Pazz

(this is sensationalized. no roleplayers were (excessively) harmed in the making. well, besides the dude that tried to swing at police 17 times)

this is the moment ive been waiting for

Mostly, my reaction is because I personally have a heavy dislike for any "find out IC" or "pursue this IC" remarks. Funnily enough, I did mention this exact thing at the start of this post, but that is mainly because, unfortunately, it is tough for these sorts of threads to stay civilized and productive, and while it is beneficial to gather opinions through a public forum, if it were suggested to SASG, whether IC or OOC, it'd be reviewed by some pretty fair and reasonable people. Osborn, for example, might portray his character in SD in a particular way, but I find him to be a very reasonable and levelheaded individual with consideration for most parties when reviewing something. I can't comment on his personal views, but I'd know that ample consideration and thought would be given to the topic if it came to him, and if he were to decide that it was to become a thing, then I'd likely be more accommodating than "PD bad" on the forums. Admittedly, that's why I've stopped replying but I'm still addressing your reply because I think that even if there was a disagreement or whatever, there's still sensibility and civility. To be candid, I'm not a fan of the idea of Governors. I have no issue with any of them as people, just to clarify, but I don't like that being at the top of the staff team while playing a legal character is practically a free ticket to unlimited power with little to no accountability or worry and without any qualifications per se. If I do something to the LSPD or the LSEMS Chief does something to the LSEMS that is entirely negative, we have to worry about whether our position is still tenable in the eyes of LFM and Governors/head administrators, Governors lack this oversight. The truth is, if the community, IC or OOC, turns heavily against any faction leader (especially non-staff) for valid reasons, there's a high chance they'll be replaced. If a Governor pisses off the player base, there's little to be done besides maybe a reversal of the decision. I've always been a very strong proponent of some form of consequences, whether monetary or otherwise when a vehicle gets damaged and respawned or someone with spawned equipment dies. Contrary to popular belief, if this were to happen, it would have some impact, because finances for GOV factions aren't as easy as people think. We're capped, salaries are often a total sum of 8 figures, and sometimes leave very little funds left. Cash injections do not happen at all. There's enough wiggle room to function still since cruiser spawns do cost money (albeit a very insignificant amount and the funds are returned if the GPS/map are still present when parked) and a while ago I had our IA implement a baseline payout policy, but increasing the numbers of vehicle costs and changing how much is returned based on vehicle health instead of present items (or, alternatively, rework vehicle spawns entirely) would help in that regard. Killing cops in retaliation, I don't really know what to say to that, I'm not sure there's much we can do as faction leaders besides ensuring that with the PK comes the end of whatever conflict there was with NLR and whatnot. As for addressing issues from the side of the LSPD, I may be stubborn in some of my beliefs, but I take pride in for the most part being approachable and reasonable. There's always room for improvement but I strongly believe in two-way streets. Protests shouldn't be squashed within mere minutes, riots should be; water trucks shouldn't be rolled out, or at least used, immediately when a riot begins, but there should not be an expectation that there won't be an adequate response to jumping on police vehicles, harassing officers and others, and doing property damage. Generally, I hold the belief that we can do better, others can do better, and the environment for this to happen could be better. I do stand firm in my belief that there should always be a two-way street. Legal factions, especially LEOs, shouldn't be held to an unfair standard. Higher, maybe yeah, but there always seems to be this expectation that everyone can act like they're playing a video game and act like, for lack of better words, goons, and LEOs should aim to be entirely realistic. If the standard is players climbing police vehicles shouting severe profanities only under the guise of it being IC (not everyone, but, unfortunately, largely), then there should not be an expectation of severe professionalism and realism only from one side. They'll get tazed and dragged off because when they're told to get lost, they'll just start screaming louder. From a realistic perspective, there's a lot more de-escalation to do, from a gameplay perspective, none of that will really work on the player. In the same vein of "find out IC" and "pursue this IC" is an easy and often unfair copout, players calling this "character portrayal" and an "IC issue" is the same kind of copout and unwillingness to look at their own actions and how they fit into a roleplay environment. I'm not sure how to untwine the twisted sense of what is claimed to be 'character portrayal" and subsequent "roleplay" actions that plague the environment we play in. All that said, yes, I do aim to over time make strides to improve the PD experience, inward and outward, but I can't justify a blanket expectation on all of my members when this isn't enforced to a similar (not the same) level on others. What I can do is review and listen to people and see where we may be able to generally do a little better, because even the smallest things can have a big effect. I believe this is a very good point that is spoken of time and time again but is never taken further than a forum post. DM rules are restrictive for illegal players. It is not at all uncommon for eg. a drive-by to happen on officers that have a reason to be retaliated against by a gang, street gang, or otherwise, or for a vehicle to drive through the block of another gang, drop some members, and dip, but the ECRP ruleset does not allow for this. It significantly hinders any sort of retaliation that may come unexpectedly.

it's the only one I've got

I'm fairly sure this has been actively worked on many months ago and is part of the whole "clothing and customization" update that is (supposedly) coming when all the i's are dotted and t's are crossed on the gun update, though even that has seen delays, again.

