Police Suggestion Corporal Rework

Allen Kennedy · 2025-03-04T02:13:55+0000

Suggestion Title: Corporal Rework

Suggestion Description:
Corporal is meant to be the penultimate rank that an officer can achieve before they step into the role of a supervisor. They are meant to be the workhorses of the PLPD, and amongst their most experienced and trusted. Instead, they are a stepping stone to Sergeant, and are often outshone by Senior Officers who far surpass them in ability and experience, yet due to inconsistent activity or other commitments, they're unable to fulfil the role as it is currently. This is because of the requirement for them to submit two or more observation reports every month.

I have three changes I think should be made. I believe all three would need to be implemented to make this work.

1. Get rid of observation report requirements for Corporal

Make it so Corporal does not have monthly OR requirements, but can still submit them if they so wish.

OR requirements mean that being Corporal fucking sucks. There's more to it than this, but I wholeheartedly believe that this is the reason why there are more Sergeants than Corporals, and there have been for a very long time. There is almost no reason whatsoever to be a Corporal over being a Sergeant. Presently, it is a stepping stone to Sergeant, and nothing more.

Any Corporal whose activity takes a dip for a few months and doesn't write ORs is given activity warnings after two non-consecutive months without writing two ORs. I know there's the whole 'let's talk' copy-paste message you get after the first one, but I don't think I've ever received a reply to those after replying, no matter who sends it, so as far as I can tell, they're essentially worthless. Another thing is that this hard requirement encourages lazy observation reports. in which the person writing them just writes the bare minimum and offers no meaningful feedback to the person they're meant to be observing. This is not desirable for anyone.

Senior Officer should not be the highest rank available for those who aren't able or willing to log on every month, due to work, school, or other, more important things than being a virtual policeman in a Garry's mod roleplay server. Remove the requirements, and you'll make Corporal a more comfortable rank for ex-command members who might not be as active anymore, but may still want to pop on and enjoy playing the game once in a while, without being relegated to SO, who can't even search up someone's phone number on their own.

Removing requirements for Corporal to write ORs will, I believe, also actually result in more ORs being written, as there will be a lot more Corporals to write them. It will also result in less Sergeants who just sit on the rank, do the bare minimum, and have no desire to actually be supervisors, but are only doing it for the extra pay, and so that if they resign due to extended inactivity, they get six months to apply for reinstatement to Sergeant. Meanwhile, if a Corporal resigns, they only get four months to apply for reinstatement back to Corporal.

This is so more people want to be Corporals, and you get to keep experienced officers, ex-supervisors, ex-command, etc. in a position where they can still be effective when they choose to come on and play. This would also give new Corporals time to get used to the role, and get used to writing quality ORs, and only once they're comfortable with doing so, would they apply for Sergeant, where the requirement would be in place.

2. Limit shotguns for Corporals.

Limit shotguns for Corporals to 3, maybe have it so mayors can adjust this up or down a little bit, say between 2 and 5. Sergeant and above get a shotgun no matter what, and do not contribute to the shotgun limit.

This is so that with the removed OR requirements, which will certainly result in more Corporals, you don't suddenly have every cop wielding shotguns, which otherwise would be sure to upset the delicate balance of power that makes the game fun.

3. Pay bonuses for writing quality observation reports.

Have it so patrol/traffic trainers ranked Corporal or above must review new ORs, and can forward exceptional or objectional ORs to their respective command. From there, command can take action if the OR is in clear violation of the OR guidelines, or, if the OR is of exceptional quality, then they can approve a bonus payment. I suggest $25K for every OR deemed of exceptional quality, though this is certainly open to discussion, and there would have to be limits on how many bonus payments can be paid out in a certain timeframe.

This is so that with the removed OR requirements for Corporal, there is a monetary incentive for Corporals and Sergeants to write observation reports that are actually useful for the officer being observed, as opposed to just a few sentences saying they did good, and giving them full marks, so they can tick the box for the month.

Why should this be added?:

More Corporals than Sergeants, as it should be, as it's a lower rank that's meant to be easier to achieve and maintain.
Experienced officers, ex-command members, and others who- whilst competent and capable, have busy lives that take precedent, aren't penalized for not being able to log on every month.
Less shotgun cops everywhere, due to shotgun limit.
Less tick-box ORs, and more ORs that offer genuine feedback.

What negatives could this have?:
I do not believe any negatives that can arise from the 1st suggestion have not been addressed or mitigated by the 2nd and 3rd suggestions.

