Jump to content


MTA Lead Administrator
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Shanks last won the day on February 5

Shanks had the most liked content!

About Shanks

  • Rank
    Veteran Member
  • Birthday 02/14/1980

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location

Contact Methods

  • Discord

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Shanks


    I'll bring the topic up to UAT anyways so we can discuss it some, since a few have expressed interest in leaving it open/placing it in another faction's possession.
  2. Shanks


    Was given to PD for SWAT training and similar. I'm sure we could work out a schedule or something of the like with the faction leadership to have it opened for a set amount of time on a bi-weekly or so basis, maybe some weekends. Nothing wrong with it being in the PD faction as long as people don't forget about it I suppose. I understand it's tempting to give it to legal factions but we're not looking to have privately owned factions cash in on script features is all, at least with PD the money stays within the server and usually gets charitied by leadership. Cause if I remember right it costs a little bit to participate (?) I may be wrong there I haven't used the script in a while. It's a valid discusison though, I don't mind hearing some opinions on the topic.
  3. Shanks


    Paintball is given to the LSPD so they could open it up to anyone. When I was Chief I allowed my command members to open it up at any time and host sessions. It was the term PD was given the script and interior. I'm sure a little bump in @Chapple's direction can make the stuff come back and be arranged more often again.
  4. Shanks

    CPQL Perms

    See if you have access now.
  5. The on hold stuff in game right now is pretty much an old script feature. What we tell admins and always have told them is that they can still accept them whilst they are on hold. It is merely that way so they can be toggled on if there's like a less influx of reports or a lot of admins available. You can still request it and perhaps have to wait a little as the reports don't take priority, but may still be done if the criterias are met in game. If this makes sense to you?
  6. "Other than the purchase papers, financial documentation regarding the vehicle and refund papers for the purchase, no. Discussion regarding the vehicle was kept verbally between myself and Captain Woodvine when I first brought it in. Unsure if the vehicle were even to be added to the fleet to begin with I did not feel there was a need for anything else at the time. Hence the testing period. As previously said, if the vehicle were to remain in the fleet then the roster and policy update regarding TED would've been updated to reflect it. Captain Woodvine was verbally informed on the 23rd that the vehicle had been placed in the TED garage and was to be considered similar to the two other high speed vehicles there. With us being told it was being returned merely a week after introduction I did not see the need for anything other than documenting the refund and making sure all the monetary statements were correct." (( @Urshankov @Restrepo @Zebulon ))
  7. "It's something I wanted done as the vehicle is a rather quick one, so I wanted to make sure it was fitting for the roads. Handling is a big one when it comes to these fast vehicles so I took my time with it to have it looked at before I decided we would try it out for the fleet. Such as speed, brakes, suspensions, the upgraded engine kits, specific wheels, lights, and so on. This is a vehicle the PD has never had before and it was brought in brand new. There were questions along the way whether the vehicle took corners well enough, whether the speed was correct and so on. Mainly asked by myself, where I wanted it looked at properly before we introduced it. Whether the curbs and such were something we should be worried about. This is all stuff I prefer going through before such a vehicle is introduced. Testing was majorly done on roads out of the city, general driving and a feel of how the vehicle handled and what minor changes we would add on if that were to be the case. Overall the minor changes were adjusted along the way towards the final release and I added it when I felt happy with the result and outcome. The vehicle had nothing wrong with it on the release and it was merely returned for other reasons." (( @Zebulon @Urshankov @Restrepo ))
  8. "Vehicle was purchased the 1st of April. It was then modified with the fitting equipment and upgrades required following the testing period up to the 23rd, where it was placed into the TED fleet as mentioned. After one week in the fleet the vehicle was returned back. April 30th. So testing phase and time where the vehicle was to be considered not for use was about three weeks." (( @Urshankov @Zebulon @Restrepo ))
  9. "I don't see why you keep reminding me about this false testimony, perjury and the like or what you're trying to reference here by doing it, I'm unsure where I have provided false testimony? I find myself and my staff capable of handling the responsibilities given to me and us. And as said, word was passed along regarding the vehicle and paperwork would have been updated if the vehicle remained. It did not." (( @Restrepo @Zebulon @Urshankov ))
  10. "Depending on the specific policy at hand. That would be the supervisors put in place and myself or my internal affairs bureau. As long as we are discussing internal policies of the department. If you're referring to my comment about them being updated and overlooked. It would again be me and the commanding officers." (( @Zebulon ))
  11. "I said we seek to keep them updated yes. And responsibility falls onto me to make sure the updates go through and down the chain of command. In this instance the TED policies would've been updated if the vehicle remained. This is indeed my job to make sure gets done. It was a fresh addition and tried out. It didn't work out and got returned. Information of the vehicles addition was passed along verbally to my commanding officer of the bureau." (( @Zebulon @Urshankov @Restrepo ))
  12. "If I remember correctly, I moved the vehicle into the TED fleet and garage the 23rd of April, so no, testing was finished at that time. However the vehicle was removed again only a few days after as we returned it." (( @Zebulon @Urshankov @Restrepo ))
  13. "Written records, no. The vehicle was purchased and added to the fleet by myself after a week or two where I had left it in testing. It was important to me to make sure the vehicle was fitting and ready for duty before I wanted it in the TED fleet. Now during this period, the vehicle was parked in the TED garage and I believe a few people were told not to use at this time - verbally, for the TED command at the time, I assume this is where word traveled that this was an 'unauthorized vehicle'. I never left any written information about it, nor handed out reprimands or the like as a result of this. However the vehicle was added to the fleet by myself shortly after and for TED to use. Now I informed my Captain about this verbally and the vehicle is an extremely fast one and was to be placed at similar status as our other two extremely fast HSIU's. It did end with the vehicle not fitting the current fleet and vehicle was brought back and refunded however, so it is no longer a part of the PD fleet as a whole. But if the question here is in relevance to the authorization of said vehicle by me or my command - I never punished anyone for using it and it was authorized for use for a short while before it was removed. Now I believe from reading the report, that officers were under the impression that the vehicle was completely off limits for everyone for the entire period we had it, which is not the case. The vehicle was fit for the roads as well as for the PD during the time it was placed in the garage." (( @Zebulon @Restrepo @Urshankov ))
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use, Privacy Policy and follow our Guidelines.