rules Law VS Justice

[MourningDove 1]

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.

 

 

Edited May 30, 2018 by MourningDove

[Zaroni Pepperoni 100]

ok, so when you have 3 corrupt police officers in real life, instead of prosecuting them in court we should simply kill them on the spot? formalism is much better than pure justice because pure justice can be altered far to easily based on your own personal morals. the problem was not that you saw injustice, the problem was you acted as a vigilante when there were others who could solve the problem much better. the /report feature exists for a reason.

also, those 2 other officers had not broken many, if any at all, rules up to that point. was it Just to lump them in with the one who had? just food for thought.

Edited May 30, 2018 by Zaroni Pepperoni

[Catfisher 112]

Listen, there's certain situations where the "Law" and "Justice" as you phrase it get convoluted, and according to "Law" someone with good intentions must be punished. The problem is, if it was fully left up to the staff if someone had good intentions when breaking the rules and did it for "Justice", it would lead to insurmountable bias and extreme abuse. It would be way to easy for someone to break the "Law" and claim it was for "Justice". People with bad intentions could mask them as good, and get away with anything. "Law" should be enforced strictly, but should be enforced less depending on certain situations, such as someone being unaware of it or someone doing it for "Justice".  This is already how it works, and I'm sorry that your situation fell under an undesirable outcome.

[MourningDove 1]

3 hours ago, Zaroni Pepperoni said:

ok, so when you have 3 corrupt police officers in real life, instead of prosecuting them in court we should simply kill them on the spot? formalism is much better than pure justice because pure justice can be altered far to easily based on your own personal morals. the problem was not that you saw injustice, the problem was you acted as a vigilante when there were others who could solve the problem much better. the /report feature exists for a reason.

That's why I believe we need a mix of the two. I don't think vigilance should be rewarded, but when it comes to moments that are very situational (I.E: Banker being false warranted, admins are absent and/or too busy with the thousands of reports), the vigilant should be punished lightly. Pure formalism and pure justice are not good ideas but a mix is better. That's why I say we need to adjust as it feels like this server runs to much on pure formalism. Honestly the only justice side of the server is the administration being able to give the final word of the punishment.

Thank you for your comment, it helps me see the other side.

[Tripppy 18]

I genuinely agree with this and it's something that ticks me off so much. The community I played on was allowed to give BOTDs out to people, which mean the benefit of the doubt. Most DarkRP servers have rules/laws in place to keep the server in one-piece, but I fucking hate the zero tolerance feeling on GG. When someone breaks the rules, but no one is negatively impacted - people go out and report them, insult them just because of the FACT they broke a rule. It doesn't even need to be justice! Like let's say you're on the server and you spawn in an unfrozen baby doll as a thief, you're having fun - mucking around and other people have fun sometimes even roleplaying, but there's that one person to report you for simply breaking a rule and you get a warn plastered on your name.

Edited May 30, 2018 by Tripppy