🚔😡 SHOCKING: Police Department in Olympus Entertainment - Mecca for Gamers Caught Red-Handed—Unfair Treatment EXPOSED! 🚔😡

[JDC 235]

Like it was stated in the IA @ knifemaster had every right to ram the plane as you and your gang were trolling the APD and preventing them from leaving HQ.

I like @ Winters comment "Play stupid games, win stupid prizes".

You and your gang are notorious for being trolls and doing anything for attention.

You trolled excessively and made this post for attention.

Now it's time to pipe down and maybe think twice about trolling excessively.

[Bubbaloo - Reusable P Cup 2918]

I believe that other measures should have been taken to move the planes out of the way. But what he did was still not in the wrong. 
 

Also, think of it like the vehicles blocking the jail bridge. If they are blocking the only path to the jail, we are blowing them up, wether it be by mistake or by trying to move them. 
 

The only reason players lock pick hunters at fed when they are blocking the dome is because they would more than likely get blown up themselves if they try to move them with their own vehicles.  
 
You blocked both gates man. This was bound to happen. 

 

 

[Rufus 270]

14 minutes ago, JDC said:

You and your gang are notorious for being trolls and doing anything for attention.

And you're notorious for your actions around children bud No offence, I'm just being honest, but you're the single most creepy person I've ever come across and Oly and I met that pedophile guy from VX. 

[Boovin 289]

24 minutes ago, JDC said:

Like it was stated in the IA @ knifemaster had every right to ram the plane as you and your gang were trolling the APD and preventing them from leaving HQ.

I like @ Winters comment "Play stupid games, win stupid prizes".

You and your gang are notorious for being trolls and doing anything for attention.

You trolled excessively and made this post for attention.

Now it's time to pipe down and maybe think twice about trolling excessively.

thanks for putting the trolling in bold it really helped me digest your reply

14 minutes ago, Bubbaloo Burrito said:

I believe that other measures should have been taken to move the planes out of the way. But what he did was still not in the wrong. 
 

Also, think of it like the vehicles blocking the jail bridge. If they are blocking the only path to the jail, we are blowing them up, wether it be by mistake or by trying to move them. 
 

The only reason players lock pick hunters at fed when they are blocking the dome is because they would more than likely get blown up themselves if they try to move them with their own vehicles.  
 
You blocked both gates man. This was bound to happen. 

 

 

literally the day before, probably not even 24 hours earlier they forced a PO to comp for doing the exact same thing, and the PO didn’t even kill anyone, but when an FTO does it it’s all good

If I park my helicopter in kavala square its bound to get blown up

[ZimZim 236]

I am big fan of knife and Xlax so this is not against them, BUT I really do think ramming the plan there was a bad decision. Could have done other ways such as asking or pushing (can't tell from the video if he was asked to move the plane or not.) First solution to planes blocking the gates should not be to ram them and blow them up. ALSO the whole "cops can ram shit in the fed" should definitely be written somewhere. 

Is blocking the gates a dickhead move? Sure. But they should not resort to VDM as first means.

[Boovin 289]

Just now, ZimZim said:

I am big fan of knife and Xlax so this is not against them, BUT I really do think ramming the plan there was a bad decision. Could have done other ways such as asking or pushing (can't tell from the video if he was asked to move the plane or not.) First solution to planes blocking the gates should not be to ram them and blow them up. ALSO the whole "cops can ram shit in the fed" should definitely be written somewhere. 

Is blocking the gates a dickhead move? Sure. But they should not resort to VDM as first means.

this is literally the point of this entire post, we were being cunts blocking the gates but there’s a difference between ramming something and not even attempting to resolve it in any other way and just blowing shit up while the guy who owns the plane is stood next to it

[ZimZim 236]

19 minutes ago, Boovin said:

this is literally the point of this entire post, we were being cunts blocking the gates but there’s a difference between ramming something and not even attempting to resolve it in any other way and just blowing shit up while the guy who owns the plane is stood next to it

