What's new

[Successful] Faction complaint against SASP

Status
Not open for further replies.

Shine-Box

Silver Member
Joined
Sep 21, 2016
Messages
983
Master Account Name: ShineBox
In Game Name: Frank Sarno
Faction Name: San Andreas State Police
Faction Member(s) involved: Stoyan Georgiev, Nathan Peralta, Kiyoko Hayashi, Kyle Patrick, Lauren Colbert, Martin Houston
Offence: - Powergame & Metagame


Evidence:


Witnesses: Jackson Ciello, Walter Funiciello, Charles Spagnelli, Cesar Jaguando
Additional Information: The nature of this faction complaint is very, very simple.
We have done absolutely NOTHING wrong in order to attract negative attention from the police, which can be backed up by a video of 1 hour and 15 minutes I have. However I have uploaded only the part where we have been pulled over because of the file being quite heavy and because I think the main issue is what happened during the pull over itself.

As you can see from the video, we have been pulled over by 3, a 4th one arrived shortly after. Now, I do not know what was the reason for having us pulled over with all those units, I really don't unless we were clearly seen armed or doing anything, but more than a traffic rule broken, I don't think that warrants all those units to pull us over. As we pull over, I had a MAC in my hand and you can see I have even asked a Helper how to scroll that weapon off my hand and hide it. As Jackie dropped his gun under the seat, they all went crazy saying they would see the him leaning forward. If an individual is seen doing that, they assume right away it's a weapon being concealed, not a registration being taken from a glovebox compartment or a door compartment, nothing like that. His name above his head is italian, he must be armed, unless it's a random English/American name, who we may believe it is just a civilian at that point right?

Nonetheless, as Jackson Ciello RPed sliding his gun under the seat, they asked for backup as you can see from the radio, where they asked for more units. This, was the first sign of Metagame.
Second sign of Metagame and Powergame is when Jackson Ciello RPed rolling down the window SLIGHTLY. As he rolled down the window, I was still holding my MAC scriptwise, the cruisers who were BEHIND US and not NEXT to us could not physically see what was inside the car, especially what was in my hands or on my lap. As the windows went down, you can see that they begin to align the units, step out from their cruisers and take aim as they had confirmation that we were armed, by seeing the gun in my hand as the window went down.

1) They could not physically see from BEHIND our car what was in my hand, if they did, that is PG.
2) As they could not see what was in my hand, they could only see it thanks to the SAMP camera that you can move around thanks to the mouse in order to get a good angle to look inside the vehicle once the windows went down. Physically, that is absolutely impossible to do.

On top of that, I'd like to add one last thing. Considering we have not been seen walking around with guns in our hands, I'd like to know on what basis we were pulled over and why you guys took your weapons out, taking aim on us and clearly approach us like you were 100% sure you were dealing with a situation involving armed suspects. This is a clear situation of rulebreaking here, because there is no other explanation to such an approach by you guys to 4 random people in a car. Sure, perhaps a few traffic laws were broken, but that does NOT warrant such a thing, like "OH he failed to yeld to a stop sign/traffic lights, he must be armed!". Really, what is this?

Last thing I am going to add. If you are going to reply by saying that you pulled us over based on a tip off received by a 911 call or something like that, saying that we were armed, that is just as bad and shows you're just trigger happy. Realistically, you may pull the car over and have a look, but an approach like that? Plain stupid. We were pulled over earlier by another cruiser and we dropped the guns under the seat but no big fuss was made about it like you guys did. If they were gonna search the car we were gonna be screwed, and their approach was great. But you to appraoch us like that with no basis whatsoever to act like that apart from a random tip off? You pulled us over with 3 cruisers and were on standby waiting for a 4th cruiser(that is already bad anyway), and as as you saw the gun from the window being rolled down, you take aim? Sure, get us out of the car and against the wall while you search the car or something, but to AIM your weapons at the 4 of us like that like you were 100% sure we were carrying? Sorry but no, I am not gonna accept that as a reason, your reason was not the tip off, your reason was that you saw the gun through the window when you realistically would not be able to. Therefore you PGed/MGed that, and funny enough you only took aim when the windows were rolled down and the MAC that was in my hand became visible, which you wouldn't be able to see anyway from where you were located, realistically.

