LULA 2022 - PT 13

If we're discussing foreigner china music content I prefer this one: without the communist party there would be no new china

Broke : only allow trades through BM and auction house Woke : allow both and staff intervention Bespoke : make the other party commit a gross violation of the rules and record it as to give you collateral in case they try to back out

We can make that work, but only if you don't cry foul when you get insta-tazed the moment you come close to HQ or be a rules-lawyer. Can't tell you the amount of civs who will RDM you because their buddy is in restraints and then cry foul and dispute over any technicality when they get reversed on and captured.

FWIW I'm doing this shit in Fr*nch, the methodology and terminology for US Law escapes me even if FIRAC is a universal evil.

Facts During an active federal reserve robbery, Mr @ doubleueyeceekay (the claimant) placed a Caesar BTT airplane at the gate of the Altis International Airport police precinct (Air HQ) as to impede the Altis Police Department (APD) from responding to the robbery. In response to the blockage, Staff-Sergeant @ knifemaster (the defendant) utilized a Hunter armored vehicle to collide with the airplane leading to the death of a bystander and the destruction of the airplane incurring damages of no-less-than $200,000 to the claimant. A dispute was filed and an ad-hoc mediation between the parties proved to be fruitless, as a result, the claimant filed a suit before the competent jurisdiction (APD Internal Affairs) who issued a ruling in-favor of the officer alleging that the practice of ramming vehicles, while prima fascie a violation of Ch 2 § 3-4 of the Altis Life Rules, has a longstanding acceptance under customary law wherein related to vehicles utilized to render a federal event inaccessible. Issue The reasoning of the court relied on the bad-faith utilisation of a server rule as to impede the APD from carrying out their obligations. The question posed by this case is as-follows ; can the violation of a server rule be legitimate if used to combat an action that can only sustain itself through the abuse of another rule? Ratio The main law applicable to this case is Ch II § 3-4 of the Altis Life Rules (VDM) and Ch XII § 9 of the APD Handbook (federal events) although this case has smaller implications concerning chapters XVII § 2-5 (applicability of server rules during federal events) and XXIII §2 (event disruption) of the Altis Life Rules. Analysis To understand the ruling issued by the court, it is vital to first analyse Ch 2 § 3-4 of the Altis Life Rules which states as follows 3 - Do not ram other vehicles for no reason. 4 - If your intention is to collide with another vehicle for whatever reason (To pit, disable, immobilize, troll, etc.) that's fine. However, if you collide with a vehicle on purpose and because of the collision there is an explosion/death, then you may be found accountable and may be banned. You initiate these maneuvers at your own risk. This section of the code is at the heart of the disagreement between the parties, as the defendant's argument relies on the specific verbiage "for no reason" as a means to render their destruction of the claimant's vehicle as a legitimate act, meanwhile the claimant believes that the specific mention of explosions caused by a "valid" collision establishes the defendant's liability. Furthermore, it is not possible do discuss this case without touching on Ch XII § 9 of the APD Handbook which establishes a contractual obligation for APD officers to respond to federal events unless otherwise directed by ranking officers. This creates a conflict of laws wherein the claimant's actions were a direct impediment to the execution of another server rule, nonetheless, even as the court acknowledged, the hierarchy of norms place server rules above APD rules, this is further reinforced by Ch XVII § 2-5 of the server rules which establishes that : 2-5 All other server rules still apply such as APD Wave rules, NLR, ect. With all of these facts and the applicable law, an in-concreto analysis would show that the claimant was correct in affirming that the defendant wrongfully rammed their vehicle, furthermore, Chapter VI § 1-3 of the APD Handbook states that officer may enter locked civilian vehicles for the purposes of "Unblocking a road, pathway or an area officers are attempting to access.". This should serve as an aggravating factor in support of the claimant's suit as, per the cited section, there was an available remedy which would have respected server rules and would have not caused the damages for which the claimant is suing. Within this perspective, it may be affirmed that the defendant's actions were manifestly disproportionate to the impediment posed by the aircraft, and that their escalation to the most extreme remedy indeed caused them to be civilly/administratively liable. With that said, the decision issued by @ Winters was not by itself wholly disproportionate ; utilizing a comparative-law approach we can affirm that within certain civil-law systems there is a notion of an "abuse of rights" wherein a right or protection is utilized in bad faith as to cause harm or discomfort to the public order or other citizens. I would like to bring light to article 2 of the Swiss Civil Code which states "Everyone is expected to exercise their rights and fulfill their obligations according to the rules of good faith. The manifest abuse of a right is not protected by statute.". Utilizing Swiss comparative-law it is possible to affirm that the claimant's actions constituted an abuse of rights as the airplane was deliberately placed in front of a roadway as to render difficult police actions without breaching the claimant's right to the preservation of their property. Furthermore, despite the court's admittedly belligerent approach to the claimant, multiple previous cases have seen an acceptance of similar remedies to comparable situations rendering the "HQ block exception" as a part of Olympus customary law. Finally, XXIII §2 of the Altis Life Rules establishes that event disruption is a prohibited activity, and impeding APD officers from carrying out their legal duties within the context of a federal event could be considered a case of event disruption which would render the claimant's suit null and void. Conclusion It can be reasonably argued that the decision of the court was borne out of an insufficient legal basis as to deal with situations such as these where a manifest abuse of rights causes a breach of other rules as to remedy the situation. While the court's decision is controversial yet acceptable, regulators should include further clarifications within APD and server rules either explicitly addressing situations where there is an abuse of rights, or explicitly permitting the "federal-event exemption" within the current framework of rules. Signed Sploding Burnout, esq Altis Bar Assn n. 69-420

In 2017 I was a lone deputy fighting a full-on jail alone, being a smart fella I impounded the orca they had left on the bridge to escape... while they were trying to kill me. My ass didn't know combat storing was a thing lmao, but I still got a ban + removed from deputy. It's a harsher system but it checks out and makes a lot more sense that having rule breaks be decided by a group with a vested interest in making sure the punishment is minimized when it's not an egregious case of misconduct.

