As long as they J out and it looks obvious, its a denial. Simple, if its not obvious, then the ones checking on reports can decide.
1 Like
Read what I’ve said.
You leaving your IR SAM that isn’t capable of shooting ground vehicles is definitely not the same as you leaving your MBT.
I reported 4 people who j-out of drones today.
Hope to get them banned, as you all said it’s reportable
1 Like
If i J out on my IR SAM and i see a missile my way, its a denial. If its not, and decide to J out cuz i cant reach them, then its fine to J out to change vehicles. Same for tanks, if im screwed and cornered and J out seconds before they fire, its a denial. If not, then its fine to J out.
Dont gotta make this complicated.
1 Like
I was talking about the engagement between tanks and IR SAM, where the latter doesn’t even have a theoretical chance of fighting back. It might be a kill denial but a very different one than if you do it in an MBT.
Every action of J-ing out in a tank is a kill denial of it’s own, don’t forget that. You’re just trying to find justifications for use cases that you find okay. You came in here as a perfect example of how things can get bad if laws aren’t strictly written, where everyone has their own interpretation they think is correct.
1 Like
I dont think so. As long as im not in a current fight or being engaged upon moments before destruction its not a denial.
But as you said, you probably right we do have our own interpretations. But some common sense also play a part. Im done though, i said my point.
Considering the natural way of changing the vehicle is done by dying to an enemy, you’re pretty much denying someone a kill even if that kill would’ve happened minutes later. This doesn’t take into account other unconventional methods of dying such as drowning and leaving the map that could also be interpreted as kill denials in most cases.
1 Like
Hiding wall of text with answers, below paragraph is the most important one.
And how long do you think it would be before more people are needed to keep up and maintain it? How long do you think it is before its unreasonable to ask someone learn it all and apply its listed punishments with a high enough degree of accuracy?
It would likely snowball out of control rather quickly and needing a larger team of full time employees just to maintain and apply it in any reasonable way. Lawyers take years to learn the law, and even then they usually specialize themselves to smaller areas of it.
See above.
Which are busy with the things they were already hired to do, what you suggest would in the long run mean a full new team devoted to just that. Applying those types of specific rules sets wrongly also opens up a floodgate of risks of being sued.
I’m talking continuously, not as a one time overhaul.
I wasn’t taking into account those other things as separate additions. Just the seriousness of the theft to indicate where on a sliding scale it could fall.
So a gray area that is judged based on circumstances and not explicitly stated in the law?
A system similar to that is currently in place for punishments in War Thunder.
Not in every country, i think you are to focused on one country (i’m guessing the one you are from?) and not thinking enough about the international options and systems that are out there.
Again, depends on country.
I would personally think it is a valid option, it covers a large part of the player base.
That would be one way of doing it, but as with all ways of gathering data it comes with its own flaws as well. Polls in particular tend to be restricted in the way the participants can answer and only contain the questions and possible answers that the one making the poll has chosen. What if someone makes a poll and the answer that you want to give isn’t one of the options? Or if it’s written in such a way where it doesn’t make sense to answer as the choices can be interpreted in different ways depending on how you read the question.
The absolute best way is to use as many different ways as possible and compile them all into one comprehensive data pile to sift through and sort out.
Words change meaning all the time, even faster and more regularly now in modern times with the internet and easier ways of communication. ( Semantic change - Wikipedia )
Quick example: “slay” , (meaning to kill something) became “slay” , (doing something well often referring to fashion) . (hard to find examples that aren’t so bad i can’t say them on the forum…)
Very true. I was just using that as an example of a way for a word to lose it’s bad meaning over time. Not as an excuse for the usage of a still bad word.
Depends on the system in place, there are places that use vagueness in their laws without any real issues in the way you describe them. I’m not saying issues are impossible, i’m just saying that they aren’t as inevitable as you make them out to be. Both ways of doing it have issues and both have advantages.
For Sweden specifically “public disturbance” is a law that can get you in trouble yes.
Then we differ in opinion here.
You’re twisting it, the rule i linked talks about one specific player doing something, not as a blanket issue. " If your actions […] lead to […] "
No it isn’t. “reserves the right to” , they can chose to do so if they deem necessary just as much as they can chose not to so if it’s something they deem not necessary.
