PLPD | Currently proposed changes

[Murtsley]

EDIT:

I've had a conversation with Momo and now 100% agree with many of his points after he explained some of the more complicated points of this plan. The takeaway of this post is that he is being open and transparent and should be commended for this. I'm glad to have had the chance to discuss this with Momo and am excited to see the future changes, I stand by some of my suggestions and hope that this will be of some assistance to the PD.

Solutions:​

Traffic

• Keep the system as it is: Traffic requires a further application after applying for patrol and recognition should be given for this in the form of not removing their permissions.​
• To reduce people from applying randomly; make it so that if you're not active you get sent back to Patrol; review every month.​
• Maximum of x amount of Traffic Officers in the PLPD (on or offline), every month activity is checked, the lowest without inactivity notices are removed.​
• Adding systems which prevent Traffic's response to events only hinders the PD as a whole, consider practical problems before you consider bureaucratic/administative/'busy work' ones.​

Patrol

• Keep the existing training regime, it works, it gives them something to do, it is an avenue following a successful IA complaint, and it improves the quality of officers.​
• Mentoring system to be implemented to ensure that newer officers adapt well to the expectations of PLPD, an officer's status as a mentor should be noted at patrol meetings for promotions (would allow senior officers to help officers).​
• Change the way that ORs are viewed, they are there to be CONSTRUCTIVE, not to be the only thing that gets you promoted, otherwise, you'll get nothing but perfect officers under observation and absolute idiots when they're not under observation.​
• Do not babysit patrol or any other group, let the relevant command team promote as they deem fit, it is not the place for Majors to decide this, they are merely there to ensure that what is done falls within the lines of expectations, you give people a command chain for a reason, let them operate in that command chain.​

Tactical Firearms Unit

• Light armour may only be equipped when an Officer ranked Sgt+ declares the city to be at 'high risk' which is determined by appropriate factors decided by Command.​
• TFU should not be penalised for only going TFU, it is what they want to do, don't force people to do something they don't want to do in a game.​

Dispatch

• Existing system's fine, no one cares about dispatch aside from those that do.​

Assessments (Broadly)

• Assessments must be made under realistic conditions e.g. for TFU someone must act inappropriately as a paramedic, officer, firefighter etc so that the reality of it is recognised, little intelligence is given other than they are told to report to a location, that's it.​
• Regular assessments of officers (periodically a test is put out for all officers and they must complete it by the end of that month/quarter), test is made appropriate for their rank, role, and experience.​

Promotions

• To be awarded on merit.​
• Applications are to be made for all positions.​
• Medals are to be more common than promotions, make it so that you can get one for tying your shoes, that way officers have something to aim for rather than some promotion that they won't get because they didn't brown nose the right person or if they're not really into more responsibility, they've got something to aim for (some examples below):​
  • Good conduct medal (No IA complaints for a month) - Star is added for every 3 months after that until a year.​
  • Long service (Following 1 year at the PLPD) - Star is added for each year.​
  • Firearm Proficiency (Passing the TFU assessment board)​
  • Police Duty (Awarded for x arrests) Star is added for each stage:​
    • Good - 50 arrests​
    • Excellent - 100 arrests​
    • Exemplary - 200 arrests​

Complaints, IA Investigations, and Professional Standards

• A new addition when complaining about an officer:​
  • Where a complaint is made against an officer the complaint must not:​
    1. Be vexatious in nature (Where the officer has acted reasonably but fell outside the requirements).​
    2. Be outside a reasonable timeframe with all things considered (always, the more time afforded, the more likely they are capable of being strongarmed)​
    3. Demonstrate that the offence by the officer pales considerably to the offence by the offender.​
    4. Have been created for the sole purpose of causing harm to the officer, it must be to improve the standard expected.​
• 
  
• Demotions will only be used for gross incompetence or blatant and ignorance of policy: People will stop making vexatious complaints where there is no guarantee that they will be gone.
• Where the investigated officer is able to demonstrate that there is some kind of attempt by the complainant to blackmail the officer into some kind of gain, the whole investigation of the complaint will cease, and no discipline will be brought against the officer (even where there is evidence of a clear offence).