What problem would this suggestion solve?:

Corporals being rarer than Sergeant, and experienced officers being left at SO because they can't log on each month to maintain the rank.
Armies of shotgun cops when a lot of Corporals are on-duty.
Shit ORs

Headline · 2025-03-04T02:27:52+0000

Excluding the minimum OR requirement, I do in fact like the suggestion, even the shotgun limit for non-tfu officers.

Removing the minimum OR requirement would mean someone would be able to simply sit in Corporal until the end of days and not contribute in any amount to the PD by feeding ORs to newer officers.

monk · 2025-03-04T02:28:11+0000

Allen Kennedy said:
1. Get rid of observation report requirements for Corporal

Allen Kennedy · 2025-03-04T02:39:36+0000

Headline said:
Removing the minimum OR requirement would mean someone would be able to simply sit in Corporal until the end of days and not contribute in any amount to the PD by feeding ORs to newer officers.

There's guys who were lieutenants and captains for years, and have untold experience and insight to offer, and when they come back after a few months of inactivity, they have to sit as Senior Officer, unable to do fucking anything. I don't think having it so those guys are unable to give an OR, even if they wanted to, is good for the PD as a whole.

monk said:
View attachment 25577

You write two ORs a month to keep Sergeant, same as everyone else. Why would anyone stay Corporal when the activity requirements for Sergeant are identical?

rat · 2025-03-04T02:53:14+0000

fuck ORs in general bring back commendations as at least a supplement to the current system

Headline · 2025-03-04T04:13:57+0000

Allen Kennedy said:
There's guys who were lieutenants and captains for years, and have untold experience and insight to offer, and when they come back after a few months of inactivity, they have to sit as Senior Officer, unable to do fucking anything. I don't think having it so those guys are unable to give an OR, even if they wanted to, is good for the PD as a whole.

Wouldn't it be a better way of recognizing this people's efforts by exempting them from this requirement instead?

SomeUser · 2025-03-04T07:43:07+0000

Allen Kennedy said:
Suggestion Title: Corporal Rework

Suggestion Description:
Corporal is meant to be the penultimate rank that an officer can achieve before they step into the role of a supervisor. They are meant to be the workhorses of the PLPD, and amongst their most experienced and trusted. Instead, they are a stepping stone to Sergeant, and are often outshone by Senior Officers who far surpass them in ability and experience, yet due to inconsistent activity or other commitments, they're unable to fulfil the role as it is currently. This is because of the requirement for them to submit two or more observation reports every month.

I have three changes I think should be made. I believe all three would need to be implemented to make this work.

1. Get rid of observation report requirements for Corporal

Make it so Corporal does not have monthly OR requirements, but can still submit them if they so wish.

OR requirements mean that being Corporal fucking sucks. There's more to it than this, but I wholeheartedly believe that this is the reason why there are more Sergeants than Corporals, and there have been for a very long time. There is almost no reason whatsoever to be a Corporal over being a Sergeant. Presently, it is a stepping stone to Sergeant, and nothing more.

Any Corporal whose activity takes a dip for a few months and doesn't write ORs is given activity warnings after two non-consecutive months without writing two ORs. I know there's the whole 'let's talk' copy-paste message you get after the first one, but I don't think I've ever received a reply to those after replying, no matter who sends it, so as far as I can tell, they're essentially worthless. Another thing is that this hard requirement encourages lazy observation reports. in which the person writing them just writes the bare minimum and offers no meaningful feedback to the person they're meant to be observing. This is not desirable for anyone.

Senior Officer should not be the highest rank available for those who aren't able or willing to log on every month, due to work, school, or other, more important things than being a virtual policeman in a Garry's mod roleplay server. Remove the requirements, and you'll make Corporal a more comfortable rank for ex-command members who might not be as active anymore, but may still want to pop on and enjoy playing the game once in a while, without being relegated to SO, who can't even search up someone's phone number on their own.

Removing requirements for Corporal to write ORs will, I believe, also actually result in more ORs being written, as there will be a lot more Corporals to write them. It will also result in less Sergeants who just sit on the rank, do the bare minimum, and have no desire to actually be supervisors, but are only doing it for the extra pay, and so that if they resign due to extended inactivity, they get six months to apply for reinstatement to Sergeant. Meanwhile, if a Corporal resigns, they only get four months to apply for reinstatement back to Corporal.

This is so more people want to be Corporals, and you get to keep experienced officers, ex-supervisors, ex-command, etc. in a position where they can still be effective when they choose to come on and play. This would also give new Corporals time to get used to the role, and get used to writing quality ORs, and only once they're comfortable with doing so, would they apply for Sergeant, where the requirement would be in place.

