PD X Burden of Proof | What should be considered IC/OOC

[Cyrus Raven]

Dear Eclipse Community, 

 

In a recent report a decision was reached by a member of staff with regards to how law enforcement (namely PD/SD) can charge people. The decision specifically said the following:

With that being said, following a conversation with representatives of the LSPD and LSSD factions we have had both clarify to all LEO faction members what is / isn't acceptable in terms of placing irrefutable charges and what is required for them such as confirming the identity beyond a shadow of a doubt which cannot be done with masks on and based on voices. Therefore, situations such as this should not happen again in the future. 

This, in my view, is very concerning. An issue which was previously dealt with in an In-Character way, can now lead to OOC punishments. 

In my view, the core argument against such a decision is that Officers should have the autonomy to determine the charges on a suspect without OOC punishment, which I view as mixing. We already have IC (and OOC) protocols that outline the requirement for charging someone, investigating someone, searching someone, etc... All of this is in PD/SD handbooks.

The above ruling was given because someone was charged while wearing a mask. Regardless of your view on charging people with masks, I think it is reasonable to allow these actions to unfold IC'ly. This means that if someone does get charged incorrectly then they can lose their job, get suspended, fined, demoted, etc... Having this rule prevents us (law enforcement) from performing any sort of basic investigations and more importantly provides civilians and criminals with masks a blanket immunity to any possible charges, assuming they aren't caught. Furthermore, this takes any sort of IC story building away, such as getting to know criminals, their patterns, their clothing, their voices (text and VOIP), their vehicles, etc...

This is the basic outline for the discussion, the above are MY PERSONAL views on the matter. However, the reason for this thread is so YOU the community can discuss. I'm sure this will turn out like any other thread that mentions PD and Criminals in the same breath, but I would hope people look past this individual case and ponder to themselves whether or not this type of precedent is something you want in the server (E.g: OOC punishments for reasonable IC actions)

 

Edited August 11, 2020 by Kyle White Raven

[Phantas]

Its unrealistic and not fun when  charges placed that realistically wouldn't be in real life and the charges would be dismissed due to in sufficient evidence. A lot of the time poor rp is countered with make an IA when it can easily be further expanded on in game by reviewing body cams and/or doing further rp. IA isn't an excuse for poor rp and your factions have ooc corruption rules in place as well.

I had some great roleplay with Grace Hunter Darion Rueb and Phillipe Sanchez today where charges were expanded on and evidence was reviewed resulting in all my charges being removed and lots of my allies charges being reduced from further roleplay from each side. I love the experience and hope more players experience it as well. 

Edited August 11, 2020 by Phantas

[TheCactus]

There's no way to metagame IDs anymore and if I have enough evidence, I charge the individual.

If I got the charge wrong, I get punished ICly and the individual will be compensated. If commit the same mistake more than once, the punishments will escalate.

If I have enough evidence and I charge someone correctly, it means that he didn't even try to outsmart law enforcement.

Why should an officer get punished OOCly if he managed to successfully confirm the identity of a suspect (and all this happened because of the lack of effort of said suspect)?

Like is it our fault if people wear the same clothes while paying their fines and murdering someone over and over again?

Why do legals change clothes and muffle their voices more than gang members/murderers?

Incredible.

P.S.: I sometimes hang around with people that have similar mindsets. An example can be Ricky Brasco, due to our roots. I see him wearing the same blue shirt and GD pants but he robbed me some days ago and he was not in his car and had a completely different outfit, mask included. ICly I would've been suspicious and I didn't have enough evidence. If you know you're gonna kill, smart up.

Edited August 11, 2020 by TheCactus

[Cyrus Raven]

 

Its unrealistic and not fun when  charges placed that realistically wouldn't be in real life and the charges would be dismissed due to in sufficient evidence. A lot of the time poor rp is countered with make an IA when it can easily be further expanded on in game by reviewing body cams and/or doing further rp. IA isn't an excuse for poor rp and your factions have ooc corruption rules in place as well.

 

I agree. If it were up to me a justice system would be in place already. Do you see how this can restricts us from doing proper investigative RP as well essentially dumbing down what we as Officers observe on a day to day basis from interacting with people? Or do you think this is a necessary measure given your experience? 

[Jleoni]

100% Support this change, and I'm not even a crim.

How about using your hunch and investigating further, looking for footage, searching for DNA, or following the perp. 
Please elaborate on how this can restrict you from doing proper investigative RP, as if anything, it seems to encourage it. Or is your idea of proper investigative RP the same as that of the reported officer: "oh I saw this guy in the same car and same clothes, boom let me charge him with 30k worth of shit he did on a hunch that it's him"?

 

 

In my view, the core argument against such a decision is that Officers should have the autonomy to determine the charges on a suspect without OOC punishment, which I view as mixing. We already have IC (and OOC) protocols that outline the requirement for charging someone, investigating someone, searching someone, etc... All of this is in PD/SD handbooks.

