PLPD | Currently proposed changes
- Thread starter Momo
- Start date
Deleted member 3131
Guest
@Alliat as i said, it doesnt make a difference to me, if we introduce 1LT and 2LT, or if we keep "LT", its fine and works in all cases, what i'm trying to get through which some seem to ignore, is the structure, which needs to be able to support itself, taken from arma3 milsim units (and dont tell me "thIs Is NoT ArMA 3") and real life, if someone from the chain of command goes missing, in a good and structured organisation, with competent individuals, nothing stops, someone takes the place and responsibilities of who went missing and so on. I believe the chief's are trying to implement this sort of structure, they want something more functional, fast, where each sub branch can work on its own, but when something goes missing the branch above or below can come support.
example, is one LT on LOA? or maybe he was fired, does that mean we stop opening traffic or TFU or whichever position? no, simply the other LT will decide for two, etc etc.
The colour of your butter bar makes no difference, but your responsibilities stay, as you still need to make things work.
example, is one LT on LOA? or maybe he was fired, does that mean we stop opening traffic or TFU or whichever position? no, simply the other LT will decide for two, etc etc.
The colour of your butter bar makes no difference, but your responsibilities stay, as you still need to make things work.
Deleted member 3131
Guest
@CaughtRed choosing a new LT takes time, i'll give you a combat situation i was told from a young CO in the Italian navy and some other ex military i had the pleasure to play with in arma3 (they taught me a lot).
- IF you want to stay alive, you have to keep going and stay operative, especially with a police department which is always active, or a milsim unit or even more true in real life where truly life and death depends on that. Lets say you CO dies, what do you do? do you stop and wait for HQ to hire a new LT and send it your way? of course not, usually the highest rank below takes charge and operates the platoon. In this case, do we stop hiring and training because one command member is missing? with the previous structure it was understandable, with what @Momo wants to implement, we now have a sub unit which is independant, and can act on its own, but when necessary, the powers above or the ranks below can take charge and still keep the unit going.
Its basically the implementation of what the state does IRL, in Law the subsidiarity principle defined in the consitution and by the EU, superior powers do not intervene where smaller ones up untill the single individual can take care of themselves, when they can no longer (i.e a calamity) the superior power takes control.
TLDR : The chiefs want to implement a chain of command and the subsidiarity principle, with the aim of keeping the PD simple and functional, and i tried to represent it in the most complete and logical way i could.
- IF you want to stay alive, you have to keep going and stay operative, especially with a police department which is always active, or a milsim unit or even more true in real life where truly life and death depends on that. Lets say you CO dies, what do you do? do you stop and wait for HQ to hire a new LT and send it your way? of course not, usually the highest rank below takes charge and operates the platoon. In this case, do we stop hiring and training because one command member is missing? with the previous structure it was understandable, with what @Momo wants to implement, we now have a sub unit which is independant, and can act on its own, but when necessary, the powers above or the ranks below can take charge and still keep the unit going.
Its basically the implementation of what the state does IRL, in Law the subsidiarity principle defined in the consitution and by the EU, superior powers do not intervene where smaller ones up untill the single individual can take care of themselves, when they can no longer (i.e a calamity) the superior power takes control.
TLDR : The chiefs want to implement a chain of command and the subsidiarity principle, with the aim of keeping the PD simple and functional, and i tried to represent it in the most complete and logical way i could.
hell yea man!
Just no.. just no. Your chart is also completely wrong unless you expect operations and professional standards to report into IA and people services as according to your chart they would act as a more superior body and they are in the flow to chiefs and are between Ops and Professional standards. I imagine @Samuel hates all them LT spots you are talking about ahah.
lmfao
Deleted member 3131
Guest
I fixed the ORBAT. And i placed IA and People services "above" because thats where momo wanted them, and he placed them like so in his chart, also note how they are not directly in charge or connected to any other division.
there are 30+ Sgt's some are probably worth promoting.
there are 30+ Sgt's some are probably worth promoting.
Deleted member 3131
Guest
@ShadowJoey ur promoted to major, instantly
Hello all,
Thought it would be a suitable approach to post my thoughts.
Let me start by saying I won't be commenting on anything related to TFU as I have no experience within this area, I have an understanding of the polices purely in order to fulfill my role as Captain.
RTU
RTU for secondary I am for, the main issue at the moment is there is no clear divide between Patrol and RTU, and at the end of the day, more Corporals + reside in RTU due to the benefits you gain in-game. The purpose of RTU was for people who wanted to priorities traffic incidents and at the current time, people are going for RTU due to the gain of unmarked cars and considerably quicker cars that you can't obtain if you're in Patrol. This has been an issue that I have pointed out multiple times to SMT / Command, I suggested a balancing act and was quickly shut down with my act / it disappeared into the unknown like many things Command Officer suggest for their division. The approach is good in my option the only thing that directly affects RTU that I am unsure about is the armor thing, which seems pretty pointless.
