Delivered FiveM Recording Rule Change

[3dsam1]

As of right now, in FiveM for the whitelist server, the current rule regarding using any kind of recording is

The only footage that can be used in character is anything that was recording while visibly displaying an animation with a camera. (/phoneR, /cam, /e phone, /e filmshock, /e camera)

Unfortunately, the majority of the people who this rule affects is Law Enforcement Officers. As a video is a surefire way of saying someone did something, they then don't have to argue saying "oh yeah he shot 15 people, I saw it but thats all" and try to get a conviction based on that. However, the cops are not able to record active scenes at all, as doing so would take them out of the scene. I understand that the rule is to prevent people from recording people secretly, however, I think that this could still be achieved, while not completely prevent videos.

I suggest that the rule allow any visible camera, meaning things such as Dash cams (pd cars) or body cameras would still be able to be used in character.

This would hopefully still accomplish the same thing as the previous rule, but also not completely remove videos as potential evidence. Now, this could also be used by the criminals, as there is no reason they cant also have a body camera, as I think it is a separate item than the bullet proof vest.

 

[AndrewW]

Okay, I want to step back for a second. The rule states:

The only footage that can be used in character is anything that was recording while visibly displaying an animation with a camera. (/phoneR, /cam, /e phone, /e filmshock, /e camera)

Meaning, no one can be passively recording. Period.

The reason for this being that it creates more roleplay opportunities, which it very well could. So I want to get more info on how this might work in a court setting, which is one of the only places where evidence like this matters.

Hypothetically, let's say that an LEO arrested and charged a civilian with some arbitrary charges that could only have been proved by the officer witnessing it. Example: civilian is driving recklessly, crossing into opposite lanes, swerving, but not speeding, so no dispatches and no evidence other than officer's testimony. Taking the rule for exactly what it says, it would have been against the rules for either player to record the interaction because neither of them could actively be holding a phone or camera. You can't hold a camera in the car (to my knowledge) and if either player were to have done so it would be a ridiculous expectation. The cop gets the civilian to step out of the vehicle and successfully arrests them.

The civilian then decides to argue their charges in court, pleading not guilty to reckless driving, despite the officers testimony of reckless driving and photographic evidence that the civilian was indeed driving that vehicle.

At this point the case is one person's word against the other, with each testimony having equal ground. What would happen?

Inkery 3dsam1 Cryptic Strolski

 

[Cryptic Strolski]

Okay, I want to step back for a second. The rule states:

Meaning, no one can be passively recording. Period.

The reason for this being that it creates more roleplay opportunities, which it very well could. So I want to get more info on how this might work in a court setting, which is one of the only places where evidence like this matters.

Hypothetically, let's say that an LEO arrested and charged a civilian with some arbitrary charges that could only have been proved by the officer witnessing it. Example: civilian is driving recklessly, crossing into opposite lanes, swerving, but not speeding, so no dispatches and no evidence other than officer's testimony. Taking the rule for exactly what it says, it would have been against the rules for either player to record the interaction because neither of them could actively be holding a phone or camera. You can't hold a camera in the car (to my knowledge) and if either player were to have done so it would be a ridiculous expectation. The cop gets the civilian to step out of the vehicle and successfully arrests them.

The civilian then decides to argue their charges in court, pleading not guilty to reckless driving, despite the officers testimony of reckless driving and photographic evidence that the civilian was indeed driving that vehicle.

At this point the case is one person's word against the other, with each testimony having equal ground. What would happen?

Inkery 3dsam1 Cryptic Strolski

It would come down to the competency of the public defender vs. the prosecutor. Thus, the roleplay.

 

[AndrewW]

It would come down to the competency of the public defender vs. the prosecutor. Thus, the roleplay.

But would all parties enjoy it? If I happened to get a shitty prosecution team as the officer, how would I feel when the charges I placed were dropped?

The same logic could be applied to the civilian. If the officer claimed false testimony and there was no evidence, and it was only up to the "competency" of my defense, I wouldn't feel very safe. Nor would I like the outcome in either situation.

I definitely feel like this is setting us up for failure. If my case were dropped because of lack of competency I'd be furious, to say the least.

 

[3dsam1]

AndrewW In most cases, the word of an officer vs the word of a civilian is not equal, nor should it be. A Officers statement should outweigh one of a civilian/criminal, and this makes sense as the Officer is usually a well respected individual, someone who we already trust to protect and serve the civilians. Now obviously, this needs to be dealt with carefully, as there shouldn't be situations where someone is getting charged with 2nd degree Murder because a officer saw him do it, however, with the way it currently is, that's all that is currently possible. If I am not mistaken, evidence is completely screwed, and people can't record.

Obviously yes, by allowing officers to passively record things, it "limits roleplay" because it is hard evidence. But in the current city, Officer testimony is treated as solid evidence because there is nothing else. So in both cases, we get something that is treated as hard evidence, and if it goes to court, it soley depends on the ability of the lawyers to prove it one way or the other. And again, this should be how it is. The difference is, by allowing civilians to record things, especially passively, we prevent a lot of powergaming.