So yea I guess I agree with y'all, it could and should have been handled differently. I also see the cops POV.. they are probably annoyed from feds happening and then this trolling on top of it set them over the edge. With something like this, we know nothing will come from it because it is sort of a gray area imo. Just be cut and clear in the rules if they are allowed to ram anything in their way (if cops can ram shit in their way, civs should be able to aswell)

[GST 180]

1 hour ago, doubleueyeceekay said:

Why should I give any grace to the APD when I specifically requested not to be channel stacked, knifemaster said no in the dispute, I was moved into the channel and channel stacked anyways? It wasn't some fact finding mission it was just a cross-examination by some sanctimonious basement dwellers and during the cross examination more goons joined? I am 100% justified in taking these "potshots" (criticism with satirical qualities) and I do not care if it looks petty because what happened was very silly as @ Boovin  has explained, and as the post in total explains. 

You were in the TeamSpeak channel stack at the time, why didn't you say any of this rather than just sitting and enjoying the condescension?

Stop relying on ""rules"" that aren't written and complaining when people call out the fact that the rules aren't written. There's good reason why actual laws are written down. 

I will quickly add that I appreciate that you are one of the more reasonable members of the senior APD but quite frankly the way the others act rubs a lot of people the wrong way.

So prior to speaking to you, myself, Xlax and a few others were discussing both points to the IA you put in.

Following this you had wanted to discuss things in teamspeak, as I can quite rightly understand. Subsequently, we were attempting to find the “rule” that stated this incident. However during this time it was clear that it wasn’t written down, and it was an “unwritten” rule. 

To make absolutely clear, I can understand your frustration with the idea that it was just “made up”. However if it were written in there I don’t think anyone would have looked twice because it makes sense. 

That is not to excuse it not being there, but instead to bring validity to a point you made in your argument. I am not here to dismiss your points, rather to discuss them. 

During the time in TS we were present to hear what you had to say and listen to the outcome of proceedings. Aside from Xlax and Knifemaster, the others present in the TS channel did not say a word, and that was purposeful so you wouldn’t feel ganged up on. Because ultimately that wouldn’t have been fair.

I do not believe Xlax was at any point being condescending. That is my perspective, and if I had believed he was I would have discussed this with him and / or interjected. However I believe he handled it with decorum and respect.

Following this we instantly stated that this should be put in writing somewhere, so that everyone can have access to this information. Ultimately it is for staff to decide, however I would rather bring validity to what you are saying than to start jabbing at people to extenuate your point, surrounding it in pettiness.

 

 

 

 

[Odyssey 3]

All shit posting aside, as I am an APD career player. I believe this is a good not so good callout to audit and review the handbook for gaps such as this. Although this does fall within the Use Common Sense domain. 
 

@ GST  this should be used to update our APD handbook to include things such as “tactical pit” and other “gray areas” of the handbook. Not only does it put it in writing for APD to note and not have any confusion during situations like this, but also new players and deputies can note what they can and cannot do as opposed to what that may be able to do. 
 

Don’t want this misunderstood, I completely agree with the actions taken by sAPD, @ Xlax , and @ knifemaster but to cover our bases in the future and to not waste anyone’s time this could be a simple inclusion as well as just a routine audit and update of APD policies with approval from Staff / Council. 
 

@ Milo  is Switzerland, put some respec on the name

[G H O S T 164]

46 minutes ago, Rufus said:

And you're notorious for your actions around children bud No offence, I'm just being honest, but you're the single most creepy person I've ever come across and Oly and I met that pedophile guy from VX. 

@ JDC didn’t deserve all that

[ZimZim 236]

51 minutes ago, Rufus said:

And you're notorious for your actions around children bud No offence, I'm just being honest, but you're the single most creepy person I've ever come across and Oly and I met that pedophile guy from VX. 

If he is the most creepy, obviously you have not met @ FaXe and @ CaloomClark

[Milo 551]

2 hours ago, Boovin said:

The only thing I needed to know about you is you failed your flight test on medic, blew the entire situation out of proportion and then lied to me and another medic in a channel to try and get possibly the best RnR supervisor at the time removed from his position out of anger/spite  

So this is an interesting take. Typically there is a point in these kind of threads where I feel like it is less constructive to continue discussion so I don't reply anymore but I would like to address this as I believe that it may have been ill-represented to you by me (or whoever else said it to you at the time). Since it was so long ago, I honestly have no recollection of what I did comment on the subject. I would like to get a few things straight though.

