Cyrus Raven

Sure I get where you are coming from, I wouldn't know how these things work IRL, I was just thinking more about convenience for LEOs and Suspects. If my suggestion was accepted the locations at which I can still access the MDC remain the same.

You are correct, but it also includes regulations like not using radio while off-duty unless you are command and some other things that apply to when you are off-duty. For example: What I am talking about is with regards to relaying witnesses, these are officers who are either on or off duty and have directly witnessed a crime happening. Through these witnesses people can be charged, but as mentioned before, whoever saw it take place should be the one placing charges so they can be easily identified if a rule is broken or an IA report is filled. The objective with my suggestion is so that this can be done quickly to avoid wasting suspect time, which in my mind makes sense seeing as there should be no roleplay reason preventing me from doing this as access to MDC is conditional on you having a log-in and password and not whether you are on-duty or off-duty.

I fear you're the one getting caught up in this suggestion. ''I've regularly seen cops attend parties off-duty, drinking, and having fun. However, in your world view, those cops would be able to arrest someone for a crime, hop in a cruiser, and sentence them to prison and immense fines, while wearing shorts and vodka on their breath, because, "this is what the handbook says".'' This is a pure straw man of what was said. In no place in this thread have I ever suggested that off-duty officers should be able to '' arrest someone for a crime, hop in a cruiser, and sentence them to prison and immense fines'' or anything remotely similar. I very specifically said that transporting and handling of suspects is only to be done by on-duty officers. My point is that if you are in fact a witness to a crime, as an officer you are told to add charges yourself. If you disagree with this you are disagreeing with what the PD and SD handbook say. As for the ''borderline Non-RP'' comment I won't address it. My ''snide'' comment was an attempt to demonstrate that whether or not you agree with the suggestion, the underlying issue you have will remain regardless. I didn't think it could be interpreted as offensive, that is something I try and avoid on the forums. I don't appreciate your ''appalling attitude'' comment, you have no insight on who I am as a person let alone enough to judge my ''attitude'', to reach such lengths over a suggestion seems hypocritical to me. Anyways, I do not wish to derail the conversation anymore. Feel free to ask for clarifications like @Zion Willard, vote or comment.

I've been in situations where I was the witnessing officer to a crime. According to regulations the witnessing officer should be the one applying charges so in case of an IA report the transporting officer that applied the charges I told him to doesn't get ''fucked''. In my case, this required me to go all the way up to Paleto Bay just to sign-in and add the charges, wasting the suspect's time for about 10-15 mins when he was only getting a 50 min jail sentence. With the above implemented I could have simply RP'ed logging into the MDC at Mission Row, DOC or a fellow officer's cruiser, RP'ly using my account and then adding charges on the spot, which from an RP point of view kinda makes sense to me since you know your log-in and password. Whether you are scriptly wearing a uniform shouldn't realistically prevent you from logging into a computer with your credentials

I don't even know how to respond to this, you're just wrong in terms of how things work right now... LEOs can absolutely enforce the law while off-duty, but their abilities are reduced of course. They can't use the radio so they have to call 911 and they don't have access to any police gear or resources. If an off-duty officer witnesses an armed robbery, hostage situation, grand theft auto or even gets robbed himself, he should immediately be calling 911. Depending on the situation and it's urgency the officer is able to intervene. If the officer himself is robbed or injured and happens to know the person's name then he can absolutely charge that person. However, as it stands if something of the sorts happens then only the uniformed officer can charge him unless the witnessing officer goes all the way to their precinct or station and adds the charges (both wasting the time of the suspect and his time). Something that seems to be getting misinterpreted is that whether or not this change happens things will remain exactly the same. If an off-duty officer witnesses anything he will charge that person, it's just a matter of if it takes 10-15 mins to go to a place just so he can charge them or not. But hey, if you want to waste your own time go ahead, I'm not the one going to jail anyway.

Just to clarify, my suggestion is in no way implying that off-duty LEOs should have access to MDCs everywhere (like on their phones), just that they should be able to log-on without being on-duty through the places you mentioned.

??? You shouldn't be conducting any sort of regular duties when off-duty, this suggestion has nothing to do with that. As for charges, you should absolutely be adding charges yourself if you were the officer/deputy who witnessed what happened. That's the recommendation given to us through our handbooks and this is a suggestion that not only is realistic, but helps us comply with that recommendation. Whether you are off or on duty doesn't prevent you from having knowledge of your log-in and password and accessing the database through any government owned computer (Police cruiser, Mission Row, DOC, Paleto, etc...)

