|
 I have never heard of this game before in my life. That's not surprising. Legal Dungeon is a somewhat obscure game about police paperwork and corruption created by Korean developer Somi and released in May of 2019. There's not a lot of results for it online, it only has about 300 Steam reviews, and most of what you do get is in Chinese or Korean. Despite all that, it's a neat little game, if often obtuse and a little rough around the edges. Okay, but what about gameplay? What will we be doing? We will be playing as Lieutenant Jane Blue, the newly appointed leader of the Central Police Station's second criminal division. Our new job entails reviewing the paperwork submitted by our underlings about their investigations, then submitting the report along with a suggested verdict to the prosecutor. When we recommend indictment, our division is rewarded with points that determine every officer's salary, chances for promotion, and other benefits. The more serious the crime, the more points the case is worth. The gameplay is somewhat similar to Papers, Please for the most part, with a weird pseudo-rpg battle system thrown in at the end of each chapter as the "dungeon". Sounds like kind of a mess. Why do you like this game again? I like Legal Dungeon because it plays with some interesting ideas and shows how systems that sound good on paper can be in fact incredibly poorly designed in real life. In theory, the points system in the game encourages the police to be vigilant and pursue suspects to the best of their ability. In practice, the system incentivizes the police to blindly convict, to inflate charges as much as possible, and punishes divisions that are in charge of areas with low crime rates. Almost every character in this game is corrupt, but most of them aren't taking bribes, exchanging favors, or breaking the law: they're simply trying to avoid a pay cut. Neat. Does it have multiple endings? Will there be thread participation? Yes, it does. The game has 8 cases and 14 endings, all of which I plan to show if there's enough interest in the thread. Each case has the obvious indictment/non-indictment outcome, but some have special results that can be found with outside-the-box thinking and interpretation of the documents. For each case I'll present the information and then leave the verdict to a thread vote. The dungeon segments, where the outcome of each case is decided, are essentially being prompted to present relevant information from the files in order to attack or defend the accused criminal. I'll provide these questions as food for thought and to give you an idea of what the game is looking for, but the vote will be strictly on what we present as our verdict (Unless we're going for one of those "special" outcomes, in which case we'll need a little more). To encourage discussion and critical thinking, however, anyone who justifies their vote with evidence or a legal argument will have their vote counted twice! Let's get dungeoning. Contents Prologue: "Bacon poo poo" (Case) Prologue: "Bacon poo poo" (Verdict: Indictment) Chapter I: "High Wall" (Case) Chapter I: "High Wall" (Verdict: Non-Indictment) Chapter II: "Train of Light" (Case) Chapter II: "Train of Light" (Verdict: Indictment) Chapter III: "Duty to Protect" (Case) Chapter III: "Duty to Protect" (Verdict: Indictment) Chapter III: "Duty to Protect" (Verdict: Non-Indictment) Chapter III: "Duty to Protect" (Verdict: Indictment*) Timeline 
yamiaainferno fucked around with this message at 20:41 on Jul 9, 2020 |
#
?
Jan 16, 2020 00:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 5, 2024 08:25 |
|
|
Prologue: "Bacon poo poo" (Part 1)   Shut up and start wiping. Can't you see I'm struggling with the corpse? As soon as those CSI hot shots arrive shining their UV lamps, this ground will light up like a Christmas tree. You really think this'll work? Don't worry, just keep cleaning, I've got a plan. This is one mystery the cops will never solve.Ominous, but we won't know what's up with these two for a while. In fact...  As it turns out, this conversation hasn't even happened yet. It's about five months in the future. Here's the full timeline for your perusal outside of a jerky GIF.  It's a bit of a beast, with lots of branching paths for us to explore. I'll explain the lock and key symbols when they come up. For now, though, Jane's just been assigned to Criminal Division - Team II, and it's time to meet the officers she's been placed in charge of.   Congratulations on your assignment. Um, you don't mind if I speak freely, right? [...]George here is the most senior member of our team, and the most vocal. We'll be speaking to him a lot, and he's quick to give Jane advice on how to navigate the muddy waters she's found herself in. As a note, Jane has no dialogue of her own in the game, but you can usually infer what she is meant to have said from other character's responses. Hey, just because I'm older than you, doesn't mean you have to be all formal and polite. I mean, you're the team leader, after all. You Police University graduates always rise quickly through the ranks. I wouldn't be surprised if you pretend not to know me in a few years. Well, it doesn't really matter. When you're a high-ranking officer, I'll be living off my retirement pension. I don't need to be on your good side. So, don't expect me to lick your boots. [...] Team! Gather 'round. Welcome our new Team Leader, Jane Blue. Let's see. Yo, Frank! Frank Rivers, get your rear end over here! Make sure to bring the Captain with you to the welcoming party as soon as the Chief leaves the office! The Team Leader, Patrick and I will head out together... Wait, we need to finish up the paperwork before we go out for a drink. Moon! Bring me that file. Team Leader, this is Corporal Patrick Moon, he's a bit of a slacker. Moon, you didn't even start this file? You don't want to lose more achievement points for slacking, do you?Frank Rivers and Patrick Moon are two other characters we'll be seeing quite a bit of. Vetta doesn't have an especially high opinion of either of them, clearly. Anyways, here's a file that the previous Team Leader didn't complete. It's your first task as the new Team Leader. It shouldn't take long. Just send it off before we leave for the party. Most dialogues will end with a saying dramatically popping onto the screen like that one. It's a little weird, but overall adds to the atmosphere.  