N.B. that all of these suggestions are not based on the server, but through internal policies, these are well within your power Momo, so don't act like you haven't got the ability to make a degree of change.​

 

[Mim]

Thank you @Sneaky for writing such a well structured reply.

As we discussed training on the live server was somethings me and @Kenty toyed with back when he got Command, almost like the old Senior Officer Stage 3 (supervised patrol) in which there would be a mark scheme of a certain criteria of what the applicant needs to have dealt with at that situation, if they don’t deal with enough then they reschedule, if they deal with enough but not well enough they fail and so on. This also allows us to greatly improve the driving quality of officers as it puts them in proper driving situations with other people.

As you would have seen I didn’t really touch on the TFU changes much in my post but I agree that by giving supervisors rifles ,which I’m not against, will pretty much have heavy TFU waiting at PD and then responding in 2 TFU vans to throw loads of flashblangs in and then run in yano. However, I don’t really have much of an opinion on said TFU changes so I’ll leave that up to those who write proper long replies!

 

[Lucius Husky]

@Sneaky Ah, then I fully agree with you.

 

[Momo]

" Applications are to be made for all positions. "
Thank you for describing how it currently works.

"Complaints, IA Investigations, and Professional Standards "
If anything you mentioned here isn't already happening, make a dispute.

"Regular assessments of officers (periodically a test is put out for all officers and they must complete it by the end of that month/quarter), test is made appropriate for their rank, role, and experience. "
This is in my eyes goes completely against what the community voted for when they wanted to get rid of activity, but sounds like a cool idea.

" Change the way that ORs are viewed, they are there to be CONSTRUCTIVE, not to be the only thing that gets you promoted, otherwise, you'll get nothing but perfect officers under observation and absolute idiots when they're not under observation. "
Again sounds good in practice, hard to accomplish in practice. @GamingPeach can you tell all about it.

"Do not babysit patrol or any other group, let the relevant command team promote as they deem fit, it is not the place for Majors to decide this, they are merely there to ensure that what is done falls within the lines of expectations, you give people a command chain for a reason, let them operate in that command chain. "
No one is babysitting anyone what? The only person who gets involved at all with patrol is McGlinchy as he is their line manager :/

I really like your medal idea, might be a problem with the new website though as I doubt this is a priority at the moment.

Not everyone here is a PD fanboy, hence people really liked a form of SWAT back. The new form will have actual training and someone is a supervisory position to do extra training in-game which will possible once V5 releases. Again, it doesn't matter that they aren't perfect, becoming a cop is ezpz as well right now. The whole reason for having a trainer role is to keep their quality in check if people aren't willing to improve they may just as easily be removed. Again if you have any idea as to how this can be made better, please let me know, otherwise, simply saying you don't like it doesn't help.

Now to go over some of your training ideas. They are great and there is nothing wrong with them, but just like with the downfall of sections (The mentoring system you discussed) it requires too many people to be active from now on until forever to actually accomplish these tasks. Somehow I get the idea that everyone now has a lot of free time on their hands but somehow forgets they aren't always sitting at home al day.

Again, you can ask questions here. Not all bullets have as much detail to them. If you don't understand the impact of one you can ask what it means, you don't have to start making things up. Last but not least like I have said numerous times before, we did not have complete freedom coming up with this document and it also not finalised, so if you could keep that in mind. You seem to be constantly addressing me as someone kind of personal attack even though I have explained that for a large extend not all of these things are my idea. Don't shoot the messenger.