2. Limit shotguns for Corporals.

Limit shotguns for Corporals to 3, maybe have it so mayors can adjust this up or down a little bit, say between 2 and 5. Sergeant and above get a shotgun no matter what, and do not contribute to the shotgun limit.

This is so that with the removed OR requirements, which will certainly result in more Corporals, you don't suddenly have every cop wielding shotguns, which otherwise would be sure to upset the delicate balance of power that makes the game fun.

3. Pay bonuses for writing quality observation reports.

Have it so patrol/traffic trainers ranked Corporal or above must review new ORs, and can forward exceptional or objectional ORs to their respective command. From there, command can take action if the OR is in clear violation of the OR guidelines, or, if the OR is of exceptional quality, then they can approve a bonus payment. I suggest $25K for every OR deemed of exceptional quality, though this is certainly open to discussion, and there would have to be limits on how many bonus payments can be paid out in a certain timeframe.

This is so that with the removed OR requirements for Corporal, there is a monetary incentive for Corporals and Sergeants to write observation reports that are actually useful for the officer being observed, as opposed to just a few sentences saying they did good, and giving them full marks, so they can tick the box for the month.

Why should this be added?:

More Corporals than Sergeants, as it should be, as it's a lower rank that's meant to be easier to achieve and maintain.

Experienced officers, ex-command members, and others who- whilst competent and capable, have busy lives that take precedent, aren't penalized for not being able to log on every month.

Less shotgun cops everywhere, due to shotgun limit.

Less tick-box ORs, and more ORs that offer genuine feedback.

What negatives could this have?:
I do not believe any negatives that can arise from the 1st suggestion have not been addressed or mitigated by the 2nd and 3rd suggestions.

What problem would this suggestion solve?:

Corporals being rarer than Sergeant, and experienced officers being left at SO because they can't log on each month to maintain the rank.

Armies of shotgun cops when a lot of Corporals are on-duty.

Shit ORs

I want it to be known that i like chatting about it with allen at 12:40 in the morning about this lmao

Inchs · 2025-03-04T08:34:27+0000

It's already hard enough to get ORs most of the time, I don't think removing the requirement from CPL is going to be the healthiest thing for junior officers

flugs · 2025-03-04T09:21:04+0000

Allen Kennedy said:
You write two ORs a month to keep Sergeant, same as everyone else. Why would anyone stay Corporal when the activity requirements for Sergeant are identical?

Less responsibility is quite a big incentive. More relaxed role that despite needing the same upkeep allows you to cruise around and enjoy playing as a cop with lots of extra kit and powers but without having to spend massive chunks of time dealing with supervisor sits or having to punish lower ranking officers, as well as rarely being solely accountable for decision-making at jobs etc.

unscsnip3r · 2025-03-04T09:26:58+0000

Honestly -1 due to this would actively mess up Lower rank progression Hard

Wescott · 2025-03-04T10:32:48+0000

I totally agree that there needs to be some changes. Everything you’ve said makes sense. The only thing I’m worried about is what would happen if we didn’t make Corporals do observations. If they didn’t have to, no one would do them. There are 4,096 officers and 545 senior officers. Let’s say only 10% of them are active at least once a month and want at least one OR that month. That leaves 464 ORs to be done. There are only 35 Corporals and 44 Sergeants, so in a perfect world, each Corporal and Sergeant would have to do almost 7 ORs a month, that’s excluding the Corporals who want ORs from SGTs. Without Corporals doing ORs, those 7 ORs would turn into 10.5 ORs a month. The average OR time is 30 minutes, which means every SGT would have to work 5 hours and 15 minutes a month before they can patrol and enjoy their time on PD.

I understand that’s the perfect situation, but most Corporals and Sergeants only complete the two ORs needed, which leaves a huge backlog for officers to miss out on promotions because they then have to wait months to get three ORs.

I think the problem isn’t with the Corporals' requirements, but there being no requirements to maintain Senior Officer, coupled with the lack of additional incentives to do more ORs.

2. Experienced officers, ex-command members, and others who- whilst competent and capable, have busy lives that take precedent, aren't penalized for not being able to log on every month.

I think this is a great idea, but I have a suggestion. Instead of just giving it to anyone who’s been with us for a while, make it an award for outstanding service. We could add it as part of the ‘Distinguished Service’ award. This would be for officers who have held the rank of Corporal and higher and have put in a lot of time to PD (ex-command members, trainers, etc). It would be a way to recognise their hard work and dedication without the need for them to drop down to Senior Officer if they can't meet the requirements.

