SPAA J'ing out before you can kill them

[Necronomica]

Hiding wall of text with answers, below paragraph is the most important one.

@MotorolaCRO

That’s why you should have someone to patch those loopholes and make your laws stronger and stronger by each appeal. Every new, properly placed clause will result in one less problem to deal with in the long run.

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.

@MotorolaCRO

Which is why you have a job of putting them there.

See above.

@MotorolaCRO

Every semi-serious company should have a team of lawyers protecting their interests.

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.

@MotorolaCRO

I highly doubt one lawyer in a month wouldn’t be able to change the EULA enough to bring it to a better state than it is currently.

I’m talking continuously, not as a one time overhaul.

@MotorolaCRO

You’re mixing things up.

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.

@MotorolaCRO

Many laws often have ranges of punishment so you could, for example, be charged with minimal of 2 and up to 10 years in prison for one crime. What you gonna get is often based on your previous record and other mitigating factors.

So a gray area that is judged based on circumstances and not explicitly stated in the law?

@MotorolaCRO

Probation is often given to first offenders and in some other cases. For example, if this is your first time stealing 1001 euros (committing felony theft) you might be put on probation for six months or whatever, instead of serving the minimal prison sentence for that crime.

Slap on the wrist > probation > jail time.

A system similar to that is currently in place for punishments in War Thunder.

@MotorolaCRO

Bottom line is that public servants in real life are chosen by the people in one way or another.

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.

@MotorolaCRO

Even after elections, community have democratic tools like referendums to vote themselves on some highly questionable moves by the politicians. I don’t think people have these opportunities in a tribal system.

Again, depends on country.

@MotorolaCRO

Not all people voice their concerns on the forum or in-game chat, so scraping that still isn’t a valid option.

I would personally think it is a valid option, it covers a large part of the player base.

@MotorolaCRO

If you want to gather voices of the community, in-game polls that target all active players of the game are your best bet and honestly, the only correct way of doing something like that.

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.

@MotorolaCRO

Do tell me, as a GM, how a word that once was considered bad transitions into being okay ?

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…)

@MotorolaCRO

Something being common doesn’t really excuse it from being bad and/or offensive.

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.

@MotorolaCRO

Without defining what “unfair methods” are, no one can tell what exactly falls into that category and that thing now becomes a gray area that’s open to interpretation and in the end, plausible deniability for the offender.

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.

@MotorolaCRO

It’s like you suddenly start driving your dirt bike on a public dirt road through a village and for example, villagers get mad at you because you now disturb them by driving there. Should a police officer ban you from using that public road just because some villagers reported this as they can’t cope with any noise at all ?
I don’t know about Sweden, but here if your bike is road legal and produces allowable noise levels there’s nothing stopping you from driving on public roads.

For Sweden specifically “public disturbance” is a law that can get you in trouble yes.

@MotorolaCRO

This is really bad as you’re yet again using your own and some other player’s personal feelings to enforce something for an action that doesn’t necessarily have to be against the rules.

Then we differ in opinion here.

@MotorolaCRO

What you said here also raises some questions, as spawn killing/camping has been a hot topic for years now, so I assume many reports had been sent over that matter. This would mean spawn killing/camping should be illegal now as “significant” amount of people have voiced their concern about it, but IIRC one CM (Stona I believe) said that thing is perfectly legal. So who do I listen to now ?

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 […] "

@MotorolaCRO

That Rule 9 is just a reworded “we will ban you for anything and everything if you annoy us”.

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.

[Hudler]

@Necronomica

And how long do you think it would be before more people are needed to keep up and maintain it?

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.

[MotorolaCRO]

@Necronomica

And how long do you think it would be before more people are needed to keep up and maintain it?

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.

@Necronomica

Applying those types of specific rules sets wrongly also opens up a floodgate of risks of being sued.

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.

@Necronomica

I’m talking continuously, not as a one time overhaul.

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.

@Necronomica

So a gray area that is judged based on circumstances and not explicitly stated in the law?

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.

@Necronomica

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.

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 ?

@Necronomica

What if someone makes a poll and the answer that you want to give isn’t one of the options?

That’s why polls have options like "Other (specify below).

@Necronomica

Quick example: “slay” , (meaning to kill something) became “slay” , (doing something well often referring to fashion)

I think you should stick to proper dictionary definitions rather than informal/slang talk from kids on TikTok.

@Necronomica

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.

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 ?

@Necronomica

For Sweden specifically “public disturbance” is a law that can get you in trouble yes.

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.

@Necronomica

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 […] "

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.

@Necronomica

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.

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.

[AlanHR]

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.

[Necronomica]

@MotorolaCRO

Considering modes in this game change once per every ice age, I doubt maintaining it would be that time consuming.

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.

@MotorolaCRO

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.