After the scene finishes, the game boots us back to the timeline. From here we can select our case, and see what the relevant crime is. In this instance, a contempt case.  I'm not sure if these excerpts are real life cases (presumably from Korean courts) that inspired the ones in the game, or if they're fictional as well. Either way, they give us an idea of what to expect. Interestingly enough, the screenshots on Legal Dungeon's Steam page are different-- in it, the officer was called "System Whore" rather than "Bacon poo poo".   Hello, Criminal Division II: Team Leader, Lieutenant Jane Blue. I am the CIS program helper, "Mini Jane”. What you studied in University was purely academic, and since you have no experience filing cases, this may seem unfamiliar.  The investigations for the cases you'll be reviewing are already complete. This case file is short- only seven pages. This is a great opportunity to flex your legal muscle and impress your team. Your first position is in the Criminal Division - Team II, so you must have high expectations regarding your given assignments. Unfortunately, there won't be any dynamic crime scenes where you reveal clues and chase down criminals. Your job is to fill out the Investigation Verdicts to be sent to the prosecutor. These documents incorporate findings from our investigations and state our final verdict on the case. So, as the Criminal Division II: Team Leader, it's your job to fill out this document with the information gathered through previous investigations. Sounds fun, right? Go ahead, and press the Help button to learn how to use the CIS. At last, we get to our main screen. This is where we'll read case files and determine our verdicts. I went ahead and highlighted some points of interest: 1. Notifications - Here we will be notified of any updates to CIS, giving us new tools in our belts. 2. Search - We can drag blue terms here to get more information. 3. Documents List - This is more or less a table of contents for the current case file. The cases will get much, much longer, so this is very useful. 4. Legislation - This is laws that may be relevant to the current case. Almost every law we encounter will be Criminal, but sometimes others pop up. 5. Precedents - These are cases related to laws, showing how courts have interpreted them. I never use this menu, since it's not organized by law. Instead I usually open the law and select the precedents from there. 6. Terms - This is essentially vocabulary, most of it extremely basic and obvious. 7. Investigation File - Here is where we can click through and read the case file. At the bottom is shows what page we're on and how many pages are in the document, and the arrows allow us to move forward a page or jump to the end. 8. Investigation Verdict - This panel is where we'll drag relevant information from the file in order to reach our verdict. Currently it's blank, but it'll give us prompts. Mini Jane will actually walk around the bottom of our screen, Shimeji-style, and sometimes flash if she has something to say. If she gets in our way, we can pick her up and chuck her across the screen. To proceed, we need to click on that red question mark. It's always the same information about CIS, and we'll never click it again, so I didn't bother to highlight it. Help posted:CIS Overview  Let's enter the Basic Info about the suspect. Drag and fill the blanks with information relevant to the tag. For each case, we start off by having to fill out basic information about the case in sections. We click around the file for the relevant information and then drag it into place. First though, let's take a minute to read over everything.        Suspect's Criminal Record posted:Case No. 1001 Not all of our case files will be this short. I'll be making off-site dumps for the larger ones so that they don't clog up the thread. Once we've dragged over all the relevant information, we can hit submit, and it'll fill out the form for us. We repeat this for the suspect's criminal record to get this:  Wow, you found all the answers, not bad. But, that was simply copying personal information. Now we'll enter the actual Criminal Facts. You'll get a taste of what it's really like to be in the police force. To enter the Crime Committed by the suspect, you'll need to search for the Applicable Law. You can easily check what crime the suspect was accused of by reading the case file. It's difficult to memorize what clause of what criminal law the crime belongs to. That's what the Search Window of CIS is for! Drag any blue word to the Search Window.We can do as Mini Jane suggests and search, or just click on "Defamation" under the legislation tab. Law posted:Criminal Law #1000 (Defamation) 99-001 posted:Verdict No. 99-001 02-002 posted:Verdict No. 02-002  Thus, there are two requisites for Defamation: "public" slander and "malicious content". When the team investigates a victim or a suspect, they try asking questions pertaining to criminal requisites.After selecting the appropriate law, we now have to fill in details about the crime. Giving us this:  You're doing well. We can send this off when you finish the "Investigation Results and Verdict" section. While the police's verdict on whether to indict the suspect is important, it has no authority to launch a criminal suit. As the police lack the power to undertake an investigation or indictment, our verdicts are mere suggestions and have no binding effect. Ultimately, the responsibility of indictment falls into the hands of the prosecutor. So, don't feel too pressured working on the verdicts.And with all that out of the way, it's time for us to decide our verdict. We do this by mentally battling it out with the suspect in the Legal Dungeon. This is a pseudo-RPG battle system that is the main gameplay of LD. These segments take place in the lower right corner of the screen, and so the screenshots will be considerably smaller, but also rather gif-tastic in order to show off the fun animations.  In order to proceed, I need the thread's opinion: should we push for Indictment or Non-Indictment? In order to help you decide, here is what the game asks us to consider in our argument: 1. Is "Bacon poo poo" an insult? 2. Was the incident public? Anyone who uses evidence from the thread to present a compelling legal argument will have their vote counted twice. yamiaainferno fucked around with this message at 07:51 on Jan 20, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2020 00:45
