Olipro

Not entirely sure how much of my original post you took a look at - this isn't motivated by record expungement.

@Percival Post has been updated with a DOJ Internal structure manual and your suggesting for including DOC - obviously I'd like to see the DOJ get off the ground first before focusing too much on the interactions between other factions. Alternatively, you can click this link: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1W6ysSnjf3HlGi2ZwYjCdEODCIzLw2KR4/view?usp=sharing

yet another document: SASBA License terms. - also added to initial post. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1IV7mLha-0GwaL7Esp6JN3_6_nGjin17C/view?usp=sharing

I've updated my post with a first draft of a DoJ handbook. Or, you can click this link to read it: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Tp4X6xEzPLLn5xEHunDL2aYXvaJwGx7m/view?usp=sharing

Ultimately, the goal would be to have an economy of privately operating attorneys and public defenders. As in my initial post, the gov. forum would be used for the court docket and scheduling; cases would only be "joint" for scenarios where multiple individuals participated in the same crime and there are simply too many to handle their cases individually. A trial would be called for primarily on the basis of legitimacy; if the defense has a legitimate claim against their charges then DOJ can accept it. Ideally that would consist of delegated responsibility via a DA and ADA but it's all going to depend on initial numbers of people who can be trained up. I use the term "DOJ" generically, since whoever would ultimately accept a case is going to come down to numbers and competency of faction members, at least initially. Realistically, in terms of getting this off the ground, I'd like to have people under the DOJ faction be required to "float" between prosecution and public defender on an as-needed basis, just to ensure we can actually get trials going - once there are sufficient numbers, we could look to start assigning people to more dedicated roles. Defendants would of course typically have the right to handle their case in pro per - however, in the event of sealed evidence (e.g. witnesses whom the defendant would likely try to have killed if they discovered their names), then the prosecution would motion the court to appoint an attorney for the defense so that the sealed information is not given directly to the accused.

So, I've been doing some more work on this; the original post has been updated with a sample of what I think would be a viable State Bar exam. I have also included a mention of Law School classes being held to educate people to prepare them for the examination. https://forms.gle/r6rMaV5q8SXn7wiW8 Or you can just click that link.

In terms of the roleplay, you will end up spending more time fighting it than you would choosing to simply serve it; of course, if you're found innocent, it could net you some compensation.

You retrieve fingerprints/DNA from a crime scene. It gets run through a database which leads you to their name. Being part of a faction with access to MDC is a position of trust that's regulated by requiring you to demonstrate a commitment to RP, playing fair and acting in good faith. Adherence to being truthful in /ldo is regulated by little more than the hope the player has read the server rules and follows them. the risk of faction members MGing has been replaced with the risk of random players cheating.

So, as was previously implemented, entering IDs in the MDC had the benefit of being fast, but the downside of being MGable. Additionally, as it currently stands, learning and remembering someone's name is a somewhat irritating process, especially when people have names that are ridiculously long. I would suggest the following change which would benefit not only law enforcement, but all players: /alias will still exist and allow you to manually enter a string, as it is now. If someone shows you their license or govt ID, you can enter /alias ID without any string within 1 or 2 minutes and it will automatically alias to the name you were shown. When you enter an ID in the MDC, it will perform a check against the learned alias. If it's correct, congratulations. If it's not, you'll have to get their licenses to re-learn it.

Not sure how I could put it any clearer: Under my proposal, you, as the criminal, have to choose the RP. It is an opt-in. If you don't want to do it, you don't have to.

This wouldn't interfere with current mechanics. If you don't want the RP, go straight to jail like you do now. However, there are people who do want the RP, why should that be denied when it's no skin off anyone else's nose?