There are lots of good cops, no doubt. They provide consistent good RP, allow for responses, and are generally fair and provide a fun atmosphere for everyone (win or lose). Unfortunately there are also many players in this faction who wield their relatively high power to play2win, and I feel that this rule will mostly work well to curb their power and/or keep them in check.

[Dashingly]

 

"oh I saw this guy in the same car and same clothes, boom let me charge him with 30k worth of shit he did on a hunch that it's him"?

That's such a dishonest way of looking at it. The cop has dealt with this player literally dozens of times, arrested him numerous times, and generally had many interactions with this player. The player in question is a high high high ranking member of the gang, easily identifiable by accent, outfit, and his mannerisms.. He was in his plain clothes and his voice was heard. A mask shouldn't be an automatic get out of jail free card.

Regardless of all of that, I agree with you that there are good cops and bad cops. I also agree that more RP can and should be done in this regard (specifically about the DNA & or finger prints) but even you said "looking for footage," what good would footage do, if he's just wearing a mask and now he's completely unidentifiable?

I just don't believe that this should be an OOC rule break. This is an IC issue on all levels. I respect and see your POV on the topic though.

 

[Cyrus Raven]

 

100% Support this change, and I'm not even a crim.

How about using your hunch and investigating further, looking for footage, searching for DNA, or following the perp. 
Please elaborate on how this can restrict you from doing proper investigative RP, as if anything, it seems to encourage it. Or is your idea of proper investigative RP the same as that of the reported officer: "oh I saw this guy in the same car and same clothes, boom let me charge him with 30k worth of shit he did on a hunch that it's him"?

 

There are lots of good cops, no doubt. They provide consistent good RP, allow for responses, and are generally fair and provide a fun atmosphere for everyone (win or lose). Unfortunately there are also many players in this faction who wield their relatively high power to play2win, and I feel that this rule will mostly work well to curb their power and/or keep them in check.

I believe we already do a lot of the things you mentioned. However, the way the ruling affects us is by not allowing us to make IC decisions based on the way someone looks (tattoos, clothing, voice, accessories, etc...) Taking these things and then charging someone should be an option that officers have and is something IC, my main point is, I don't believe this is abused (Please do post any examples showcasing this) and thus should be kept IC. 

Edited August 11, 2020 by Kyle White Raven

[Jleoni]

 

That's such a dishonest way of looking at it.

Fair.

In hindsight my opinion is not yet matured and I rescind my previous comments

[Aldarine]

Simply on the note of recognizing somebody by their voice - as somebody who has multiple characters, it is somewhat concerning the amount of times I am incorrectly recognized and questioned simply due to the way I sound. Players are allowed to have multiple characters and should they decide to utilize VOIP, their characters would all sound exactly the same unless they go out of their way to use a voice changer. Recognizing somebody by their voice while masked and placing charges that would strip them of money as well as time can easily be countered by ensuring that the individual is properly identified. A hunch can be very well intended and many things can line up, however, if multiple people decided to all type and dress the same, how could one possibly tell the difference and correctly place charges? I do not in the slightest believe this decision was in attempts to discourage anybody but moreso to encourage continuation of investigation and prompt more thoughtful expansion on charge placing while remaining within Non-Roleplay rules. As mentioned within that conclusion, a Head Administrator stated that conversation was had with necessary members of these factions and such a decision would not have been ultimately made unless it was following the intention to provide a rule abiding, positive and enjoyable experience on the server for all involved.

[Cyrus Raven]

 

Simply on the note of recognizing somebody by their voice - as somebody who has multiple characters, it is somewhat concerning the amount of times I am incorrectly recognized and questioned simply due to the way I sound. Players are allowed to have multiple characters and should they decide to utilize VOIP, their characters would all sound exactly the same unless they go out of their way to use a voice changer. Recognizing somebody by their voice while masked and placing charges that would strip them of money as well as time can easily be countered by ensuring that the individual is properly identified. A hunch can be very well intended and many things can line up, however, if multiple people decided to all type and dress the same, how could one possibly tell the difference and correctly place charges? I do not in the slightest believe this decision was in attempts to discourage anybody but moreso to encourage continuation of investigation and prompt more thoughtful expansion on charge placing while remaining within Non-Roleplay rules. As mentioned within that conclusion, a Head Administrator stated that conversation was had with necessary members of these factions and such a decision would not have been ultimately made unless it was following the intention to provide a rule abiding, positive and enjoyable experience on the server for all involved.

I understand your point, although I will say, this is a double standard, tons of people recognise others by the sound of their voice outside of PD related matters. Just yesterday I was at LSC with someone and their friend approached and said ''Hey X'' after hearing him talk to me (he was masked). ID'ing someone by voice is something that happens, whether or not it shouldn't be done by PD/SD given their power is a different issue.

