[Suggestion] Double Jeopardy.

[Casey Heller]

What rule do you wish to Add: 3.30 - Double Jeopardy.

Your version of the rule: Officers of the Paralake Police Department may not face any punishment such as a verbal warning, warning, or bans where they are also pending punishment from an Internal Affairs Investigation for the same situation, correlating to an in-department policy. It is the officer's responsibility to inform reporting partys of there Internal Affairs complaint, along with relating evidence, and any Out Of Character action must be pended until that investigation is complete and reaches a conclusion by the Complaint Committee. If the complaint committee comes to any If a reporting party or the officer in question can prove that they can be punished via Internal Affairs Complaint, then the reporting party should make a complaint there.

Moderators and Administrators may still give warnings and bans if the player breaks a rule that is not outlined or punishment cannot be determined through an Internal Affairs complaint, or, the situation is too severe that it requires immediate administrative action.

Why do you believe this rule should be Added/Edited:
I have not only been in but also witnessed many situations where officers are punished through out-of-character problems and reports, and then there PLPD career suffers due to the ban making them inactive, or rather unable to meet there requirements.

Therefore, I propose this rule that would essentially value PLPD IA's Complaints and Punishments before OOC Punishments to avoid that the Officer faces disciplinary action from both sides. This rule also ensures that they would never face punishment at the same time as the OOC complaint. This gives the player the chance to remain and stay on the server, however, it takes the term 'career' for PLPD to another level of value for said player.

 

[blobvis 2.0]

Under the PLPD's Policies and Procedures it is stated under the section Activity, 2.2:
2.2 If the minimum hours can not be reached then an inactivity notice must be submitted on PLPD Online with a legitimate reason.

As a ban on itself will prevent you to reach those hours (if long enough, a day ban won't make a difference) it is in my point of view a legitimate reason to put in a inactivity notice in as you have a clear reason to why you can't come on duty.

P.S. I could be wrong and if so a higher up will correct me

 

[Casey Heller]

@McGlinchy @!Max! @Ashur @Aquaa @moD

Why do you all disagree? Voice your concern don't just leave a rating and not suggest how you can improve it.

 

[Mallard]

OK, I'll mass RDM as a cop and you won't beable to ban me cus someone made an IA?

 

[Deleted member 5577]

This is quite possibly the worst idea that has ever been posted... and someone suggested we add a military. As @Mallard pointed out this would leave gaps where players should be punished, this could mean that it takes 2 weeks for someone to be dishonourably discharged due to an rdm and doesn't face any OOC punishments at all.

It's like, if you hit someone at work you're going to be fired and then arrested and then your employer gets sued, there are consequences on more than one level for pretty much everything.

P.S This is very hard to read please install:
Grammarly: Free Writing Assistant

 

[Daft Punk]

Personally if someone does something that is either 2.5 or 3.4/3.5/3.6/4.1, they can be punished via staff no matter what if on duty/off duty. If its something that isnt those, then fair game.

 

[McGlinchy]

One of the biggest complaints people had were that nothing would be done against officers server-wise and it was all being referred to IA, this is a complete reverse of what started to change and it makes no sense.

 

[Casey Heller]

"Moderators and Administrators may still give warnings and bans if the player breaks a rule that is not outlined or punishment cannot be determined through an Internal Affairs complaint, or, the situation is too severe that it requires immediate administrative action."

 

[Casey Heller]

I have grammarly, your just British.

 

[A1L]

I understand you've put thought and effort into this suggestion, but overall this isn't necessary at all, just my opinion. It's kind of not needed at all.

 

[Deleted member 5577]

you're* you should really put it to better use

 

[Casey Heller]

That is why there's suspensions, modified duty, and more ways for supervisors and IA agents to keep the officer off the street yet still on payroll because they may be cleared, or may be punished.

"this could mean that it takes 2 weeks for someone to be dishonourably discharged due to an rdm and doesn't face any OOC punishments at all." Again, if the situation is severe, Admins and Mods can take immediate action.

 

[Casey Heller]

Well the preserving your life rules are rather hard to be pushed on an officer considering it's there job to put there lives in danger so others don't have to.

 

[blobvis 2.0]

tbh it is rules>laws no matter what, staff should always be allowed to handle it and it will be shown on records (SCAMBANS) a person got OOC punishment for it already and might also find a reprimand on his doorstep after it, people can't go unharmed over an IA, if a person would rather make an IA only to get it dealt with is also fine there are always staff member in the committee for that reason

 

[Deleted member 6228]

Preserving your life is pretty clear cut, its not a hard rule to follow so your point doesn't really make sense

 

[Bnjemann]

I will personally make the IA if this becomes the case lmao. Ez no ban.

 

[Deleted member 5577]

That is too vague and rdm is outlined in policy its called excessive force

 

[Bnjemann]

No.

Firstly, most internal affairs complaints are processed at least a day after the incident took place. In some cases it can be shorter or longer, but from the looks of things, IA's can take about a day before action is beginning to be taken against that officer.

There's already a sizeable abundance of officers who's actions border a breach of rules, This would only further encourage that behaviour.

On top of this, It'd only be more inconvenient towards the dealing of rule breakers. Personally, I believe that if someone breaks a rule on duty, then it is both the role of a server staff member and the complaints committee to deal with. At the end of the day, Someone breaking server rules on duty is not fit for the role of officer and appropriate action MUST be taken to ensure that they aren't of any inconvenience to rule abiding players.

 

[Casey Heller]

@Inchs what I'm saying is the nature of the officers job is dangerous as is. It's the officers duty to put his life in danger to keep others safe.

 

[Deleted member 6228]

@zXDroNEXz Ok but thats not breaking rules is it