Clonemep & CoolPilotCaio1 - "A Better Experience For All"

Elections Speeches
90

I believe FNG is under great leadership right now and does an amazing job at being an elite tactical department. I would like to work with FNG a bit on public relations and hosting events; however, I understand a majority of their operations are classified as well as their military installation floor-plans. I’d also like to work with the Department of State and FNG on deployment to other ro-states for joint trainings and other military activities.

As a member of the Governor’s cabinet, I have access to classified documents and text channels. I have always ensured that the integrity of those mediums of information are handled with due care and not leaked to unauthorized personal. Currently, if there is something I need from one of these chats, I always discuss with the Governor and await for permission before any release. As Governor, I will consult with the department heads who initially classified before any considerations of declassification in order to ensure that the integrity of the department is not lost.

Not every situation has multiple charges associated with it; however, I understand where you’re coming from as there are many ways to double up charges such as adding “Failure to Comply” and “Disorderly Conduct”. With that being said, I still support the idea that public service employees shouldn’t just rely on the individual being charged with additional crimes in the process. Instead, I want to build a system which allows for officer discretion based on the severity of the situation and most efficiently complete the arrest. I’d rather a LEO add one charge and efficiently remove the problem, and any other problem makers, then having to spend additional time trying to find ways to ensure the incarceration of the individual. At the end of the day, we want to ensure that public service employees are protected and that law enforcement can bring that protection in a timely and efficient manner.

3 Likes
92

No problem! I’m happy to respond to any questions or concerns. If you want to see my answers on other topics and such, feel free to join my Discord: https://discord.gg/2RJJvr3mmm

4 Likes
93

Support.

5 Likes
96

tow23er*

3 Likes
101

can you make me float

2 Likes
102

Yep, here’s a boat!

-Gives speedboat-

2 Likes
103

oh my- thank you

2 Likes
104

This candidate pair, while I have a lot of respect for them both as individuals, present a serious danger to the State of Firestone.

Minutes ago, a constitutional amendment to BOR.I (Freedom of Speech & Name and Badge) became law, stating that:

However, on-duty law enforcement agencies and their officers who show their names on duty, using the show name feature built in the game mechanics which clearly shows the officers username, while wearing an identifiable department uniform shall be exempt from having to additionally list their name, callsign, and/or badge number upon request. On-duty law enforcement officers who don’t clearly show their name, or otherwise hinder the showing of their name, shall still be obligated to yield parts of their right to speech upon a visible citizen’s request to know their name, callsign, and/or badge number as defined earlier in this section.

This amendment was also aye’d by: Sen. Samtella, Sen. AddieRxse, Sen. iiVortex_RBLX, Sen. CoolPilotCaio1, Sen. sharkfish82, Rep. Code_Law, Rep. ADMIRAL_RICKY, Rep. Legozak0914, Rep. Cooldudesub, Rep. GeneralCount, Rep. Robloxelsuper - and nay’d by Sen. cherrylimons - all those who enabled this serious damage to citizens’ rights should face political accountability for such

This is an eroding of the foundation of civil rights in this state. Not only is the amendment worded with poor literacy (‘on-duty law enforcement agencies and their offices who show their names on duty’) but also opens a can of worms that will only be settled in the courts; this amendment has condemned LEOs that apply it to being dragged through the courts as the failings of legislative writing are resolved by the legal system.

For instance, what constitutes an officer ‘hindering showing of their name’ – is being in a car hindering, what about being behind a wall the individual can’t pass through, they can’t see the name, but is the officer actively taking steps to hinder the viewing of their name? Shit like this is not what you want when BOR.I violations are one of the most serious rule violations that can occur.

CoolPilotCaio1 and Clonemep have demonstrated that they are unfit for office and electing them would present a signifigant danger to the State of Firestone, her constitution, and her citizens.

this answer is representative of my interpretation and opinions, and mine alone, and do not represent that of any other person or organisation

3 Likes
105

Your whole argument against the piece of legislation is quite trivial when in the wording as you clearly posted, states that if they dont clearly show name or hinder, they dont apply and thus must say the good old name and badge.

Your entire premise is arguing is using a big extreme interpretation of hinderance which it is actually quite clear. Take for example an officer actively hiding in their car and not showing their name at all to the persons outside it demanding, in this instance guess what, then the name and badge saying principle applies. This is nowhere near the same when a person is on the other side of a wall in which they have no idea someone is demanding their name (unless it is a clear window) which shows there it isnt trying to be a hinderance when they have zero clue the person is even demanding such.

This whole post you made is purely trying to smear the campaign over an amendment that quite literally just makes it where people who actively have a showing name which people can see dont have to answer name and badge because their name is already there but if they arent showing, guess what, the name and badge saying principle is back up again

4 Likes
106

Sharkfish82 you are the most senior staffer of the campaign my reply is criticising.

You ignore this moment of stroke:

and the actual wording — the officer has to be the one hindering. if he is not actively hiding behind a window or translucent wall to avoid a request, he does not have to comply with it, even if the person couldn’t see the name through a window or translucent wall. But even still, this is up for debate and interpretation, which is why it is condemning LEOs to be dragged through courts as issues that should have been sorted out in the original legal text need to be handled by judges.

2 Likes
107

You quite literally mentioned my name to condemn, of course I’m gonna reply

As much as it is a word salad, it still quite actively applies the principle of agencies (which means all officers since they are apart of a law enforcement agency) and their offices (ie if we have x group outside of the main, it still applies.

Also you fail to mention the fact float and stamose co sponsored the bill yet you make no mention which again makes the entire post seem like a smear to garner votes to float

You are completely overblowing the whole amendment, although I will admit should be worded better (entire bor in general)

5 Likes
108

This amendment was supported by both campaigns and was reviewed by an additional plethora of individuals.

image
image750×1334 120 KB

You’re quoting a misspelling that you made. In the original text it says “officers” not “offices”. Additionally, I copied the wording from the beginning of the amendment in order to stay with consistency.

image
image750×1334 237 KB

This is the actual amendment if you want to view it: An Amendment to Protect Law Enforcement Officers .

The problem really is how the BOR is set up and honestly just needs an entire overhaul. However, I believe we’ve made great progress in protecting LEO’s and ensuring a fair gameplay experience for everyone. It isn’t perfect, but nothing is without error when you’re trying something new to help this community. After the new constitution articles were proposed, additional amendments were needed to help correct any ambiguous situations. We’ll be looking into your concerns and finding ways to help improve our Bill of Rights.

4 Likes
109

That was a typo and not what I was talking about. Refer to the emboldment — how does an agency show its name and/or go on duty?

2 Likes