The Sheriff's Department And You II

[TheSenate]

1 hour ago, Peak. said:

Despite working in the same jurisdiction the general relationship between the LSPD and LSSD is poor and it's whoever reaches the scene has it. Generally we don't work together. 

 

Would it be better if we had separate jurisdictions or have a shared-decision interoperability agreement? 

Naahhhh, agreements like this only make things more tense. Because some people are always going to be tribal about issues and they’re going to look for any small contract violation to hold against the other faction. Not to mention the fact nobody wants jurisdiction wars. Things are perfectly fine as they are now.

[Akhmed Shamkhalaev]

6

Edited May 28, 2022 by Akhmed Shamkhalaev

[Midsummer Night's Dream]

12 hours ago, TheSenate said:

Naahhhh, agreements like this only make things more tense. Because some people are always going to be tribal about issues and they’re going to look for any small contract violation to hold against the other faction. Not to mention the fact nobody wants jurisdiction wars. Things are perfectly fine as they are now.

 

I understand there are people who will disagree, but jurisdiction disagreements and violations of any contracts would actually bring a lot of interesting roleplay.  These conflicts might involve, for example, arbitration (if the departments manage to find an experienced legal professional roleplaying an arbitrator); then further legal proceedings, perhaps even appeals; and if the courts get something wrong, lawmakers could intervene by using their expansive lawmaking powers — taking the issue, at that point, from legal to political and bringing about political roleplay.  Roleplay at GTA:W will never reach its full potential if it is stifled by OOC-forced cooperation; it won't reach its full potential if LFM is nannying cooperation between factions and enforces cooperation.  These things should be molded IC, drawing in various government and non-government actors.

 

Note I have not made a comment about corruption and the rule requiring corruption perms.  I still think there should be some OOC oversight of corruption.  So, for example, if a jurisdiction "war" leads to someone to contemplating corrupt intentions, there should still be LFM oversight of that plot line.  Otherwise, the jurisdiction conflicts should be left to be molded by IC forces and actors.  OOC nannying makes roleplay linear and repetitive; it dampens passions and, as a result, limits opportunities.

 

 

Edited May 28, 2022 by Midsummer Night's Dream

[Kari]

Jurisdictions would be neat, but I can't help but think SD wouldn't poke out of whatever's designated as 'compton' occasionally, just out of pure habit of being allowed to, or boredom from the fact that the county really doesn't get calls often enough to sustain a whole station. 

I feel it'd either end in most of SD going for Davis station, or the aforementioned issue, pushing out of that jurisdiction, be it habitual or out of boredom. Neither of which you can really blame them for. 

[Vassilios]

7 hours ago, Peak. said:

Despite working in the same jurisdiction the general relationship between the LSPD and LSSD is poor and it's whoever reaches the scene has it. Generally we don't work together. 

 

Would it be better if we had separate jurisdictions or have a shared-decision interoperability agreement? 

From what I've seen this far, it's a bit more than that. Whoever reaches the scene first has the lead, that's true. But if it's one deputy or one officer alone then the other department usually sticks around until the end of the scene or until there are enough people from the other department to provide backup.

I've worked countless of times with PD officers/detectives and from what I see we usually provide backup to traffic stops to eachother.

I'm in no way saying that you're wrong, just that it's a bit less black and white.

[mana]

Any form of conditional jurisdictional agreement is an inherently raw deal with consideration to multiple angles. The main one being that one faction maintains the ability to interact with 80% of the online playerbase, while the other is forced to pick up on and make do with whatever scraps they can find.

 

The pursuit of, in essence, a monopoly on content, just to punitively respond to isolated instances of people not getting along with each other, isn't fine. What was just suggested is a tried and tested concept, which has proven to cause only disaster. This would be the largest detriment to relations to date. As a hint: jurisdictional issues served as a notable catalyst in the recent downfall of one of the largest SA-MP roleplay servers.