Then you’d lose that bet, Google “Gaijin entertainment lawyer” and you will find all that information in less than 20 seconds.

@MotorolaCRO

That would be quiet funny, don’t you think ?

You’re thinking to extreme. there are more options than “does/doesn’t”.

@MotorolaCRO

I think you should stick to proper dictionary definitions rather than informal/slang talk from kids on TikTok.

I easily can, but not with anything i can also write on this forum.

@MotorolaCRO

Aren’t you thankful that speed limits are explicitly stated and not just some handwaved mess that’s trivial to exploit ?

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

( Trafikförordning (1998:1276) | Sveriges riksdag )

As i said, there are “normal” democratic developed countries out there using those types of laws.

@MotorolaCRO

You’d basically claim that normal traffic is somehow disturbing you.

Basically. At least to some degree.

( Brottsbalk (1962:700) | Sveriges riksdag )

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.

@MotorolaCRO

You specifically talked about something becoming illegal if many people start moaning about it.

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.

@MotorolaCRO

You still haven’t told me what “significant” means.

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.

[БЕИ]

@Necronomica

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.

Nah, should encourage J’ing out bro, why?

1. J’outer pays for repair fee so it makes them poorer
2. 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

[MotorolaCRO]

@Necronomica

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.

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.

@Necronomica

You’re thinking to extreme. there are more options than “does/doesn’t”.

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.

@Necronomica

No definitions on what those “other” reasons are or what “safely” means.

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.

@Necronomica

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.

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.

@Necronomica

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 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.

@Necronomica

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.

So if I get reported by many users for spawn killing I can be banned because of that ?

@Necronomica

Things like that don’t have to be defined.

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.

[Stray_BulletsCze]

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

[Necronomica]

@MotorolaCRO

But there simply aren’t enough rules for you to get overwhelmed by fixing loopholes.

There very quickly would need to be, that is my point.

@MotorolaCRO

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.

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.

@MotorolaCRO

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.

Doesn’t matter according to your logic, they cover the rest of the bases with vagueness.

@MotorolaCRO

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.

Nope, i didn’t say that, you did a lot of conjecture there. Disturbing others is the only thing i was referring to.

@MotorolaCRO

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.

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.

@MotorolaCRO

I think it’s clear who’d win that.

Perhaps in your mind, it’s subjective.

@MotorolaCRO

So if I get reported by many users for spawn killing I can be banned because of that ?

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.

@MotorolaCRO

Then the law enforcement have the upper hand there as they can freely interpret it from case to case and from player to player.

Not law enforcement, the judicial system.

@MotorolaCRO

Hiding behind vague things like that is not cool, doesn’t matter who we speak about.

And you are free to that opinion. mine differs.

[MotorolaCRO]

@Necronomica

There very quickly would need to be, that is my point.

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.

@Necronomica

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.

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.

@Necronomica

Doesn’t matter according to your logic, they cover the rest of the bases with vagueness.

I don’t really agree with their wording either.
They started good though.

@Necronomica

Nope, i didn’t say that, you did a lot of conjecture there. Disturbing others is the only thing i was referring to.

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.

@Necronomica

Even if the vehicles noise levels are within the law it can still be against the law to disturb others with it.

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.

@Necronomica

Perhaps in your mind, it’s subjective.

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.

[Necronomica]

@MotorolaCRO

so you’d be pretty much limited to finding and patching loopholes of already existing laws and there shouldn’t be many of those.

You severely underestimate the players ingenuity on that front.

@MotorolaCRO

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.

And there are going to be examples of the opposite as well.

@MotorolaCRO

Not really

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.

@MotorolaCRO

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.

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.

@MotorolaCRO

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.

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).

@MotorolaCRO

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.

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.

[Pangolin_Fan]

@MotorolaCRO

Beating up a fully tied down man isn’t really defeating and outplaying him, it’s straight up foul play.

The outplaying is tying him up, and the preceding actions required to do so.

[MotorolaCRO]

@Necronomica

You severely underestimate the players ingenuity on that front.

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.

@Necronomica

Driving a car isn’t against the law, driving a car in a way that disturbs the public might be depending on the circumstances.

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.

@Necronomica

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

You thinking they need to use that to figure out that wearing a blue colored jacked isn’t illegal is pretty wild.

@Necronomica

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.

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.

[AK_Awful_Waffle-psn]

@Necronomica

You severely underestimate the players ingenuity on that front.

Yeah it’s not like players are actively looking for ways around rules or to escape boundaries or anything 🤣

[Necronomica]

@MotorolaCRO

You need to realize those dB limits for vehicles are there to make sure public isn’t disturbed

You repeatedly bring in other laws that you assume need to be broken, they don’t. I’ve said it many times. I don’t know why you keep bringing it up.

@MotorolaCRO

You thinking they need to use that to figure out that wearing a blue colored jacked isn’t illegal is pretty wild.