I loved @ PolarBear . If he came back and expressed interest in the currently vacant supervisor slot, and I was for some reason asked for my vote, I would absolutely vote in favor of him coming back. PolarBear was one of the most fun and active Supervisors I had the oppurtunity of playing with in the R&R. When I failed with that flight test, I had a discussion with him that I disagreed with the verdict that I failed. His position was that he believed I was not quite ready yet. Honestly, valid arguments from both sides. Knowing more about the R&R that I do now and not being quite literally a new basic paramedic, I probably would've never even pursued to appeal it as at the end of the day as I did have the oppurtunity to retake it.

Even though at the time I disagreed with his decision, I'd like to mention at zero point did I attempt to petition his removal. In fact during that appeal, I actually went out of my way to reiterate that multiple times how much of a great dude I thought he was. Funnily enough less then a week ago after all this time @ Marcus  and I were talking about this exact situation as I made reference to it and he could not remember the details with so much time having passed. Marcus gave PolarBear nothing short of a stellar and glowing review reminiscing on his time as supervisor, and I agreed with his assesment.

...

Never thought I would have a dirty laundry post haha but I did genuinley want to clear this up, because @ PolarBear  is a great dude, and I would never petition for his removal. To date, he may have been one of the most fun and active supervisors the R&R has ever had. As much as I remember disagreeing and it feeling like a big deal, I do regret how I handled it, and how it much it blew up to be a bigger situation then it needed to be. PolarBear if you see this, I hope you are doing well

[Boovin 289]

5 minutes ago, Milo said:

So this is an interesting take. Typically there is a point in these kind of threads where I feel like it is less constructive to continue discussion so I don't reply anymore but I would like to address this as I believe that it may have been ill-represented to you by me (or whoever else said it to you at the time). Since it was so long ago, I honestly have no recollection of what I did comment on the subject. I would like to get a few things straight though.

I loved @ PolarBear . If he came back and expressed interest in the currently vacant supervisor slot, and I was for some reason asked for my vote, I would absolutely vote in favor of him coming back. PolarBear was one of the most fun and active Supervisors I had the oppurtunity of playing with in the R&R. When I failed with that flight test, I had a discussion with him that I disagreed with the verdict that I failed. His position was that he believed I was not quite ready yet. Honestly, valid arguments from both sides. Knowing more about the R&R that I do now and not being quite literally a new basic paramedic, I probably would've never even pursued to appeal it as at the end of the day I did have the oppurtunity to retake it.

Even though at the time I disagreed with his decision, I'd like to mention at zero point did I attempt to petition his removal. In fact during that appeal, I actually went out of my way to reiterate that multiple times how much of a great dude I thought he was. Funnily enough less then a week ago after all this time @ Marcus  and I were talking about this exact situation as I made reference to it and he could not remember the details with so much time having passed. Marcus gave PolarBear nothing short of a stellar and glowing review reminiscing on his time as supervisor, and I agreed with his assesment.

...

Never thought I would have a dirty laundry post haha but I did genuinley want to clear this up, because @ PolarBear  is a great dude, and I would never petition for his removal. To date, he may have been one of the most fun and active supervisors the R&R has ever had. As much as I remember disagreeing and it feeling like a big deal, I do regret how I handled it, and how it much it blew up to be a bigger situation then it needed to be. PolarBear if you see this, I hope you are doing well

if i found a dog with no name i would call it milo and then put it down 
 

 

[LULA 2022 - PT 13 415]

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

[Milo 551]

2 hours ago, doubleueyeceekay said:

I will quickly add that I appreciate that you are one of the more reasonable members of the senior APD

Absolute huge plus one on this @ GST  is truly one of the best sAPD members of all time. Probably would've never even sought out joining whitelisted factions and by affect probably would've never looked into joining development had it not been for the way he represented the APD at the time I played civ.
That being said though if he puts you on a boat you should be very concered!

