PLPD | Currently proposed changes

We would require a vehicle that is marked and is a 5 seater, hence why the Crown vic was nice. The Merc is CPL+, which I dont believe im hitting any time soon.

EDIT: there is already a 5 seater RTU car that is unmarked, the Audi.
 
Hour tracking is something we can look into, but I'll obviously have to look discuss this with IT. I would also like to point out that if you would like the perks for RTU to be different in any way please let me know. As for all the details regarding what RTU does and does not get I believe were better of discussing this on TeamSpeak sometime. The blacklist system, I believe might be a mistake and shouldn't really be there for RTU. As for training, this is indeed Tiny's little project and if you want any changes to that you're better of talking to him directly I think.

The flowchart is a little confusing, should probably update it a little. the structure would remain as it is, patrol is not over anyone. I don't really remember how we came up with this design. It is more there to indicate the one primary division with secondary divisions underneath. This also does not affect promotions in any way.
I'll say this again, but I do not believe it is fair how you are representing the way we decided we would RTU to be a second division. Especially since you were given the opportunity to argue why we shouldn't do it, however, you only said you didn't like it without giving me an actual good reason until recently.

Once again if you have other ideas now, please hit me up on TS sometime (as I have finally done my last test :))
 
BRUH, thats what this thread is for. not all ideas are entirely finalised hence I am posting this before they are. You bring up some decent points though. The bullets below the van are broken IDK what happened there and ill fix it. as for the vehicles, heavy gets access to we could add two vans or add an extra range rover this isnt really a big deal. As for what all the punishments mean there are already plenty of documents out there explaining this. The only new one is
Remark
  • Only visible to PSD does not impact promotions
 
Especially since you were given the opportunity to argue why we shouldn't do it, however, you only said you didn't like it without giving me an actual good reason until recently.

As i outlined in my post i completely accept i was given the opportunity to list my concerns and reasons as to why i don't like it. This is something I can see as a benefit (RTU becoming a secondary).

In terms to the other changes, I would have preferred a discussion about each one. Anyway like you said its best to discuss on TeamSpeak and I'm sure we can collect a summary of what we discussed and update this post so people know what is happening if any decisions were made.
 
Road spiking a car and driving, most of the times come down to luck and randomness, i hope this doesn't weigh too much in applications.
In terms of this, right now Road Spiking a car in the current Stage is a 5 mark question. Out of a 33 mark application. It's quite important to have the knowledge of how to proper road spike a car and yes we know that spiking is sometimes just luck which is something we do currently take into consideration.

EDIT:
I don't get this entirely. The old speed enforcer job was like this and it sucked? You'll kill every interest in this division if these changes are going to be applied. People are here to shoot and drive cool cars, primarily. The only people RTU is useful for against, generally, are dangerous criminals. If anything, you'd make RTU a subdivision of TFU. Officers should be rewarded with an oppportunity to join RTU if their performance in-game is good enough. Slightly faster cars and an extra tool to benefit roleplay is the ideal tool to make someone behave decently and have a reason to rank up and grind for something.
See my post for my opinion on this matter
 
@Mimball So when someone is setting up a perimeter, to either a shootout or w/e, and someone places their spikes down behind their cones, so its in the area of operation, and not on the opposite side, would this be a violation to RTU policies?
 
@Daft Punk This has nothing to do with the current conversation, if you dont know if its allowed or not, read through the policies yourself on plpd.online and also check the handbook, this post isnt to discuss whether things are allowed or not and is irrelevant to the conversation
 
NEW REFORM ORBAT


There has been an idea of a reform of the PLPD, here is my take on it keeping the vision of the chiefs. This orbat is a bit more complete and in depth of what a future PLPD might look like. It took me some time to make this manually, but, this is what i think the chiefs want to implement.

With this structure, the absence of one command member does not necessarily stop a whole sub division, like it has happened now, CO's dont necessarily have to vote, but work in a hierarchical manner. Is one LT missing? fine no problem we go talk to the direct superior, is he missing? Then you automatically become the acting CO or try to reach someone above.

PLPD ORBAT.png

@Momo @Collier



SIMPLIFIED ORBAT: (the True and definitive one)
FINAL.png

In the simplified version there is one Major, as CO, alongisde him there is a CAPTAIN (total of 3 captains in the PLPD), to help him, under them, we have 1LT's and 2LT's although the regular "Lieutenant" form can be used perfectly fine. It is structured in a way that, if someone decides to get banned or is fired, we dont need to stop for 2 months, and simply the one CO above or Below will take their place.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
@DJ Conyo i said exactly that, shoothouse is good, its not a waste, added to all the trainings, which will consist in raiding actual properties in the PLPD server. one is for checking one's aim and rapidity, and as an understanding of the tactics in general, (breaching, clearing rooms etc, all the things you dont do *cough cough* tfu) the other one is the application of the above mentioned tactics, into real buildings of paralake.
 
Back
Top