Amendment to CCTV Rules

[ThatMuricanGuy]

The current ruling on CCTV is that both parties need to consent to the footage being used. This allows for the offending party to state they don't want the footage to be used, allowing them to borderline MG/PG their way out of a situation. A recommended amendment to this rule is disregard consent of the second party if one party has evidence via unedited recorded footage (i.e. Shadowplay, OBS, or another third party recording software), or via unedited screenshots (i.e. windows printscreen, ShareX, Gyazo, or another third party screenshot software). For things like interior cameras, or vehicle dashcams, evidence of installation of these devices could be requested to validate the legitimacy of the actual device ICly, this can be proven by screenshots or footage of the installation from an OOC standpoint. The party reviewing the footage/screenshots/evidence should only work off of footage that would legitimately show what the camera, or dashcam would show. 

 

The rule in it's current state opens the door to powergaming and play-to-win mentality, neither of which this server should want from it's playerbase.

[DanneBRE]

Agreed, I don't get it.

 

You walk into/around someones house and he has cameras? Well shit, I shouldn't have to ask you for consent to use MY footage of you doing something you shouldn't. The rule should be removed completely and as the thread holder stated, it's powergaming and metagaming/Play to win attitude and serves no benefit. I really don't understand why you would need consent OOCLY from someone for something like that.

Edited July 18, 2020 by DanneBRE

[Anselmi]

Unless you have actual footage, the truth can very easily be distorted - and who are we to believe if you and the perpetrator give conflicting stories about what happened? We rely on the honesty of both players involved which is why you ultimately need the consent of everyone involved to corroborate what happened. You're right in saying that they can easily lie to get out of something, but that goes both ways. I can't really see any other way around it.

 

What you proposed gives a substantial benefit to people capable of recording, because let's face it - not everybody has a high end PC that can run GTAV and record simultaneously. That being said, I'm not personally opposed to using actual recorded footage in lieu of getting both parties version of events in hopes that they match up - assuming there's roleplay that precedes it for camera installation etc.

[Halcyon]

One party giving footage should be enough if it's not edited.

 

In case that something does happen, it can be easily verifiable via logs.

 

This rule serves nothing but give power to those with a "play-to-win" mentality.

[stringer]

8 hours ago, Anselmi said:

Unless you have actual footage, the truth can very easily be distorted - and who are we to believe if you and the perpetrator give conflicting stories about what happened? We rely on the honesty of both players involved which is why you ultimately need the consent of everyone involved to corroborate what happened. You're right in saying that they can easily lie to get out of something, but that goes both ways. I can't really see any other way around it.

 

What you proposed gives a substantial benefit to people capable of recording, because let's face it - not everybody has a high end PC that can run GTAV and record simultaneously. That being said, I'm not personally opposed to using actual recorded footage in lieu of getting both parties version of events in hopes that they match up - assuming there's roleplay that precedes it for camera installation etc.

To be honest I would like if people couldn't just say they don't want to give consent. I believe that it should be against the rules to refuse CCTV consent without a VALID reason, since 99% of the times when people refuse CCTV it's because they want to win.

[Jura]

If there is CCTV in the property, it's recording. Whether people give "consent" or not.

 

Shouldn't be a rule.

[MickeyO]

Just now, Jura said:

If there is CCTV in the property, it's recording. Whether people give "consent" or not.

 

Shouldn't be a rule.

I agree 100% even if I know it'll fuck me over I always consent.

[LochnessMonsterr]

Big yes, current rules seem very outdated and encourage a play-to-win mentality along with committing crimes anywhere without care as there is the ability to deny the evidence on a OOC basis. Realistically, CCTV is used heavily by law enforcement to identify suspects and show evidence of crime.

[Power]

Agreed. The rules make no sense to me. Especially in business. In 2020 where you can buy a CCTV system from Costcos the assumption should be they have CCTV and that they don't. Even private citizen putting things like ring door bells and wifi cameras. The only time I ever use my CCTV is when I actually have an unedited recording or picture that can't be misinterpreted.

 

Edited July 22, 2020 by Power

[Jedbediah]

+Support, CCTV is currently less than worthless as currently it serves only to confuse people and cause hubbub when people misuse it because of the confusion that surrounds it. I can understand needing the appropriate two-party consent for public interactions but I see absolutely no reason why a business should have to seek someones 'permission' to record them and it's completely ass backwards and defeats the point of them almost entirely.

Also, no* CCTV in the world comes in HD 4k full color so the idea of using recording software/shadowplay to act as CCTV STILL doesn't close Power/Metagaming windows.

The feature and the documentation that surrounds it is wholly insufficient and needs updating and changes.

*high capacity, it's all grainy black and white footage for storage related reasons.

Edited July 23, 2020 by Jedbediah