 

[Momo]

Good stuff! I am not trying to be secretive, I've just got a bit of a hard time putting it into words right. I've said the main objective of this is to simplify the PD although that is true a bigger part is also to make it more approachable. This is exactly where the suggestion for heavy TFU came from, the details need a little tweaking but the concept, in general, seems alright to me as it will be more like SWAT, whilst keeping a level of training especially with the in game supervisor position. The issue just arrises that also having light gear might be slightly op. Current light gear is just better arsenal, c2, flashbang, same armour nothing more. The idea proposed is that what will technically still be "light gear" might be stripped of their c2 or flashbang and be allowed to drive around in their normal vehicles (as on of the ideas and suggestions wanted).

 

[Momo]

• Heavy
  • No application requirements
  • Automated in-game applications
  • Ability to blacklist (Prevent people from re-applying if they are banned from TFU)
  • May not patrol
  • Separate player slots (Training Update)
  • possibly access to range rover or two swat vans instead
  • Preferably new van (not a high priority)
  • Trainer role (Training Update)
    • Has one reserved slot
    • Can do in-game training and leads all TFU
    • Can demote TFU
    • Give access to training grenades
      • Ability to hand out to other TFU
• Light
  • Light gear would act more like a heavy weapons whitelist
  • Arsenal would be the same
  • Get access to more vehicles
  • (Might have to lose flash or c2)

Again though, light gear might not even change and this is only an idea.

 

[Double J]

I assume anyone who has the TFU Whitelist currently won't have to do the In-game app?

 

[Sneaky]

I agree with most of your points except the TFU light gear part. You mention that if people want to be TFU, we shouldn't punish them for being TFI, why is being in light gear a problem?

TFU officers want to have fun aswell, and they will choose no-gear patrols over heavy gear pd afking. Prohibiting TFU from patrolling at light gear will hinder response time immensely, as they would either go back to gear up or be scared of missing the shootout and not gearing up at all(This is a roleplay shooter after all, people!)

Besides, there are hours and hours without supervisors on duty. Depending on them to authorize light gear is a risk. Yes you could keep the policy that they can authorize themselves like they can now in the absense of a supervisor, but that will simply lead to people constantly making up excuses, and getting completely unnessesary IAs over a non existent problem.

 

[Momo]

@Jimmy Jackson no they wont

 

[Double J]

I think people who sit in Light TFU Gear all the time, Mainly supervisors, just defeat their purpose. How can supervisors do their job if that is there, Not going to name names, but at the end of the day, a change with removing light gear and giving carbines/SMG's to people who have the TFU Whitelist is a step in the right direction to fix this issue.

 

[Double J]

Ok, I'll answer so things here as well.

You've castrated Patrol Command so that (basically) anyone above major will say who gets promoted?

That is not how it works, If I read this correctly, command teams under operations services will all meet and discuss them. If the vote becomes 50/50 then that is where the MAJ+ will have final say.

@GamingPeach has been a competent officer for a long time and giving him a babysitter is frankly insulting."

Not sure what you mean by giving him a babysitter? Unless I can't read, not much has been said about giving him a ''babysitter''. Noone is telling GamingPeach what he can and can't do, Unless the idea is way to complicated etc.

 

[Murtsley]

