Pseudonym

As an Auditor, I have to say Jose Cuervo is surprisingly willing to RP. I asked if I could audit the bank right after it ended, he said "BANKS CLOSED!", I slipped him 20k as he was counting down shooting me, "Banks open". It was actually an incredible role play expereince I genuinely thought that if forum warnings existed I would have gotten one already. @ -dante- wtf?

yo can you fill me in on this ANCIENT OLYMPUS LORE? who was this man? why does he have negative 1000 votes? why did it take you 7 years to become staff?

I will not confirm, nor deny, the allegations.

this is an incredibly based and REAL common sense pilled take.

oh I thought it might mean like you needed to have that charge on you 3 times. But yeah your interpretation seems more like how it's intended and common sense, but like..... i'm probably on my 40th offense on some of these crimes. Does that mean they can do the third offense level punishment every time I get charged with it from now on? It's stuff like that in the handbook that I really dislike. It's not even a gray area, it's just like undefined, unknowable.

After further reading, I'm not 100% sure my previous message is correct, but I don't think there is much differentiation between detainment and arrest, and reasonable suspicion vs probable cause in the handbook. The only real mention of "detain" is saying you can detain a civ if they are "interfering" with an investigation, and if you notify them why they are being detained. I believe I have been detained multiple times when I was completely innocent, without doing something that could be considered as interfering with an investigation. I will be paying more attention to that from now on. And, sadly, there is no use of "reasonable suspicion" in the handbook, which in the USA is generally the level required to detain someone. Given the handbook says: Let's take that serious and go through an example situation. Let's say someone is flying without a pilot license. If we look at the ticket guide we can see: Let's think about this more carefully. Probable cause, according to the handbook, is when you have grounds conduct a search OR make an arrest. Now, if you were to send someone to jail, it's pretty obvious that you would have to arrest them. Yet flying without a pilot license doesn't actually provide you the probable cause needed to be able to arrest them. So it's a crime that you can be jailed for if you do it 3 times, but it's not a crime that you can be arrested for. You'd have to be arrested on some other crime that grants probable cause, and then you could finally get sent to jail for this crime. Does this sound right? Does this sound like how it's intended? Does this sound like how it's actually played out on the server? I don't think so, yet if we accept your logic that people need probable cause to be arrested, it means that you can't arrest someone for these "Does not warrant probable cause" charges, and if you can't arrest them, how could you even ticket them either?

I don't believe you need probable cause to detain someone. That would mean anyone who is detained could be searched by the APD, which is incorrect.

they told me to leave the redzone, and not get back in the m900. how would I get back in the m900 and leave the area instead?

how so? as long as you don't restrain or detain them it seems fine to me. I landed a m900 at mushroom pro once trying to audit the apd, they told me to leave redzone, not get back in my m900, then they impounded it leaving me 2 km away from nearest garage even though I was in sight of the m900 outside of redzone, i wasn't detained, and it wasn't blocking a path or roadway. what officer in there right mind would impound a random m900 from someone who isn't wanted, and who you forced to leave the area of the m900?

idk but what's stopping the APD from telling them that? why does it matter that it's "governed by the APD" or not?

ok well then what's stopping them from saying "leave silver pro or be shot"?

I've been trying to audit the impound rules recently, and the most insane thing to me was that they could literally just detain you randomly when your not wanted, impound your vehicle mid legal run, then unrestrain you and leave. There is nothing that prevents that scenario.

i already wrote the code, on how to do it, in the workshop mod, and I have it here if you want to see it. i have the code

yes

yo dawg, respect. addiction is like one of the hardest things to deal with. i'm glad to see ur trying to make that step. good luck dawg!

were gonna miss you dawg!!!

not scammer but he did make me slightly sad recently. was doing uber eats in oly about 10 months ago, he asked for a water bottle and a tac bacon, i met him at the designated airfield while we were both enemy gang, and we managed to exchange the items and the money for those items without any hassle. but also a couple days ago he shot me when i was naked in athira after just spawning it that made me very sad