Honestly i do not think this conversation is going to lead anywhere, at all. We have differing views on what is and isn’t a good way of dealing with these types of things. Both systems discussed have their drawbacks as well as their strengths and which one you personally prefer is subjective and i do not thing either of us is going to change that opinion through this discussion alone. I don’t feel like i’m having any sort of impact on your views here and my efforts feel fruitless, therefore i’m politely going to decline further discussion on this specific topic. I’ve said all i wanted to have said.
4 Likes
The GRB is in the game for over a decade and gaijin is a multi-billion company.
They are capable of doing it, they can afford a guy who will patch these loopholes.
1 Like
Considering modes in this game change once per every ice age, I doubt maintaining it would be that time consuming.
Issues like ramming, TKs, spawn killing, etc. are pretty much as old as the game itself and we still haven’t got any specific ruling about those. I guess whole decade is still not enough time.
Nothing screams more of “sue me” than having vague laws that often can be read as “we do what we want, when we want, you like it or not”.
It’s hard to expect people to follow the law if they have nothing to follow as everything is ambiguously written.
One person can’t follow the “unfair methods of play” as he has no idea what those unfair methods really are, thanks to the amazing EULA and infinite wisdom of anyone that wrote it.
I’d bet a lot of money that those things weren’t written by a licensed lawyer that is willing to put his signature on it.
Lets be honest here.
WT as a core is pretty much the same game as it was a decade ago, only with more modern vehicles in the game to satisfy the everlasting needs.
No, the law you broke is explicitly stated and it’s the punishment that’s based on circumstances and it still has it’s minimums and maximums.
I’m pretty sure the definition of mitigating factors is out there as well.
Pretty much every decent country has elections and people choose their leaders that way. I’m not taking into account totalitarian regimes that act as a modern day tribal system where one family is in charge for centuries, with no questions asked.
Funnily enough, those regimes have vague laws of their own to create gray areas that no one knows what exactly they’re all about, so it’s easier to control the masses for the government.
You might have a law “don’t insult the great leader” with no clarification. You then get snatched up because leader’s picture is slightly tilted in your house, which could be portrayed as an insult.
That would be quiet funny, don’t you think ?
That’s why polls have options like "Other (specify below).
I think you should stick to proper dictionary definitions rather than informal/slang talk from kids on TikTok.
Using “unfair methods of play” is just as bad as using “don’t drive too fast” without specifying the upper speed limit at which point you’re driving too fast.
With this in place you could be penalized (or avoiding it) at any given moment, as the law is too vague and no one really knows what’s going on. Imagine going 300km/h through a village and getting away with it, because the law is so poorly written that you could argue your speed wasn’t really that fast and there’s nothing stated in the law that proves you wrong.
Aren’t you thankful that speed limits are explicitly stated and not just some handwaved mess that’s trivial to exploit ?
Do tell me how does that work in my example.
In my country we also have a “public disturbance”, but you can’t trigger that if you’re just driving a bike around a public road if your bike has allowed noise levels, as that scenario is listed under normal traffic conditions.
You’d basically claim that normal traffic is somehow disturbing you.
You specifically talked about something becoming illegal if many people start moaning about it.
then it has in my opinion already there gone against the spirit of fair play and/or unfair methods of play and been judged by the community as something that shouldn’t be allowed.
Loads of people are against spawn killing, but it’s still legal. I seriously don’t know what’s going on in this game when it comes to rules, as nothing is properly defined.
Yes, they reserve the right to do anything they want, so step on their toes and you might find out.
You still haven’t told me what “significant” means.
IMO whole this debate is somewhat irrelevant and root cause for this is that players in random battles have too much and too little control at the same time.
Here are just some things which first came to my mind:
- players cannot control their team apart from squad of 4 players,
- they can have one vehicle lineups because game allows it,
- they can spawn reserve vehicles regardless to BR bracket,
- whole team can spawn the same vehicle because game allows it,
- there is not other way to change ground vehicle apart from J-out from one,
and so on …
Basically RBGF is set up so everyone takes care of them first (because of grind) and than thinks about the team.
2 Likes
I didn’t mean changes in the game, i meant changes in player behaviour to find loopholes in the rules. The rules then need to be changed to include those situations. Rinse and repeat forever.
Then you’d lose that bet, Google “Gaijin entertainment lawyer” and you will find all that information in less than 20 seconds.