All of the proposed ideas are valuable changes. Well, some more than others, I could do without the customization, but it is shocking that we're lacking something as simple as clear notifications of unread texts. Honestly, the updated phone we have now feels a little... half-assed, in the sense that while it is great that it was upgraded from having a single screen with multiple texts from various individuals to person-specific chats that can be opened, it wasn't deemed important enough to dedicate a little more time to actually making it a quality update by adding the finishing touches. Which is weird, because as Bala mentioned, the phone is an integral part of the server. In fact, it feels like we have gone a little backward over time when it comes to the updates to the phone. The first phone was introduced in 2017 and was entirely text-based, but it would inform you of text messages that you received while offline upon login. Texts would also tell you when they were sent, not with a date, but stating "X hours ago". The fact that this existed but wasn't carried over to a phone that is supposed to be "better" is a strange decision. So-called "upgrades" really shouldn't come at the expense of being user-friendly. I really don't think it's that difficult to add a little red dot to the texts app and conversations with unread messages.

panel.eclipse-rp.net

As a 5XX badge number around since 2017, I agree.

A "short" suspension is typically still longer than the average sentence served for murdering an officer or another player, as well as further crimes. If such realistic penalties were to be imposed, then it needs to be a two-way street, not a burden on a specific group of roleplayers. If LEOs should be getting fired when they realistically would as opposed to a commonly issued 24-48 hour suspension, then there have to be consequences of the same severity across the board. You cannot reasonably place such "realism" expectations on a specific group and not on others. Admittedly, imprisonment isn't very exciting, but for argument's sake, it is restrictive in the sense that it restricts roleplay from acting as a criminal all around the map to between four walls and further financial loss through citations (though, with the laundry, I'm not so sure about that). In that same vein, a 24-48 hour suspension from LEO factions restricts them from roleplaying their character in the sense of an LEO, translating to further loss of monetary income through salary. Compare these two timeframes to each other, and there's a significant discrepancy in expectations and consequences. Not to mention the fact that if someone were to be a hardened murderer, for argument's sake, capital murder, it makes no difference to the consequences whether or not they've been doing it consistently for a day, a week, or two years, but then there's the expectation to fire someone who has spent a year, two years, to get to the position they are. These consequences don't quite seem to be on par with each other. A non-biased third-party entity being implemented and them taking a heavier stance on firing an LEO would not eliminate that discrepancy, regardless of who it is ruled in favor of, it will only create further imbalance. I don't see the increase in "fairness" of removing people from factions because it is considered to be a more appropriate response that is on par with a 5-hour prison sentence and $40,000 in fines. Unless, of course, it is a completely in-character removal and they can simply return on another character. After all, it wouldn't be fair to have to throw away 2 years of work, that wouldn't be positive for the fairness on the server, right?

Fair enough. I agree with that. It came across as a bit dismissive of roleplay experience in a position which I personally strongly feel is also a must with regard to taking on a position of leadership or oversight re. this topic, but in general, yeah, no, I agree.