 

Fact is: there is no "IC liaison" when it comes to such discussions. There is no politicking to be done. The topic of jurisdictional delimitations largely serves as only a facade to cause OOC harm and instability. Nobody on this server is here to ICly argue in order to determine whether a faction should have the right to exist and have access to content and roleplay, something that is meant to be an OOC, "God-given" and inviolable status for anyone (here: ICly granted through a city contract that the government sustained).

 

Anyone who would uphold this kind of argument first needs to consider the effects of being kicked out of the one half of the map that hosts almost all of the server's content, and most importantly: how would they like it if they were on that side of the argument. Without even any kind of deliberation on this matter, it does not feel appropriate to liberally toss out the idea that forceful, large-scale division, in a barely divisive environment, is the solution.

[TheSenate]

22 hours ago, Midsummer Night's Dream said:

 

I understand there are people who will disagree, but jurisdiction disagreements and violations of any contracts would actually bring a lot of interesting roleplay.  These conflicts might involve, for example, arbitration (if the departments manage to find an experienced legal professional roleplaying an arbitrator); then further legal proceedings, perhaps even appeals; and if the courts get something wrong, lawmakers could intervene by using their expansive lawmaking powers — taking the issue, at that point, from legal to political and bringing about political roleplay.  Roleplay at GTA:W will never reach its full potential if it is stifled by OOC-forced cooperation; it won't reach its full potential if LFM is nannying cooperation between factions and enforces cooperation.  These things should be molded IC, drawing in various government and non-government actors.

 

Note I have not made a comment about corruption and the rule requiring corruption perms.  I still think there should be some OOC oversight of corruption.  So, for example, if a jurisdiction "war" leads to someone to contemplating corrupt intentions, there should still be LFM oversight of that plot line.  Otherwise, the jurisdiction conflicts should be left to be molded by IC forces and actors.  OOC nannying makes roleplay linear and repetitive; it dampens passions and, as a result, limits opportunities.

 

 

 

That's an attractive idea for someone like yourself who is big into the legal side of issues, though you need to keep in mind that for the average player, they don't want to worry about that kind of drama if they can help it. I work in emergency services IRL and there is nothing enjoyable about government politics and oversight, it is mostly just a bunch of old men and women who have never worked a day in your shoes trying to tell you how they thing your job should be done. Your average player isn't going to want to worry about being bitched at by dispatch to get to the next call so they can make zone compliance for the month, and nobody wants to get "held-over" and forced to stay online when they wanted to hop off due to short staffing so the faction can make compliance lol.

Edited May 29, 2022 by TheSenate

[orca112]

Ah yes, lets bring back jurisdictions. That totally worked and was not abused on a past server to further divide factions and have people enjoy their little power trip or made over complicated for the sake of being complicated, or making it a chore for the other side.

 

There is already a way too big divide and distaste between factions. Past attempts for cooperation were quick to be halted and bridges burnt not because of any IC actions or distaste, but the players throwing deep shades at others to a point you just would not want to have anything to do with them, or keep interactions at a minimum. This has been an ever present issue, and has been strongly one-sided from certain members and friend circles that were at the time, or still are in SD. It would be idealistic to think that factions could get along with people going over their heads and just looking to screw another over simply because they can, and it is why most mutual agreements, cooperations or shared interactions were either quick to end, kept at the bare minimum, or never happened.

[Wildcat]

Jurisdictions are not happening.

 

On previous servers, that was the biggest divider between factions. It would lead to a complete break-down of relations over the most minute things. One of the best things GTA:W got right was saying anyone can do anything anywhere they like.

[Narco]

On 5/18/2022 at 1:56 PM, Bandit. said:

You got a second chance, time for you to give the people you dislike a second chance too.

One can only hope. 
 

I genuinely enjoyed roleplaying in the sd under this current leadership and was enjoying parole although got myself kicked due to trolling on an alt account & then immaturely harassed / raged the current leadership over another servers discord, hope they aren’t holding grudges and will give those a second chance as I truly believe the sheriffs department is overall the best faction and we all get heated / say things we don’t mean when things don’t go our way
 

removing an entire leadership which is actually pretty active would have been a shame. As much as the current leadership may or may not dislike me on an ooc basis, I’m glad they’re still around.