Jump to content

Jerome

Members
  • Posts

    278
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    3

Posts posted by Jerome

  1. I've combed through every post on this thread, and I have not seen any actual constructive criticism except for a select few posts. All I've read so far are attacks on different staff members, specifically bringing up history from several years ago on SA-MP and going back and forth for the sake of just wanting to argue. Threads like this never really work because one side of the isle provides criticism and raises concerns with ideas on how to fix these issues, while the other is usually only interested in shit-posting & spreading nonsense.

     

    The positive feedback and legitimate concerns raised in the thread are appreciated. 

     

    As stated in an earlier post by Jack;

     

    1 hour ago, jack said:

     

    ..-if you look here you can see what the roles of people and their responsibilties, https://community.ls-rp.com/management/

     

     

    If there any areas of concern such as faction management, quality assurance, illegal schemes and so forth, you may direct yourself to the link above and speak to the person in charge of that respective area. 

     

    I will be locking this thread as it has been completely derailed and more than half of the posts serve no actual purpose in terms of looking for ways to fix areas of concern. Have a good night.

    • Clap 2
  2. 53 minutes ago, Rhys123 said:

    Why can't I post in suggestions? I have a few good ones. 

    Suggestions are closed due to the development team needing to focus on the current list at the moment. I'm sure they'll re-open them in due time when they have had a chance to implement what's already been approved.

  3. 47 minutes ago, Tungsten said:

     

    There should be a limit on how many on duty for the player count. It would add an element of fairness and encourage off duty roleplay by officers and deputies.

    I'm not entirely against that but it needs to be a realistic number, not 10 people on duty at most because people want to commit broad daylight shootings with no repercussions. 

     

    1 hour ago, Mikey said:

    Nobody said removing LSSD is a good idea, I couldn't care less. You guys need to take a chill pill. I am answering to the random comments of people dropping made up stuff about SD's activity versus PD's.

     

    People switch up a lot in public eh?

    SD is more active than PD and has always been since launch - it's not a secret. It's even been said by people in your own leadership team, there's nothing wrong with that either. We just have more numbers, it is what it is. This isn't any attempt to discredit either faction, I even said that it's completely fine if people prefer PD over SD or SD over PD. It's their decision to roleplay what they want to roleplay. 

  4. 46 minutes ago, .445 said:

     

    As far as your question, that's up to you guys in the case that we were to remove one. I could care less, the job is the same ultimately which is the legal enforcement of law and order. So whether it be just LSSD or LSPD I think we should focus on one entity right now.

     

     I go to Strawberry/Davis and see more cruisers than gangs. Am I being biased? Idk. I'm purely giving you my observations. Regardless, I think it's a valid argument to say that the amount of LE players vs every other player is a little excessive, and breaks immersion many times. 

     

     

    The issue is, what does closing one faction down and sticking with just one do for the community? Making a decision like that doesn't really change much because the people from the previous faction can just flock over to the next one. You'll still have a bunch of cops. A change like that is just gonna piss off a lot of people because they have to move over and will likely have to deal with rank restructuring. 

     

    As far as why there's more cops in Davis than gangs, that's because they all quit for reasons outside of LEO roleplayers' doing. They were unhappy with the way things were going with the server and left.

  5. 23 minutes ago, .445 said:

     

    That's not the point brother. We're trying to improve the quality of this roleplay and MANY players have said the same thing over and over.

     

    Answer this: Do you think the current roster of LE players is overinflated in correlation to our current PB? 

     

    I tend to agree with what someone previously commented, I don't know why we have LSSD and LSPD with such a small PB. We should remove LSSD as a whole and just focus on LSPD until player count grows. What are your thoughts on this?

     

    I think there are quite a lot of cops on this server, however not many have been recruited since the first month of the server. These are the same people that were here since day 1. They remained active and still do til this day, and it's not their fault that the gang roleplay and civilian scene took a massive decline. There is no way to fix the current ratio of cops to civilians at the moment outside of trying to retain what little criminal roleplayers and civilians we have left and rebuilding those scenes. Removing them isn't the logical way to go about it. What are you gonna do? Tell people who have done absolutely nothing wrong that people are pissed off because they now massively outnumber the civilians so they gotta go? Absolutely not. Did we take guns away from gangs who (and I highly doubt you can argue that this isn't true) blatantly abused them? No. We looked for ways to guide them into promoting more suitable roleplay and came up with ideas on how administration could start punishing repeat offenders.

     

    Why don't we close LSSD and have just PD?

     

    Well for one, there are a lot things internally between both factions that have gone down behind the scenes that people don't know about. Some people have moved to either PD or SD to get away from others while some just don't like the way the other faction is run, and that's okay. There is no way to merge the factions into one without a complete restructuring of the rank and file without pissing people off. How would you like it if you've put in 100+ hours of forum work and in-game work and grinded your way to a position that is no longer needed post faction merge? I know if it were me I'd just not play. These are things you have to take into account. You have to look at it from both sides, not just one. You're looking at it from an outsider's point of view. The most common way people look at PD vs SD is this;

     

    PD is the main faction, we roleplay in Los Santos (the city)

    SD are sheriff's, they belong in the county or patrolling a highway

     

     

    Right now, SD's numbers (even while we were still peaking 150-200 players) are always higher. Maybe some people just prefer SD over PD for the purpose of wanting to roleplay as a deputy sheriff / LASD counterpart while less want to roleplay as a PD officer / LAPD counterpart. 