Other Comments: I'd like to kindly request request that noadmin part of SASP takes this report, as that would be clearly conflict of interests. I'd like an admin who is not part of SASP and therefore a neutral party to take this report. Just to keep it fair for us all.
Thank you.
 

Alexi

Retired Admin
Joined
Jan 16, 2011
Messages
5,392
Location
Finland
Re: Faction complaint against SASP

I'd like to kindly request request that noadmin part of SASP takes this report, as that would be clearly conflict of interests. I'd like an admin who is not part of SASP and therefore a neutral party to take this report. Just to keep it fair for us all.
Thank you.
Fyi, If a faction administrator is part of a faction which has a complaint on them, they never get their say in the outcome.
 

Danny

Retired Admin
Joined
Oct 7, 2013
Messages
1,388
Location
California, USA
Re: Faction complaint against SASP

You'll receive a formal response from the faction once we're done gathering information for an official statement.
 

Shine-Box

Silver Member
Joined
Sep 21, 2016
Messages
983
Re: Faction complaint against SASP

I would also like to point out one thing that I noticed in the video, which is a further hint to the fact they PGed/MGed the fact that we were holding any form of weaponry.

Beside the fact that they somehow saw the UZI in my hand as soon as the window went down, in the video you can see Jackson Ciello RPing to reach forward for his wallet as he slides his gun under the seat. Lauren Colbert says ind /do "Surely we'd be able to see that". Jackson Ciello stores something under the seat at 1:08 in the video, at 1:14 Stoyan Georgiev asks in /do if they would see that. At 1:31 Lauren Colbert says in /do that they would see Jackson reaching down at least. Pay attention to where Lauren is, driver seat, two cars behind. With all that in her line of sight, it's beyond me how she'd be able to see that.

But sadly, no you wouldn't see it. Not to mention that Lauren is 2 cars behind us so I don't know how she would see that, but even the crusier behind us would have a bit of struggle to see that. Why? Because keep in mind they are positioned right behind our car, 7-8 feet behind. If you look straight into the car, there's the backseats, there is me and Charles Spagnelli with our heads and our shoulders, there are the front seats (which are not invisible objects, if I may make this clear) and then there is Jackson Ciello with Walter Funiciello. I'd like to know how would they know what sort of action Jackson Ciello did, since they clearly RPed they would see what Jackson did and that they probably saw my UZI in hand as well, when technically, they were not able at all.

All of this was metagamed, and the fact that to begin with, there are 3 cruisers, plus a Sultan and an eventual 4th cruiser joining up, says a lot.

Thank you again, just had to add this bit as I did not mention it previously and just noticed it.
 

Shine-Box

Silver Member
Joined
Sep 21, 2016
Messages
983
Re: Faction complaint against SASP

I'd like to know how did the Aperture agent knew we were armed.

I suppose it's the agent in the car. Stranger 1905. Feel free to join and explain how could you confirm we were armed and on what basis. since we NEVER stepped out of the car with weapons in hand, in broad daylight. I can upload the entire video of 1 hour and 15 minutes on a website for an administrator to verify that my claims are true and all of this was indeed metagamed. Though I will have to do it overnight.
 

Kemp

Retired Admin
Joined
Mar 31, 2013
Messages
6,459
Location
United Kingdom
Re: Faction complaint against SASP

This is our second rebuttal. It's quite clear the SASP weren't in the wrong, in the slightest increment, given the fact that the SASP were informed. I've also had Lawson's posts removed as he's not supposed to post here. I'll include evidence below supporting that the SASP weren't in contravention of any rules as we received intelligence in-character which we're obviously going to proceed with executing in-character.