Charging someone based solely on voice is not something I think happens. What CAN happen is you hear someone and you assume their identity, continuing to investigate you notice that person is wearing the same clothes they usually where, in the same vehicle, same hair style, etc... At that point the chances that person is on their alt dressed exactly the same is very very slim. 

 

More importantly, I would like focus the overall point of this discussion. What you mentioned Aldarine isn't simply to prevent PD/SD from charging people solely based on mask and/or voice. We don't do this as explained above. 

The staff member in question said the following: ''what is required for them such as confirming the identity beyond a shadow of a doubt which cannot be done with masks on and based on voices\''

What this means (unless I am wrong and if so feel free to correct me), is that we as PD/SD can not charge someone for a crime if they have a mask on, regardless if we have matched their clothing, tattoos, accessories, vehicle, voice and have gone through a bunch of other investigative RP, all because it was OOC'ly decided that the requirement for identification CAN NOT be achieved if they have a mask on. 

Not only is this an IC issue which should be handled IC'ly (charging someone while they are wearing a mask is rare as is), but it also presents a problem for future investigations as criminals now know about this OOC ruling and have literally no incentive to ever cooperate with any officer/detective, knowing that as long as they commit crimes wearing a mask they can not be charged. On the other hand, doing away with this rule would allow PD/SD to charge someone if multiple things point towards that person being the culprit.

 

Someone might ask ''Well Cyrus, isn't your method prone to failure ? Doesn't this mean that people can be accidentally charged?'' To which I would answer. Yes, that can happen. However, we have IC resources to punish those who do charge people wrongfully as well as compensation for any jail time served. Furthermore, I would first look to establish if something is a problem in the first place. 

I remember when I was in SD, we kept losing the majority of our pursuits as most vehicles were sports cars, drags or super cars. We decided to take the time to compile some data. We noted down how many pursuits we lost and specifically to what vehicles, which ended up giving us something substantial to backup the request for faster cruisers. Regardless of how people feel about the cruiser stuff, my point is, a problem was established, evidence was presented, the problem was addressed.

For this situation, it feels like the problem hasn't been established at all, which is why I encourage people to post any reports or recount any stories (that can be backed up by PD/SD) about situations where someone has been wrongly charged because of wrongful ID while wearing a mask and/or through voice. Are these things that happen every day ? Every week ? Every month ? Is it severe enough where an OOC rule is needed or can this be dealt with IC through IA (or even OOC'ly through IA) ? 

 

^^^ The above question is paramount to understanding and coming up with a proper response, it might very well be that this is something that happens very often and I am not aware of it, if that is the case and the evidence bears that out, then keep the rule, if not then I would seriously reconsider what was decided today.

Edited August 11, 2020 by Kyle White Raven
Format +Spelling

[Felcon]

Alot of times charges just get placed because of an officers word. from an OOC perspective its just ridiculous because realistically 80% of all charges would be not going through. 

I personally find saying just IA report poor RP. A good example what happened was today when what Phantas said where Grace and Sanchez didnt pull the just IA report and went through the evidence. This actually saved multiple people from going into jail for 5 hours when they didnt even commit the crime. and others got away with less as there was no good evidence.  You also have the problem where eventually everyone will start to recognize everyone and it will be impossible to successfully evade from crimes. so overall a good predecent has been set and cleared. 

[Cyrus Raven]

 

Alot of times charges just get placed because of an officers word. from an OOC perspective its just ridiculous because realistically 80% of all charges would be not going through. 

I personally find saying just IA report poor RP. A good example what happened was today when what Phantas said where Grace and Sanchez didnt pull the just IA report and went through the evidence. This actually saved multiple people from going into jail for 5 hours when they didnt even commit the crime. and others got away with less as there was no good evidence.  You also have the problem where eventually everyone will start to recognize everyone and it will be impossible to successfully evade from crimes. so overall a good predecent has been set and cleared. 

I can understand what you're saying, but keep in mind what is being discussed here has no bearing on the value of an officer's word when charging or how officers ought to be handling basic investigations. The point here is to specifically discuss how we are no longer able to charge someone if they wear a mask, regardless of how much investigative RP has been done and other things (like clothing, voice, tattoos, etc... match). 

As for your last sentence which I believe is relevant ''You also have the problem where eventually everyone will start to recognize everyone and it will be impossible to successfully evade from crimes. so overall a good predecent has been set and cleared. ''

I think that this will lead to situations where PD/SD can confidently ID someone (even with a mask), but they will have to ignore it or dumb their own reactions due to OOC restrictions.

Being a well known gang with known criminals is a double edged sword, it means that a lot more officers will start to build a profile of you, they will be able to tell who you are based on your vehicles, your clothes, your hairstyle, etc... To be clear 99.9% of times officers don't ONLY use this to charge someone, but my point is that this OOC rule would mean that we can not charge you, even if we have all the evidence pointing to it except a clean view of your face as you are wearing a mask, this much restriction is not something I believe should be in place. It's so easy to avoid this, change your car colours more, use each others vehicles, get different hair styles or different hair colours. If all of this is done and you get ID'ed through something like voice and charged with no further evidence besides that, then yeah, we definitely have a problem.