Allen Kennedy · 2025-03-04T12:29:46+0000

Inchs said:
It's already hard enough to get ORs most of the time, I don't think removing the requirement from CPL is going to be the healthiest thing for junior officers

unscsnip3r said:
Honestly -1 due to this would actively mess up Lower rank progression Hard

Wescott said:
Without Corporals doing ORs, those 7 ORs would turn into 10.5 ORs a month. The average OR time is 30 minutes, which means every SGT would have to work 5 hours and 15 minutes a month before they can patrol and enjoy their time on PD.

I think with a lot more Corporals, and with the bonus incentive for writing quality ORs, you'll likely see more quality ORs on average being completed, as opposed to right now where people write two a month and spend as little time doing so as they can get away with.

flugs said:
Less responsibility is quite a big incentive. More relaxed role that despite needing the same upkeep allows you to cruise around and enjoy playing as a cop with lots of extra kit and powers but without having to spend massive chunks of time dealing with supervisor sits or having to punish lower ranking officers, as well as rarely being solely accountable for decision-making at jobs etc.

Evidently it's not a big enough incentive for people to stay Corporal, when there's consistently fewer Corporals than Sergeants in the ranks. Corporals should outnumber every rank above combined. We ought to have about a hundred or so, yet the OR requirements mean that right now it's basically just a Junior Sergeant role.

Wescott said:
I think this is a great idea, but I have a suggestion. Instead of just giving it to anyone who’s been with us for a while, make it an award for outstanding service. We could add it as part of the ‘Distinguished Service’ award. This would be for officers who have held the rank of Corporal and higher and have put in a lot of time to PD (ex-command members, trainers, etc). It would be a way to recognise their hard work and dedication without the need for them to drop down to Senior Officer if they can't meet the requirements.

Headline said:
Wouldn't it be a better way of recognizing this people's efforts by exempting them from this requirement instead?

I was a Sergeant for over a year back when academy was a thing, and a lieutenant for several months also, before my activity and... conduct, dropped off a bit. I didn't get any kind of distinguished service award, nor did plenty of other guys who ran command back in the days before PLPD.online was a thing. A little bit salty about that, ngl. But the idea of this suggestion is so that there's more incentive for players to be Corporal, stay Corporal, and give out good ORs, not just to give old command members a rank that allows them to more effectively guide newer officers, though that is a tangential benefit.

Acerius · 2025-03-04T12:43:40+0000

I can agree with the principle of increasing incentives for writing Observation Reports (caveated that they have to be of a certain quality) but I simply don't agree that Corporals should be exempt, particularly when your level of responsibility and expectation compared to that of a Sergeant is already far lower.

This is especially considering that all you're having to give up is less than an hour in a calendar month to meet the requirement (15 minutes patrol with the recipient of the report and then 10 minutes writing it, twice).

The only time someone should be exempt from writing Observation Reports is through discretion and where they have a legitimate reason to be exempt, with what I see as the most legitimate reasons being related to the amount of work you put into the Department outside of the game - whether that be Complaint Committee, Internal Affairs, Policy Board, Command, et cetera.

You can't have your cake and eat it too - if you want the perks that come with being a Corporal or Sergeant, you have to take on the responsibilities that are commensurate with the rank.

The fact of the matter is that if you cannot be bothered to put that one single ounce of effort in to do an element of responsibility that has a profound benefit on others and their progression, then don't bother applying for Corporal or Sergeant.

I'm staying at a Senior Officer for the time being despite being an ex-Chief of Department and ex-Deputy Chief of Department not because I can't put those 50 minutes a month, but because right now I don't fancy having those extra responsibilities. I thus accept that means I don't get the shiny toys and features that come with those higher ranks, and that's how more people need to start thinking about it.

That doesn't mean that people won't listen to me just because I'm a Senior Officer, because ultimately nobody has a monopoly on good ideas, and if something is well thought-out and well intentioned, then rank won't prohibit it being socialised and adopted by the Department. If members of Command are being resistant simply because the idea came from a lower-ranking colleague then it's that Command Member that's the issue, not the rank system.

Allen Kennedy · 2025-03-04T13:05:58+0000

Acerius said:
I can agree with the principle of increasing incentives for writing Observation Reports (caveated that they have to be of a certain quality) but I simply don't agree that Corporals should be exempt, particularly when your level of responsibility and expectation compared to that of a Sergeant is already far lower.

This is especially considering that all you're having to give up is less than an hour in a calendar month to meet the requirement (15 minutes patrol with the recipient of the report and then 10 minutes writing it, twice).

The only time someone should be exempt from writing Observation Reports is through discretion and where they have a legitimate reason to be exempt, with what I see as the most legitimate reasons being related to the amount of work you put into the Department outside of the game - whether that be Complaint Committee, Internal Affairs, Policy Board, Command, et cetera.

