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.

So, firstly, as the FearRP claim goes; I believe that attempting to flee/evade on your bike would be reasonable if it has the speed/acceleration since you are a moving target and difficult to hit... of course, you may end up unsuccessful and you should then of course comply. it strikes me as powergamey to dictate how you have to respond to the demand in the first place. As for the cooldown concept... I would think that adding (( Robbery Cooldown )) or wording to that effect above your player after a non-LEO user has frisked you would be a relatively simple means of implementing the cooldown; the only catch being that you can then cheat by having a buddy frisk you to trigger it - though this could be partly addressed by logging frisk activity, the gains of doing this probably outweigh the abuse risk.

Based on what your grievance is, this basically boils down to the universal concepts of what constitutes Probable Cause, Reasonable Suspicion and Evidence. This is a standard you can pretty much take straight from IRL police procedure. The penal code is public, so you already have the information you need in order to point out whether or not your action falls under any citation/misdemeanour/felony. Beyond that point, it gets fairly generic and falls down to the general competence of an officer, just as an IA report after the fact will fall to the competence of the person processing it. Clearly, checking for a "warm gun" is not enough on its own to prove you were the shooter, but it does then give the officer a case for seeing if they could match bullets/casings from the scene to your weapon or, if there's clearly no way you're close enough to a location where you could legitimately fire it and have it not be cold, then at minimum, a lesser charge is appropriate. Ultimately, though, the current argument is coming down to wanting to learn the meta for the purposes of "avoiding a loss" rather than improving the RP experience - in fact, I suspect it will simply generate yet more smart-alec crim behaviour driven by either misinterpretations of procedure or petty attempts to invoke IA reports against officers for superfluous procedure mistakes. Being salty about a conviction that you would have received anyway had yet more time been spent on you (and thus, denied to the rest of the server players) really isn't the way to go - if, however, there was legitimately no way that evidence could have been obtained, that's an IA/powergaming matter which can be taken to the relevant people. So, in the absence of a different and more compelling reason to publicise it, I don't see this as a beneficial change.

So, I can't speak to entirely separate situations with other officers. They are their own people and that RP is theirs. I'm only going to discuss the standard of RP I expect and hold myself to - I can understand if you have had unpleasant situations with others, but they're not part of the RP we had, nor are they part of the reason for your ban. I understand what you are saying that, as officers, we "lead the way" - but in the encounter we had, that was clearly not the case as you had a pretty free reign and your ignoring FearRP was largely disregarded by us. It was your escalating the situation unrealistically that drew our ire. Both myself and Carl let you continue. There was no real issue with your ignoring FearRP until it descended into VDM and gunshots because, whilst by the rules it's breaking FearRP, you hadn't escalated it until you involved your friends - as I said before, that was what escalated it to a pure attempt to turn a legitimate disadvantage into a win by ignoring the play. In all honestly, it's more fun to let you go a little bit "off piste" with FearRP so long as you don't unreasonably try to gain an unfair advantage and ultimately, comply. Having played many hours with Thiston, he is definitely one of the most reasonable and chill RPers I've met on the server. He appreciates the value in not arbitrarily going for a bust just for the win and you were definitely given the benefit of that. In that vein, I can't agree with you laying the blame on him for taking out a lethal weapon and pointing it. Your entire RP behaviour was well within the realm of reasonably pulling out a gun. Irrespective of which, after being tazed, a real person would clearly have the wind knocked out of them and not realistically be in a position to just sprint off into the sunset. On that basis, the particular kind of weapon we happened to have pulled on you becomes largely irrelevant. Be it a tazer or a pistol - we have the drop on you and you should really have been RPing accordingly. If you want to claim you were in the right in fleeing, that's of course your prerogative, but I don't believe it holds water considering the scenario at hand. As I said before, just try to think a bit more realistically. I do believe that you talked your way into a permaban and that your mid/end-stage RP was ultimately lacking in quality during the later part of the scenario. Nonetheless, I feel your plight and, since you have placed a ban appeal, I'll drop a comment there with my thoughts in your favour - but you do really need to think about what happened here and not blame others for it. Thiston was not the arbiter of your current situation and if you are harbouring a grudge against him, you should probably re-evaluate. I don't know what @Varakai may think, but I suspect I'm not entirely off-field in what I'm saying.