Edited August 11, 2020 by Kyle White Raven

[Aldarine]

@Kyle White Raven Ultimately, I have no "opinion" per-say in this matter aside from one that directly corresponds to enforcing server rules. Within the conclusion you are referencing, it was deemed that there was ultimately a breach in server rules as deemed by a Head Administrator. When there is a ruling on a breach in server rules, of course this is an OOC matter and has been deemed as such due to non-accordance and lack of compliance with our rule set. Situations are reviewed very thoroughly and again I have absolutely no doubt that proper and thorough investigation was done by one of the longest standing members of our community and staff team. This is irregardless of how many times things like this have happened and no new rule has been placed - it is simply reiteration and clarification of our present rule set that may have, at some point in time, been lost by however many individuals. Clarification for proper knowledge and understanding is not something bad but just reinforcement of guidelines we have in place.

I would encourage you to reach out to your High Command and the leadership within your faction to see where the present footing regarding charging somebody is. They are the best people capable of giving the best clarification regarding what is and is not appropriate and considered as irrefutable proof of identity while maintaining compliance with our rules.

[Cyrus Raven]

 

@Kyle White Raven Ultimately, I have no "opinion" per-say in this matter aside from one that directly corresponds to enforcing server rules. Within the conclusion you are referencing, it was deemed that there was ultimately a breach in server rules as deemed by a Head Administrator. When there is a ruling on a breach in server rules, of course this is an OOC matter and has been deemed as such due to non-accordance and lack of compliance with our rule set. Situations are reviewed very thoroughly and again I have absolutely no doubt that proper and thorough investigation was done by one of the longest standing members of our community and staff team. This is irregardless of how many times things like this have happened and no new rule has been placed - it is simply reiteration and clarification of our present rule set that may have, at some point in time, been lost by however many individuals. Clarification for proper knowledge and understanding is not something bad but just reinforcement of guidelines we have in place.

Aldarine, with all due respect, this is something that caught most of us (PD) off guard, thus the response here and the thread being made. I don't think it is obvious or explicit anywhere within the server rules that Officers aren't able to use inductive reasoning and charge someone even if they happen to wear a mask. Furthermore, it strikes me the wrong way that this is considered to be a non-RP thing when the information gathered from the report this response is taken from was all IC, the assumptions were IC'ly made (clothing, voice, gang colors, hairstyle, etc...) and thus an IC charge was added, correctly mind you.

I will give you an example bellow of a type of investigation that was made and concluded which according to this recent ''clarification'' would be considered non-RP.

Example: Person X was spotted adjacent to Alta Street apartments, he was seen in a specific set of clothes, with a specific hairstyle, tattoos and a vehicle as well as IC'ly having a specific height, skin color. At the time he was masked. 

Soon after (next day, but less than 24 hours) he was spotted at LSC with the same vehicle, same clothing, same tattoo, same hair style with no mask. Information was compiled and he was charged following a two week long investigation. 

Now, supposedly, he was wearing a mask in the initial situation, even through our investigative efforts we technically can not charge him, although 99% of his other features, including a vehicle match, correct ?

Edited August 11, 2020 by Kyle White Raven

[Aldarine]

Again, my last statement still stands, valid as well I may add. It is best to reach out to your faction leadership regarding this clarification and additional rationale and explanation can be provided/elaborated on. There tends to be much more context to a situation and ruling than what people may believe by looking at things absent the full picture. Your High Command would have insight into what you can/cannot do while remaining within the bounds of our rules as well as clear up and misconceptions and alleviate concerns you may have.

[Cyrus Raven]

 

Again, my last statement still stands, valid as well I may add. It is best to reach out to your faction leadership regarding this clarification and additional rationale and explanation can be provided/elaborated on. There tends to be much more context to a situation and ruling than what people may believe by looking at things absent the full picture. Your High Command would have insight into what you can/cannot do while remaining within the bounds of our rules as well as clear up and misconceptions and alleviate concerns you may have.

I understand, I will reach out to them, thank you.

[LeftSharkie]

 

Its unrealistic and not fun when  charges placed that realistically wouldn't be in real life and the charges would be dismissed due to in sufficient evidence. 

This is selective realism though. If you don't want charges placed on you, how about you actually work on concealing your identity by changing into appropriate clothing for crime, rather then wearing the same outfit for months. 

[TheCactus]

 

This is selective realism though. If you don't want charges placed on you, how about you actually work on concealing your identity by changing into appropriate clothing for crime, rather then wearing the same outfit for months. 

I was hoping that someone finally got the point but it was you..

 

[GR_Seb]

My honest opinion is this, Court system!