You can't have your cake and eat it too - if you want the perks that come with being a Corporal or Sergeant, you have to take on the responsibilities that are commensurate with the rank.

The fact of the matter is that if you cannot be bothered to put that one single ounce of effort in to do an element of responsibility that has a profound benefit on others and their progression, then don't bother applying for Corporal or Sergeant.

If I wanted to, I could write three sentences and give people 24/24 twice a month like everyone else and pat myself on the back, say that I've "put that one single ounce of effort in" and be done with it, but it's retarded, because that does not help junior officers at all. If you can write an OR with any substance in 10 minutes after a 15 minute patrol, then you're some kind of wizard, because in my experience, it takes longer than 15 minutes to figure out what someone needs to work on.

This suggestion will not only incentivize people to be Corporal and stay Corporal, as opposed to jumping up to Sergeant and having essentially the same activity requirements, but it will likely increase the amount of ORs being written, as there will be a lot more Corporals to write them, and there will be a positive incentive to write ORs with substance.

If you wanna keep saying that everyone is lazy for not wanting to write ORs every month when they're working 44hrs a week then that's fine. But it's not great right now. Nobody wants to be Corporal, and as a result you've got exceptional officers staying as Senior Officer because they don't want the activity requirements of the ORs, and those who are doing the two ORs each month jump up to Sergeant because the activity requirements are the same.

You need incentives for people to jump up a rank, rather than just saying that because they can't be bothered, they shouldn't get access to the modest amount of extra tools that Corporals get.

Lushi · 2025-03-04T13:22:20+0000

One of the biggest flaws in this suggestion is that corporals and above are already selective about whom they give ORs to. Since they need two ORs per month, they often prioritize giving them to friends rather than fairly assessing regular officers. A clear example of this was when an officer spent over an hour requesting an OR but was completely ignored, even though multiple corporals, sergeants, and a major were present and capable of providing one.

Acerius · 2025-03-04T17:30:07+0000

Allen Kennedy said:
If I wanted to, I could write three sentences and give people 24/24 twice a month like everyone else and pat myself on the back, say that I've "put that one single ounce of effort in" and be done with it, but it's retarded, because that does not help junior officers at all. If you can write an OR with any substance in 10 minutes after a 15 minute patrol, then you're some kind of wizard, because in my experience, it takes longer than 15 minutes to figure out what someone needs to work on.

This suggestion will not only incentivize people to be Corporal and stay Corporal, as opposed to jumping up to Sergeant and having essentially the same activity requirements, but it will likely increase the amount of ORs being written, as there will be a lot more Corporals to write them, and there will be a positive incentive to write ORs with substance.

If you wanna keep saying that everyone is lazy for not wanting to write ORs every month when they're working 44hrs a week then that's fine. But it's not great right now. Nobody wants to be Corporal, and as a result you've got exceptional officers staying as Senior Officer because they don't want the activity requirements of the ORs, and those who are doing the two ORs each month jump up to Sergeant because the activity requirements are the same.

You need incentives for people to jump up a rank, rather than just saying that because they can't be bothered, they shouldn't get access to the modest amount of extra tools that Corporals get.

Perhaps I am, so let's say that for those 2 ORs a month it instead takes you 2 hours in total - 30 minutes for each patrol, and 30 minutes for write-up. Sparing 2 hours over the course of an entire calendar month - which, by the way, if we say is 28 days and you spend 9.25 of those hours sleeping; 48 hours a week working; and 12 hours a week commuting leaves you with 173 hours of your own free time, and 2 hours worth of ORs thus equates to 1.16% of your total free time - is not an onerous ask.

The fact that you yourself have spent according to Steam 13.3 hours over the past 2 weeks playing games would suggest that you do in-fact have the time to do it.

Your response also makes out that all of the Command Members somehow and magically have way more spare time on their hands - when most of them also work full-time jobs or are in full-time education - and input way, way, way more than 2 hours worth of OR reporting a month into the Department.

You are making conclusions as to why there are less Corporals than Sergeants with no qualitative or quantitative analysis and, honestly, are just leaps.

Once again, I am not opposed to the overall principle increasing the incentives for Corporal, but your specific ask of exempting them from the OR requirement and your reasons behind it is quite frankly a load of bullshit.

Nottoc · 2025-03-04T17:57:33+0000

1. Get rid of observation report requirements for Corporal

Make it so Corporal does not have monthly OR requirements, but can still submit them if they so wish.