|
|
|
yamiaainferno posted:In order to proceed, I need the thread's opinion: should we push for Indictment or Non-Indictment? In order to help you decide, here is what the game asks us to consider in our argument: Indictment 1. Yes. I am guessing the use of Bacon in the insult is skirting around the common derogatory term for a cop "pig" and poo poo be a common part of insulting names like "poo poo head" or calling someone a lovely person. Plus he refer to the other cops around as "Bacon Shits" in his examination. quote:2.Yes-ish. our investigation verdict even says publicly in the last line. Though the six others present were cops and the officer said it was in his office. Not sure if being in his office and the other witness being cops makes a difference. quote:
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2020 02:32
|
|
|
1. Yes 2. No. Verdict 02-002 notes that it was public because there was a chance the slander could be spread by unrelated witness A. The bacon shits that were also present do not count.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2020 06:39
|
|
|
Foxfire_ posted:2. No. Verdict 02-002 notes that it was public because there was a chance the slander could be spread by unrelated witness A. The bacon shits that were also present do not count. Ah but the cops do matter in that verdict too: quote:Publicity is established by multiple persons witnessing an event. In this case, although the Defendant swore behind closed doors, three other policemen and Witness A, of an unrelated case, heard the profanity. So there was a chance of the slander being spread by Witness A, and the victim's good standing was damaged in the eyes his colleagues.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2020 07:25
|
|
|
This game looks cool. Also, yes and yes, for the same reasons mateo mentioned.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2020 13:54
|
|
|
If there's anything that years of Phoenix Wright has taught me, the defendant is never guilty and clearly the guilty party is the officer!  Yes on both counts because the defendant even admitted to it, and to calling the other officers bacon shits, and even the interviewer.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2020 14:52
|
|
|
I'm thoroughly convinced now that playing this is what the Chief is doing on his computer all the time on Ace Attorney, aside from looking at gossip. That being said, I'm looking forward to seeing where this goes! I've had my eyes out for more legal sims since the archived Phoenix Wright LP got me into that series, so I might have to pick this up sometime.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2020 15:55
|
|
|
I'm going to take a minority opinion here: 1. No, "bacon poo poo", while an insult, is too non-specific to pass the defamation test. The insult is targeted at the officer merely being an officer and is thus not a defamation with respect to the audience, who were also officers. If the insult had been targeted at specific defects, such as calling the officer corrupt, incompetent or stupid, that would be defamation of character, but insulting his occupation is not going to lower his standing among members of that same occupation. 2. No, the other officers would not count as "the public" in this instance (for the reason stated above; the insult is broad enough to apply equally to them) and there was only one other person, the informant, present. In short, Zimmer should go free because his insult game is weak. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2020 18:04
|
|
|
quote:Interestingly enough, the screenshots on Legal Dungeon's Steam page are different-- in it, the officer was called "System Whore" rather than "Bacon poo poo". I disagree. Unfortunately, 'Whore' is always an insult, regardless.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2020 18:14
|
|
|
Wow, I'm legitimately pretty excited that this thread got so many replies right off the bat. I was pretty sure that it would die instantly, but there seems to be genuine interest. Thanks, guys.  So, here's the next update. Like most post-case updates will be, it's pretty short, but I'll be back with Chapter 1 next weekend. Maybe sooner, if the first week of school is light. Prologue: "Bacon poo poo" (Verdict: Indictment) Indictment: 6 Non-Indictment: 4 The thread has spoken, our criminal is guilty. All that's left is to make our arguments.     I'm innocent! No criminal admits guilt.While Jane doesn't talk in the actual scenes of the game, it's these dungeon segments that make her more than a cookie-cutter blank slate protagonist and give us an actual sense of personality. Firstly, it's pretty clear she's a huge goddamn nerd since she envisions her internal debate about paperwork as an RPG battle. But, let's see what facts you have admitted! Writing an Investigation Verdict begins by confirming major and indisputable facts. Search to see how much of the Suspected Crime the suspect admitted.The first thing in every case is to go to the Suspect Testimony section of the case file and see what the suspect confessed to doing in their own words. In this case, that's extremely simple. Let's throw his own words back in his face. You confessed to using the phrase" "Bacon poo poo"! Fine. I admit to that. But! Bacon poo poo isn't an insult! Bacon poo poo is not an insult? Defamation can only be applied when an insult is given. So, it is very important to determine if the expression made by the suspect is considered an insult Under the Law. This is what the Criminal Division Team Leader does. Applying each criminal factor of the suspect's actions and comparing it with a Precedent simulates the role of an attorney or a judge. This kind of roleplaying requires intense logic to accurately interpret documents and laws.The legal arguments round, after we've established what the suspect himself admitted, is where we start doing damage. Below is an image I've annotated to more clearly show what's going on. It's from a little later so that I could show all the elements at once; don't mind the continuity errors.  