You need to read up on case law and how many judgements on ridiculous things have been made.

@MotorolaCRO

so unless there’s a different dB level of noise for night hours

Again bringing up other laws for no reason.

@MotorolaCRO

You suggesting that civilians hold any power over public roads is ludicrous.

It isn’t.

@MotorolaCRO

Simply driving on a road at 2am isn’t illegal.

Again:

@Necronomica

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).

What you are arguing is just as odd as saying “It’s not illegal to fire a gun, the guy just happened to be where my bullet landed” .

[MotorolaCRO]

@Necronomica

You repeatedly bring in other laws that you assume need to be broken, they don’t. I’ve said it many times. I don’t know why you keep bringing it up.

Because those other laws directly make sure that people aren’t disturbed from a certain action. What’s so hard to understand here ?

Vehicle noises are being regulated for the sole purpose of not disturbing people, so if you feel disturbed you should bring that law to question, not someone who’s abiding to it lmao. I seriously don’t understand how you still can’t see this.

@Necronomica

You need to read up on case law and how many judgements on ridiculous things have been made.

Yeah, I’m sure they did dozens of cases where nutcases were disturbed by simple colors, just so they can all agree with that wearing colors isn’t illegal.

@Necronomica

Again bringing up other laws for no reason.

Meanwhile you’re saying that everything is a disturbance if you want it to be hard enough.

@Necronomica

It isn’t.

It pretty much is as there are group of people that are getting paid to establish order on public roads, you as a civilian have a right to select them via elections though. Trying to stop traffic on your own accord is pretty much traffic impeding, which is also illegal.

As I said, even police officers can’t ban you from driving a vehicle on a public road if they don’t have any reason that’s valid by the law, so thinking civilians can do anything even remotely close to that is funny.

@Necronomica

What you are arguing is just as odd as saying “It’s not illegal to fire a gun, the guy just happened to be where my bullet landed” .

It’s actually illegal to discharge your firearm in public nilly-willy in many western countries, so your mileage can vary.

As I said already, I don’t see a single line of responsibility for that vehicle driver, as he was doing everything by the book and had no idea about your thoughts and feelings. Bringing him to court instead of your county or whatever breaks common sense so hard it’s painful to watch.

[Hudler]

@Pangolin_Fan

The outplaying is tying him up, and the preceding actions required to do so.

Outplaying (spawning a plane) is tying him up (he spawned a tank that cannot fly).

Most sane cas abuser take.

[Necronomica]

@MotorolaCRO

Because those other laws directly make sure that people aren’t disturbed from a certain action. What’s so hard to understand here ?

That for the purposes of the public disturbance law, NO other law NEEDS to be broken for it to take effect.

@MotorolaCRO

I seriously don’t understand how you still can’t see this.

Because it doesn’t matter, you can break one law without also having breaking another. if you have a to loud car it is still against that law without it having to disturb someone for that to be true, conversely you can disturb someone with your cars noise without it also being to loud in relation to that law.

Here is a real world example of someone who got fined for playing loud music in his car in a public area: ( https://www.aklagare.se/globalassets/dokument/verksamheten-i-hogsta-domstolen/svarsskrivelser-och-forklaringar/2023/amr-3873-23-forargelsevackande-beteende.pdf )
The letter discusses an appeal to the initial judgement, an appeal that is rejected. It also lists several other cases of similar types. There is no dB level listed and there is no definition of what is considered to loud, it only has to be judged to be loud enough to typically disturb others. There are no other laws than public disturbance that comes into play, no defined levels and no definitions of any kind of what most of those vague words mean. Because there doesn’t have to be. You might think that is unreasonable and you are free to think so, but it isn’t necessary for things to be defined.

@MotorolaCRO

Yeah, I’m sure they did dozens of cases where nutcases were disturbed by simple colors, just so they can all agree with that wearing colors isn’t illegal.

Basically yes.

@MotorolaCRO

Meanwhile you’re saying that everything is a disturbance if you want it to be hard enough.

With relation to that law, yes. Then weather or not it is later judged to be a disturbance or not is a different thing. But solely in relation to if it would fall under the law as written, then yes.

Here is an example case where a guy standing on top of a hill waved a Swedish flag that had been modified to have a viking head, a sun cross and an axe painted on it during a Swedish holiday celebration: ( RH 1997:24 | lagen.nu ). It was judged to be a public disturbance and he was fined ~50 Euro, he appealed but the judgement was held.

@MotorolaCRO

you as a civilian have a right to select them via elections though.

Again, you’re assuming political structure. In Sweden the only thing you as a civilian vote for is what party it is you want to hold power in 3 areas: Cuntry, county and municipality. You can chose different parties for each area and different areas have different parties running for the election. Then once the election is done voting power is divided among the parties depending on percent of received election votes. THEY then have their own votes on how things are to be run, you as a civilian have no say in the group of people selected to establish order on public roads.