I've been mulling this over for quite a while and finally decided to get off my butt and put something together. I believe that Legal RP could be very rewarding and I also happen to have a decent amount of knowledge with regard to the law and would be happy to kick this off with anyone else who could pitch in and bring it to fruitition. So, firstly, here is what I consider the goals for the first-cut: Create Legal RP and a DOJ. Implement it in such a way that it does not immediately fail due to the sheer number of players on the server. Emphasise Roleplay - court cases should be expected to potentially take longer than the jail time. those who are not interested in the RP may choose to go straight to prison. Ensure the system is balanced. Jury trials might be feasible in future, but it would obviously require sourcing individuals with a high-standard of RP. Acknowledge that the system will need to be tuned and aim to deliver a minimum viable system to ensure it is managable before throwing in more bells and whistles. Consider implementing only civil cases or only criminal cases to allow time to get a feel for the system. Provide sample papers that can be used, but nonetheless permit any legitimate pleadings. See the following for suggested pleading papers - bearing in mind that there are of course more samples I would create such as subpoenas, motion to dismiss, motion for continuance, motion for summary judgement, ex-parte motions for relief, etc: Example Bench Trial Demand Example Bench Trial Demand Response Department of Justice Handbook Department of Justice Internal Structure Manual State Bar Exam State Bar License Terms With that in mind, the first item to address is the criterion and mechanics of what I currently believe would be suitable for criminal trials: A Bench trial for a criminal case requires that the charges be sufficiently serious, entail a reasonable amount of jail time and not have arisen through any server rule violations and/or that the individual requesting the trial is known and trusted to deliver a high-standard of RP. The DOJ shall have final say on filing a request to the court to hold a bench trial and may choose to deny it for OOC misconduct if deemed relevant. A defendant may have only one bench trial active at a time and: They shall receive automatic bail subject to a withholding bond payable in cash or assets (if cars, they are impounded. If houses, a lien is placed, but they do not need to lose access) Any further crimes they commit whilst on bail may be admitted into evidence. You will go straight to jail for those crimes. A Government forum section would exist for the court docket. Pleading papers would be filed there and processed by a judge. Trial dates will be arranged OOCly for all parties to be able to attend. Lawyers must pass a bar examination. A Defendent may opt for pro-se representation (self-representation) All cases are public. For any evidence to be "sealed" it must be motioned for, approved by a judge and held in a protected forum area. A party may motion for it to be unsealed. Crimes for Perjury, Practicing Law without a license and Contempt of Court would be added. These charges may only be filed by or at the request of a judge. Multiple defendants involved in the same scenario wishing to be tried in court shall all be tried together for the same charges under the same case regardless of whether they only committed a subset of the entire count of charges. This could change in future if there are sufficient DOJ players to process cases. If you don't like it, opt out of the trial and go straight to jail. Real US case law may be presented for the purpose of setting precedent, as may prior in-game cases. The structure of a criminal case would be as follows: The DOJ files a bench trial demand on the forum (see example pleading paper above) A Judge reviews stamps and signs the paper, sending a government forum PM to the defendant with the court summons and including the demand document from the DOJ. The defendant or their lawyer may file a response acknowledging the summons and motioning for discovery within a reasonable deadline. A judge will review the response (if any) and grant, deny or permit with modifications/conditions, the response. The prosecution must then provide any materials motioned for - almost certainly whatever they intend to admit into evidence. Depositions may be conducted by either side. Anyone refusing to be depositioned or surrender evidence may be subpoena'd, subject to a judge approving the subpoena. Witnesses must be subpoena'd to also appear unless the defence will depositional evidence. OOC cooperation is key here; attempting to hold up the trial because a witness can't be summoned should not be tolerated. Nonetheless, the right to confront your accusers should be adhered to as best as possible. A pro-se defendant may bring one person to assist them, but all communications with the court must be conducted by the defendant. The legal standard for conviction for each count is that of being beyond all reasonable doubt. The trial date occurs and is conducted thus: Everyone, excepting on-duty law enforcement must be unarmed in court. Any uninvolved LEO may act as bailiff. The judge calls the session to order, anyone who will be involved in the case(s) are sworn in and parties are instructed to communicate only with the presiding judge. The defendant is asked to enter their plea for each count; a plea of Guilty or Nolo Contendere for all charges shall terminate the case immediately and they shall be taken to serve them. Opening statements are made by the prosecution and defence. No interruptions. Evidence and witness testimony is referred to. Either side may announce objections and they shall be sustained or overruled. The defence must be permitted to cross-examine witnesses and question any evidence. Closing statements are made by the prosecution and defence. No interruptions. The judge retires to deliberate and returns to deliver their verdict on each individual count and the defendant is either imprisoned or released. Where possible, a transcript or video recording of the trial should be made and attached to the case file before it is closed. Civil cases would follow a similar format, except: Cases are more heavily paperwork based, all parties shall have full knowledge of the evidence/testimony the opposing side intends to present in court. Filing a case is subject to a fee. the court shall have the power to declare an individual as a vexatious litigant and disallow them from filing civil cases for an appropriate period of time and optionally charge them with Contempt of Court. Plaintiffs may apply for relief in the form of money or tangible goods. If assets are seized and sold, to cover a monetary amount, the plaintiff shall only receive the granted amount. Assets purchased through the credit store shall not ICly be considered. Deliberately transferring assets to avoid paying shall fall under Contempt of Court. Assisting parties shall also be liable for the same charge. The case shall be considered based on a preponderance of the evidence. This is a lower level than beyond all reasonable doubt and standard for civil cases. Lawyers: Lawyers must pass a bar examination to become certified, their license shall be subject to the following: The character must have no felonies on their record. Subsequent felonies shall result in immediate disbarment. A Lawyer may not take on cases for vexatious litigants. (civil) A Lawyer found to be supporting vexatious litigation may be suspended from practicing law for an appropriate period of time or disbarred. A Lawyer must not advocate for any individual where it would present a conflict of interest. Doing so shall also be grounds for suspension or disbarment. Law school classes will be held to educate people on legal matters and to prepare them for the Bar Exam. Once they have passed the bar, they are then able to practice. Judges: Must have passed the bar examination. Must have passed an IC and OOC interview, demonstrating sufficient knowledge and commitment. Must not preside over any case presenting a conflict of interest or bringing impartiality into question. May not be corrupt. This could change later, but at least initially, this could introduce severe complications while tuning the system. May also conduct business as a lawyer if it does not violate any of the above. As in real life, a judge ay help the defence/prosecution with procedural advice, but may not hint at or direct either party to (not) motion for anything, no matter how obviously they are hurting their own case by doing so or not doing so and must only react to/consider representations and permitted evidence made by either party. Development/Forum work required: A Courtroom - preferably, but we could potentially wing it at another location, temporarily. Addition of new charges to the Penal Code and MDC. Ideally, a mechanism to pay court filing costs, but the government donation location could also work. Creation of a DOJ faction. Creation of a DOJ subforum on the gov. website for lawyer licenses, cases and sealed evidence. Misc Possibilities: Use of the Davis courthouse (pictured below) - equally, it could simply be an additional entrance at City Hall, for convenience. DOC acting as bailiffs/Court Security. DoJ logo (also pictured below) Thanks if you've been reading this far. This is obviously a first draft so let me know what you think and I'm hopeful this could become a thing!