Simple suggestion, allow PD/SD to access MDCs while they are off-duty. Regardless if you are on-duty or off-duty you would know the log in and password to your MDC account. Having this would make it easier to comply with faction rules when it comes to charging someone while another officer or deputy transports them. For example: If I am a Deputy in the city who detained someone holding another person up, then I should be adding the charges. However, as the script currently functions, I am forced to go back all the way to Paleto just to get on-duty for a few seconds and charge someone, when realistically speaking I should be able to log into the MDC at Mission Row/DOC or any cruiser and quickly apply them.

Just thought I would mention, the reason why people think you have an alliance with half the other gangs is because you guys are allied with the second largest gang on the server. Technically they are incorrect, you are not allied with every other gang, but having the two biggest gangs be allied rubs some people the wrong way. Although if there is RP to support the alliance it seems reasonable IMO.

I would probably +1 this just so groups can have a proper OOC chat like /f, but I wouldn't allow any group to have access to imports and turfs (if these are added), they would have to be approved.

#1: +1 #2: +1 #3: +1 In theory, but this has to be well thought out, it should be something that only skilled people who have spent time learning the trade would be able to do and it should be expensive to have. (Example: You could work towards being a master forger, but at the start your Fake ID's are low quality and have a % chance of being spotted as fake, the higher level you go, the harder it is to spot by cops and the longer it lasts.) #4: Like the incentive idea, but not the example. There are cases where we have a ton of stuff to do with shootouts and such, making it unrealistic to expect us to put that on-hold just to go get some vehicles out. Having a way to get vehicles out easily or an incentive like commission would be nice though. #5: The protection given is to prevent cops from being harassed, given that they spend most of their days getting shot at or aiming their weapons at criminals, having 20+ people at any given day able to track you and kill you for it seems a bit aggressive, although I can see a roleplay reason to remove this rule. Wouldn't mind seeing more arguments from both sides about this. For now neutral. #6: +1 I would probably be more extreme and say that the NPC should be removed all together, insuring that all drugs are sold to players and/or gangs and that every drug has a worthwhile effect to make it competitive. (One gives you slightly faster speed when running, one more accuracy, the other armor, etc.. Effects are small and can be stacked in exchange for often headaches or blurred vision.

+1

The current Non-RP rules state the following: Actions that are unrealistic or promote poor quality roleplay are considered as non-roleplay. Examples of actions that are considered as non-roleplay: However, as it currently stands** players are able to take extremely expensive vehicles and bikes and use them off-road, where realistically speaking it would completely break the suspension and other components of such vehicles, not to mention that whoever owned these type of vehicles would never in their right mind take their vehicles on such terrain. The rules themselves state that Non-RP are ''actions that are unrealistic or promote poor quality roleplay''. In my opinion, using a multi-million dollar super car off-road is extremely unrealistic, the same applies for any super car or bike that isn't made for off-road purposes. What confuses me the most is that there are already rules in place, in fact the same Non-RP rule set, that prevents players from ramming other vehicles if their cars are not built for it or are extremely expensive. So my question to the staff team is why you would disallow ramming, giving the justification that these cars are expensive and not built for it, but would allow these same types of vehicles to climb a mountain or go at high speeds on bumpy dirt paths. P.S. What I am talking about here is off-roading, NOT stunt jumping. From my understanding, anyone caught ramping their vehicles from high places no matter the build is prone to a Non-RP punishment. My issue is specifically with the precedent set bellow and the rules allowing supers and other expensive and non-suitable vehicles to go off-road at high speeds or even climb mountains, even if they are not stunt-jumping. ** Case that established that going off-road is ok as long as you ''maintain control''

Not to sound like an asshole, but the least you can do when making posts like these is to cite the cases you are talking about. Seems a bit irresponsible to talk about COI in a community without at least providing some evidence for it.