Milo actually engaged with my points intellectually AND respectfully, where as you lack either. It takes me a while to profile someone, but I think I'm getting there with Milo. If we look at his message: This is such an ELITE, KING TIER message right here. Remaining firm in his convictions, showing respect, yet not letting his own intellect be pranced around and evaded by someone attempting to undermine his walls, rather than tackle them directly. He manages to show his respect by challenging you with this message. And it's beautiful. If we look at other examples like his "apolocheese" for when mines had a 99% EV, or the way he lets rampant @'s on discord flow off his back like water. Milo is one of the best staff in this server, and I am not afraid to call many staff members retarded. Although I do not like using that word, I feel I become a worse more hateful person every time I say that word against someone with genuine emotion. If we look at @ Gwate , his comments definitely lacked respect, and despite saying he was not gonna proof read any of what I wrote, he kind of did. But what he had was intellectual rigor, and while I believe he has a long way to go, along with myself, and along with all of us, but especially with him. I really do respect that he engaged with my messages, challenging me with his views. And if we look at the messages from the sRNR, we can see what honestly appears to be to be the issue with the RNR in its current state. They are weak, their comments are nothing more than a drive by, they are unwilling to discuss the issues of how underpowered the RNR faction is, and how abusable the RNR is to the other two factions. They act as if it is not a problem, they act like because they fly around a xian every once in a while they are helping cultivate a good culture in the organization. They act as if contradictory logic in the handbooks is their strength, that is if they are even willing to admit there is logic in the handbook. I will say from my understanding marcus did basically have to solo write that entire thing, but maybe if you did that you could try accepting help from others when they have comments, rather than shunning them.

no collision lights is one i do regularlay because i don't have to take them hostage, but i get to have a fun littile interaction with the RNR, normally they just turn their collision lights off and go on with their merry way. but i guess i can start taking them hostage for 15 minutes and then killing them if APD doesn't come within that time. s My issue with this characterization is how you separate how hostage-taking does change the positive status of the individual arrested. When you hostage take someone, they are unable to participate in their active duties. You may be a medic in name when you are taken into a rebel area but you are not participating in any medical activities as you are unable to. If you took a medic hostage then forced them to do the role of a medic in a illegal area without another higher ranked medic present then you would be forcing them to break the rule. A better way to understand this is a medic violates a rule when in the pursuit of their duties they wilfully undermine or break a rule. Your mostly interpreting the handbook in a way which I thought would cause some more ridiculous outcomes, but would still be consistent, with the exception of some new stuff about medics being in a different state when they are a hostage. I think you might be conflating the medic being a hostage, with the medic being restrained. The general idea I'm getting from this is: If I restrained a medic, I can bring them anywhere, fed, illegal areas, gang turfs/gang base, whatever. But if I try to force them to do something in that situation, then it would be against the rules? How would this play out if I have a medic hostage, say fighting the cops at frog pro, then the cops tell him to "leave the area or be tazed", is he no longer allowed to stay there unless he is restrained? The cops can just completely nullify the ability of a medic to do anything when he is a hostage? In the rules it mentions hostages medic hostages being able to provide service to people they are instructed to, you can't do that while restrained, which means they do have some freedom of movement to refuse to be in that area. also, it turns out that even though an EMT "must" not enter a redzone unless escorted by APD or superior medic, there is apparently a surprise "common sense" exception, the same "common sense" which doesn't apply to being able to force them to turn off collision lights, a matter equivalent to trying to force a medic to drop their medkit apparently.

As stated in the preface: "I don't much care for saving myself a few extra hours so I can get back in the server faster. What I care about is being able to say that I followed the rules and the handbook reasonably, and that my actions were reasonable and did not justify a ban." REEEDUUUUUUUUCCCCCCEEED!!!! REEEEEEEEEEDUUUUUUUUUUCCCCCEEEEEEEDDD!!!!

I do agree with that point. but robbing medics is something that is double extra mentioned is against the rules, where as collision lights off is just a single "must", and there are either similar "must"s without "unless Y"s, that if we apply the collision light logic to, we have to apply to them as well. For example: can i take a EMT hostage, and bring them to a red zone? according to the handbook: "EMT's must be escorted by an Altis Police Department (APD) officer or higher ranking medic to enter an illegal area". So if I kidnap a medic, and we apply this collision light logic to this specific case, we can't take EMTs to an illegal area. Can I bring an EMT to a redzone? Can I force a medic to land in an open field when I tell them "land or be titaned? wtf is an OOC training event? I tried dispatching the APD but no one was telling me what was going on

I am going to extremely fret it because I heavily believe my innocence. My point remains something like: The must in this case is not like a gang turf where the wording is: "All Medic units (Meaning BOTH ground and aerial units) are prohibited to enter/participate at ALL conquest, gang base skirmish, or Active Turfs. If you are in the area of a conquest when it starts, leave the area IMMEDIATELY", but rather more like a: Like are medics just not allowed to land in a rural field if they are told "land or be titaned" because it would violate the handbook? This is one of those things where yeah it says medics can't do it, but it would have the obvious implicit exception of: unless someone is threatening you with a gun, or titan in this case. If i'm chasing a medic, trying to kill him, is he not allowed to speed in a hatchback because that would violate the handbook?