OR requirements mean that being Corporal fucking sucks. There's more to it than this, but I wholeheartedly believe that this is the reason why there are more Sergeants than Corporals, and there have been for a very long time. There is almost no reason whatsoever to be a Corporal over being a Sergeant. Presently, it is a stepping stone to Sergeant, and nothing more.

I think that you raise a valid point in the fact that we have a lack of Corporals in comparison to Sergeants however I think this is more to do with the types of players that exist in the PD which predominantly seem to be one of two types:

1. Player seeking progression and climbing highest that they can
2. Player that do not want extra responsibilities and stay as low as they can (typically S/O)

There are very few people that specifically seek out CPL and wish to stay at that level but realistically, there are also very little ways that we could fundamentally change CPL in ways that SGT would not also be affected.

2. Limit shotguns for Corporals.

Limit shotguns for Corporals to 3, maybe have it so mayors can adjust this up or down a little bit, say between 2 and 5. Sergeant and above get a shotgun no matter what, and do not contribute to the shotgun limit.

I think this is just counter-acting the issue that you are trying to solve. An incentive for taking a higher-rank is having access to a primary weapon, if you limit it then this would just push people to speed-run into SGT even more so they could just have it permanently than worrying about slots and not having access to an equipment.

3. Pay bonuses for writing quality observation reports.

This is something that could be looked at as an addition to those that go above and beyond however I don't think this would solely outweigh the amount of ORs that we currently receive from a requirement. Monetary gains are always nice for those that want to line their pockets but it's heavily overstated how much interest/reception it garners from the general community as PD already gives out quite a lot of money for different things that people can do.

As stated by others, this change would not affect CPLs in isolation but lower ranks that are looking for ORs and I think the suggestions as they are above would only worsen this.

Megasaw · 2025-03-04T18:01:29+0000

Isn't the whole point of CPL to prove that you can be an acting supervisor to then progress to SGT?

Why do you want to encourage people to stay in that shit rank? 2 ORs a month is not much of an ask and if you can't be bothered to do it, then don't apply for a promotion

Allen Kennedy · 2025-03-05T00:23:47+0000

Lushi said:
One of the biggest flaws in this suggestion is that corporals and above are already selective about whom they give ORs to. Since they need two ORs per month, they often prioritize giving them to friends rather than fairly assessing regular officers. A clear example of this was when an officer spent over an hour requesting an OR but was completely ignored, even though multiple corporals, sergeants, and a major were present and capable of providing one.

I believe that incentivizing quality ORs will in turn, incentivize people to patrol with officers who need feedback and advice, so they have something to write about, as opposed to just giving ORs to their friends and putting N/A in the points for improvement section.

Acerius said:
Perhaps I am, so let's say that for those 2 ORs a month it instead takes you 2 hours in total - 30 minutes for each patrol, and 30 minutes for write-up. Sparing 2 hours over the course of an entire calendar month - which, by the way, if we say is 28 days and you spend 9.25 of those hours sleeping; 48 hours a week working; and 12 hours a week commuting leaves you with 173 hours of your own free time, and 2 hours worth of ORs thus equates to 1.16% of your total free time - is not an onerous ask.

The fact that you yourself have spent according to Steam 13.3 hours over the past 2 weeks playing games would suggest that you do in-fact have the time to do it.

Your response also makes out that all of the Command Members somehow and magically have way more spare time on their hands - when most of them also work full-time jobs or are in full-time education - and input way, way, way more than 2 hours worth of OR reporting a month into the Department.

You are making conclusions as to why there are less Corporals than Sergeants with no qualitative or quantitative analysis and, honestly, are just leaps.

Once again, I am not opposed to the overall principle increasing the incentives for Corporal, but your specific ask of exempting them from the OR requirement and your reasons behind it is quite frankly a load of bullshit.

I want Corporals exempted from OR requirements because doing so will make it a more desirable rank for officers who don't want to be required to do ORs every month, but may well want the option to do them, especially if it's financially incentivized. Removing this requirement WILL result in there being more Corporals, that's pretty goddamn obvious, and I think that's a good thing, because it means more officers can do ORs, will be positively incentivized to do so to a higher quality, and you have less people jumping straight to Sergeant when they've little interest in actually being a supervisor. I also don't think it's fair to expect activity requirements of anyone who isn't a supervisor. Corporal should be the end of the line rank for people who don't want to jump to supervisor, one that gives experienced officers, ex-supervisors and ex-command enough leash to be effective and lead when there's no supervisors on, and be able to advise and give more junior officers feedback should they choose to do so. If you don't think people deserve it because they don't want to be forced to maintain a consistent active presence and write some shit each month then that's on you mate. What's more, arguing over percentages of time spent per month is retarded, and not the point of this suggestion at all. If someone steps away for a few months to do other things, gets bored, etc. then they should be allowed to come back and enjoy playing as cop every now and then without having to apply for reinstatement,, or being stuck at SO when they're a highly capable officer who could contribute more as Corporal.