So, initial disclaimer: I was the officer who initiated the arrest/pursuit with you. Firstly, I want to say that in general, it was initially good RP - I sprung the surprise on you while arming myself with a tazer (per the previous poster, yes, I could have gone for a gun, but just arresting/mowing you down is an instant W and a bit dull) - so you did a runner. The RP really only went south when you were successfully tazed and called for backup whilst in a state of shock - then after I had my tazer still pointed at you as you were in shock and (I believe) my partner, an actual gun, you then fled again which culminated in us getting mowed down by a vehicle from that backup call and subsequently shot. Evidently not good, but nothing fatal enough to warrant being perma'd. With that said, I was also witness to the admin discussion that ensued after. I don't want to speak for him, but it appeared to me that he initially intended to dole out a punishment to you as he did to the others. You then talked your way into a permaban by your choice of language and belligerent tone, as I later saw on your Twitch stream, it seems you were banned for your OOC conduct rather than the RP infraction. In any case, I hope you treat it as a learning experience - honestly, whilst your RP has flaws, it's generally not bad, especially compared to much of what I see on the server and ultimately, everyone's human. My two cents are this: If you can just show you'll be respectful OOCly, maybe consider appealing it on the basis of your having learned from the experience and hope for the best.

The turf wars idea is a really neat idea, but I cannot see how it would have any bearing on the issue of robberies, especially when you make the point yourself that it is primarily people not in gangs who are big on robbery. If your character is motivated by money, that's fine. When you are motivated by money and your character is in fact just a husk for you to treat the game like a pinball machine where your only interest is getting the high-score, it's entirely missing the point of an RP server. And let's say your character is motivated by money and you're great at dialogue - there's no realism in committing serial muggings in the middle of the day in a major city, not for your character or anyone else playing.

I don't have any knowledge of this WCA/NLA feud, so I won't try to address that. Though I'm not sure it's a good look to pre-ordain that you're going to RP a scenario with zero possibility of redemption for an entire year, but you do you. As far as the IC/OOC toxicity mentioned by OP goes, this is a classic case of supposed IC roleplay actually being a facade for OOC hostilities. I'm not sure there's a good answer entirely; my approach would be to void the scenario, make asset adjustments where necessary and all justifications that previously lead up to it are considered to have never happened. If someone can't dissociate themselves from their character, perhaps RP just isn't for them.

So, I have two issues with this. Firstly, the attraction to robbery is a matter of opportunity cost, therefore, it's not that there is a lack of any alternative activities, it's that there aren't alternative activities with an equal or lower risk:reward ratio. It's also probably not reasonable to just go ahead and create a criminal activity that is lower/same risk for same/higher reward to reduce the attraction to robbery... then again, maybe it is, but I can't think of any justifiable options with respect to the current balancing. Secondly, when you refer to "progress" you're talking about financial progress rather than RP progress (character development) - Obviously money is a significant mechanic of the game, but when it becomes the primary focus, as I've been saying, the RP suffers for it.

So, there's something of an inconsistency here, possibly just in my understanding of what NCZ really means: as I understand it, NCZ denotes an area where you can't undertake any activity that is classified as illegal; for wearing a mask to be purely an IC matter, that logically implies that NCZ really means there's a selection of illegal activity that's OK, and some that isn't - but I haven't seen this documented anywhere. As I also mentioned previously: there's the distorting factor that it prevents others from using /alias on you which incentivises wearing a mask constantly despite the negative effect on RP realism. But when all is said and done, the issue with mask usage is a miniscule one compared to some of the robbery/PvP'ing behaviour. sorting out mask rules/etiquette is bottom of the issues pile