Edited August 11, 2020 by Papadakis

[PurplePlant]

I think masks are an issue already as many use it as an ultimate tool to hide identity even if the mask doesn't cover their face. I also find it concerning just how many people RP using a mask, as that isn't realistic to walk around the city and half the residents are masked. I would argue they are rule-playing as they are avoiding charges and preventing normal RP.

Most of our police laws are based on US law and I think its important to note this: Reasonable suspicion is a legal standard of proof in United States law that is less than probable cause, the legal standard for arrests and warrants, but more than an "inchoate and unparticularized suspicion or 'hunch'"; it must be based on "specific and articulable facts", "taken together with rational inferences from those facts", and the suspicion must be associated with the specific individual. If police additionally have reasonable suspicion that a person so detained is armed and dangerous, they may "frisk" the person for weapons, but not for contraband like drugs. However, if the police develop probable cause during a weapons frisk (by feeling something that could be a weapon or contraband, for example), they may then conduct a full search. Reasonable suspicion is evaluated using the "reasonable person" or "reasonable officer" standard, in which said person in the same circumstances could reasonably suspect a person has been, is, or is about to be engaged in criminal activity; it depends upon the totality of circumstances, and can result from a combination of particular facts, even if each is individually innocuous.

A Terry stop in the United States allows the police to briefly detain a person based on reasonable suspicion of involvement in criminal activity. Reasonable suspicion is a lower standard than probable cause which is needed for arrest.

Police should be allowed to conclude based on substantial evidence that an individual who's identity matches/car matches and voice matches that they are in fact the person in question. If that individual wants to exercise their rights to an attorney/plead the 5th and not speak at all that is their given right. I do believe the mask is a big over the top.

Edited August 12, 2020 by PurplePlant

[cheatonus]

First, reasonable suspicion.  Reasonable suspicion only works because there is a justice system in place, and in the case of the US you're supposedly innocent until proven guilty.  In the absence of a justice system officers should weigh heavily on their sense of justice to determine if the person they're charging deserves the charges, or is the correct person. Reasonable suspicion is also a reason to detain or search someone, it's not a reason to charge someone with a crime.  

In the case of the US justice system (and I understand we don't 100% operate under these principles, but I'm American and it's what I know so it will be the basis of my arguments) charges are not brought against a defendant until the completion of an investigation.  To me, in the case of ECRP that AT LEAST means a 100% verification of the identity of the suspect in question.  It is my opinion that in the ECRP world, if you don't have the person in custody you should not be bringing charges against he person without a 100% bonafide ID of the defendant.  If they had on a mask, you don't have body cam or pictures of any identifiable markings on the persons body to match against a database, you don't have fingerprints, then that person walks. 

At a point in the recent past ECRP leadership decided to greatly increase jail time and fines for criminals.  They did not, to my knowledge, also increase the burden of proof for officers for putting charges on people.  This being the case I think it's incumbent upon the PD to be considerate of the player's time and investment in the game. This is an OOC thing, yes I realize that but bear with me.  Criminal characters are not played (necessarily) by criminal players. We are just gamers like you. By making the choice to make a criminal character there are obviously some things that go along with that. Things like jail and fines.  As we all can agree making money in ECRP requires some effort and time, yet players with legal characters basically have zero risk of this money ever being taken from them.  They have zero risk of their character being thrown in jail and losing time they could be making money (especially with new robbery rules, which are... OOC).  Therefor, I think it's important that OOCly PD and SD consider heavily how they treat criminal characters ICly and how that relates to the effects it has on the player OOCly.  My point is, protect the criminal.  PD should have rules in place which lean very heavily towards NOT putting charges on people unless it's absolutely verifiable the person committed the crime.  Putting charges on people should be taken with great weight and heavy consideration and no be considered a point of victory, but something done when criminals are apprehended and brought to justice. It should never be done from afar on a whim as a means of revenge or winning a fight. 

So here is an example in this very post and in the report that spawned all of this. You have an officer who dropped a bunch of charges on a person because they were pretty sure they knew who it was. They think they know, but they don't actually know. Why bring those charges? Protect that criminal. Let them get away because you didn't apprehend them. There was zero need to do this. It helped no one. It brought no one to justice. It was just a means to win a fight without actually winning the fight... it was like having the last word as you walk away from an argument. It's a power move.  There should be no power moves in this dynamic.  PD out guns, out mans (most of the time), out speeds, out armors, out healths, out ammos any criminal organization... you have every advantage in almost every encounter.  Why do you need to drop charges on people you don't apprehend to put icing on the cake? Let them get away. Let them have their day.  Let that player OOCly feel a sense of accomplishment so next time you want to arrest someone they will be there.  By placing all these charges without a suspect in custody you OOCly demoralize, you take away assets which took real time to accrue and in the mean time it cost you nothing.  Moreover you get paid for it.  Protect the criminal.  IF you don't get them let them walk scott free. There is zero downside to this, other than the fact that there may be less criminals in prison for DOC to interact with.  You've lost nothing and I've lost hours of OOC time invested that I'll never get back because of an OOC choice I made to take my character in a criminal direction. Give me a break, I mean that sincerely, give us a break.  Stop dropping charges unless you have me in custody or you've positively identified me through some IC means like seeing my face, or identifiable markings on my body, a fingerprint, something.  Have something besides a history with the character to bring charges.  In our tiny world that shouldn't be enough. 