1A. Our enemy's stats. The G is how many points the case is worth if we indict, and the H how many legal arguments' worth of damage we must do to defeat him. Every successful argument deals 1 point of damage. 1B. Jane's stats. Our G is how much "gold" we have, which I'll explain later once it comes up. Note that it will change wildly between these screenshots, as I replayed the case several times and got gold for each indictment. Our H is an approximate measure of how many times we can mess up before failing the case. Unlike Jane, though, our enemies will sometimes miss, granting us a free slip-up. 2A. This sword outline indicates that we are able to damage our enemy this round. If we choose the correct information, it will materialize and attack our foe. 2B. This outline indicates that we can mess up and take damage ourselves this round. Same deal as above. 3. This shield indicates that we are able to defend our enemy this round. If we choose information that moves towards exonerating them, the shield will materialize and protect the criminal. Just to show it off, here's what happens if we choose incorrectly:  Getting back on track. If you remember the non-annotated screenshot, we only had the option to attack this round. So, let's do so by following Mini Jane's hint and using the 99-001 precedent case.  It IS an insult, because Bacon poo poo is a derogatory expression that can damage the good social standing of the victim! Even if that were true, a defamation has to be made public. My profanity had no possibility of spreading! The condition of "publicity", which comprises a defamation, is tricky. It is peculiar because the victim's emotional outrage is unimportant, and the condition only hinges on if witnesses of the profanity were present. This reflects our Nation, which places Social Standing above Personal Emotions. The profanity was heard by many others. Therefore, try to present testimonies proving the slander spread easily.Mini Jane is right. Who cares about that shield down there? No quarter for the wicked!  There were six people who heard the insult, and we have several pieces of testimony to prove it. Wrong! There was publicity. When you used the abusive language, there were six people nearby. Since multiple people heard it, it was only a matter of time before it would spread! drat...     Congratulations, you are now a watchman, protecting citizens from crime.A dialogue box pops up containing the image of our signature stamp. All we need to do is drag it next to our name to seal the document and submit it.  Once we're done, we return to Vetta and head off to our welcoming party. Eventually, though, we do get the chance to speak with him about the case...  It's foolish to pursue a financial case against the "Father" of our town. We all grew up here, nobody wants to betray our region's biggest provider... Ah, you look confused. Well, for the past two years, Chairman Jack Bright has also been the Police Support Committee Head for our station. [...]In case you don't remember, Jack Bright is the name of the plaintiff in the fraud case against Harry Zimmer. He was being questioned in relation to that when he insulted the officer.  [...] I didn't know the CIS could do that...? Anyway, good job. That Harry Zimmer guy, he owns the construction company subcontracted to remodel the Hospital owned by the Chairman. Apparently, he's not one of the people the Chairman "provides for". When it was time to pay for the remodeling, the Chairman filed a fraud complaint against Zimmer. I mean, for us... Since the fraud is handled by the Finance Team, we should be thankful for providing support. The Chairman will call to meet with our team soon. You can say hello to him then, so there's no need to get anxious. [...] Prosecutor Hans Dutch of the Central Provincial Prosecutor's Office called. He's the prosecutor assigned our station. He said, "You should be ashamed for processing a case without first studying the precedents!" [...] Haha, don't take what he says too seriously, he knows what it's like for us. It's a compliment disguised as a reprimand... Look at it from his point of view. To put pressure on Harry Zimmer, he needs the defamation case to happen as well, but he can't interfere directly. So the indictment verdict the police forwarded was a godsend for him. [...] Let's head inside. We should have a drink or two before the Captain arrives. Team Leader Jane, now that you are part of our family, give us a few words. Well, that was quite a lot of information. This game does that thing where it never directly says anything, instead talking around its plot and implying, rather than stating, a lot of important details. It can be powerful when done well, but in my opinion Legal Dungeon is just a bit too indirect. I often find myself puzzling over dialogue, reading it several times just to figure out what's actually going on. I'm not sure if it's a translation issue, a writing issue, or if I'm just an idiot, but it's by far my least favorite thing about the game. This dialogue isn't too bad, but there are a few layers. If people are interested or just completely not following the dialogue, I can post my personal interpretations, but for now I'll assume no one cares. After this scene, it's time for our case results. Results posted:17th Feb: Lieutenant Jane Blue, forwarded her verdict of Indictment regarding the suspect Harry Zimmer on the charge of Defamation  This screen introduces our last core gameplay mechanics: our performance and precision levels. Every time we recommend indictment, our performance level goes up. Every time we don't, it goes down. Our precision level increases when our recommendation matches the final ruling of the case. Here, since the appeals court ruled Zimmer Not Guilty, it went down. Each score is graded on an A-F scale, and a score of F in either is an automatic game over. Which means that whatever our verdict for the next case is, it had better match the ruling. I'll see you guys next time, out of the tutorial at last! 