@MotorolaCRO

Trying to stop traffic on your own accord is pretty much traffic impeding, which is also illegal.

I never implied nor said that this is what i ment. I only said that you have the right to call law enforcement for that issue and that it is reasonably within that law to do so. They then judge on the spot if it reasonable or not to charge that person with public disturbance and issue a fine, that person can then challenge that judgment in court, if the first level of court rules against that person they can again appeal to the next level of court, and then again a third time, once it’s up in the third level what they decide there practically becomes example cases for future judgements.

@MotorolaCRO

It’s actually illegal to discharge your firearm in public nilly-willy in many western countries, so your mileage can vary.

You’re adding context again. Did i say any of that?

@MotorolaCRO

As I said already, I don’t see a single line of responsibility for that vehicle driver, as he was doing everything by the book and had no idea about your thoughts and feelings. Bringing him to court instead of your county or whatever breaks common sense so hard it’s painful to watch.

You are free to that opinion but again, its’ up to the judicial system to judge on a case by case basis. The law just means that it’s reasonable to bring up for judgement in the first place. The circumstances will be the deciding factor but the law in of itself means that it’s okay to bring to court and have judged. I agree that just driving normally on a road without ANY surrounding circumstances playing a role would not be punished, but until the first judgement on such a case you can bring it to court.
This can be equated to your loopholes, until judged and patched it’s reasonable to bring to court.

[Cookies_Juicebox]

Too much to read about laws. Motorola, what is your goal here exactly in short words? That the rules are not detailed enough to specify when to J out?

[MotorolaCRO]

@Necronomica

That for the purposes of the public disturbance law, NO other law NEEDS to be broken for it to take effect.

That’s for the purpose of the public disturbance by vehicle noise, so claiming that vehicles disturbed you due to their legal noise levels doesn’t hold any ground.

@Necronomica

Because it doesn’t matter, you can break one law without also having breaking another.

In this case you can’t as the vehicle’s noise levels you’re complaining about are explicitly defined somewhere, thus if those numbers are perfectly within limits you can’t complain about it in the way you’re wanting to.

@Necronomica

There is no dB level listed and there is no definition of what is considered to loud, it only has to be judged to be loud enough to typically disturb others.

I don’t know if there’s a listed dB level for music, but for vehicle exhausts there certainly is one.
In car’s case there is actually a definition of what is considered too loud and if you fall within those parameters, you can’t be held accountable for disturbing anyone.

People that made the law already judged what’s too loud for a vehicle’s exhaust and because of that the limits had been set already. Laws about that are constantly changing and the legal limit is constantly being dropped, as it’s obviously for the best to reduce the noise pollution and the impact it has on surrounding life.

@Necronomica

You might think that is unreasonable and you are free to think so, but it isn’t necessary for things to be defined.

Vehicle noise levels are explicitly defined.

@Necronomica

Here is an example case where a guy standing on top of a hill waved a Swedish flag that had been modified to have a viking head, a sun cross and an axe painted on it during a Swedish holiday celebration: ( RH 1997:24 | lagen.nu ). It was judged to be a public disturbance and he was fined ~50 Euro, he appealed but the judgement was held.

Modifying the national flag might be illegal on it’s own.
The proper example or equivalent of my resident/bike case would be if he had painted a clown on the Swedish flag and someone found it disturbing. That case would fall flat on it’s face if the law explicitly states that painting a clown on the national flag is legal.

You arguing that thing is disturbing you might end up in you being offered some medical assistance or a notion to change that clown-on-a-flag law on it’s own. Person doing that has no grounds to be held accountable for your woes, as what he did is explicitly protected by the law to be an okay behavior.

@Necronomica

THEY then have their own votes on how things are to be run, you as a civilian have no say in the group of people selected to establish order on public roads.

During their election campaigns, don’t you see politicians talking about hot topics and how they’ll change them for the better if you give them your vote ?
If vehicles strolling by in a normal fashion was such a disturbing event for the masses, I think the laws on car noise levels and noise pollution from roads as a whole would change rapidly.

@Necronomica

I never implied nor said that this is what i ment. I only said that you have the right to call law enforcement for that issue and that it is reasonably within that law to do so. They then judge on the spot if it reasonable or not to charge that person with public disturbance and issue a fine

You can call the cops on someone you think has an illegal car that’s making too much noise. Cops would have to measure the noise levels but if they fall under a legal limit you literally can’t do anything about it.

Writing a fine to anyone involved would then be out of the question.

@Necronomica

You’re adding context again. Did i say any of that?

No, in my example I explicitly stated it’s a public place, so if you want to pull an equivalent you should talk about public spaces as well.

@Necronomica

You are free to that opinion

It’s not my opinion, it’s defined by the law.