Essentially what I'm hearing in this argument is any criminal that has any history with any officer will always get charges in any encounter both are involved in because the officer by virtue of this relationship will be able to identify the criminal because of that criminal's style choices.  This is not how this dynamic should work.  Criminal characters should be able to get away with things sometimes, and officers should let them by having in place a burden of proof which extends beyond being fairly certain it's X person because they dress like that a lot. PD doesn't have to win something out of every encounter and we rarely win anything with you.  Give us a break.  We just want to RP like you just want to RP. We're just players like you are. We want to walk away from an encounter occasionally that costs us nothing, just like you do.  What a dull job being a cop would be to wake up one day to no criminals. 

Anyway, I digress.  On the topic of what's IC and what's OOC I think the current system takes too much away and puts too much burden on the criminal player to defend themselves after the money is gone and the time is served in the form of IA reports.  There needs to be more done before charges are brought to protect the criminal, whether this be OOC rules changes or IC procedure changes or a complete mindset change in PD.  I don't know what the answer to the metagaming question is, I can go many directions on that. But I don't think any officer should be placing any charges on any criminal without a 100% certain identification based on things beyond clothing and voices.  I have personally misidentified people in my own gangs because others dress similarly and/or they have similar voices.  I think sometimes IC things need to be discussed OOCly to make sure that the OOC motive is fair and reasonable. We are all equal here outside the game and that sense of fairness should carry over into the ruleset we carry into the game with us when we play.  By choosing to play a criminal character I expect that means run-ins with police. I expect that may mean sometimes being on the lam or going to prison and paying fines.  But I also expect that my OOC investment and the value of me playing my character and what it brings to the ecosystem of the game be respected as well.  My time is the same as your time and my time investment shouldn't be held at a lesser value because of a "do the crime do the time!" attitude. I'm not a criminal, that's just my character.  In my opinion there is no in-character way to deal with this that is equitable in the current system.  Be certain, have proof, or don't bring the charges... protect the criminal, PD. 

Thanks for your time. 

[BallinByNature]

 

We already have IC (and OOC) protocols that outline the requirement for charging someone, investigating someone, searching someone, etc... All of this is in PD/SD handbooks.

@Kyle White Raven IC protocol wasn't followed in the scenario you're taking your reasoning from, nor was OOC protocol. Each player, including PD/SD players, are capable of non-RP (roleplaying actions which are unrealistic) and that is what this was determined to be. 
 

 

Officers should have the autonomy to determine the charges on a suspect without OOC punishment

I disagree, if their actions are unrealistic and effect other peoples RP negatively, as per the Server Roleplay rules, that should certainly not be allowed. 

Additionally they do have the full autonomy to determine the charges on a suspect, if they've actually confirmed who their suspect is.
 

 

This means that if someone does get charged incorrectly then they can lose their job, get suspended, fined, demoted, etc...

This is already the case, too. However being that we're in an environment with limited players, praying on the fact of limited diversity and a high guessing probability, is not sufficient to be randomly placing charges -OR- attacking any player in a situation not involving police at all. You cannot "guess" you have the right person, you must know, or you could be guilty of DMing there as well.
 

 

Having this rule prevents us (law enforcement) from performing any sort of basic investigations and more importantly provides civilians and criminals with masks a blanket immunity to any possible charges, assuming they aren't caught.

This rule is not something new, all players are held to the non-RP standard of performing realistic actions. Having this rule actually does the exact opposite, it sets the guideline that basic investigations are actually required (not prevented?) instead of just guessing at charges which would not hold up in any real sense. Charging criminals based on your personal hunch after having done little to no investigative work is not a realistic action for a player with the OOC privilege PD / SD players are granted. 

 

Furthermore, this takes any sort of IC story building away, such as getting to know criminals, their patterns, their clothing, their voices (text and VOIP), their vehicles, etc...

+

 

However, the way the ruling affects us is by not allowing us to make IC decisions based on the way someone looks (tattoos, clothing, voice, accessories, etc...)

It is clear to me that you didn't read the entire opinion or did and are trying to straw-man the excerpted quote. The full explanation clearly states those things can be the bases of basic investigation, he could be a lead suspect, brought in for questioning, go to their home and stake out to see if he arrives in the vehicle, etc etc etc. Just because you cannot blindly charge them, you now can't have any IC story building? Was blindly charging them the pinnacle of your RP story building really?
 