yamiaainferno fucked around with this message at 00:56 on Mar 2, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2020 04:18
|
|
|
This is a pretty neat take on find-the-keyword games so far.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2020 08:01
|
|
|
I would appreciate your take on the conversations, because the post case monologue by GV there was complete word salad to me.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2020 19:00
|
|
|
I skipped over it last night but wow, not only is that dialogue extremely vague but it's also all over the place. As far as I can tell, the 'Chairman' (Bright) is enough of a big deal ("our region's biggest provider") as to be above the law, such as screwing a contractor by crying fraud and then expecting his minions to sort it out, which is where we come in. GV's word salad ("I can't understand your dilemma; it's foolish to pursue a financial case against the Father of our town") seems to translate to "I'm surprised you didn't just indict immediately, Zimmer brought this on himself not knowing how things work here". How DO things work? It's possible the Chairman "provides for" unlicensed contractors and Zimmer had the rug pulled out from under him, but that the Prosecutor needs to "put pressure" suggests the fraud complaint doesn't stand on its own and he's counting on Zimmer slipping up under the duress of a corrupt system. "He knows what it's like for us, it's a compliment disguised as a reprimand": it's hard to act natural as concierge justice for the powerful, but thanks for trying. We may have got the first case wrong, but assuming Performance and Legal Execution move one notch per outcome it might be to our advantage? B/D means we just have to get the next verdict right; D/B would have meant indict no matter what or lose our job. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2020 22:13
|
|
|
More or less what tomaton said. My understanding is that the prosecutor is using the defamation case to bully Zimmer into a plea deal for the fraud, which seems to be entirely unjustified and would be hard to actually get past a court. He can't say that, however, so he scolds us instead. (Seems like there's easier ways to wink wink nudge nudge, but whatever.)tomanton posted:D/B would have meant indict no matter what or lose our job. yamiaainferno fucked around with this message at 07:47 on Jan 20, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2020 23:18
|
|
|
This has just enough Phoenix Wright-ish qualities to keep me interested. I’m looking forward to following along!
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2020 18:18
|
|
|
Yeah, I'll mention that I read this just now and was pretty interested in the tutorial; I think the gameplay has the potential to get a lot more complicated but still manageably so. Plus, of course, this pseudo-dystopian setting surely ought to have some weird cases ahead!
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2020 07:41
|
|
|
Chapter I: "High Wall" (Part 1) Welcome back to Legal Dungeon, everyone. Before we jump into the case, we have to go on patrol with Sergeant Vetta.   Wait, Team Leader. Turn it up, let's listen to this call. I think we should take this ourselves. We should help point the Patrol Division in the right direction. [...] Team Leader, you know those old people who eke out a living collecting and recycling waste paper, right? Well, even a single sheet of newspaper has an owner. Stealing is stealing, even if it one sheet of paper! The suspects family... This might just score us 5 points, if done right. [...] Well, what are you waiting for? Call the Captain! Let's go, Team Leader.  If you're wondering about what George meant about the family increasing the number of points, well... you'll see. Let's open the case.   Hello, Criminal Division II: Team Leader, Jane Blue. The Performance Salary System will shortly be incorporated into all of the National Agencies. The CIS system is also updating to reflect this change in the National Policy. As mentioned in the notice, the "Security Performance" button has been added on the left menu screen. Before you write a Verdict, first press the Security Performance button and recognize the overall concept of the performance evaluation system.Notifications posted:[March 1st, 2007] About Security Performance posted:Performance Evaluation Goal My Security Performance posted:[Performance Level]  The date of the case submission, February 28th, was the last day of the quarter for the November 2006 to February 2007 - Performance Level Period. According to the performance report made by the Criminal Division Captain to the Chief during the mid-term evaluations for each division, this case was evaluated and scored with 5 points even though it was not forwarded yet. Also, as it improved the overall Police Station's Performance Level, the Criminal Division was exempt from the 2nd Quarter Performance Improvement Report.Translation: Even though this case hadn't been fully processed, our station included it in their point total because we were right on the edge of improving our rank. If those points end up falling through, the whole station will be in hot water. Well, with any luck, we'll be dealing with a total scumbag who we don't care about convicting.  Off-Site Screenshot Dump Oh.  Law posted:Criminal Law #1002 Article 2 (Special Theft) 98-004 posted:Verdict No. 98-004 05-003 posted:Verdict No. 05-003 The timeline listed this as a Special Theft case, but maybe that was a translation error? I mean, neither of them had any weapons or anything. Maybe we can try filing it as a normal theft--  Change the applicable law to Special Theft. When you apply unsuitable laws, the Performance Level of the entire police station is lowered.Oh.  We could try fighting her, but... Mini Jane is right. We counted on this case giving us 5 points, and theft would only give us 2. Let's enter it as special theft.  The investigation file entry system has been improved. Established information, such as the suspect's personal data, will now be automatically extracted and entered by the CIS program. This feature will continue to evolve. It is believed that with the future updates, determining which laws are applicable to the suspects will become fully automated. There will also be no dilemma regarding indictment or non-indictment. Simply entering a criminal's actions will enable the system to automatically output evidence related to the crime. In short, an Automatic Forwarding Feature will be implemented, so there is a lot to look forward to.So not only is automation coming for our job, its priority will be processing cases in a way that produces the highest possible score? That seems bad, but... are humans any better? We're trying to squeeze cases for every possible point ourselves. We enter in the suspects' information, along with their criminal records. The grandpa's is largely filled in by the system, but we have to fill the girl's ourselves.  Theft is a crime that refers to stealing the property of another person. Therefore, it is important to establish what property the suspect stole and how it was accomplished.Here we enter facts of the crime: time, location, the actions of the suspects, etc..  This is a classical case of pleading ignorance of the law. Our criminal law states the following: "Actions that resulted due to misconception of the law is not punished when a reasonable pretext exists." Thus, most suspects plead ignorance to committing a crime, despite knowing full well their actions were criminal. If the courts simply forgive all thieves who feign ignorance of a crime, nearly all crimes would go unpunished.And with that food for thought from Jane, it's time for our verdict. Things certainly got grim very quickly, huh? For this case, the game suggests that we consider the following: - Are free newspapers property? - Did Sean Anderson have intent to steal? - Did Chelsea Weiss have intent to steal? In addition, keep in mind that failing to indict, or indicting for less points than we claimed in our performance review, could have severe consequences. As before, votes that use evidence from the case to support their conclusion will be counted twice (and there is evidence for both verdicts). yamiaainferno fucked around with this message at 22:33 on Jan 24, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2020 22:29
