Author Topic: ORIGINAL intentions and FUTURE of Undercover rights (Read 7267 times)

[Rstar]CBFASI · « **on:** June 08, 2009, 13:10:55 pm »

After an hour long meeting within some of the command staff we have decided to return to my original concept of Undercover rights..

The Lieutenant rank was brought in as the rank where they would be trusted to carry out work and missions without senoir guideance, this would include the right to go undercover, which also applies to ranks above Lieutenant.

This rank is given to those we deem fit to be at that post and is unlike any other rank, its can be entered direct from ANY lower trained rank.
This means anyone from Officer to Sergeant can be selected for this.

All SAPD command staff will be involved in this selection so NO badgering them for access, do that and you will likely get blacklisted, as in NEVER get access to Undercover rights.

This means 99% of all current undercover staff will have the right REVOKED, we have only 1 Lieutenant at the moment.

As we cannot garanteee removing all the rights as required I will actualy change script to force this.

Tovenaarke · « **Reply #1 on:** June 08, 2009, 13:27:04 pm »

Means I need to revoke all UR from now on as admin?

[R*]Pancher · « **Reply #2 on:** June 08, 2009, 13:57:22 pm »

If you have the command to remove UC rights do so, but write down the names and send a list of all cops you removed UC rights from to me.

Tovenaarke · « **Reply #3 on:** June 08, 2009, 14:00:16 pm »

Noted

[Rstar]CBFASI · « **Reply #4 on:** June 08, 2009, 18:04:06 pm »

Rank removal will NOT be automated as that will mess up the non-SAPD undercovers, this means expect to see it removed by senior staff

Carbon · « **Reply #5 on:** June 08, 2009, 21:32:14 pm »

Wow, it's the best idea!
Good job guys!

Inkognito. · « **Reply #6 on:** June 09, 2009, 09:08:51 am »

Idea is very nice

Although as far as I understood, you don't have to reach the Seargeant rank in order to be Lieutenent

Idea is nice, guys :P

Bianconeri · « **Reply #7 on:** June 09, 2009, 13:28:47 pm »

does it says you have to be Sgt. to get lt. then?
i dont think you have to, see Jay, from senior to lt.

its good to see thats being watched good, so none can abuse it

Altair_Carter · « **Reply #8 on:** June 09, 2009, 16:10:47 pm »

Quote from: Bianconeri on June 09, 2009, 13:28:47 pm

does it says you have to be Sgt. to get lt. then?
i dont think you have to, see Jay, from senior to lt.

its good to see thats being watched good, so none can abuse it

He's Capt now.

Bianconeri · « **Reply #9 on:** June 09, 2009, 17:05:48 pm »

i know that lol, but he was LT first, for short time

Mario_Rinna · « **Reply #10 on:** June 09, 2009, 17:26:16 pm »

Excellent idea.

Chief J. Schappell · « **Reply #11 on:** June 09, 2009, 19:07:28 pm »

Bian, re-read the first post. It says any rank Officer and above can be directly promoted to it.

@CBFasi: Regarding undercover agencies, is it possible for any single-case scenarios where exceptions to this rule can be made on a case by case basis?

Bianconeri · « **Reply #12 on:** June 09, 2009, 19:46:24 pm »

re-read what i said then

its not me who said that

Chief J. Schappell · « **Reply #13 on:** June 10, 2009, 05:53:13 am »

Quote from: Bianconeri on June 09, 2009, 19:46:24 pm

re-read what i said then its not me who said that

Quote from: Bianconeri on June 09, 2009, 13:28:47 pm

does it says you have to be Sgt. to get lt. then?
i dont think you have to, see Jay, from senior to lt.

its good to see thats being watched good, so none can abuse it

Right...

Bianconeri · « **Reply #14 on:** June 10, 2009, 15:12:32 pm »

sugar what i said was as response on someone else,
note the ? at the back
else i wouldnt give an example of senior to lt.

Chief J. Schappell · « **Reply #15 on:** June 11, 2009, 06:47:21 am »

You wrote it as one sentence, implying the whole thing is a question. If you wanted to make it a statement followed by a question, you should have capitalized the first letter of the word "then" in the question part. I'm sorry but that was a huge fail on your part.

Bianconeri · « **Reply #16 on:** June 11, 2009, 08:42:10 am »

no its not a fail, you failed to read it well

but lets just get on topic, pm me if you got anything more

Chief J. Schappell · « **Reply #17 on:** June 11, 2009, 19:09:21 pm »

*Cough* Lies...

CBFasi, is there any chance of a single-case scenario where exceptions can be made, such as when an undercover operation by officers is taking place?
For example, sting operations, spy games, undercover traffic police, assisting federal agents, drug deals, etc.

Obikankenwalker · « **Reply #18 on:** June 30, 2009, 14:27:11 pm »

Forgive me if i go off subject.

Quote from: SugarD on June 11, 2009, 19:09:21 pm

*Cough* Lies...

CBFasi, is there any chance of a single-case scenario where exceptions can be made, such as when an undercover operation by officers is taking place?
For example, sting operations, spy games, undercover traffic police, assisting federal agents, drug deals, etc.

If scripted, perhaps Officers could ask permission from admins to gain a one off time to go UC for those situations. Maybe the admin would need confirmation from any accompanying officers/cops, to make sure its not abused, or watch to make sure.

Chief J. Schappell · « **Reply #19 on:** June 30, 2009, 20:40:10 pm »

Well I can see that happening, but I'm referring more to permanent rights for certain officers. For example, SATC has an undercover unit within it's subdivision. Without these rights, our troopers are forced to patrol off-duty and report their findings to on-duty units, making them highly unsuccessful unless an on-duty officer is already working with them.

User Info

Recent Posts

Who's Online

Search

Author Topic: ORIGINAL intentions and FUTURE of Undercover rights (Read 7267 times)