The Internal Affairs Divisions of both the LSPD and LSSD have arrested people, pressed charges, fired Officers, and taken various other actions, such as reprimands, suspensions, and demotions. The allegation that none of these things have happened is factually incorrect and, I assume, is based on nothing but personal experiences and subsequently made assumptions. Since realism was brought up, San Andreas is supposed to be California, and Los Santos is supposed to be Los Angeles. In that same vein, the Los Santos Police Department and the Los Santos County Sheriff's Department portray the Los Angeles Police Department and the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department respectively. In these "places" and agencies, internal affairs most certainly are not Officers employed with Internal Affairs in mind. They were beat cops and became Detectives. Now they're Internal Affairs. So, yes, they are Detectives. Internal Affairs of any faction answers firstly to its appointed Commanding Officer. Depending on the faction hierarchy, it is possible that this CO then answers to their Bureau/Area CO or Office Director, who then answers to the faction leader. Commonly, it goes straight from IA CO to faction leader. The faction leader then answers to the Governors. Governors are Head Administrators. Lewis is also head of legal faction management. Meaning, IA answers to the faction leader and (the leader of) legal faction management. I see no harm in suggestions on establishing things like the Inspector General into the existing structure should there be a necessity for it, but I think that if you want to throw around such allegations based on nothing but assumptions to achieve it, you might be missing the mark and it is best to take a step back and educate yourself on how these parts of the government factions actually operate. It is easy to throw this around, but I'm certain that if I were to put out a guide and announcement to the LSPD en masse on how to base their actions true to their IRL counterparts, not a single person would be happy as a result of this "realism", a term thrown around far too frequently only when it is beneficial to the person making the argument. Roleplay experience in positions means more than zero, regardless of basing actions on real-life counterparts. One of the most important factors of moving a faction forward is realistic portrayal while ensuring what you're trying to portray also fits into the game environment and community you're trying to push it to. The LSPD, from a leadership perspective, strives to provide a realistic portrayal and in doing so maintains structure based entirely on its real-life counterparts, while making minor changes allowing it to be suitable for the game environment that exists today. Policies are based on accessible LAPD documents and material, with changes made allowing for it to be suitable in today's game environment. Blindly basing everything on real-life counterparts is counteractive on a server where it is expected that law enforcement operates as realistically as possible with civilian oversight, the Inspector General, probably a mayor electing the Chief if it were up to people, but it is also encouraged to be a seventeen-times convicted cop killer dancing on the hood of a police vehicle. I respect your take even if I disagree with it, particularly because I personally value true portrayal, but it is easy to try and discredit roleplay experience in positions, which is necessary to steer something in a direction suitable for both the server and a roleplay environment in general, on a forum thread. It is not so easy to find the balance between realism, and gamification for the current server environment, while also keeping players, faction members, and faction management happy. You'll want someone with roleplay experience on your server specifically for that, regardless of whether they want to accurately portray the LAPD or the UK's metropolitan police in a US-setting roleplay server. Blindly throwing a realism or portrayal blanket on factions without considering their suitability and place within the server is not the way to go. I concur with this. Not because I don't think these discussions have no place, but because at the end of the day, this is something that can be discussed on the main forums as a suggestion, sure, but I think it will get more serious consideration from relevant parties, such as server management who act as the head(s) of state if it is pursued as an in-character suggestion.

Reporting it through IC means certainly will yield change. If there is a pattern or a surge of any sort of incorrect use or application of policy and it is recognized as an issue that affects more than one or two specific individuals, it is commonly swiftly followed by a faction-wide IC notice that aims to educate and steer faction members in the right direction and subsequently makes it easier for supervisors of the faction to proceed to disciplinary actions.

A Google Form should be sufficient to cater to the vast majority of the player base, to be fair. If it still requires a picture of /license and then a picture of the game panel and all characters, the voter fraud and "one vote for all characters" rule can be enforced all the same. I believe that it may be beneficial to, outside of the GOV forums, create a subforum in the in-character section of the main forums that allows all factions, such as SAGOV, LSEMS, LSPD, LSSD, SADOC, JB, etc. to repost their press releases. Basically, it can be posted on the GOV forums, and then a picture can be taken or the text can be copied and posted on the main forum's in-character press section. Relevant news, eg. SAGOV appointments, JB precedents, LRC changes or elections, LSPD firearms regulations, and SADOC changes that affect inmates, can reach a far wider audience.

For the sake of transparency, tazers, or less-lethal force, are specified under two of the LSPD's force levels. There is a difference between the two, though, which is that one level requires a verbal warning prior to the tazer being used, and the other does not. If a suspect is resistive, not following instructions, or has committed a criminal offense outside of a citation, but is not assaultive, then there should be a verbal warning prior to the actual utilization of less-lethal force (tazers). If a suspect is assaultive, then there is no need for a verbal warning. These levels and prerequisites make sense and exist already, primarily because it is logical to use the verbal warning and de facto threat of being tazed to gain compliance, and it is illogical to ask someone to stop beating you up with the threat of a tazer. Basically, the policy exists and it is logical - if someone is simply being non-compliant, use the verbal warning and basically the threat of a tazer to gain compliance prior to actually using the tazer, if someone is being assaultive (eg. attacking an officer or another player) then there does not need to be a warning because the threat needs to be stopped as soon as possible. While labeling things an "IC issue" is one of my pet peeves along with "find out IC", these are things that can be followed up with a formal in-character complaint. In the past, there have been formal disciplinary actions and suspensions issued to members of the LSPD faction on the in-character basis that they did not adhere to the force levels and their prerequisites, by, for example, not issuing a verbal warning prior to tazing a player that was simply being an IC nuisance by not complying. That said, it occurs far too often that a player gets tazed and then simply ignores these effects and has to be tazed another seven times before they either give up and comply, or an administrator needs to get involved to put the roleplay back on track. It is unreasonable to, beyond the initial verbal warning, expect continuous warnings when the players themselves fail to roleplay the tazer effects realistically, and, personally, if a player fails to hold themselves accountable with regard to roleplay standards and failing to roleplay these effects realistically by constantly running after being tazed, then I won't be holding a member of the LSPD faction accountable for having to taze this player seven times to gain compliance without six more different warnings after the initial one. I think that there's a middle ground that can be reached. The policy and prerequisites are in place for it, the IC investigative entity is in place for it, it just needs to be watched closer in-game, and the players that thoroughly enjoy running after being tazed for the seventh time should probably reconsider whether or not they're providing good interactions and roleplay as well.