|
|
|
I don't think there's any issue arguing that the newspapers were property, given that Verdict 05-003 is exactly on point, but there's no way we can prove that either of them had criminal intent. Our shopkeeper testified that he shouted at them to give the papers back, but his testimony also makes it sound like they got intercepted by Orwell before they had a chance to comply. Until then, the accused had a halfway decent excuse. This has nothing to do with ignorance of the law - if he didn't know they were property, he didn't commit a crime. So our only witnesses are the shopkeep, who's pretty clearly sympathetic to the accused, and Orwell, who's a chucklefuck with no credibility. If we were in safer circumstances we might want to be corrupt, but it sounds like we're getting fired if we indict and the court disagrees. Given that we just saw a minor fine go to the Court of Appeal, I don't think we can take our chances that it'll just get resolved fast.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2020 04:12
|
|
|
Well, it's the curveball we might expect from a game that would have put us in the indict-or-be-fired position. I guess keyword "helps push my cart" is what's fulfilling the accomplice criteria for Special Theft. The kid's motivation was 'help grandpa' and beyond that nothing else can be implied, least of all criminal intent. Him though, who knows? Who sees a pristine stack of newspapers at the start of morning rush hour and thinks 'oh yeah these are trash'? It's also kind of contradictory to say 'well I didn't take ALL of them... just as many as I could carry', not to mention directly contradicts the newspaper dude who twice says he took all of them. Hmm.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2020 10:06
|
|
|
yamiaainferno posted:And with that food for thought from Jane, it's time for our verdict. Things certainly got grim very quickly, huh? For this case, the game suggests that we consider the following: 1. Yes, per verdict 05-003. The distributor spent money to publish them, and he states that they're one-per-person so that multiple people can see the advertisements. 2. No, as per verdict 98-004. The distributor himself thinks it was likely a misunderstanding, as he placed the stack of not-discarded newspapers where he often places waste paper. Also, per Sean himself, he thought they were being passed out so he was okay to take some. Because there was the possibility for misunderstanding, the intent of theft does not apply. 3. No. Chelsea helps her grandfather with pushing his cart all the time, per him. She denies any intent to steal. Plus, the same argument as in 2 applies.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2020 13:00
|
|
|
1. Yes, per verdict 05-003. The distributor spent money to publish them, and he states that they're one-per-person so that multiple people can see the advertisements. 2. Yes. He saw a man handing out copies of that newsprint, and moreover it would have been pristine. A reasonable person would have concluded that they were not waste, and that a person may only acquire one copy. Moreover, he took it twice, proving it wasn't just momentary confusion. 3. This one's trickier, and it depends on the child's cognition and upbringing. As this is a Korean game, it can be presumed that the role of a child in this society is to do what they are told, which means they can lack the independence of thought and judgement to not only know that the trusted adult is doing something wrong but also be able to resist it. I'm inclined to go with no for that reason.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2020 15:12
|
|
|
Hmm. I'd intended for the votes to be simple indictment/non-indictment, but judging by the answers received so far, would you guys prefer I try and keep track of votes for each individual round? It can be hard to boil down a complex case into a single yes/no answer. Per round votes may be a better way to do it, it's just messier on both ends, and I'm not entirely sure how the game will determine the outcome if we mix attacking and defending, so the verdict could end up being a surprise. If that's something you guys are interested in, we can try it this chapter and I'll update the OP.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2020 15:32
|
|
|
Well, this is what happens when you pose individual questions instead of a simple "indict? [yn]": you get people being smartasses and answering the individual questions. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2020 15:37
|
|
|
This game reminds me of Orwell. Not the author, that investigation game about surveillance and privacy.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2020 16:07
|
|
|
Aerdan posted:Well, this is what happens when you pose individual questions instead of a simple "indict? [yn]": you get people being smartasses and answering the individual questions. Fair enough.  Junpei posted:This game reminds me of Orwell. Not the author, that investigation game about surveillance and privacy. Eyyy, I really like that game! I own it and its sequel.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2020 23:23
|
|
|
Given that the papers contained pictures of naked women, and the seller was handing them out for free in an area with at least one confirmed middle school student in it, we really ought to be arresting him for distribution of pornography to minors. It's the far more serious crime.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2020 01:02
|
|
|
Being smartassy is the key to any legal struggle. Anyways, there is reasonable doubt over criminal intent, no harm was done and the overzealous SOCIAL JUSTICE WARRIOR swiftly interfering made it impossible to determine intent vs honest mistake with certainty as there was not even time for the Old man to respond in any indicative manner. Even if there was criminal intent, potential jail time or fining someone for taking low value non-sentimental property is excessive and helps no one. Also even the victim does not want this to go forward. Don't indict.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2020 16:40
|
|
|
yamiaainferno posted:- Are free newspapers property? Interesting game. As for this case: Don't indict. Goddammit that is some bullshit fake case. Free newspapers are property (the precedent straight up talks about free newspapers), but no loving way we can demonstrate Anderson's intent; there's a "confession" (not enough quotes in the internet here) at the end of his testimony, though, so what I think will happen is that he'll get declared guilty on the first trial and hopefully it will get reversed in appellate court. The court had the reasonableness to call out the policeman's thin skin last case, so I'm decently hopeful. The kid is going to walk no matter what, because seriously that is some fresh BS the courts won't accept. E: I think the special theft charge may help Anderson here. There are zero weapons involved so the charge needs a conspirator, and nobody is going to declare young Weiss guilty. Can we indict Jay Orson instead ?
