Aiden Sparker

This is so awesome, I can't wait to play it. Great job to all the devs!

Name: Aiden Sparker
Main role on the server: KD Guns Co-Owner and DSA Supervisory Special Agent for the Diplomatic Security Service
Time at ANZUS: Joined in September 2019 during 2.0 and have been more or less active since then(of course in varying degrees). I have more than 1000 hours on the server and have at least 100 hours on all major updates since 2.0.
Opinions on each rule and what you voted:

Rule: All cop response numbers to major crimes, minor crimes, any situation are removed from the rules. It will be up to PD command to decide how/what they want with the idea of fairness in mind.

Vote: I don't really mind either.

Reason: I rarely engage with cops or really any illegal activity, and so I'd rather abstain this vote than taint the results of something I have nothing to do with. I could see both work.

Rule: No limit on groups, you can be in a group more than 8 during all initiations. (LEO AND CIV)

Vote: I have a different idea and I've posted it on the thread.

Reason: I think there should be a cap on majors, but not necessarily non-major initiations. I do however strongly hold that if response and group numbers are removed, the panic button should be brought back for LEOs.

Rule: You do not need a roleplay reason to rob people doing illegal runs.

Vote: Yes

Reason: People that do illegal runs are aware that they are doing something illegal and should be ready to accept the consequences.

Rule: You do not need a roleplay reason to initiate on someone except 500m from a green zone.

Vote: No

Reason: New players would run screaming if the second they stepped out of a populated area some gang guy comes around and robs them for what little they have. There are people on this server and in this community that cannot administer having the privilege of robbing whoever they want, and I am not saying its GFK only, but in my experience it is primarily them. I think reinstating this rule would kick us right back to the takistani, fiery inferno of 2.0 that was widely disliked and not a place for newcomers. If we instate this rule, we need to make sure all gang leaders encourage not using it in a capacity that might hurt the server's reputation, and quite honestly, I fear that some gangs might ruin it for everyone (even though most gangs are well behaved nowadays <3).

Acknowledgement that you've taken a spoonful of concrete: I'm Mr. Concrete.

The only issue I have with that ruleset at the minute is they've effectively made it so much more dangerous to be legal. We have little legal weapon options, and none that are sufficiently viable to protect us against Class 3s. 

In KD we do a lot of runs, and if we're going to start getting robbed all the time, LIKE 2.0, I think it's only fair that we, and every other legal main, gets access to the class 2 license. That license is already for people with literally 0 convictions in the past year, so there is little to no risk. Everyone on the server and their mom carries a class 3, but if we get caught with one we lose everything. We need more options.

I gotta say I am excited for this. Personally I think it is a good idea, and I'm excited to see how it plays out this weekend

On 9/16/2021 at 8:44 AM, Seska said:

Might be the best work you ever did

The Defense will be bringing @Jack Chapman on as co-council.

Your Honor,

My real life computer has experienced a critical hardware failure and has shut down for all of the foreseeable future. I will attempt to get someone to attend trial in my stead, I will still be on forums.

I apologize for this inconvenience.

Sorry for not seeing your response until now, I won't be available until Tuesday.

The Defense would like to ask the Prosecution to give the names of the witnesses as well. (Their tags may be other characters, which ones are you calling)

We're all fine with this time as well, Your Honor.

Tonight, 4:30pm EST.

We talking 4:30pm EST? Because that is quite reasonable for our timezones as well.

Your Honor,

As is probably not difficult to imagine, my client is a busy man. As a result of this, his availability is scarce. Saturday or Sunday won't work, but Thursday will. The Defense would therefore like to request that the court upholds the previously set time.

My client is also available for Thursday at 4:30 pm EST.

12 hours ago, Loxxon Husky said:

4:30 pm EST I can do. @Aiden, ADN are you fine with this ?

I am able to attend at that time, but am awaiting a response from my client.

As I mentioned, I can only attend times that are before 6pm EST. 

I am able to attend pretty much at any day before 6pm. Reason being that 6pm EST is midnight in Denmark.

1 minute ago, Orest Howson said:

The motion for continuance is granted. We will reschedule for a later date.

Thank you, your Honor.

Your Honor,

This is quite an embarrassing situation. The schedules of both me and my client has taken a turn that unfortunately doesn't allow neither of us to be available tomorrow at 6pm EST.

The Defense therefore motions for continuance.

Thank you, your Honor.

Your Honor,

As it also came to be known I had not made myself aware of the motion to hold discovery from my client. I objected as soon as I saw it. The time I agreed to was what I thought was the trial date.

Your Honor,

The Defense believes this is an undue burden on the trial, an unnecessary delay, made by the Prosecution in an effort to infringe upon my clients sixth amendment. The Prosecution has presented no shred of a plausible cause that would sustainably suggest that such a proceeding was necessary. Excluding my client from a discovery hearing is nothing but a show of force. We therefore formally request that he is allowed to attend the discovery hearing. Consider this an objection to the order.

Your Honor,

It wasn't a request. I am simply asking why the Prosecution deems it necessary to not only have the discovery held in person, but also prohibit the Defendant from being apart of it - as I said earlier he has a right to be apart of his own proceeding.

Your Honor,

Respectfully, my client has a right to be at his own proceeding. If he wishes to attend the discovery hearing, I expect he'll be permitted to do so, correct?

Forgive me, your Honor, but why wouldn't discovery just be held here?

Your Honor,

I think I am mistaken, but wouldn't you hold discovery up until Sunday, and then have the trial on Sunday? That was my understanding.