[00:13:59] [Radio - CENSORED AP FREQ MHz] [Quiet] Stranger ((1905)): Got an admiral chasing a Sanchez.
[00:16:00] [Agency] Junior Agent Stranger ((1905)) says: Black Admiral took interest in some Sanchezes, possible revenge for hit on a taxi driver that
[00:16:00] occured earlier in Montgomery.
[00:16:04] [SASP] Lieutenant Stoyan Georgiev says: Copy.
[00:16:08] [Agency] Junior Agent Stranger ((1905)) says: Could be armed, watch yourselves. Agency out.

Stoyan Georgiev said:
I finish a situation ( think it was a 10-57 ) and I clear. While I was in the pursuit, we received a 9-1-1 in regards four occupants in a black Admiral robbing/being armed/shooting at somebody - I can't remember exactly what was mentioned, but it involved guns. Once I was status 4 and patrolling, we receive another 9-1-1 about the same black Admiral, the same individuals - again armed. I decide to respond to Montgomery. On arrival, I see that the black ADmiral is there - also you can see there's a man down on the road, we don't know if that's not a victim from them or anything, but it can't be left unnoticed. So far we have 2 units responding - me and another GOLF(think it was). Golf tells me this is the Admiral from the 9-1-1 and we initiate a code 5. I'm thinking - it's 4 occupants, we have 2 units, should be enough for a code 5. Keep in mind that we were never sure about them being armed and we never knew anything for sure. In the next second, Aperture contacts SP over departmental radio. The agent tells me something like: SP, proceed with caution, the black Admiral you just pulled over at MPD is armed. From there, we know that AP won't give us false information and EVEN if it wasn't true - we had to take the neccesary precautions and call for more units. I called for more backup, as 2 units might not be enough. While the backup arrives, these guys RP hiding something. As seen in the video, we would be able to identify any kind of movement in the vehicle - that would bring even MORE suspicion. It all stacks up. Male down, 2 9-1-1s, Aperture confirming they're armed, movement inside the car. Honestly, I think not only 1, but 2 of them RPed hiding their weapons.
As soon as we got that much info, our backup arrived and we proceeded with the code 8 which they seem to find as really absurd( no idea why?).

I think they got it all wrong from the input in the complaint. They speak up about powergaming? SAMP Camera usage? Are these guys for real? How can we move the camera and see what's inside when we're -inside- our cruisers, which pretty much obstructs your camera as it is always centered to your vehicle so you cannot peek and see what's inside the Admiral..

About the metagaming part: I understand that they're tossing this complaint at us - from their perspective, it might look as metagaming, but we had IC information delivered to us from different parties about them. What shocks them more and makes them think it was complete MG was the fact that we called for a lot of backup. We did that because it was 4 of them, if it was only 1, we wouldn't need more than 2 units(partnered). I would never initiate a code 8 being outnumbered(or even numbers) especially when we've received information for them to be armed. These guys expect us to perform code 8 on 4 armed suspects with 2 units? In the middle of Montgomery - which is considered to be one of the most crowded areas - nah, not happening.
 

Shine-Box

Silver Member
Joined
Sep 21, 2016
Messages
983
Re: Faction complaint against SASP

[00:13:59] [Radio - CENSORED AP FREQ MHz] [Quiet] Stranger ((1905)): Got an admiral chasing a Sanchez.
[00:16:00] [Agency] Junior Agent Stranger ((1905)) says: Black Admiral took interest in some Sanchezes, possible revenge for hit on a taxi driver that
[00:16:00] occured earlier in Montgomery.
[00:16:04] [SASP] Lieutenant Stoyan Georgiev says: Copy.
[00:16:08] [Agency] Junior Agent Stranger ((1905)) says: Could be armed, watch yourselves. Agency out.

^ This came from the Agent who reported it to us, thanks my saviour <3.
"Could" be armed, that is NOT confirmation that we are armed. Different it was if he said "They are armed."

So please lol. Let me ask this. If that Sanchez rammed into my car and dove off and we were after them as they took off, we'd get pulled over like that and be asked to step out with hands in the air because you'd assume we're a bunch of hitman? This is MG at its finest.