If I can be a bus driver, fish, or deliver parcels for 16 hours a day, I should be able to be a mechanic or police officer or news reporter for 16 hours a day, if the time I have permits me to do that. With how many robberies and crimes against other persons occur on the server, "in the real world" the emergency services would authorize overtime for its employees, so that would make this null and void from the aforementioned realism perspective to begin with. When you start capping emergency services, you start reducing availability, when you reduce availability, emergency services are at risk of being overwhelmed, and when emergency services are at risk of being overwhelmed, a state of emergency is declared which futher permits overtime. The real world is used as an example of limiting work hours, but now you're drawing a comparison of real-life employment to video game faction membership, the latter being something that is used by many people to get an escape from the former. People should be able to play as long as they want to play, and in doing so, they should be able to do what they want, so let them. This applies to ALL players in all circumstances, not just "legal factions" or "criminal grinding". If someone has fun as a mechanic or officer for 10 hours a day, good on them! If someone has fun stealing cars or whatever for 10 hours a day, more power to them! Let them.

I'm just going to go out on a limb here and say that VIP reduction not being applied to charges applied after imprisonment is a massive oversight, I do not believe that this was intentional at all. It's probably worth submitting a bug report if one hasn't been made already. I can't see any fathomable reason why it wouldn't be a simple oversight given that it is a paid perk, and with payment comes expectation and the delivery of promises made. I don't think exceeding the cap of prison times is an oversight, given that it was implemented to ensure 'consequences' for committing further crimes while incarcerated. Or, rather, so that if you beat someone to death in prison, your murder charge will be added on to your ongoing time, as opposed to being released with an active felony hanging over your head which will only result in being picked up and sent right back. That said, personally, I was not aware that it functioned in this way and only found out last night. I believe that there are more good intentions (e.g. placing a charge so that a suspect may be processed while other charges are sorted as to not prevent them from starting their timer) than there are malicious intentions, but I can see that even the best of intentions may have a negative impact, likely unbeknownst to the charging individual. I'll see if I can get the ball rolling in LSPD leadership and liaise with LSSD leadership to determine if there is any OOC policy that we can introduce to possibly prevent this by ensuring charges are applied prior to imprisonment so that VIP reduction and the prison time cap are taken into consideration by the script. That said, that may result in two or three more minutes of idling in a cruiser, so it'd probably be a sign of good faith to cut down the harassment of law enforcement roleplayers if they take a minute longer than you'd prefer.

seems a little low effort for one of your suggestion threads, there's no table of contents, a novel, or a song, but I guess it's alright

This has happened twice in the history of the server, I was here both times and both occurrences are not similar to each other but definitely enough to cause distrust when it comes to onboarding new developers. That said, while it is understandable, it is not an excuse. The last time this had occurred, it happened because the developer in question was given full access to the live server, and this access and trust was then misused and abused. There are ways around that. What they need to do is take the time to implement an infrastructure that allows for additional help. Developers do not need access to the live database or server, they can do their work on a dated copy of the database, or, frankly, they can be given the database structure without any data from the live server and base it on this. I believe they have mentioned that their codebase is done in a specific way that wouldn't really allow for easy help, but then the key word is easy. Frankly, it could be done, the time just needs to be taken to set this up properly. I like to think that with the time in between updates of significant scale as well as the time between any sort of communication, the time to set this up is there. Is the willingness? We've lost too many talented, skilled developers interested in helping with this server to other communities simply because of an unwillingness to accept their help, or a lack of communication. That's not even covering the issue of a total lack of communication on feature updates. We know we're supposed to get an update for drugs, weapons, vehicles, clothing, character customization, etc... but, when? Where are they at in terms of progress? The features don't even need to be finished, communication will go an incredibly long way.