So, I've been playing for a relatively short time - on one hand, this gives me a fairly "fresh" outlook on how RP works in the server. On the other hand, it also means I might have misunderstood things - hopefully the following consists of more of the former and less of the latter. Firstly, I think a good number of the scripted jobs could do with being made more intuitive; newbies (including myself) are frequently confused by things as simple as the money truck job because interacting with the ATM doesn't tell them to get a back from the back of the truck and which key to use to do so - I'll find some time to stick them in a dedicated topic over at Server Suggestions - if any devs are reading, I work as a software engineer, mainly C++ but I know several others, let me know if you're looking for an extra pair of hands. Some of the /me /my /do usage feels redundant; if you've verbalised something (e.g. a medic attends to you and you describe on mic what's wrong and that you want help) then proceeding to write out what you've already said feels a little arduous and somewhat interrupts the flow of verbal RP. Obviously this is not universal nor particularly problematic; just sometimes a bit of a nuisance and naturally there are cases where /do is required to obtain truthful information. Despite being classed as a crime, wearing of masks in NCZ areas is entirely ignored - toggling it deserves a keyboard shortcut to make it less annoying to do and obviously, whilst this a comparatively small gripe, it's not only unrealistic to hang around a bank in a mask, I suspect to some degree it's also being abused (by wearing a mask 24/7) to prevent use of /alias by others. Quality of RP is a very mixed-bag and I can basically divide them into the following categories: True RPers: The focus for these people is on the RP and creating entertaining interactions/scenarios. Nothing to really say here, this is what it's all about. FPSers: Little to no motivation to do any good RP beyond the minimum required to justify some form of violent confrontation. $$$ers: Similar to FPSers except their motivation is primarily amassing cash and doing the bare minimum RP interaction to obtain it. Idiots: No interest in RP but smart enough to not blatantly violate the rules; deliberately irritates people with banal stupidity like deliberately hitting cars and open hostility/rudeness to anyone. The most rampant seems to be the cash-driven criminal types which follows a predictable and extremely repetitive formula: You, as a random civilian with no obvious or apparent wealth get held up at gun point into FearRP. You get robbed in silence. Worthless items like GPS, map and food are taken from you. You may or may not get your head shaved too. The assailant leaves, scenario over. Fixing lazy RP is obviously a personal problem that the individual needs to take ownership of, however, stealing petty items is unrealistic unless you've RP'd some dialogue beforehand that you're starving and desperate enough to use a gun to get food. The head shaving is patently stupid, again, unless you've got a great psycho robber character going. But either way, as a mechanic, it offers you unlimited opportunity to roam the map doing nothing other than stealing from other players; creating little to no RP value and a lot of frustration. My suggestion to (attempt) addressing this are a multi-pronged approach: Implement a dedicated mechanic like /rob which comes with a cooldown - whether the cooldown should apply to the assailant, the victim or both is a matter of fine tuning. Implement a rule disallowing theft of petty items and head shaving unless there is a proper RP scenario that would give way to reasonable expectation of such action(s) occurring. Consider a command for victims to (try) using which will simulate a third party/camera alerting the cops - depending on the location and time of day, the command will either succeed or fail. Mugging someone with a gun in the middle of the day along Hollywood Blvd. would be a losing proposition, why should doing the same along Vinewood Blvd be any different? The FPSers are of course also something of a nuisance but I feel this is somewhat self-limiting by virtue of the fact they're already restricted by DM rules; there's also a far better post which I believe has the right suggestions to try and tackle it and end the OOC report-a-thon battles. Ultimately, so long as any OOC report's validity is based on the premise of evidence of bad faith and not for an honest mistake, the system is fine. With all that said, there is some quality RP that goes on and by-and-large I think this community has a lot to offer; my two cents in a nutshell is that a bit more work should be done to weed out bad actors and incentivise others to do more than just the same bland scenarios over and over.