And no, the "112 send" doesn't check out, why? Because the Aperture agent who most likely was armed to the teeth was there, you replied with that "112 send" at 1:56 and started getting in formation at 2:00, which is 2 SECONDS after the windows were rolled down and my UZI became visible.

This is total crap, excuse my french. You are saying you truly were going to proceed for a normal traffic stop BEFORE Aperture told you we were armed? There were still 3 cruisers pulling us over, and I don't understand why is that. For the whole time your intentions were to pull that stunt, and the fact that you were trying to find a reason to proceed clearly hints to that. The /do asking if you would see Jackson reaching down, but the most shocking one was to see the UZI I had in hand when windows were rolled down, even though you were behind me. Whatever it is, however you put it, Aperture did not confirm we were armed, he said there was a possibility we were. But you don't just pull a stunt like that for a normal traffic stop, without knowing we were armed or not. I stand my case, you metagamed Jackson's /me and the UZI from my window. I wouldn't be surprised if you were gonna ask for the SWAT team to back you up during the traffic stop on a bunch of people that all you have about them is a 911 call about them being armed.
 

Kemp

Retired Admin
Joined
Mar 31, 2013
Messages
6,459
Location
United Kingdom
Re: Faction complaint against SASP

The Lieutenant authorised Code 8 protocol, which is a felony stop. This is normal procedure whenever we have a suspicion that the subject vehicle is considered dangerous / is armed. In this case, we had intelligence from a governmental agency. We're not going to proceed with a normal traffic stop and risk our lives, that's stupid. That's the whole reason the Code 8 protocol (a felony stop, which is what they did) exists. They did nothing wrong in this instance, they were merely following protocol and going off of the intelligence they received in-character by Aperture.
 

Shine-Box

Silver Member
Joined
Sep 21, 2016
Messages
983
Re: Faction complaint against SASP

Kemp said:
This is our second rebuttal. It's quite clear the SASP weren't in the wrong, in the slightest increment, given the fact that the SASP were informed. I've also had Lawson's posts removed as he's not supposed to post here. I'll include evidence below supporting that the SASP weren't in contravention of any rules as we received intelligence in-character which we're obviously going to proceed with executing in-character.

[00:13:59] [Radio - CENSORED AP FREQ MHz] [Quiet] Stranger ((1905)): Got an admiral chasing a Sanchez.
[00:16:00] [Agency] Junior Agent Stranger ((1905)) says: Black Admiral took interest in some Sanchezes, possible revenge for hit on a taxi driver that
[00:16:00] occured earlier in Montgomery.
[00:16:04] [SASP] Lieutenant Stoyan Georgiev says: Copy.
[00:16:08] [Agency] Junior Agent Stranger ((1905)) says: Could be armed, watch yourselves. Agency out.

Stoyan Georgiev said:
I finish a situation ( think it was a 10-57 ) and I clear. While I was in the pursuit, we received a 9-1-1 in regards four occupants in a black Admiral robbing/being armed/shooting at somebody - I can't remember exactly what was mentioned, but it involved guns. Once I was status 4 and patrolling, we receive another 9-1-1 about the same black Admiral, the same individuals - again armed. I decide to respond to Montgomery. On arrival, I see that the black ADmiral is there - also you can see there's a man down on the road, we don't know if that's not a victim from them or anything, but it can't be left unnoticed. So far we have 2 units responding - me and another GOLF(think it was). Golf tells me this is the Admiral from the 9-1-1 and we initiate a code 5. I'm thinking - it's 4 occupants, we have 2 units, should be enough for a code 5. Keep in mind that we were never sure about them being armed and we never knew anything for sure. In the next second, Aperture contacts SP over departmental radio. The agent tells me something like: SP, proceed with caution, the black Admiral you just pulled over at MPD is armed. From there, we know that AP won't give us false information and EVEN if it wasn't true - we had to take the neccesary precautions and call for more units. I called for more backup, as 2 units might not be enough. While the backup arrives, these guys RP hiding something. As seen in the video, we would be able to identify any kind of movement in the vehicle - that would bring even MORE suspicion. It all stacks up. Male down, 2 9-1-1s, Aperture confirming they're armed, movement inside the car. Honestly, I think not only 1, but 2 of them RPed hiding their weapons.
As soon as we got that much info, our backup arrived and we proceeded with the code 8 which they seem to find as really absurd( no idea why?).