Training
Me and Dai brought training back to life before that it was purely a recruitment role for stage 2/3 and gave it a purpose and I am strongly against the removal of this. The training role that is within TFU, RTU and Patrol have given officer multiple opportunities to show their qualities and is used to spot potential Command members for the future. I have developed the training role into other aspects for example I created the aspect that trainers would deal with poor standards shown from officers put from an In-game perspective and the quality of observation reports Corporals + are writing. This aspect of PD was my favorite and continues to be.
I am fairly happy with the proposed changes and don't really see much constructive feedback when people are complaining.
Thanks,
Peach
Thought it would be a suitable approach to post my thoughts.
Let me start by saying I won't be commenting on anything related to TFU as I have no experience within this area, I have an understanding of the polices purely in order to fulfill my role as Captain.
RTU
RTU for secondary I am for, the main issue at the moment is there is no clear divide between Patrol and RTU, and at the end of the day, more Corporals + reside in RTU due to the benefits you gain in-game. The purpose of RTU was for people who wanted to priorities traffic incidents and at the current time, people are going for RTU due to the gain of unmarked cars and considerably quicker cars that you can't obtain if you're in Patrol. This has been an issue that I have pointed out multiple times to SMT / Command, I suggested a balancing act and was quickly shut down with my act / it disappeared into the unknown like many things Command Officer suggest for their division. The approach is good in my option the only thing that directly affects RTU that I am unsure about is the armor thing, which seems pretty pointless.
Training
Me and Dai brought training back to life before that it was purely a recruitment role for stage 2/3 and gave it a purpose and I am strongly against the removal of this. The training role that is within TFU, RTU and Patrol have given officer multiple opportunities to show their qualities and is used to spot potential Command members for the future. I have developed the training role into other aspects for example I created the aspect that trainers would deal with poor standards shown from officers put from an In-game perspective and the quality of observation reports Corporals + are writing. This aspect of PD was my favorite and continues to be.
I am fairly happy with the proposed changes and don't really see much constructive feedback when people are complaining.
Thanks,
Peach
- Messages
- 2,664
- Reaction score
- 4,283
- Points
- 845
There aren't many perpheads threads i have to type an actual constructive reply to while using two extra monitors, but this thread's a mess just like the PLPD feels to most of us not in a commanding position.
5 Years ago, my first training were some questions on teamspeak and i was a supervisor. 5 years later we've gone to a system where nobody knows exactly what even goes on, but some people are telling us it's not going well. I don't know on what aspect i should start on and i could just criticize each and every point on this thread like i usually do but i think the PLPD is beyond fixable in it's current state, really. The points here don't change much apart from adding frustration from trainers and lower ranked officers. You shuffle around some high ranks and organisational structures, take away some guns from one division and give them to supervisors while changing literally nothing from one application process to removing trainers from another.
You mentioned to me that this is just a brainstorm thread and please dont take anything of this as hard rude hate against yourself, im sure you've got a hard task but this thread feels rushed and what scares me is that this 'idea thread' is just a thread like all old idea threads. Command proposes changes and while the community talks about it the changes get implemented regardless. Idea's and suggestions were submitted via non-public google forms back then, so i'm happy we atleast get the chance to rumble around on the forums. I dont mean to imply that we weren't being listened to or anything, but to me atleast, if feels like the PD suffers from echochambering. There are issues that aren't known to the community, these issues get fixed but this pisses off members in the community. The issue unkown to us is then, apparently fixed but by doing so a new one is created. @Momo You mention on this thread towards @Tyla Jai to "Make some actual suggestions for what you would like to see. Yet, when @ShadowJoey and @BigBenji ask more about the TFU changes, and light gear being a problem you respond with "biggest problem in terms of the meeting with development and the senior staff team. not biggest problem in general"
Unpopular changes are being made for secret reasons and complaints, i think that is an issue. Action requests are public, who the fuck cares about IA complaints, if there are issues with light gear, why cant we know what they are beyond vague descriptions?
None of us can be aware of what are being kept as internal issues, so we obviously cannot contribute idea's on fixing this. it would be unfair to then implement changes and claim "nobody said anything!!". This has been done in the past.
To me, there's an obvious communication issue between the higher ranked part of the PD and it's lower ranked, or the community, part of it. How well internally you guys communicate, i don't know. I guess the need for keeping things secret exists but we're a virtual police department after all and nobody's job or life is on the line here.
If you would outline all these changes per division, and then PD wide changes in, lets say, a handful of ranked choice voting polls. Or have people suggest structure changes and vote from there, instead of going back and forth between changes between commanders.
to actually go on topic here, i agree with @mimballs points on traffic.
I'm currently TFU, and used to be heavily against the whole concept of it. I've coped with the fact that SWAT will never return at this point, so here's what i feel about this changes.
Light gear was never an issue with me or most in-game, it feels balanced enough and i have never seen more on duty than allowed by policy. Light gear is actually a disadvantage some times. Say you respond to slums from bazaar to a shootout, you can gear up and risk loosing your advantage by allowing raiders to prepare to defend. Not gearing up risks you getting shot due low armor/weak firepower. Removing light gear will just have 4 SWAT's AFKing at PD until a panic call comes out, meaning that when there's a situation there are two possible outcomes:
The SWAT van is there within 30 seconds, 6 TFU badboys hold left click and Sweaty McSweaterson in subs 4 just got BTFO'd.