In the current city, there is absolutely nothing stopping an officer from pulling up on an individual, saying "hey you shot a cop" and arresting them for Agg. Assault for shooting a cop. The civilian has absolutely NO way to counter this, because it's their word vs the word of an officer. And of course, everyone is going to say they didn't commit the crime. Why wouldn't you?

Finally, I have seen a lot more court cases in the previous city, where we had actual evidence, because evidence via cameras/videos was collected from both sides. Thus, leading to an actual challenge to the lawyers to see who can prove the case. As opposed to "What does the cop say? Aight lets go with that"

 

[AndrewW]

Officer testimony is treated as solid evidence because there is nothing else.

My point in leading that side tangent is that this should not be the case. It's not gonna stop me from getting on the server, but again, if I were a civ and this happened to me I would be royally pissed.

 

[3dsam1]

My point in leading that side tangent is that this should not be the case. It's not gonna stop me from getting on the server, but again, if I were a civ and this happened to me I would be royally pissed.

I agree, which is kind of the main point in this post. By allowing another form of evidence, we shift the weight of each evidence.

 

[AndrewW]

Inkery Cryptic Strolski

What are your thoughts on the above comments?

 

[Legend]

Everyone in the city having gopros constantly recording is absolutely stupid. Every cop reviewing their “dashcam footage” on the fly to get license plates for cars is dumb. You should be forced to utilize an emote if you plan on taking a photo and using it in character. You should also be forced to utilize an emote if you plan on recording. The dumb “LOL I HAVE THIS ALL RECORDED ON MY GOPRO” is absolutely ridiculous and you’ll never change my mind on this. It’s so anti roleplay.

 

[Inkery]

In the current city, there is absolutely nothing stopping an officer from pulling up on an individual, saying "hey you shot a cop" and arresting them for Agg. Assault for shooting a cop. The civilian has absolutely NO way to counter this, because it's their word vs the word of an officer. And of course, everyone is going to say they didn't commit the crime. Why wouldn't you?

Ill just go ahead and link the definition of power gaming in the rules

Power Gaming
Power gaming is defined as forcing players down a single path with no other options within roleplay.

All it would take is a report on the player doing this and it would be handled properly.

 

[3dsam1]

Everyone in the city having gopros constantly recording is absolutely stupid. Every cop reviewing their “dashcam footage” on the fly to get license plates for cars is dumb. You should be forced to utilize an emote if you plan on taking a photo and using it in character. You should also be forced to utilize an emote if you plan on recording. The dumb “LOL I HAVE THIS ALL RECORDED ON MY GOPRO” is absolutely ridiculous and you’ll never change my mind on this. It’s so anti roleplay.

If this is the issue, having people randomly being "ha i have this recorded", then if I am not mistaken, my original suggestion should deal with the majoirty of this, being that it has to be publicly displayed. Not what we used to have where you just had to show a go pro, it would either need to be physically on your person (cops) or a emote showing a camera. Additionally, simply forcing players to do something such as turning on the go pro (/me turns on gopro) and have that in the recording, should fix most of that. People would need to record in advance, and actually have it displayed, in order for the footage to be used IC. Like I said, I am not sure how having BOTH sides able to record is anti roleplay, as looking at this city vs the past city, we had MUCH more court cases in the past city.

Ill just go ahead and link the definition of power gaming in the rules

Power Gaming
Power gaming is defined as forcing players down a single path with no other options within roleplay.

All it would take is a report on the player doing this and it would be handled properly.

Of course, I know this is powergaming, but, whats the difference between a cop doing that on purpose, VS a cop doing that on accident? If a cops word is taken a such a high standard that its practically guilty until proven innocent, what happens if a cop actually believes he saw something and arrests someone for it. Is that still powergaming? What if he actually did see something? Is that still powergaming? Regardless, if the cops word is held to such a high standard, it pretty much turns every arrest into a powergaming situation, as there is nothing a civilian can do.

 

[Meyers]

Okay so what about the interrogation room in MRPD. It has a camera in the room and a tape that's actively recording in the adjoining booth. Can you use shadowplay for that in court

 

[3dsam1]

Okay so what about the interrogation room in MRPD. It has a camera in the room and a tape that's actively recording in the adjoining booth. Can you use shadowplay for that in court

With the change - yes, provided the video shows you turning on the camera, because its visibly displayed. Currently, I don't think so since you are not doing an emote. For the most part, I don't think its constantly recording tho.

 

[Kaden]

3dsam1 @Andrewans everyone else who commented. We appreciate the DETAILED concern. I could see where this becomes an issue as a cop and might be something to look into.

I think what might be a cool solution (if possible) is attaching it to the skeleton system. The way I see it working is there's a logo or words or something somewhere that says "bodycam on" but if your chest was REALLY hurt, ex you get shot and your chest is bleeding then the camera would say "bodycam off" as if the camera got shot.

However I will be bringing this to the leadership team, seeing if we can find a middle ground.

 

[RipplyTiger151]

This rule has been updated. https://www.edgegamers.com/threads/373206/