I think they got it all wrong from the input in the complaint. They speak up about powergaming? SAMP Camera usage? Are these guys for real? How can we move the camera and see what's inside when we're -inside- our cruisers, which pretty much obstructs your camera as it is always centered to your vehicle so you cannot peek and see what's inside the Admiral..

About the metagaming part: I understand that they're tossing this complaint at us - from their perspective, it might look as metagaming, but we had IC information delivered to us from different parties about them. What shocks them more and makes them think it was complete MG was the fact that we called for a lot of backup. We did that because it was 4 of them, if it was only 1, we wouldn't need more than 2 units(partnered). I would never initiate a code 8 being outnumbered(or even numbers) especially when we've received information for them to be armed. These guys expect us to perform code 8 on 4 armed suspects with 2 units? In the middle of Montgomery - which is considered to be one of the most crowded areas - nah, not happening.
Thank you for your input and thank you for confirming my report.

While the backup arrives, these guys RP hiding something. As seen in the video, we would be able to identify any kind of movement in the vehicle - that would bring even MORE suspicion.
But sadly, no you wouldn't see it. Not to mention that Lauren is 2 cars behind us so I don't know how she would see that, but even the crusier behind us would have a bit of struggle to see that. Why? Because keep in mind they are positioned right behind our car, 7-8 feet behind. If you look straight into the car, there's the backseats, there is me and Charles Spagnelli with our heads and our shoulders, there are the front seats (which are not invisible objects, if I may make this clear) and then there is Jackson Ciello with Walter Funiciello.
To enforce my point, I will borrow this quote from you:

I think they got it all wrong from the input in the complaint. They speak up about powergaming? SAMP Camera usage? Are these guys for real? How can we move the camera and see what's inside when we're -inside- our cruisers, which pretty much obstructs your camera as it is always centered to your vehicle so you cannot peek and see what's inside the Admiral..
With the SAMP camera, you can move your mouse and have a 360 of whatever is going around you, if you are 5 feet behind a corner you can also manage to see what is going on behind the corner by moving the camera, and that would happen if you would move your camera and look inside the vehicle, not having your character physically next to our window. So you basically have a lot of freedom with the camera to look around yourself, so if you say you couldn't see with the SAMP camera (which gives you a view that in real life no one has as this is a videogame indeed) then can you tell me how on earth were you able to see what was Jackson Ciello doing in his front seat, considering this about SASP officers:
they are positioned right behind our car, 7-8 feet behind. If you look straight into the car, there's the backseats, there is me and Charles Spagnelli with our heads and our shoulders, there are the front seats (which are not invisible objects, if I may make this clear) and then there is Jackson Ciello with Walter Funiciello.
So you did pretty much confirm that you wouldn't be able to see what was going on inside our vehicle (me holding a uzi) with a camera that gives you a 360 of the environment around you, but you would be able to use Xray vision to see Jackson Ciello reaching forward.

What shocks them more and makes them think it was complete MG was the fact that we called for a lot of backup.
Not quite, what shocks me the most is that, as I said, as the windows went down and the firearm became visible (which was the only confirmation OOCly you could ever had about us being armed) you got in formation.

The agent tells me something like: SP, proceed with caution, the black Admiral you just pulled over at MPD is armed. From there, we know that AP won't give us false information and EVEN if it wasn't true
This is plain bullshittery here, AP never said "They are armed", AP said there was a possibility we might have been armed. I apologise for the foul language but there is no other way to call it. Don't bullshit a bullshitter.