Israeli McIsraelison granades the SWAT van, killing all inside.
The rovers often times provide excellent tactical advantage where the milk truck can barely make it up the hill, enjoy quickly moving that thing around from suburbs to the highway to move to a sniping spot in time.
I don't see why, if light gear is apparently an issue, taking away the guns from the tactical devision and giving them to sergeants would fix those issues. What i do really like is in-game training. I honestly wish all applications and training were done ICly, on the live server. Have someone pass stage 1, make them probationary TFU/RTU/Whatever, train and observe them in-game and have the trainer make a report wether the person is ready or not sounds like the perfect application process to me. Much less trainer time wasted, much more realistic in-server experience.
5 Years ago, my first training were some questions on teamspeak and i was a supervisor. 5 years later we've gone to a system where nobody knows exactly what even goes on, but some people are telling us it's not going well. I don't know on what aspect i should start on and i could just criticize each and every point on this thread like i usually do but i think the PLPD is beyond fixable in it's current state, really. The points here don't change much apart from adding frustration from trainers and lower ranked officers. You shuffle around some high ranks and organisational structures, take away some guns from one division and give them to supervisors while changing literally nothing from one application process to removing trainers from another.
You mentioned to me that this is just a brainstorm thread and please dont take anything of this as hard rude hate against yourself, im sure you've got a hard task but this thread feels rushed and what scares me is that this 'idea thread' is just a thread like all old idea threads. Command proposes changes and while the community talks about it the changes get implemented regardless. Idea's and suggestions were submitted via non-public google forms back then, so i'm happy we atleast get the chance to rumble around on the forums. I dont mean to imply that we weren't being listened to or anything, but to me atleast, if feels like the PD suffers from echochambering. There are issues that aren't known to the community, these issues get fixed but this pisses off members in the community. The issue unkown to us is then, apparently fixed but by doing so a new one is created. @Momo You mention on this thread towards @Tyla Jai to "Make some actual suggestions for what you would like to see. Yet, when @ShadowJoey and @BigBenji ask more about the TFU changes, and light gear being a problem you respond with "biggest problem in terms of the meeting with development and the senior staff team. not biggest problem in general"
Unpopular changes are being made for secret reasons and complaints, i think that is an issue. Action requests are public, who the fuck cares about IA complaints, if there are issues with light gear, why cant we know what they are beyond vague descriptions?
None of us can be aware of what are being kept as internal issues, so we obviously cannot contribute idea's on fixing this. it would be unfair to then implement changes and claim "nobody said anything!!". This has been done in the past.
To me, there's an obvious communication issue between the higher ranked part of the PD and it's lower ranked, or the community, part of it. How well internally you guys communicate, i don't know. I guess the need for keeping things secret exists but we're a virtual police department after all and nobody's job or life is on the line here.
If you would outline all these changes per division, and then PD wide changes in, lets say, a handful of ranked choice voting polls. Or have people suggest structure changes and vote from there, instead of going back and forth between changes between commanders.
to actually go on topic here, i agree with @mimballs points on traffic.
I'm currently TFU, and used to be heavily against the whole concept of it. I've coped with the fact that SWAT will never return at this point, so here's what i feel about this changes.
Light gear was never an issue with me or most in-game, it feels balanced enough and i have never seen more on duty than allowed by policy. Light gear is actually a disadvantage some times. Say you respond to slums from bazaar to a shootout, you can gear up and risk loosing your advantage by allowing raiders to prepare to defend. Not gearing up risks you getting shot due low armor/weak firepower. Removing light gear will just have 4 SWAT's AFKing at PD until a panic call comes out, meaning that when there's a situation there are two possible outcomes:
The SWAT van is there within 30 seconds, 6 TFU badboys hold left click and Sweaty McSweaterson in subs 4 just got BTFO'd.
Israeli McIsraelison granades the SWAT van, killing all inside.
The rovers often times provide excellent tactical advantage where the milk truck can barely make it up the hill, enjoy quickly moving that thing around from suburbs to the highway to move to a sniping spot in time.
I don't see why, if light gear is apparently an issue, taking away the guns from the tactical devision and giving them to sergeants would fix those issues. What i do really like is in-game training. I honestly wish all applications and training were done ICly, on the live server. Have someone pass stage 1, make them probationary TFU/RTU/Whatever, train and observe them in-game and have the trainer make a report wether the person is ready or not sounds like the perfect application process to me. Much less trainer time wasted, much more realistic in-server experience.
- Messages
- 1,183
- Reaction score
- 1,638
- Points
- 910
- Staff
- #179
Holy schijt, I just read this all. I do agree with almost everything you mentioned here except for the last part which says give sergeants the guns instead of light gear. But good points!
Similar threads
- Locked
- Suggestion