 

I'm sure this will turn out like any other thread that mentions PD and Criminals in the same breath, but I would hope people look past this individual case and ponder to themselves whether or not this type of precedent is something you want in the server (E.g: OOC punishments for reasonable IC actions)

Implying that these are reasonable OOC actions is precisely misinterpreting the ruling of the report. An officer placing felony charges as a guess on someone then providing the evidence that they were placed based off a personal educated guess based off clothing and voice sound, is not at all a reasonable IC interaction. So that is not at all the precedent being set.

 

ID'ing someone by voice is something that happens

As mentioned to Dashingly below, identifiable yes, evidence sufficient of being a valid charge, no. The ruling encouraged further RP with him as a suspect, but just because 1 officer has a correct gut feeling, doesn't make a charge valid.

 

What CAN happen is you hear someone and you assume their identity, continuing to investigate you notice that person is wearing the same clothes they usually where, in the same vehicle, same hair style, etc... At that point the chances that person is on their alt dressed exactly the same is very very slim. 

Continuing to investigate wasn't done. The person was not driving their own car. Hair style and clothing alone are not sufficient evidence for an irrefutable charge.

 

More importantly, I would like focus the overall point of this discussion. What you mentioned Aldarine isn't simply to prevent PD/SD from charging people solely based on mask and/or voice. We don't do this as explained above.

This is precisely what was done in the report, he placed the charges based off of mask and voice.

 

The staff member in question said the following: ''what is required for them such as confirming the identity beyond a shadow of a doubt which cannot be done with masks on and based on voices\''

What this means (unless I am wrong and if so feel free to correct me), is that we as PD/SD can not charge someone for a crime if they have a mask on, regardless if we have matched their clothing, tattoos, accessories, vehicle, voice and have gone through a bunch of other investigative RP, all because it was OOC'ly decided that the requirement for identification CAN NOT be achieved if they have a mask on. 

What this means is you have to follow your PD/SD protocol which says the exact same things. That is correct if you have no evidence that it was that person, they were not caught in the act, and they have not given any sort of admission of guilt what so ever, you cannot place irrefutable charges based on clothing worn, a tattoo, voice, or accessories alone.

"and have gone through a bunch of other investigative RP" is being awfully generous considering absolutely 0 investigative RP was done before placing the charge based on the voice and clothing.

 

Not only is this an IC issue which should be handled IC'ly (charging someone while they are wearing a mask is rare as is)

Unrealistic actions (filing charges based on a personal educated guess with 0 evidence) are not an IC issue, all players are held to the non-RP standard within the rules. The player involved in the report had prior reports and cases where he charged them in similar fashion with a mask on as well, so it is not as rare as you claim.

 

knowing that as long as they commit crimes wearing a mask they can not be charged.

Only someone intentionally trying to misread the ruling would suggest they can not be charged, because it says very plainly as explained that it can be the basis of further investigation and possibly eventually lead to a charge with more evidence. That is up for your RP to decide, but you don't get to place irrefutable charges based on your characters best educated guess and do 0 investigation and claim you can't ever place charges now.
 

 

For this situation, it feels like the problem hasn't been established at all, which is why I encourage people to post any reports or recount any stories (that can be backed up by PD/SD) about situations where someone has been wrongly charged because of wrongful ID while wearing a mask and/or through voice. Are these things that happen every day ? Every week ? Every month ? Is it severe enough where an OOC rule is needed or can this be dealt with IC through IA (or even OOC'ly through IA) ? 

The frequency of a non-RP action does not make it more or less non-RP in most cases. A player being charged unrealistically, just once, is an issue to be worked on / corrected.

An OOC rule wasn't created once again, OOC rules surrounding realistic acitons are indeed needed, and were already in place prior (non-RP).
 

 

The point here is to specifically discuss how we are no longer able to charge someone if they wear a mask, regardless of how much investigative RP has been done and other things (like clothing, voice, tattoos, etc... match)

Is visually seeing clothing , tattoos, and vehicles, the only investigative RP available in your opinion? In my opinion, that's a very surface level observation any officer can make, let alone a full on detectives investigation which should be far more in-depth. Do you truly believe placing charges based off a brief visual of him stepping out of a car and shooting at the officer for a few seconds is the pinnacle of investigative RP and he has exhausted all resources to confirm his suspect? I would disagree completely.

 

I think that this will lead to situations where PD/SD can confidently ID someone (even with a mask)

Precisely why it is both unrealistic and not allowed. In no realistic way would charges stand up based on a confident identity guess with facial obstruction.
 

 

but they will have to ignore it or dumb their own reactions due to OOC restrictions.

No one told them to ignore their IC guess, we just asked them to RP them out realistically, not place unrealistic irrefutable charges based on a personal educated guess.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

There's no way to metagame IDs anymore and if I have enough evidence, I charge the individual.