     

    My question to you now is this;

     

    Why close the LSSD? Why not close PD and have SD stay if they are and have always been more active since launch? I'm not asking the question as a means of wanting to know which is better. I'm just curious as to why you want PD to stay over SD. 

  6. 3 minutes ago, .445 said:

    Anytime LE related complaints are brought up you seem to always have a some sort of justification or defense as to why said issue is wrong and LE is in fact not in any way a "problem". There's too many cops on this damn server, maybe you should try to be more open to criticism instead of constantly making excuses for this over inflated LE.

     

    As a member of the command team, I'm always supposed to have a defense or justification as to why a specific policy is in place or why we do things the way we do things. If you lead a faction I'd expect you to be able to do the same. No excuses were given because there was nothing to be excused for, no mistakes were made. An allegation was made, I proved the allegation to be untrue with screenshots showing otherwise. You should try to be more open yourself and understand that nobody is gonna submit to your passive aggressiveness nor is anyone obligated to support your opinion. If you don't like what I've said respectfully you don't have to read it nor respond to it. 

  7. Anthony Abruzzo v. County of Los Santos, Los Santos Sheriff's Department, Kenneth Larosa, Cooper Pierce, Frank Ventura, and Mark Bowen

     

    Case Number: 23C-010

    Prepared by: Robert Stein, JD

     

    CIVIL CASE BRIEF FOR THE DEFENDANT

    _______________________________________________

     

    Argument

    1. The defense does not dispute that the court has jurisdiction to hear the arguments in this case. The defense does, however deny all allegations of wrongdoing & civil rights violations. The defense further argues that defendants Frank Ventura, Cooper Pierce and Mark Bowen all qualify for qualified immunity under the Pierson vs Ray (1967) decision in the United States Supreme Court.

    2. Defendant Frank Ventura, whilst off duty witnessed the shooting and subsequently placed the plaintiff at gunpoint in an attempt to place him under arrest as he had witnessed the plaintiff commit a violent felony with a firearm. It is common practice in both San Andreas and other states for law enforcement to place an armed perpetrator of a violent crime at gunpoint in order to take control of them. Their actions were in line with the LSSD's Manual of Policy & Procedure. Mr. Ventura, whist on duty frequents the "Pit Stop" while in uniform to receive discount meals and coffee, a discount the "Pit Stop" offers on duty law enforcement during their business hours and is known to the defendant as a police officer. 

    3. Frank Ventura, whilst placing the plaintiff at gunpoint did verbally identify himself as a police officer, he shouted "Sheriff's Department, put your weapon down!"

    4. The plaintiff's argument that Frank Ventura's off duty status does not qualify him for qualified immunity is invalid as the San Andreas Constitution nor the qualified immunity doctrine prohibit police officers from conducting arrests off duty.

    5. Defendant Mark Bowen, who was on duty at the time met with defendants Cooper Pierce and Frank Ventura at Davis Sheriff's Station after the plaintiff was transported away from the scene. Mark Bowen, who is a sergeant at the Los Santos Sheriff's Department reviewed the footage provided to him by Frank Ventura and took his statement agreed with defendants Cooper Pierce and Frank Ventura that probable cause for an arrest had been established and approved the arrest.

    6. Defendants Mark Bowen and Cooper Pierce both qualify for qualified immunity. At the time of the arrest, all three defendants reviewed the evidence that was available to them at the time and believed having reviewed this evidence, probable cause had been established and the plaintiff committed a crime. 

    7. Having failed to outline how the defendants Cooper Pierce, Mark Bowen and Frank Ventura clearly violated an established constitutional right, breached their duties, committed assault and engaged in malicious prosecution, all three defendants, again qualify for qualified immunity.

    8. The defense further argues that the defendants in the case may be excused from liability as their actions were committed under a criminal statute they believed to have been valid at the time of the arrest. Pierson vs Ray (1967) also affirms that a police officer who arrests someone with what they reasonably believe to be valid probable cause is not liable for false arrests because a suspect is later proved innocent.

    ...

     

    Exhibits

     

    *NONE SUBMITTED*

    ...

     

    Witness List

    1. Deputy Sheriff Frank Ventura, Los Santos County Sheriff's Department

    (( @almightybounter ))

    2. Deputy Sheriff Cooper Pierce, Los Santos County Sheriff's Department

    (( @Fiendfyre ))

    3. Sergeant Mark Bowen, Los Santos Sheriff's County Department

    (( @matt ))

    ...

     

    _______________________________________________

    Certification. The undersigned swears or affirms, under penalty of perjury, that the information contained herein is truthful to the best of his knowledge.

     

    Sworn this 31st day of AUGUST, 2023 by:

     

    /s/ Robert Stein, J.D.

    Attorney, LOS SANTOS COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT

    • Clap 1
  8. 1 hour ago, iTwinkey said:

    can someone tell me what is wrong with this quiz? it's says I didn't pass even with 33 correct ones. All time quiz not pass with 33 quiz answered.. Jesus.

    There's nothing wrong with the quiz. Read the rules and then re-take the exam once you're confident you have an understanding of them.

  9. Just now, Tseard1 said:

    Then I am genuinely surprised to hear that this has been turned around so fast, within three weeks. 
     

    Good work. 
     

    Still don’t know why we can’t atleast trial a report system which doesn’t have to be big. There won’t always be supervisors around. 

     

    I haven't seen you in-game the last 2 months to be fair. Regardless these are concerns you should bring up to the Executive Staff team who are always available and swiftly handle any genuine concerns.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.