Being a lightweight is the shit, $12.50 worth of beer is all I need for a good time!

I come here mostly out of morbid curiosity, but this is some real shit. The few times we played (it's Sploding btw) you were really chill and seemed to have a good head on your shoulders, which is overall a pleasant surprise when dealing with 2013 milsim police supervisors. It sucks it had to be this way, but take it from me, life on the retired side is sooo much better you'll barely miss the shenanigans. Shit, if the APD had more people like you when I was active maybe I would've stuck around a bit longer. Go touch grass, learn to surf, build some cool engines or circuits or whatever it is you do and good luck on the professional rugby grind. If you ever want to bullshit again, my discord should be linked somewhere around here. O7, enjoy the perm WL life, and keep your head high despite this bullshit, for the righteous are as bold as a lion.

Next time you're on with a pararescue or a Sr ask them to run you through some flight test practice. Landing in small areas can be tricky but if you switch to 3pp you can avoid most obstacles. As for auto hover, it's a crutch that makes you fly with lead lined oven mitts. If you're in a tight spot and see that it's not safe to land, the "pull" from the program as you try to adjust will crash you, it's fine in certain cases, but the exam is about making sure you can fly decently well independently so if the shortcuts aren't effective or available you can still cope. Go into the main menu, tutorials (or is it scenarios) and do the base game flight school; it replicates the flight test decently well and should help you fix tight landings.

Well, way back in the day there used to be one for Corporal too, APD ditched it and the RnR kept it. But the flight test is really just fear mongering, if you can take off, land, and keep a heli stable you'll pass with zero issues. It's not like they're asking you to line up shots on a car engine for a left bench gunner or combat land a tier 4 hummingbird in an active warzone flight. It's purpose is making sure you won't blow stuff up with your auto hover landings and you won't keep getting stuck in the middle of the woods as the only flight medic on because you wrecked your main rotor every other landing. Even if you've never touched flying, with the 30 minute tutorials in the base game you'll be more than ready to pass it.

Three things. Any cop lowering a tier just for party to a crime is bitchmade, I'd say find the cop's Sgt or Lt on the CoC and message them the video as it's not IA worthy but it is a breach of general decorum (or at least it was when I was active). But keep in mind that it's situational, if the vigi is driving the getaway car in a fight where cops were tased/taken, or is involved in an event like pharma that's a whole different story. There's wrong place - wrong time, then there's doing a support function that would be done by someone on the crew regardless. There's also a huge disdain for vigis who help robbery crews, even just pulling security becomes unbalanced due to your taser. Having it be a Sgt + authority would effectively take it off the table. More often than not the highest ranking officer on the server is a Cpl, unless we allow cops to seize your shit while you're offline through Life Control (never happening) it's just not viable. And more often than not the decision is solid, I have 1300 cop hours and nowadays play about 8-12 a month. Maybe it's the times I play or how I run my patrols, but in 5 years as an active APD officer from 2017-2022 (2 as Cpl + 1 as FTO) I've never seen these great injustices firsthand. The first line of the vigi rules is that they're not above the law or server rules. As a vigi you can still play with friends, have fun, and do illegal stuff, but use your brain and know when to walk away. I speak for about 70% of the APD when I say you don't need to be a choir boy, but you do need to make choices that will protect what you've earned. There's a difference between a vigi doing an illegal run where they just drive away and a vigi helping others rob legal runs, do pharmaceuticals or similar events. You know the grind and often for the APD perception is reality, if you know it looks sketchy sit it out and go do something else. I'm not a vigi, but I can appreciate that you guys do a lot of work for it. Just like most Cpls having 300+ hours shouldn't shield them from disciplinary action for sketchy shit, tier 3+ shouldn't be an aegis from being held accountable for your actions. If you're courteous to the APD when they interact with you, build name recognition, and don't engage in unethical conduct your chances of facing an arbitrary punishment plummet. The other side is I'll openly admit to ripping vigis for petty stuff after they had built up a reputation for following the APD to steal bounties, going to support when they were in the wrong and being belligerent dicks. There was a vigi who would follow the APD around in Kav and try to engage everyone the APD didn't go code 3 or chose to let go. You bet your ass the day I caught him with a manslaughter I seized his shit without a second thought. Perhaps an (admittedly) RP-heavy middle ground could be mandatory reporting on vigilante seizures and reductions past tier 3. When seizing or reducing a vigi license officers would need to fill out a quick google form with the IGN (or PID if they choose to provide it) of the vigilante, a justification for the seizure (immune from meta e.g. subject has a history of impeding the APD would be a valid reason) and supporting documents if they exist. Not worth much, but if the vigi feels it's unfair they could request a copy of the report and appeal it with staff and it would make it easier for staff and SAPD to see if there was a pattern of an individual being targeted or certain officers forgoing RP/discretion.

Oh yeah, the current radar sucks so having you hold it on for 5 as it currently is would be as good as nothing. On that note, we'll have to see it implemented to see how it works but I think a priori it should be 2 seconds or instant speed but longer hold for name. As is, by the time the thing gives you a name you'd be close enough to have it anyways.

Quick question on the ALPR, does "5 seconds to open" mean from scrollwheel it will take 5 seconds to start capturing or it will take a full 5 seconds from first contact to showing the information? Also on that note, the current radar function through shift L barely works in the sense that getting a hit is very rng based. Will you have to maintain ALPR contact for 5 seconds before the information appears?