 

@TheCactus Because the MDC does not pop up their name via their ID does not mean it is not possible to metagame someone's identity. He also wasn't even punished for metagaming, it was for non-RP. The ability to "guess" based on voip or player model is drastically increased by OOC information in a small community which has much less chance of having a doppleganger (especially while wearing a mask) than real life may be, that is why your guess is not entirely an IC guess when you're basing it off player model and voice. Additionally people can have multiple characters so saying that their characters voice is so unique to them as the sole basis for identifying them is not a fair OOC tactic what so ever in terms of valuing the RP possibilities.

Your statement that if you have enough evidence is fine, however, guessing based off a voice sound during a car chase and a brief interaction seeing their mask as they are shooting at you, is not "enough evidence" as confirmed by PD / SD chiefs during discussion. The protocols in place within the faction both OOC and IC require more for placing charges, so doing so in violation of the OOC / IC protocols is not an IC issue.
 

 

Why should an officer get punished OOCly if he managed to successfully confirm the identity of a suspect (and all this happened because of the lack of effort of said suspect)?

The officer wasn't punished for successfully confirming the identity, it is well stated in the full explanation that these things could be used as the basis for investigation / targeting a suspect. What he was punished for was placing charges with absolutely 0 evidence other than personal guess. He could definitely follow up and use his successful guess as the basis for a proper RP investigation with a primary suspect.
 

 

Like is it our fault if people wear the same clothes while paying their fines and murdering someone over and over again?

No, it is not your fault people do that. Just your fault if you place irrefutable charges based on clothing alone which is unrealistic. Just because you know Ricky Brasco wears a blue t shirt a lot doesn't mean you can go around charging any suspect in a blue t-shirt as Ricky Brasco. Arguing the ability to guess charges based on clothing and voice sounds alone is unrealistic.
 

 

If you know you're gonna kill, smart up.

If you know you're gonna charge, gather evidence.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

easily identifiable by accent, outfit, and his mannerisms

@Dashingly identifiable yes, evidence sufficient of being a valid charge, no. The ruling encouraged further RP with him as a suspect, but just because 1 officer has a correct gut feeling, doesn't make a charge valid.

 

 

A mask shouldn't be an automatic get out of jail free card.

It isn't, and prior RP experience with a person shouldn't be an ' ability to charge irrefutably based on a situational guess' either. 
 

 

I just don't believe that this should be an OOC rule break. This is an IC issue on all levels.

Actions that are unrealistic which promote a poor quality of RP have and always will be an OOC issue under the non-RP rule.




 

[Machete]

When I made the switch to a criminal character everyone instantly recognised me by my voice. Got charged because of that way to often. Substantial evidence like that wouldn't hold up in court. 

I could 100% play a recording of Carlos Rodrigueezes voice and dress up like him and commit a crime. Carlos would have been charged.

I enjoyed reading the outcome on the player report, finally some realism when it comes to charging people.

 

Edited August 12, 2020 by NM369

[Xoza]

I can understand both sides. But have some opinions that support the amount of evidence used to identify the individual, even later in RP after the referenced situation.

Now in hopes for some more scripted investigation tools >:)

Edited August 12, 2020 by Xoza

[Cyrus Raven]

@BallinByNature 

The report that spawned your reply was the basis for this discussion, but I am more interested in the effects it can have in future situations, I will try and elaborate bellow.

''This rule is not something new, all players are held to the non-RP standard of performing realistic actions. Having this rule actually does the exact opposite, it sets the guideline that basic investigations are actually required (not prevented?) instead of just guessing at charges which would not hold up in any real sense''

Let's move away from the report in question and into hypotheticals, which I think is the ideal way to test ideas/concepts. You stated that a ''requirement for placing irrefutable charges is confirming the identity beyond a shadow of a doubt which cannot be done with masks on and based on voices. ''

Person X is seen and heard, wearing the same clothes he always wears, and in his personal vehicle, shooting at police officers and eventually getting away. The officer that was leading the pursuit provides a brief hunch of who it might be, given the available evidence. IB is called in, bullet casings are collected, tire marks on the road are collected, body cam from the officer is collected. Although at no point do we see the man unmasked, after further investigation involving the collected evidence, we determine that the tire marks belong to the vehicle that matches Person X and the bullet casings from a weapon recently bought under Person X's name, all of this done via the initial hunch that the officer gave because he heard the man speak and saw that he wore his usual outfits. Person X is brought in for questioning, he comes in once again using his usual attire and his voice resembles the one the initial officer heard. We ask him the questions that need to be asked, he denies everything and provides a vague alibi for his whereabouts during the situation. He is let go. 

My question to you is, can we charge Person X based on the above investigative RP or are we not allowed to do so given that we never saw him without a mask ?

Depending on the reply I might bring up other points you made, but I believe going straight for the main question would be more productive than engaging in a huge back and forth. Thank you for the initial reply and any future ones.

 

 

 

Edited August 12, 2020 by Kyle White Raven
Spelling and format