+1 This is a nice idea. A few ideas I have to improve it (in no particular order) are: The limit should be more than two players per route; this would allow for a good service frequency under optimal conditions - longer routes should have a higher limit. Failing to reach the next stop within a reasonable amount of time gets you kicked off the route. (countdown timer) Failing to remain at a stop for a reasonable amount of time also gets you kicked off the route. (countdown timer) Players cannot choose the route; they are assigned based on whatever has the least coverage or randomly if all are equally covered - accounting for distance. Don't require players to enter commands to announce routes; automate it. While performing the bus job, you are considered to be a government employee for the purposes of charging anyone committing a crime against you. All buses are RPly pre-fitted with cameras; this assists with crimes against the driver and for passengers to report the driver for unsafe operation of the vehicle. All buses RPly have a bulletproof section around the driver's cab so a player cannot board the bus in an NCZ and then RP pointing a gun as soon as it exits the NCZ. When all routes are filled with drivers, any other players wishing to do the bus job are given a "test route" which would just be the existing mechanic.

It is not more accurate. The unix timestamp is to-the-second. It also has nothing to do with laziness; We execute RP to create scenarios. The purpose of requiring a timestamp is to verify someone is not attempting to cheat. The unix timestamp satisfies that goal. Of course, being able to whine your way out of a scenario that's not in your favour on such a technicality is no doubt quite appealing but is exploiting the meta and textbook ruleplay. I see no good-faith basis for objecting.

Currently, the rule states: If you perform an action which will influence potential RP in the future, you must have OOC evidence of performing said RP. OOC evidence should consist of a recording or screenshot and it needs to be timestamped (/time). I have not heard clarity from any admin regarding this, but, as it stands, a screenshot of your RP will always contain a timestamp since there's one at the bottom of the screen. I have heard from some that your RP becomes invalid if you forget to use /time This strikes me as an unfair technicality; the UI essentially has integrated proof. Whether or not this is currently considered "invalidating" - the rules should either be updated to clarify that /time is not required if the unix timestamp is present or, if it currently is, that should be changed. Evidence of some RP should not be nullified for a purely technical reason of running a command when that command is redundant.