[doubleueyeceekay 445]

1 hour ago, JDC said:

Like it was stated in the IA @ knifemaster had every right to ram the plane as you and your gang were trolling the APD and preventing them from leaving HQ.

I like @ Winters comment "Play stupid games, win stupid prizes".

You and your gang are notorious for being trolls and doing anything for attention.

You trolled excessively and made this post for attention.

Now it's time to pipe down and maybe think twice about trolling excessively.

This just in from senior support team – trolling means you can carte blanche VDM people, I’ll quote this on my next ban appeal. If people play the game in non standard ways the correct solution is to not break the rules against them, fairly certain that’s in the server rules. There was staff online, if I was “trolling excessively” why didn’t the multiple staff online including on APD tell me not to do it? Your argument is one of the reasons why people think support team are a joke

1 hour ago, Bubbaloo Burrito said:

I believe that other measures should have been taken to move the planes out of the way. But what he did was still not in the wrong. 
 

Also, think of it like the vehicles blocking the jail bridge. If they are blocking the only path to the jail, we are blowing them up, wether it be by mistake or by trying to move them. 
 

The only reason players lock pick hunters at fed when they are blocking the dome is because they would more than likely get blown up themselves if they try to move them with their own vehicles.  
 
You blocked both gates man. This was bound to happen. 

 

 

The IA where I blocked one gate was also declined for similar reasons so your argument doesn't really hold much water here. Can you as staff say that if someone is doing a fed you can ram the cars that the APD use to block the gates, without staff punishment if they blow up?

 

1 hour ago, Rufus said:

And you're notorious for your actions around children bud No offence, I'm just being honest, but you're the single most creepy person I've ever come across and Oly and I met that pedophile guy from VX. 

Well said

33 minutes ago, LULA 2022 - PT 13 said:

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

More in detail than any of the case summaries I'd written in law school (phd candidate btw), couple of inaccuracies but I enjoyed the read nonetheless

[LULA 2022 - PT 13 415]

11 minutes ago, doubleueyeceekay said:

More in detail than any of the case summaries I'd written in law school (phd candidate btw), couple of inaccuracies but I enjoyed the read nonetheless

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.

[Arigato 433]

2 hours ago, Rufus said:

 I met that pedophile guy from VX. 

no you didn't

[G H O S T 164]

1 hour ago, Boovin said:

if i found a dog with no name i would call it milo and then put it down 

@ Milo didn’t deserve all that

[Bubbaloo - Reusable P Cup 2918]

1 hour ago, doubleueyeceekay said:

The IA where I blocked one gate was also declined for similar reasons so your argument doesn't really hold much water here. Can you as staff say that if someone is doing a fed you can ram the cars that the APD use to block the gates, without staff punishment if they blow up?

I understand. It’s different for civilians and they will get into trouble if reported. However, I don’t hand out bans myself for these kind of VDM’s. 

Because I’m looking for some kind of balance, I’ll be bringing this up at our Saturday staff meeting. 

[doubleueyeceekay 445]

Will anything likely change though :s 

[Mudiwa 772]

maybe dont stand infront of gate retard

I woulda done the same thing

[Larkerz 166]

rewrite APD handbook to include all "unofficial" rules, and if it isnt in the handbook it should be taken as unallowed (depending on the situation of course) if it is deemed a necessary rule then add it. stop all this retard "actually it is allowed" bs

also remove winters

[Boovin 289]

22 minutes ago, Larkerz said:

rewrite APD handbook to include all "unofficial" rules, and if it isnt in the handbook it should be taken as unallowed (depending on the situation of course) if it is deemed a necessary rule then add it. stop all this retard "actually it is allowed" bs

also remove winters

to include all the unofficial rules that aren’t common sense to niggas who have a job and do other shit  

also leak the sAPD Snapchat I want to see winters sending pics of him drinking a can of monster in bed at 9pm captioned make your hours everyone or we finna see wassup 

[Elijah1 31]

Damm apparently if you type a book 40 people will reply