I do not often involve myself in topics regarding law enforcement and time served because I think we all know how those topics turn out, but I would like to come forth and say that LSPD (and by extension, LSSD) has had a note on our development requests for at least 2-3 years now, if not longer, requesting that the /jail and /prison commands be amended to allow a time reduction based on percentage, with the requested percentage being up to 30%. When you consider how high times can go and the scalability of such a percentage relative to those times, that could be a rather significant chunk of time cut off someone's otherwise rather lengthy sentence. That is to say that we have been looking at ideas like these and different avenues to compromise, notwithstanding charging methods, because frankly, contrary to popular belief, we're not as player- and fun-hating as we're made out to be and we have been pushing for smaller changes like these that impact the time spent in jail and prison significantly, we just have not received any developer support or acknowledgement of these requests at all in the last many years.

I'm glad we all got a commemorative t-shirt for surviving.

I don't think not finding anyone has anything to do with any sort of lack of difficulty. I don't personally know just how easy or difficult it might be because it's not the side I play on, but it's a new feature so there's bound to be a larger number of incidents right now. With that in mind, if LEOs arrive at a house robbery and no one's there, I don't think it's fair to immediately assume the worst and say that it is because they're too easy and ask for it to be made more difficult. I imagine that players are still getting a hang of the system and that they're just getting out of the place when they know police might be coming. Even if they make it out with some stuff, good for them, they paid for the contract and potentially got their ROI. Give it time before immediately assuming a negative stance with a rather unfair conclusion. TL;DR, empty house and no arrests does not mean it's too easy, you're assuming that they even made it out with anything to write home about to begin with. They made it out of the area in time, that's life.

The platform used for LifeInvader (Sngine) already comes with a direct messaging feature/module, but it was disabled on Eclipse's end, presumably because of concerns surrounding proper moderation of the feature (either a lack thereof through no features allowing for it, or the amount of effort it would require) as well as it allowing players to message each other while out of the game but allowing for it to be IC, and the only way to restrict the latter to reduce the attention needed for the former is a whole other conversation, which is restricting logins to LifeInvader to only be pushed through when a character is logged into the server. At this stage, though, I don't really see it happening, the focus is entirely elsewhere, and if the scope somehow comes to include LifeInvader again, the focus will likely be the lack of proper usability you mentioned because of its speed. When it comes to the actual phone in-game, I like all proposed features, but if the attempt at social media from before is anything to go off of, adding two more platforms is probably better left alone for now, given how the implementation of LifeInvader went. At least, when it comes to forcing the player base to use a barely usable platform instead of its substitutes that worked perfectly fine. LifeInvader needs some love before any more experimentation is done with IC social media. A re-work of the texting system is probably also long overdue when it comes to group chats; texts don't properly sort based on when they were received or sent, names are cut short if you use too long of a name for a contact, if your messages are too far up and you scroll there, you'll automatically be moved down again, etc. I think the phone in its current stage, while exponentially better than the old phone script, still leaves a lot to be desired, and finer details should probably be taken care of before adding anything new to make it even more "fancy'. That said, if anything, a priority (as far as QOL priorities go and not actual "content" prioritization) should be the re-work of texting and the introduction of group chats. There's also an argument to be made that phones could and maybe should be inventory items that will allow players to A) have separate phones (i.e. work and personal, or burner and personal for illegal roleplayers), and B) for phones to be stolen or confiscated by other characters or law enforcement respectively, but that's an entirely different direction.

Either a phone app, or add it in the form of a UI similar to the one used for the farming job, /help, /vieworders, and so forth. The UI is already made and put to use in multiple aspects of the server, so I'm not too sure why the decision was made to put it into the chat. Then again, I like things being present in the chat, but with no offense intended, I'm not a fan of unformatted clutter or text that looks like a Christmas carnival because of the random selection of colors that seem to have no purpose but to.. well, be random. I suppose it stands out, but at what point does it stop being about catching someone's eye and becomes cluttered and 'unprofessional'. I'm going on a tangent here, but the random selection of colors with the randomly chosen highlighted words just make for a messy chat, this includes the job board that, if not changed to either a phone app and/or UI, should probably at least be brought in line with other chat-printed elements of the server, like bracketing "JOB BOARD" and the "1#", etc.

Vehicle dirt sync and "washes" shouldn't have been added as a half-assed feature and should've only been implemented in conjunction with actually functioning car washes for reasonable prices. Controversial opinion, I know. I'll do you one better, too. They could've been a new player-owned business.