+1 Probably should edit the locations out though

I had a similar thread up like other users, but as of right now it's a neutral from me. I want change, but I think it has to be very well thought out and from what I've heard it's in the works. Having said this I will mention something that I dislike from the current DM rules, citing a recent report made. In this report the reported party was punished with DM for shooting at a vehicle that was owned by him when someone decided to walk into a very active mechanic shop in the middle of the day and yoink a car. This really bothers me from an RP stand point. How is it possible that someone shooting at his own car after someone had no regard whatsoever for his own safety and decided to walk into a mechanic shop with a bunch of players standing around, gets a DM offence. I would speculate that the ruling was given to not create a bad precedent where players instantly open fire if someone gets into someone's car by accident or for any other reason. However, if this is the case then the focus should be on individual cases, allowing for some sort of leeway and deviation from 'the letter of the law''. In this case, the guy shooting at his own car should be able to do this, it is his property, he is shooting at the vehicle and he is only doing so because the other player chose to try and rob a car in these specific circumstances, yet it seems that the owner of the vehicle is the one being punished. Even if it was technically DM why is the reporting party not getting any sort of ruling for FearRP or Non-RP ? Since when is the standard for this server to walk up to a fairly busy LSC and steal cars in broad daylight ? Maybe it's because these players know that they can instantly [/b DM reported] as soon as they get shot. In essence, they are abusing the way the rules work to cast a shield that prevents anyone from doing anything besides roll over and deal with it. Which is why there should be a push to individually analyse cases and allow staff to ''bend'' the rules if enough justification is given. TL:DR The rules could remain as they are because they are a pretty decent guide on how to play on the server. What I think would be a good idea is to revise how reports are handled and make sure to outline to all players that ''precedent'' can be used but isn't the only deciding factor to the point that sometimes staff can quite literally ''ignore'' a broken rule given that enough justification is present to do so.

Only thoughts I have, having been part of both SD and PD is that they both serve a purpose and both see plenty of action, helping each other along the way and providing law enforcement across the entirety of Los Santos.

Your reaction to you breaking the law and admitting your inability to control your vehicle is to throw a fit ? Speed cameras are only placed in a few areas of the city, besides that all you have to worry about are police setting up a speed trap. If you don't want to get fined don't speed, if you car's cruise control is broken then rely on your speedometer.

It seems you're the one who is ignorant on the topic Mr Gamble. '' We don't attack government funded businesses'' Los Zetas are seen heading into a private property several times a month, breaking the law by trespassing. Not only that, but occasionally things escalate and employees and/or civilians get robbed and cars are stolen. All of this done by a group in command by someone who claims the following: ''we were banned from a business because someone in a blue colored outfit stole some cars from your establishment, and you believed the best solution was to blanket ban over 50+ people due to ones, or a few peoples mistakes'' In essence, your solution to combat a ban you find unfair is to then commit the same crimes you were accused of in the first place. I wish you all the best, but please to not kid yourself, your actions weren't those of a law abiding citizen who respects the businesses of Los Santos and their decisions, to pretend that the only solution available was to ignore the ban, keep trespassing and commit crimes is laughable at best, but befitting of a gang leader.

Oh really ? Is it your assertion that Los Zetas have never once attacked or otherwise committed any felonies towards LSC ?

I would choose to have none of them around in the first place. Two wrongs do not make a right.

I'm not sure why anyone in their right mind would ever support this message. This sounds like manipulation 101. Let's be as cut and dry as possible. Los Zetas are the problem here. If this group of individuals got banned, even for a stupid reason, the method of response from a reasonable, law abiding member of society is not to then continuously attack this place of business through violence and fear mongering. It is holy understandable why LSC employees are complaining and why they might not take the most endearing and understanding tone when speaking to the head of this criminal organisation. As for the claim that the Chief of Police is sitting in silence, I do not agree with this either. I am sure that he's trying his best and as others have mentioned a direct correspondence with LSPD high command would probably go a long way, communication is key so maybe toning it down and coming to an understanding is the best option. For now I will abstain from signing this petition.

Thanks for posting that report. It's interesting, I wasn't expecting that ruling. Not to mention that by literally following the rules a taser by definition is a weapon. This being the case, it sets a very bad precedent where your hypothetical scenario becomes plausible. Would love to see a response from a staff member with regards to tazer, maybe even by @MrSilky seeing as he was the one who ruled on the aforementioned report.

The DM rules state: Examples (but not limited to), where your character’s life is considered to be in direct danger: • When you are on foot or bike and a weapon is aimed at you at close range. So an officer chasing a suspect after he gets out of the car and runs (and after being told to stop multiple times) or if he is on a bike while the officer is in close range and he's dismissing demands is valid grounds to taze seeing as a tazer is a weapon.

Issue Being Reported: Namechange request, was wondering if I can get my name changed to something better as ''Kyle White Raven'' doesn't represent any character I play on the server. Date and Time of Issue (provide timezone): 14:08 BST Your characters name: Cyrus Raven Other player(s) involved: N/A Evidence and/or notes worth mentioning: N/A