Search the Community

Quick definitions before I start: Law: What is written in the community, social situation, server. Justice: What is right, usually formed when multiple members of a society/community, by common values/morals/or norms. My main issue relates to the Dark Rp as I've never really touched the Military RP. This rant is is related to an issue I recently have been week banned for and it's not the reason I'm writing this but it was the nail in the coffin. I think there is too much formalism when it comes to the rules. Now that's not bad but formalism often causes unjust situations, for example is my ban. I was a spartan countering a warrant on a banker so I killed the police who were raiding. I believe most would see that as justified. Than they warranted someone else and assuming they were false warranting, I decided to kill them again as they were having a string of false warrants, however due to my luck they actually had a valid reason. But this case doesn't stop there. That's only the Law evidence. The "victim" of the mass was recording, yet he had: edited clips, didn't give the whole clips, and cut off communication. The Justice evidence goes completely ignored. For example, the "victim" had multiple reports of NITRP, RDM'D me as Police chief (When I was mayor, and was refusing his false warrants), and had numerous trusted people (Admins, experienced players) against him. Hell he was even known for being a rule breaker but reporting the rules against people who tried to stop him. He exploits the Law portion. This means he has to not worry of the Justice side as no admins/mods/owners care for it. Yet I'm still getting banned for a bit because I thought what I did was justified. There also is another issue with pure Law mindsets in servers: Recording and data advantages. The "victim" in my case was able to record, I wasn't recording at the time nor could I capture the destruction with just a screenshot. He also has the advantage of editing out the parts where he does do wrong. Like he edited out any footage of him raiding a banker and all he has to respond with is "proof" and now I have nothing against him despite numerous people saying it, or me showing the admin that the dude is a banker. Pros and cons for pure formalism: -Law is stated and any form of breaking is punishable by stated punishment, easy on administration -Law makes it easy for those to quickly prove someone wrong with a simple piece of data if the opposing party doesn't -Easily exploitable through editing -Some data may show off what one says but could easily be a completely different story Pros and cons for a mixed justice: -Law states the punishment and that punishment stays, no adjustment. -If a party request evidence, that has/can be altered, from the opposing party than the opposing party must give the original/pure form of said evidence. -Parties who gather witnesses to prove their good intentions rather than proof of a crime committed (Example: Cop gets reported for RDA because they arrest a victim rather than the first shooter as they didn't see who shot first) -Witnesses should only be trusted (Experienced, non-bias, or administration, or those who were involved/included) (Example: The banker who I tried to save from the false warrant) -Those who have a sketchy background, exploit the rules, exploit their information may have their case dismantled if the opposing party and outside perspectives (witnesses/testimonies/logs/previous reports) shows they cannot be trusted. -Can be exploited if administration can't decided whose trusted -Can be exploited/altered by bias Pros and cons for pure Justice: -Punishments may be altered as a party may justify it's acts as righteous in common society perspective. -A victims background can prove their dishonesty -The top two can be reversed or exploited Just my rant. Take what it is. Make it better or completely degrade me. Make suggestions. And if you are the subject of the report I talked about: Don't bother.