[00:13:59] [Radio - CENSORED AP FREQ MHz] [Quiet] Stranger ((1905)): Got an admiral chasing a Sanchez.
[00:16:00] [Agency] Junior Agent Stranger ((1905)) says: Black Admiral took interest in some Sanchezes, possible revenge for hit on a taxi driver that
[00:16:00] occured earlier in Montgomery.
[00:16:04] [SASP] Lieutenant Stoyan Georgiev says: Copy.
[00:16:08] [Agency] Junior Agent Stranger ((1905)) says: Could be armed, watch yourselves. Agency out.
You all need to get your facts straight guys. This goes back to what I said, you took formation only because you got your OOC confirmation from Jackson's /me and the fact that my uzi was visible through the window, though you would have not been able to see it as you were not anywhere near my window.
 

Shine-Box

Silver Member
Joined
Sep 21, 2016
Messages
983
Re: Faction complaint against SASP

Last thing I have to add, forgot to add it in the previous post.

AP told you that we were possibly armed at 07:16:08. You said as you were given that tip off, you got in formation. You started getting in formation at 07:17:42. That is like, 1 minute and 44 seconds after. But funny enough, that is 2 seconds after we rolled the windows down. And what do you do rather than wait for that backup you have called? You get all pumped up and step out, taking aim on our car as you knew we were armed (OOCly though) and were expecting us to open fire (which was not the case to begin with).

I don't believe in coincidences, never did and never will. Also, let me add this here, because I don't know for how long I asked you people if I could re-enter the vehicle as I ICly dropped my gun and none of you gave me a reply because you were all thinking I was probably going to open fire or something and would have rather been ready for it instead of allowing me to continue with the RP (again another confirmation you OOCly knew I was armed as you saw my gun from the window).

These logs can be checked and mirrored to the server logs.
Please notice how many times I have asked in /b, without getting a reply for almost a minute and half they have been aiming their guns at us.

[23:17:39] * Jackson Ciello rolls down all the windows on their Admiral. *

[23:17:42] [PM from Rudolph Diamanti, ID 9] Phone off?

[23:17:48] [PM from Jackson Ciello, ID 86] Oops sorry ahah

[23:17:52] [PM to Rudolph Diamanti, ID 9] ya, being pulled over lol

[23:17:54] Frank Sarno drops the gun on the floor and kicks it under the front seat, placing his feet on top of it to cover it.

[23:17:58] Screenshot Taken - sa-mp-140.png

[23:18:02] (( [OOC] Frank Sarno: May I re enter? ))

[23:18:21] Walter Funicello looks at Cesar.

[23:18:21] [Martin Houston] o< Civilian, move away from the vehicle.

[23:18:23] Cesar Jaguando says: You're fucked.

[23:18:23] (( [OOC] Jackson Ciello: How the hell you see his gun? ))

[23:18:25] (( [OOC] Frank Sarno: May I re-enter as I dropped the g un? ))

[23:18:29] How did you see the gun? ((Jackson Ciello))

[23:18:35] I rollwed my windows down slightly not all the way. ((Jackson Ciello))

[23:18:37] (( [OOC] Daryl Gates: at* ))

[23:18:39] The gun is visible in your hands. ((Cesar Jaguando))

[23:18:45] (( [OOC] Frank Sarno: It's on video anyway, let them RP that if they want ))

[23:18:48] (( [OOC] Jackson Ciello: You can't unscroll the weapon ))

[23:18:58] [Cabbie Co] Hakeem Ali is now ON duty, call 444 if you need a taxi.

[23:19:00] [Message] If a piece of furniture in your home ever disappears, you can use {44C300}/reloadmyfurniture{FFFFFF} to fix the problem.

[23:19:08] Lauren Colbert says: Patrick.

[23:19:11] * Kyle Patrick grabs their belt and unclips a taser from it. *

[23:19:14] Lauren Colbert says: Yep.

[23:19:14] (( [OOC] Frank Sarno: MAY I RE ENTER TEH VEHICLE AS I DROPPED THE GUN PLEASE? ))

[23:19:18] Jackson Ciello nods a bit as he grabs his wallet from the bag taking his ID out.

[23:19:18] (( [OOC] Stoyan Georgiev: Yes, of course. ))

[23:19:21] (( [OOC] Frank Sarno: Thank you ))

Not seeing anything wrong into all of this would be absurd.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top