PK, CK and escaping legal consequences

[Midsummer Night's Dream]

For a primer on this suggestion, please see previous comments below: 

 

 

”Hi Cara.

 



 

Thank you for allowing me to make the representations below. I am deeply concerned about the impact this PK event will have on an already neglected area of roleplay. I have a few observations regarding that. Also, I will not get into the quality of the PK event itself; rather, I will be focusing just on the concept of a PK in these circumstances — to be specific, when escaping legal consequences arising from court. Please take these comments into account while you consider the PK event and how to approach it.

 

1.   Generally, it is widely accepted that roleplayers should not readily resort to extremes to escape legal consequences, particularly without fear of or concern for further consequences. For example, considerable emphasis is placed on roleplayers realistically depicting fear when they interact with the police — that being, perhaps, the commonest way roleplayers face legal consequences. 

  

2.   The result of this expectation is that roleplayers, even the most seasoned gangsters or hardened mobsters, cannot always resort to the extreme and, for example, initiate a shooting with every officer who happens to cross them while out on a drive. They are expected to have regard for further consequences, depict fear and / or hesitation, and — insofar as it is realistic and compatible with their character’s traits — avoid compounding their problem. 

 

3.   Viewed in this light, that expectation demands that roleplayers, insofar as it realistic, either overlook most minor transgressions against their characters, or deal with them through the judicial system or some other grievance-handling process (e.g. for any police matters, internal affairs).

 

4.   In my view, this same expectation applies especially to legal consequences which result from private disputes between two or more individuals. The reason is simple: it would ensure realistic private dispute resolution through the court or settlement.

 

5.   Just as the fear-response rule (if you will) is intended to maintain realistic, effective and fair policing roleplay between the law enforcer and the offender, the same rule applied in this context also maintains realistic, fair and amicable dispute resolution between private parties on opposing sides. 

 

6.   Anything less than that, for an already neglected civil court division, would be negatively impact, first, activity through that division and, second, the development of San Andreas’ law. It would, further, implant a degree of lawlessness that would inevitably run into both realism and portrayal issues. 

 

7.   It would, in addition, make lawyers who practice outside criminal law too fearful — unrealistically fearful, if I may add — to take on a dispute, particularly if they know little or nothing about the defendant. The effect of this would, among other effects, make the civil division redundant and legal resolution overall very monotonous. Monotonous legal roleplay would mean the courts see only one type of case with the same issues (though different fact patterns) over and over again; the consequence, among others, is that the law's development is stifled.

 

[ . . . ]

 

11.   To mitigate the potentially harmful effects on an already-neglected and niche area of roleplay, I would like to suggest a rule for the use of PK and CK to escape legal consequences. The rule would provide that:

 

"Escaping legal consequences arising out of judicial proceedings via PK or CK is not permissible unless: (a) the defendant is at risk of losing 90% of their total wealth, and (b) the defendant has the means or connections to eliminate all of the parties relevant to the proceeding."

 

If you fancy, we can call it the “Klementz rule!”

 

 

 

 

 

Thank you again for the opportunity to make these comments. I would be happy to answer any questions.

 

 

 

As most people understand it, the court system deals with niche roleplay, particularly the civil division.  For this reason, any excessive out-of-character interference or lack of out-of-character regulation could mean the end of it.

 

To put it into perceptive and help see one reason as to why this rule is important, players already overly rely on the out-of-character player report system.  I have seen staff refer reporters to the court system, which is heartening; but it does not occur nearly enough to maintain the court’s viability.  (For examples as to reports which could have been actionable claims to contribute to activity in the civil court can be found here (breach of contract and / or unjust enrichment) and here (contractual misrepresentation) ).

 

The few cases that do reach the civil court are, thus, important.  Unfortunately, this is where unfettered PK and CK threaten the court’s viability. 

 

It is simply not sustainable for those who roleplay as practicing lawyers to undertake weeks- or months-long roleplay only to see it mooted by PK or CK intended to escape the consequences. 

 

Further, unfettered PK and CK in context this encourages evasive action that, occurring on a large scale, would inevitably run into realism issues.

 

It goes without saying that roleplay in this community is not supposed to emulate a 12th-century feudal approach to justice; marked by blood feuds for perceived private wrongs, or to escape their consequences. 

 

There is already strain on this roleplay caused by the player report system and players’ tendencies to overly rely on this report system.  That tendency has already limited traffic through these courts.  A second assault from unfettered PK and/or CK could be the last straw.

 

Thanks for your time, ladies and gentlesirs

 

 

 

Edited February 11, 2020 by Midsummer Night's Dream
Sorry for the font size issues; I posted this from my phone, which is a rarely successful endeavor!