You’re thinking to extreme. there are more options than “does/doesn’t”.
I easily can, but not with anything i can also write on this forum.
Again, you’re thinking to narrowly.
Again using Sweden as an example; there is a law that states that you aren’t allowed to drive if you for any “other” reason can’t drive the vehicle “safely”. No definitions on what those “other” reasons are or what “safely” means.
Google translated source
As i said, there are “normal” democratic developed countries out there using those types of laws.
Basically. At least to some degree.
Since you suddenly start (in your own example) and there is seemingly no practical purpose other than joyriding (unless i’ve missunderstood you) then it would likely be argued that repeated use of a public road isn’t the best place nor way to do that. It would in the end be up to the courts if that warrant a punishment or not but it is in relation to the law reasonable to file such a complaint and have it tested. Whether its morally or ethically reasonable to do it is a different discussion.
I didn’t. I talked about one specific user being able to be punished because of many other users reporting specifically them for doing it. At least in that example.
Things like that don’t have to be defined. You might personally disagree with that, but that is my personal opinion on it and i’m not alone in that. I’m so much not alone that entire legal systems are based on not clearly defined things precisely because there are specific advantages to doing things that way, and as with practically anything it also has disadvantages.
1 Like
Nah, should encourage J’ing out bro, why?
- J’outer pays for repair fee so it makes them poorer
- The attacker can’t receive rewards
So this makes both of them poor, which increases the probability of them buying premiums bro, keeping two players poor is better than keeping one player poor bro
Win situation for Gaijinx man
1 Like
But there simply aren’t enough rules for you to get overwhelmed by fixing loopholes.
You could pretty much write a rock solid law about spawn killing if that was illegal, it doesn’t take that much time.
I don’t think I am, as that’s exactly what they use to keep people in check. You either keep being a good boy or they’ll find a way to screw you over.
At least Sweden put some of the most common reasons.
I’m pretty sure there’s a limit on how much alcohol/drugs you can have in your system to be considered “safe” for driving, otherwise you couldn’t be punished for DUI.
Wait a minute, are you suggesting that driving around aimlessly on a public road is against the law and you have to have a valid reason to be driving ?
I hope you can find me something about that, but I’m pretty sure you can’t as restricting freedom of movement (travel) would pretty much breach human rights and that’s absurd.
I doubt it’s reasonable to file a complaint because someone is driving around aimlessly.
It’s reasonable to file a complaint because of noise and get that bike tested. If everything checks out, it’s pretty much a case of a delusional resident vs a random guy that did everything by the law.
I think it’s clear who’d win that.
So if I get reported by many users for spawn killing I can be banned because of that ?
Then the law enforcement have the upper hand there as they can freely interpret it from case to case and from player to player. Hiding behind vague things like that is not cool, doesn’t matter who we speak about.
maybe make decent, top tier suitable maps and players won’t J’out. Also how are you ever going to prove that I didn’t J’out just because I’m bored lmao? Or is that against the rules too? To get bored in this fantastic game
1 Like
There very quickly would need to be, that is my point.
I mean the “they” you have chosen to talk about is to much on the extreme end of a scale. I’m not talking about the methods.
Doesn’t matter according to your logic, they cover the rest of the bases with vagueness.
Nope, i didn’t say that, you did a lot of conjecture there. Disturbing others is the only thing i was referring to.
It reasonable to have it tested to then have an example case to judge similar cases on in the future. Even if the vehicles noise levels are within the law it can still be against the law to disturb others with it. You’re assuming that other law breakage has to happen for it to be an issue and fall within public disturbance (it doesn’t). Playing music from your phones loudspeaker on the train can be enough.
Perhaps in your mind, it’s subjective.
Not that simple and straight forward, and i’m not saying that this will ever happen, but they would have that option yes, if judged by them to be an issue worth punishing.
Not law enforcement, the judicial system.
And you are free to that opinion. mine differs.
1 Like
I don’t think you understood me.
Every mechanic that might introduce problems such as ramming, TK, spawn killing, etc. should be properly defined so everyone knows what to expect. WT hasn’t really introduced many new mechanics into the Ground/Air battles in the last few years, so you’d be pretty much limited to finding and patching loopholes of already existing laws and there shouldn’t be many of those.
They were just an example of how ambiguous laws can be used against the end user by the enforcement team, leaving them pretty much free reign to do whatever.
