Rylee

+1 Punishments continue to be lenient, there needs to be actual consequences other than a sixty minute timeout.

I have yet to see a single incident of LFM removing someone for speaking to a stringer about an ongoing scene and I find it incredibly doubtful that it will ever happen either. However, LFM will remove you if you leak information that is mandated not to be shared outside of certain forums or systems, such as MDC records, casefile information, and anything deemed sensitive by their respective agency. Joshua's interpretation of leaking is on the more severe spectrum of as mentioned, leaking vital information from cases, etc. Speaking on a scene is nothing like that, it's simply an IC rule that is taught to any recruits that you /do/ not speak to the press unless told otherwise. I did read his reply, after reading yours which included a snarky comment about people being robocops for simply refusing to spoon-feed you information and instead wanting to instead be given full access to dispatch. This is simply you being spoon-fed information when instead, as an investigative entity, you could very well rely upon a restricted version of the nine-one-one system and piece the dots together. Lomadias said it best here: Perhaps a chat alert to say "POLICE SCANNER: A new call can be heard over the scanner. Five seconds later - Location. Five seconds later - Description. Could make it so there is the delay in getting the information. I have no idea how accurate police scanners are, if there are frequency drops and so on, but 1:1 should not, imo, the /goal/, only the inspiration. It should only likely be roleplayed when in a vehicle with a scanner installed, and laws around it's use should be investigated for legal faction use. Idk much about them in that sense. TLDR; less is more, imo. Give us basic details, let us figure the rest out. For the sake of accountability, we could mark a stringer unit as responding, which shows for our internal stringers but also in the logs. Realistically, can you listen to scanners IRL? Without a doubt. But should you have scanners in GTAW? Where this system is capable of being incredibly abused, regardless of any LFM oversight or corruption rules. My opinion is no. Again, as Lomadias said. 1:1 should not be the goal, only the inspiration.

I've no idea where this weird OOC angle you're arguing comes from. It's taught that anything you say can be treated as an official statement to any media personnel. There is no crazy OOC fear that you'll be deleted from an LEO faction simply for saying what happened, it's simply one of the core things taught ICly. It's an IC choice that has IC consequences if you're out there blabbing the entire scenario to a stringer. Not only that, but that's entirely what you are. A stringer, which is one of the biggest nuisances to law enforcement across most of the US. There isn't exactly a positive reputation that comes with them, so expecting one from the start is a bit silly, no less for people to share details about an on-going scenario with you. There is no OOC risk to their job unless they're outright revealing details that /should/ not be leaked, such as case file information, MDC records etc. Because that then requires corruption perms.

I agree with limited nine-one-one calls, but not dispatch.

That's not my argument at all. I'm clarifying this misconception that /anyone/ can lock you away for forty-eight hours. If someone is /maliciously/ using forty-eight-hour detainments, that's an OOC issue as it's akin to an unofficial ajail. So, if they're kicked from the faction, can they still play their character? Sure! They just won't be in the faction anymore. Because if it's an IC issue, you should then deal with it ICly, no? You can't keep teetering back and forth between IC and OOC, when the whole point of this thread is the OOC concern regarding forty-eight-hour punishments.

As my character is a PD Detective, I've had success in the use of forty-eight-hour detainments to secure key evidence, ranging from murder weapons to the seizure of narcotics and interviewing them after the results from forensic tests come back. There's some perception going on that we throw out these detainments like they're candy. Since joining the LSPD in January, I've only used a forty-eight-hour detainment on five people. Two refused to log in after being detained and had a warrant put out for their arrest, two were interviewed about a serious felony, but released due to lack of evidence while the final detainee was arrested in connection to a crime. All of these were tied to ongoing, but now closed investigations. The LSPD only employs them when necessary while also being restricted in who can apply them, yet I see people complain that they're witnessing them being used maliciously. If that's the case, there's a thread on the LSPD forums where you can file reports against those members, here: https://lspd.gta.world/viewtopic.php?f=2183&t=91035

No, because a forty-eight hour hold already needs authorisation from a detective or supervisor to do so, already being heavily restricted in terms of the LSPD. The forty-eight hour hold can make or break cases that could have taken weeks of work and it's the best form of security we are permitted to keep both suspects secure and sadly, isolated. They're not permitted any outside contact, for reasons of denying them the ability to again, relocate evidence or go into hiding. The only time when this can change is via a lawyer, during questioning. The point of it bring a neccesary evil is that there is no suitable alternative that can compare to both the protection offered and peace of mind knowing that the suspect is detained.

Forty eight hour holds are a neccesary evil to allow LEOs, namely detectives the time to finalise cases or gather more evidence. Knowing that the suspect is in custody, and unlikely to move or conceal any evidence against them is a key benefit. It also allows time to start discussions with the district attorney and other relevant parties, such as witnesses or victims to get a successful conviction.