[Guest]

It is important to start from the roots. What lack of fear can we even talking about when we don't address 90% people skipping mayor intersection with their cars in high speeds as it was the most normal thing to do. The fact is that people come here to portray their avatars and probably don't have a slightest idea what getting into a ROLE actually means. We can not talk about fear.

[Ketamine Kowboy]

 

 

 

2

18 minutes ago, Midsummer Night's Dream said:

 

Escaping legal consequences arising out of judicial proceedings via PK or CK is not permissible unless: (a) the defendant is at risk of losing 90% of their total wealth, and (b) the defendant has the means or connections to eliminate all of the parties relevant to the proceeding

 

I think honestly that the 90% rule should be removed if this were to be implemented. IF you fucked up to the point that you are about to lose 90% of your assets, you only have yourself to blame. As for PKing, I think it should solely be CK:s if we are talking about killing someone that's going up against you in court, for the simple reason that PK:s would just make it complicated. That and I have a general disliking of them in the first place, I am under the belief that they should be abolished completely (PK:s that is).

[UTOPIA]

I do not believe the players who actively partake in judicial roleplay deserve a special caste over other players simply because it is a niche avenue of roleplay, you have to understand if you limit players in this regard you will be cutting roleplay away from criminals, those who investigate crime scenes, the police department (both of them now), and the lawyers involved as well. There are many paths in roleplay, which is what makes it so fun and entertaining. I understand your argument, you believe that since a lot of work was put into something it should be taken a good look at and followed through with. With that logic, players who develop their characters should not be able to be character killed simply because they have put a lot of work into them. 

 

I noticed you mentioned Dean Bell in this passage here, I'd like you to know that I was not involved whatsoever in this situation on Dean Bell, and was actually on hiatus from Dean Bell for a few months to play my other character.

 

In this instance; Daniel Santoro ended up having somebody killed for trying to sue them for an excess amount of cash, he is a member of an illegal faction- there will be repercussions for taking this path, from PD, possibly Klementz' friends, yourself- their 'legal advisor', and likely more.

[arkan]

I respect the points you’ve made in this post but if you have a problem with specific people and their RP instead of including it in a public post like this you should have probably gone to PLM.

[Midsummer Night's Dream]

17 minutes ago, arkan said:

I respect the points you’ve made in this post but if you have a problem with specific people and their RP instead of including it in a public post like this you should have probably gone to PLM.

 

The primer was a copy-and-paste.  The thread is not about anyone specific. 
 

 

 

 

[Ketamine Kowboy]

Just now, Midsummer Night's Dream said:

 

The primer was a copy-and-paste.  The thread is not about anyone specific. 
 

 

 

 

Should consider re-writing it in that case, seems like a bit of a rant at the moment.

[arkan]

56 minutes ago, Midsummer Night's Dream said:

8.   For this situation on review in particular, Daniel Santoro did not make any serious and good-faith attempts to arrive at an amicable resolution. He made a derisory offer to settle for 15 000 — wildly unrealistic given that his breach cost the claimant an entire business venture. (15 000 implies that Mia’s venture would have generated very marginal income or even run at a loss). Mia, in any event, aptly instructed Daniel to get in touch with my character regarding his offer. He never did.

 

9.   Next, Daniel responded to none of the settlement offers which waived fees and losses. He received two; and both contained reasonable offers. He, further, did not attempt a counteroffer, and made no attempt to defend himself otherwise. In other words, he resorted to the extreme on the first opportunity to do anything in good faith.

 

10.   Further, particularly in this context where Daniel had three associates who are lawyers or have a law background — Elle Marchetti (his own girlfriend), Dean Bell, and Gerald Marchetti (a non-practicing lawyer according to his Facebrowser profile) — it was unreasonable for Daniel to resort to the extreme without having any of those associates reach out to Mia or anyone whom she was consulting. Daniel personally knew more lawyers than Mia did; he had access to two and a third, presumably, could have been consulted. In light of that, I struggle to see how Daniel felt so threatened that he could do nothing but kill the claimant after they reject his spurious offer. 

 

 

3 minutes ago, Midsummer Night's Dream said:

 

The primer was a copy-and-paste.  The thread is not about anyone specific. 
 

 

 

 

 

[Midsummer Night's Dream]

Just now, arkan said:

 

 

 

Like I said:

 

Copied and pasted (which implies it was not edited).

 

Please, enough derailing this suggestion. 

 

 

[Flow]

Considering the fact that it's 2020 and not 1955, I believe the situations should be escalated slow and one step a time. I might be missing something out but disputes into bloodbaths should usually be a no-go & an absolute last resort.