I don’t really agree with their wording either.
They started good though.
Why did you refer to joyriding then ?
I guess you can find the accepted amount of noise a vehicle can produce in order for it to be legal. You can have problematic hearing and can get disturbed by, for example, 30dB noise from a car, meanwhile the legal limit might be 90dB. Vehicle driver can’t be held accountable for your troubled hearing and probably the most you can do is to talk to your county to place some noise cancellation fences or something on that part of the road.
Not really as you’re just driving normally on a public road. You can get disturbed by someone wearing flashy colors because you have some medical issues, but that person simply cannot be accountable for your disturbance, as wearing flashy colors isn’t illegal and he basically had no prior knowledge of your issue.
What you’re suggesting is a law that applies to anything and everything (even if it’s perfectly legal) because you as an individual felt disturbed. That would be pretty wild seeing all the nonsense lawsuits coming up because someone felt deeply disturbed by someone’s blue hair, long fingernails or whatever.
Shame we can’t try that, it’d be really fun.
Delusional resident with troubled hearing that gets mad about any noise coming from the road vs random guy on a bike that’s perfectly road legal driving around normally while also having no prior knowledge of the plaintiff’s woes.
I’d like to see reasoning why anyone would think the plaintiff would win this.
You severely underestimate the players ingenuity on that front.
And there are going to be examples of the opposite as well.
Yes. You’re again assuming other things have to be legal or not for something to fall within public disturbance. If you drive into someone you aren’t getting punished for driving the car, you get punished for what doing that caused. The initial action is rarely the thing that is against the law, it is the end result (there are likely exceptions). Like, taking a wallet; it isn’t against the law to take it up from the ground to give it back to someone, taking it from someone who owns it is. Driving a car isn’t against the law, driving a car in a way that disturbs the public might be depending on the circumstances.
Yes, it’s then up to the judicial system to make a call if you making such an action broke that law or not. I think most judicial systems have some form of judgements if a specific law was written with the intent of covering that specific action or not if there is ever doubt raised. It’s just that some systems lean heavier on that way of dealing with things than others.
And those would then be made into example cases making future judgements on similar cases easier until you reach a point where the law enforcement knows that it’s not against that law to do that and wont even file a report or entertain anyone attempting to sue for something like that (i think this way of operating is pretty much the standard for most judicial systems no matter if they are vague or clearly written as even with clearly written ones there are going to be outliers and people trying to use loopholes).
Now you’re adding very specific circumstances, i can do that as well:
Normal person in their home along a country road. A person starts riding their dirt bike outside their house back and fourth for hours at 2am and does not stop when asked.
Both cases are worth taking to the judicial system if nothing similar has been tried before (or if only a very few cases have been tried previously). Just to get example cases to then use in future judgements.
1 Like
The outplaying is tying him up, and the preceding actions required to do so.
1 Like
It would quickly dwindle by each fixed loophole.
Especially if the initial law was written with thought and is pretty strict from the get go.
You need to realize those dB limits for vehicles are there to make sure public isn’t disturbed, as medical field surely has found out what levels of noise are within reasonable limits for an average person. If your vehicle falls under that specification and you’re driving normally, you legally aren’t disturbing anyone by doing just that.
Mufflers are also preinstalled on vehicles to help with noise cancellation which actually hurts the power of the engine. It’s just one of many purpose built systems to help combat public disturbance by noise, so if you’re disturbed by the noise even after all that, I guess your only option is to go against the law itself and try to reduce the noise limits or as I said, go against your county to install some fences. You could always deal with it as well.
Same could be said for headlights.
If they’re within legal limits you’re good to go and definitely not responsible if someone is easily agitated by light.
You thinking they need to use that to figure out that wearing a blue colored jacked isn’t illegal is pretty wild.
Public roads are open 24/7 by default, so unless there’s a different dB level of noise for night hours, you specifically stating that it happened at 2am holds no weight whatsoever.
You as a civilian can just ask nicely if he wants to stop doing that and if disagrees he isn’t breaking any law by doing that. You suggesting that civilians hold any power over public roads is ludicrous.
Even police officers can’t stop you from driving on a public road unless they find something that warrants your immediate stoppage of driving, something like a DUI.
Simply driving on a road at 2am isn’t illegal.