Nottoc said:
I think that you raise a valid point in the fact that we have a lack of Corporals in comparison to Sergeants however I think this is more to do with the types of players that exist in the PD which predominantly seem to be one of two types:

1. Player seeking progression and climbing highest that they can
2. Player that do not want extra responsibilities and stay as low as they can (typically S/O)

There are very few people that specifically seek out CPL and wish to stay at that level but realistically, there are also very little ways that we could fundamentally change CPL in ways that SGT would not also be affected.

It depends on what you want Corporal to be. Do you want it to be what it is right now, a type of Junior Sergeant role where you have all the same activity requirements, but less of the in-game responsibility, which doesn't seem to make much sense, or do you want it to be the pinnacle of what a regular officer can achieve? Corporal as a rank without OR requirements would be giving them just enough tools to step up as a leader when required, once they've proven themselves to be an exceptional senior officer. They are not supervisors, and if they're not a supervisor, then why are they held to the same activity requirements as supervisors? The reason people don't stay at Corporal is because of the activity requirements. You expect your supervisors to be active, but I don't see why you'd expect this of the rest of your officers, who are meant to make up the bulk of the department. If you don't remove OR requirements for Corporal then the number of them will always be less than Sergeant, unless you were to in turn increase the activity or OR requirements for Sergeant, and make it a more difficult rank to maintain to encourage players to stay as Corporal. Please don't do that by the way, that's a shit idea. I hear the phrase "can I get a supervisor" when I go to sleep at night, so making it so I have to hear it more often is just cruel.

Nottoc said:
I think this is just counter-acting the issue that you are trying to solve. An incentive for taking a higher-rank is having access to a primary weapon, if you limit it then this would just push people to speed-run into SGT even more so they could just have it permanently than worrying about slots and not having access to an equipment.

I think three is a good base number for the shotguns reserved for Corporals, though of course, it could be changed by the mayor, either by slider or policy, or maybe change based on the server population. The limit is to preserve the balance of pistol cops to shotgun cops which this change would otherwise tilt heavily one way. I don't think people are going to jump to Sergeant just so they're guaranteed a shotgun, when chances are, most of the time they'll be able to get one, and folks switching in and out of TFU gear will free them up frequently.

Nottoc said:
This is something that could be looked at as an addition to those that go above and beyond however I don't think this would solely outweigh the amount of ORs that we currently receive from a requirement. Monetary gains are always nice for those that want to line their pockets but it's heavily overstated how much interest/reception it garners from the general community as PD already gives out quite a lot of money for different things that people can do.

As stated by others, this change would not affect CPLs in isolation but lower ranks that are looking for ORs and I think the suggestions as they are above would only worsen this.

The problem with having a requirement is that, so long as the OR isn't spectacularly shit, there's no incentive to write a good one that will actually help officers, If you're doing them by choice, and your financially incentivized to write a good one, then while the number of ORs being written may be less, each observation report will likely help officers more, as they contain more substantive feedback. I think keeping the requirement for Sergeant makes sense, as they are supervisors, and as such, they're expected to be reasonably active, but I think having the exact same requirements for Corporal makes the rank essentially pointless right now, as Megasaw says below.

Megasaw said:
Isn't the whole point of CPL to prove that you can be an acting supervisor to then progress to SGT?

Why do you want to encourage people to stay in that shit rank? 2 ORs a month is not much of an ask and if you can't be bothered to do it, then don't apply for a promotion

Right now, the point of Corporal seems to be a stepping stone to Sergeant, and I'm not sure why. It should be the pinnacle of what a regular officer can achieve, and as such, they shouldn't be held to the exact same activity requirements as supervisors. What the OR requirements are doing right now is encouraging people to stay as Senior Officer. Making ORs for Corporal optional will allow Senior Officers who promote to Corporal to get comfortable with doing them at their own pace, and decide whether being a Sergeant is for them or not. Should they decide it's not, or have trouble writing ORs, then I don't think they should be forced to do so to keep the rank, when they're an otherwise excellent officer. You say 2 ORs a month isn't much of an ask, and it's probably not, but given that there has consistently been more Sergeants than Corporals since as long as I can remember, then I don't think that's a very compelling argument.