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2020 18:37
|
|
|
Didn't mean to be a smart-rear end; thought you really were looking for us to answer the questions! But that's what I get for trying to catch up in the middle of the night, I guess. Anyway, in case it wasn't clear: neither are guilty, so don't indict.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2020 19:44
|
|
|
This is nerdy and interesting. I do have a suggestion, how about you still ask the questions and then ask for an overall decision below that? Therefore you get to have more participation and people can sway each other, and yet you still have an easy count. For example: - Are free newspapers property? - Yes, according to the listed law. - Did Sean Anderson have intent to steal? - No, the papers were in an area where garbage paper was normally left. - Did Chelsea Weiss have intent to steal? - No, she pushes her grandpa all the time. This means, Do not indict.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2020 22:28
|
|
|
differentiating posted:Didn't mean to be a smart-rear end; thought you really were looking for us to answer the questions! But that's what I get for trying to catch up in the middle of the night, I guess. Peachfart posted:I do have a suggestion, how about you still ask the questions and then ask for an overall decision below that? Therefore you get to have more participation and people can sway each other, and yet you still have an easy count.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2020 02:30
|
|
|
Chapter I: "High Wall" (Verdict: Non-Indictment) Indictment: 2 Non-Indictment: 10 The thread has overwhelmingly decided that we cannot in good conscience indict, consequences be damned. Let's create our verdict.    I am the culprit. My granddaughter is blameless. Compassion and justice are two very different things. The suspect‘s interpretation of his own action is biased, but he is not lying about the action itself. Try to find the points which the suspects admitted to be true from the criminal facts. Neither of them denied their actions, so this is easy and obvious. Anderson took the papers, Chelsea helped him push the cart. You admitted to "loading the handcart with newspaper," and "moving the handcart". Yes. But listen, copper... Free newspaper is not someone's property. Not property? In theft cases, it is important to establish if the item stolen by the criminal can be defined as "property acknowledged to be another person's possession". Even if the stolen items were free newspapers, the victim's ownership must be proven for the stolen goods to be the target of theft.Again, pretty obvious. There's clear legal precedent for free newspapers having value, and therefore being stealable.  It IS property! Because free newspaper... is paid to be printed by the victim in order to sell ads! The court already has precedent on punishing a criminal like yourself. Even if that were true, theft requires an intent to steal. I was unaware that taking several free newspapers was against the owner's wishes! And my granddaughter did not even know what was going on! There must be an awareness and intent of transferring ownership of property to oneself, despite the objection of the owner. This is the "intent of theft". Thus, it is crucial to find evidence that the enemy foreknew that his actions would be against the owner's wishes... or to prove that even if the enemy had misunderstood the law, that misconception is not a reasonable pretext for innocence. There was one instance during his questioning, where Sean Anderson testified unfavorably about himself. I didn't really notice until making this LP, but Mini Jane and the UI's consistent referral to the accused in these reports as "the enemy" is genuinely unsettling in a very subtle way. It helps to show how Mini Jane and CIS are far from impartial, and have very clear ideas about what real Jane should be putting in her reports. For instance:  The statement I've boxed in red is what we need to present here to acquit Anderson. In the reports, a lot of statements are highlighted green-- but not this one, despite it seeming quite a bit more relevant than some that are. The game never tells you that you can drag white text, and the instructions imply that only highlighted text is presentable. Investigation Verdict Overview posted:The CIS uses an internal analysis system to display specific sentences and words that may be searchable or provide clues within the investigation files. Blue indicates Searchable words. Drag them to the search window to look up the laws, precedents, and criminal case records stored in the Police Agency Database. Other colors indicate information important to writing Investigation Verdicts and can be dragged-and-dropped into the documents with ease. Getting back on track, though. CIS may be crooked, but until that automatic forwarding system is implemented, it can only pressure and try to influence us. We still have the final say, and this time we're going off-script, ignoring Mini-Jane entirely.  Yes, that might be true. It's strange to presume taking free newspapers is a crime. And you could have mistook the newspaper pile as waste paper. The misconception has reasonable pretext. Thank you. You're not guilty!   Because Chelsea's role as an accomplice is contingent upon Anderson's guilt, our verdict is immediately reached. Mini Jane has no comment as we type up and sign our report.   Once we submit, we go to give Vetta the head's up. Rather ominously, however, the title of this conversation is "Missing: Chelsea Weiss".  It's my fault - I shouldn't have let that hardhead record the victim‘s testimony. What I'm really pissed about, is that piece of poo poo is looking down on his fellow officers. [...] This case, it began with a 911 phone call from the victim. Even Frank knows what that means. The colleague who received the call and sent out the radio... The colleague who went out and apprehended the offender on site... And the office colleagues who did their best to forward the case before the mid-term evaluation... Frank insulted all of them. If this case was going to be dropped, then it shouldn't have been registered in the first place.Yikes. Immediately, we can see what this points system and extreme emphasis on statistics has done to the mentality of the police. The temptation to only investigate leads that are likely to lead to a conviction, and to only pursue cases that are a safe bet. Due diligence on a case can end up hurting you if it doesn't end in indictment, after all. No one likes feeling as if they've wasted their time, and almost no one would want to work against their own self-interest, even if it were the right thing to do. Almost no one.  [...] Nah. This is a good opportunity, Team Leader. Since you're already listening, let me ask you one thing, Frank. While you were whining all day, what do you think your colleagues were doing? What do you mean? Patrick drove for ten hours to the next state, just to apprehend a wanted criminal. Just to get three points, while off duty. Want to know what I did? I was creating a crime prevention video to upload on our social media accounts. To get half a fuckin' point.Clearly, the staff is extremely desperate for points. If Vetta was free to spend an entire day making a video for such little return, not much must have happened in the station today. The dates are hard to see, but if you look closely at the timeline you can notice that the cases are months apart. Our precinct is in a low crime area, and it means we struggle to meet quotas that are set according to national averages. It's not just greed or laziness that tempts Vetta and the others to cut corners in order to maximize their score: it's the knowledge that there probably won't be a chance to make it up later.  ... Last year, our division received an A Level on our performance evaluation. Your first paycheck was doubled compared to other rookies, remember? What percentage did you contribute to deserve that bonus? Why does that matter? What? What did you say, you little - I'm simply wondering, "why does that matter"? I look at the score board everyday, too. We are always low on points, so we crave for more and more violent crimes. Even if we're desperate for points, this is going too far.He has a point.  My heart goes out to them. I searched all day for Chelsea with her grandfather... "My heart goes out to them"? You're confused, kid. Not liking the performance evaluation and indicting a criminal are totally separate issues. They definitely committed a crime. If they are to be given leniency, then that's up to the court, and not us. Who gave you the right to care for criminals?He would also have a point, if we hadn't just had that conversation about not investigating non-indictment cases or leaving out an interview that painted them more favorably. The performance evaluation is clearly extremely related to indicting a criminal in this case.  That's just cowardly. Your insecurities flow from your ignorance. Your confusion about application of the law and emotions flow from your ignorance. Your fear flows from your ignorance. This is why you feel so lost and empty. Well...that certainly was an intense conversation. And we didn't get to hear much about Chelsea, either. I hope she's okay. Let's move on to the case results.  If the prosecutor drops the case it will never go to court, resulting in a defacto verdict of "Not Guilty". We went down in performance but up in precision, so we currently have C's in both. This update was a little late, as I've been feeling kind of "blah" all week, and so just wanted to lay in bed and do nothing. Not to mention I kept loving up and saving over screenshots like an idiot, meaning I had to replay the case to get one screen, multiple times. It was frustrating. I have a couple of tests next week that I'll need to study for over the weekend, so the next update may be late as well, but we'll see. I may end up procrastinating. I've also added a timeline to the OP that I'll try to keep updated as we move along. See you next time! 
yamiaainferno fucked around with this message at 01:05 on Feb 25, 2020 |
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2020 06:04
|
|
|
yamiaainferno posted:Not to mention I kept loving up and saving over screenshots like an idiot, meaning I had to replay the case to get one screen, multiple times. It was frustrating. This game still looks pretty neat, and the setting is... quite messed up, but in a believable way.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2020 06:30
|
|
|
Huh, looks like there was a third path we could have taken, though locked with a key.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2020 06:57
|
|
|
Yapping Eevee posted:I strongly recommend recording gameplay footage and extracting the screenshots from that if you can, in order to avoid that sort of hassle.
yamiaainferno fucked around with this message at 17:36 on Feb 4, 2020 |
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2020 17:34
|
|
|
Internal memo from the prosecutor: "Why did the police waste my time for this?"
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2020 18:21
|
|
|
yamiaainferno posted:Unfortunately, I don't own any screen recording software, and don't really plan on purchasing any. I'll just have to stop being a dolt/working when I'm sleepy. you don't even need to buy any. Get obs it's free.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2020 18:31
|
|
|
What is scary is this game is based on the current police system more than you may think. There was a really smart police Sargent, in the traffic department, named Jack Maple who started to basically statistically analyze crime for his part of New York City. He founded this system that showed you could expect so many of these crimes at these times, and so you could now work to prevent it. It lead to a national system being created that legitimately lowered crime, but lead to a quota system. The problem arised when the system has been kept around too long and not adjusted. Politicians wanted to boast certain numbers about crime fighting, and show that it is being lowered. So this system has lead to some of the current abuses in the police. For a better, more thorough coverage of it, Reply All covered it in episodes #127 and #128
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2020 19:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 5, 2024 08:25 |
|
|
mateo360 posted:you don't even need to buy any. Get obs it's free. I’ll check it out then. Thanks for the heads up.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2020 19:59
|
|