seems I must check the IVMP rules and delete a lot.

Sorry to ask in such a simple manner, but why do you support unwritten rules that only regulars know?
You have said in the past that the intention is people learn these rules by getting punished for breaking them. Surely it would be easier to simply write them down so people can know about them before being punished? It would also mean admins would not have to form personal interpretations of the basic rule list as they have done up until now.
This is especially true for changing rules, as even regulars cannot account for a rule change that is not announced.

[Comrade]

Told you before. Better not watch if ad content is "legal" or not, but what the deal is about. If you're dealing illegal stuff, no matter what is the ad content, you're still dealing illegal stuff (redundant, yes I know).

But the rule covers only the /ad, not the actual deal. By covering the /ad with something legal instead of illegal, one is not theoretically breaking the rule.
I don't see the problem here.

[SugarD]

These are the same process. You cannot arrest someone if you have not first interpreted the law and analysed the situation around this interpretation.

Understanding the laws is a bit different from interpreting them. What I mean by interpreting them is on a level that defines what the law means, rather than how you think it applies in a certain situation. I know the wording itself is confusing. It's a bit difficult to explain.

But the rule covers only the /ad, not the actual deal. By covering the /ad with something legal instead of illegal, one is not theoretically breaking the rule.
I don't see the problem here.

The problem is people have gotten very lazy and made it fairly obvious that they are abusing the ad. Think of it this way: in real life you put an ad on TV to sell something. You wouldn't put up a fake ad selling lawncare products when you are actually trying to sell marijuana. The same basic concept applies here. If you have a legal business as a front for your illegal products, and the legal business actually exists, there's nothing wrong with advertising it since you're actually advertising the legal portion of your work instead of the illegal stuff going on behind it, even if the messages in the ad are coded. Grzesiek stated the difference pretty well too:

One thing is advertising a legal business that is a front for illegal actions, another is advertising illegal items with plays on words.

[Pandalink]

Understanding the laws is a bit different from interpreting them. What I mean by interpreting them is on a level that defines what the law means, rather than how you think it applies in a certain situation. I know the wording itself is confusing. It's a bit difficult to explain.

I consider "interpreting" as reading something vague and abstract and applying that to a realistic and possibly complex situation.

For example, one cannot arrest for speeding before first knowing the speeding laws.
Ok, so 80 kmph in cities, 120 kmph elsewhere, apart from freeways which are unlimited. Seems simple enough, but that's the entire law.
It comes down to the officer to interpret that law and decide for himself what constitutes city territory against country territory (for example). The law is too vague to be simply read and understood, some level of further interpretation is required (and thus inconsistencies will no doubt appear).

[SugarD]

I consider "interpreting" as reading something vague and abstract and applying that to a realistic and possibly complex situation.

For example, one cannot arrest for speeding before first knowing the speeding laws.
Ok, so 80 kmph in cities, 120 kmph elsewhere, apart from freeways which are unlimited. Seems simple enough, but that's the entire law.
It comes down to the officer to interpret that law and decide for himself what constitutes city territory against country territory (for example). The law is too vague to be simply read and understood, some level of further interpretation is required (and thus inconsistencies will no doubt appear).

Your usage of interpreting would be correct then.

What I meant by interpreting in my example was the law's actual meaning and usage, and not so much how an officer would apply it to a situation, but more-so what the law itself was created for to begin with.

[Halogenn]

LoL, and you call this a RP server, with such crappy rules...

[Louis_Keyl]

LoL, and you call this a RP server, with such crappy rules...

Refeer to my last reply

[Murt]

LoL, and you call this a RP server, with such crappy rules...

IF you don't like it, you can leave. We do not want moaners here.

[Que]

LoL, and you call this a RP server, with such crappy rules...

Only idiots need to write advertisements to sell his/her drugs. Can't be annoyed finding costumers? Don't deal with it.
Pick real life as a good example of this; would one local/famous drug dealer ever advertise his stack? No, because that's like writing "CATCH ME" on his forehead.