Inchs · 2025-03-05T00:26:42+0000

Allen Kennedy said:
I believe that incentivizing quality ORs will in turn, incentivize people to patrol with officers who need feedback and advice, so they have something to write about, as opposed to just giving ORs to their friends and putting N/A in the points for improvement section.

I want Corporals exempted from OR requirements because doing so will make it a more desirable rank for officers who don't want to be required to do ORs every month, but may well want the option to do them, especially if it's financially incentivized. Removing this requirement WILL result in there being more Corporals, that's pretty goddamn obvious, and I think that's a good thing, because it means more officers can do ORs, will be positively incentivized to do so to a higher quality, and you have less people jumping straight to Sergeant when they've little interest in actually being a supervisor. I also don't think it's fair to expect activity requirements of anyone who isn't a supervisor. Corporal should be the end of the line rank for people who don't want to jump to supervisor, one that gives experienced officers, ex-supervisors and ex-command enough leash to be effective and lead when there's no supervisors on, and be able to advise and give more junior officers feedback should they choose to do so. If you don't think people deserve it because they don't want to be forced to maintain a consistent active presence and write some shit each month then that's on you mate. What's more, arguing over percentages of time spent per month is retarded, and not the point of this suggestion at all. If someone steps away for a few months to do other things, gets bored, etc. then they should be allowed to come back and enjoy playing as cop every now and then without having to apply for reinstatement,, or being stuck at SO when they're a highly capable officer who could contribute more as Corporal.

It depends on what you want Corporal to be. Do you want it to be what it is right now, a type of Junior Sergeant role where you have all the same activity requirements, but less of the in-game responsibility, which doesn't seem to make much sense, or do you want it to be the pinnacle of what a regular officer can achieve? Corporal as a rank without OR requirements would be giving them just enough tools to step up as a leader when required, once they've proven themselves to be an exceptional senior officer. They are not supervisors, and if they're not a supervisor, then why are they held to the same activity requirements as supervisors? The reason people don't stay at Corporal is because of the activity requirements. You expect your supervisors to be active, but I don't see why you'd expect this of the rest of your officers, who are meant to make up the bulk of the department. If you don't remove OR requirements for Corporal then the number of them will always be less than Sergeant, unless you were to in turn increase the activity or OR requirements for Sergeant, and make it a more difficult rank to maintain to encourage players to stay as Corporal. Please don't do that by the way, that's a shit idea. I hear the phrase "can I get a supervisor" when I go to sleep at night, so making it so I have to hear it more often is just cruel.

I think three is a good base number for the shotguns reserved for Corporals, though of course, it could be changed by the mayor, either by slider or policy, or maybe change based on the server population. The limit is to preserve the balance of pistol cops to shotgun cops which this change would otherwise tilt heavily one way. I don't think people are going to jump to Sergeant just so they're guaranteed a shotgun, when chances are, most of the time they'll be able to get one, and folks switching in and out of TFU gear will free them up frequently.

The problem with having a requirement is that, so long as the OR isn't spectacularly shit, there's no incentive to write a good one that will actually help officers, If you're doing them by choice, and your financially incentivized to write a good one, then while the number of ORs being written may be less, each observation report will likely help officers more, as they contain more substantive feedback. I think keeping the requirement for Sergeant makes sense, as they are supervisors, and as such, they're expected to be reasonably active, but I think having the exact same requirements for Corporal makes the rank essentially pointless right now, as Megasaw says below.

Right now, the point of Corporal seems to be a stepping stone to Sergeant, and I'm not sure why. It should be the pinnacle of what a regular officer can achieve, and as such, they shouldn't be held to the exact same activity requirements as supervisors. What the OR requirements are doing right now is encouraging people to stay as Senior Officer. Making ORs for Corporal optional will allow Senior Officers who promote to Corporal to get comfortable with doing them at their own pace, and decide whether being a Sergeant is for them or not. Should they decide it's not, or have trouble writing ORs, then I don't think they should be forced to do so to keep the rank, when they're an otherwise excellent officer. You say 2 ORs a month isn't much of an ask, and it's probably not, but given that there has consistently been more Sergeants than Corporals since as long as I can remember, then I don't think that's a very compelling argument.

I still don't think its a good idea to have them be optional, just today I was online with 8 other officers, all of which could do ORs and after about 2 hours of asking I gave up.

These people cannot even give out ORs now and you want to remove the requirement? This is going to be awful for players coming into the server that are not well known, the only time I can actually get ORs is from people I know.

I have to agree with what else has been said in this thread, if you cannot come up with the time to do even two ORs, you shouldn't be corporal.

Police Suggestion Corporal Rework

Similar threads