1. Making a Line Manager observe constantly undermines a person's command over their area which means that they feel undermined, that's why you wouldn't have a General observing the work of a Second-Lieutenant. Having a line manager do spot checks (in a review capacity) occasionally on recordings or minutes would be less undermining. Describe what a line manager does in more detail in that case, considering most of your documents are spread out over many forms, several documents and by numerous authors, it's hard to find information (expanded further on point 8).
2. Taking a condescending tone with something that already exists illustrates why people won't form suggestions because you (much like every other PLPD commander after Jordan and Chris) have a huge chip on your shoulder. You haven't once opened a think tank to look for new ways of conducting operations, how are you expecting ideas to magically form?
3. There already has been a dispute about it which I encouraged because people don't know what to do in these situations. Realise that not everyone knows what every division does and what their internal rules are. Knowledge should be commonplace, or readily accessible.
4. It doesn't matter if it goes against a community vote. Don't hold them in the first place, ask your branch leaders, of course, the community are going to be in favour of keeping their ranks without putting the effort in, whoda thunk it? A small test that takes 10 minutes every month is very little effort.
5. It's not hard to accomplish in practice at all, I suggested a solution to this months ago and (I assume) it wasn't forwarded.
6. For there to be a Lieutenant, a Captain and then another person to make decisions on minor things such as promotions is illustrating that it is impossible for a Captain to make an independent decision, let them get on with it and use the Line Managers as a complaint mechanism.
7. No one has asked me to help, I haven't been invited to a consultation to fix this, I have constantly offered to help Command in any way but I have always been told: "You'll be contacted soon".
8. I'm not making anything up, when you have a superior in a discussion with you and they give their opinion, you are more likely to agree with them because people tend to turn into yes men when their superior is present, keeping them out of this decision-making ensures that decisions are genuine and not fabricated in some foolhardy attempt to gain buddy points.

 

[Murtsley]

Jimmy Jackson's on the money with that one.

 

[Momo]

@Murtsley " Making a Line Manager observe constantly undermines a person's command over their area which means that they feel undermined, that's why you wouldn't have a General observing the work of a Second-Lieutenant. Having a line manager do spot checks (in a review capacity) occasionally on recordings or minutes would be less undermining. Describe what a line manager does in more detail in that case, considering most of your documents are spread out over many forms, several documents and by numerous authors, it's hard to find information (expanded further on point 8). "
BRUH what are you saying? No one is being managed like some kinda puppet, all division get to do their own thing to a very large extent.

"Taking a condescending tone with something that already exists illustrates why people won't form suggestions because you (much like every other PLPD commander after Jordan and Chris) have a huge chip on your shoulder. You haven't once opened a think tank to look for new ways of conducting operations, how are you expecting ideas to magically form?"
The pot calling the kettle black, not to be too rude but your original reply isn't exactly a treat either. I am opening all current ideas open to criticism and for a large part, all I'm receiving are passive-aggressive replies that don't actually go into any detail regarding the original post. I am not expecting ideas to magically form, however, I am opening currently given ideas open the criticism. Besides this, there is whole forums section for people to post their ideas.

"For there to be a Lieutenant, a Captain and then another person to make decisions on minor things such as promotions is illustrating that it is impossible for a Captain to make an independent decision, let them get on with it and use the Line Managers as a complaint mechanism. "
what?

"No one has asked me to help, I haven't been invited to a consultation to fix this, I have constantly offered to help Command in any way but I have always been told: "You'll be contacted soon". "
If that's true that's a genuine problem, however, this has never been brought to my attention.

" I'm not making anything up, when you have a superior in a discussion with you and they give their opinion, you are more likely to agree with them because people tend to turn into yes men when their superior is present, keeping them out of this decision-making ensures that decisions are genuine and not fabricated in some foolhardy attempt to gain buddy points. "
Again what are you even on about.

 

[Murtsley]

Let me explain this to you in TeamSpeak.

 

[Momo]

@Murtsley sure

 

[Murtsley]

@Momo I'll be waiting until 22:30 as any longer I won't have ample time to discuss.

 

[Bnjemann]

"Light armour may only be equipped when an Officer ranked Sgt+ declares the city to be at 'high risk' which is determined by appropriate factors decided by Command"

No. The whole point of TFU light gear is that you patrol as a countermeasure against criminals ensuring that other officers can push onto the scene of a crime with some sort of safety at least.

 

[Bert]

@Jimmy Jackson to be entirely fair, light TFU is essentially the same as patrolling normal gear but you have access to more firearms, you are still expected to respond to normal calls including supervisor calls.

 

[A1L]

@Bert You are right, such as the resource says "4.1 TFOs actively patrolling must prioritise firearms incidents where possible, but are still expected to respond to other incidents." @Jimmy Jackson What is the problem with staying in light gear, if you can? A supervisor can still do their job