RISING STAR ! The ultimate source to ace your NYPD Sergeant, Lieutenant, and Captain Exam Visit www.RisingStarPromotion.com to subscribe to our mailing list and get info on the next Sgt, Lt. or Captain Exam!
This question asked what punishment you will dish out when two guys show up late for roll call. one is always late and has to have high supervision. second one is motivated just was late. the penalty should fit the offense but should also fit the individual. past performance should also be considered.
-- Edited by NYG37 on Wednesday 30th of November 2011 09:59:00 PM
Good thing rising star instructor was there he provided that reason. again he didn't state that that's the book they used. its just the book he referred too.
Good thing rising star instructor was there he provided that reason. again he didn't state that that's the book they used. its just the book he referred too.
In the Rising Star lesson on judgment, they had a question very similar to the test question with the two late cops, and the answer was to treat them equally.
I'm planning to fight this question with an argument that PG 212-01 (Roll Call Formation), step 3c, states that members should be reprimanded and instructed PRIVATELLY (separately from each other). DCAS proposed answer has them reprimanded and instructed privately, but together at the same time. Hope it works.
I'm planning to fight this question with an argument that PG 212-01 (Roll Call Formation), step 3c, states that members should be reprimanded and instructed PRIVATELLY (separately from each other). DCAS proposed answer has them reprimanded and instructed privately, but together at the same time. Hope it works.
That's exactly how I planned to tackle that question. I picked choice D because the pg tells you to reprimand privately. This will definitely be a double answer
No, treating the officers differently for a minor violation in said scenario is the mark of an inept supervisor (That's like The Mark of Mephistopheles, but it tends to result in EEO's as opposed to the undoing of all Creation).
It's astounding to see that so many protest the most uncomplicated judgement questions rather than re-evaluating their own defective logic.
I know for some of you people it hurts discovering you are wrong like the way your tongue must hurt after you accidentally staple it to the wall, but if you happen to be so incapable of subsequent introspection, perhaps chevrons suit you better.
No, treating the officers differently for a minor violation in said scenario is the mark of an inept supervisor (That's like The Mark of Mephistopheles, but it tends to result in EEO's as opposed to the undoing of all Creation).
It's astounding to see that so many protest the most uncomplicated judgement questions rather than re-evaluating their own defective logic.
I know for some of you people it hurts discovering you are wrong like the way your tongue must hurt after you accidentally staple it to the wall, but if you happen to be so incapable of subsequent introspection, perhaps chevrons suit you better.
We studied in Key class that if mos keeps doing the same violation, CO can issue him/her a B CD instead of A CD. Question 93 is the same thing, but only with minor violation log. Maybe I'm retarded, but how can you treat equally a person that's constantly late and a person that was late for the first time in his career. Also, I don't think discrimination based on the history of same violation is the part of EEO.
No, treating the officers differently for a minor violation in said scenario is the mark of an inept supervisor (That's like The Mark of Mephistopheles, but it tends to result in EEO's as opposed to the undoing of all Creation).
It's astounding to see that so many protest the most uncomplicated judgement questions rather than re-evaluating their own defective logic.
I know for some of you people it hurts discovering you are wrong like the way your tongue must hurt after you accidentally staple it to the wall, but if you happen to be so incapable of subsequent introspection, perhaps chevrons suit you better.
I'll break this down for you. The nature of the judgment questions was not to opt for simply what is permissible, but what is the best choice for a public sector manager.
Given the fact pattern, the obvious choice was to treat each individual equitably. Employing warped logic while referencing Patrol Guide procedures unrelated to the body of the question is reasoning that is as lame as a duck. Not the metaphorical lame duck, either, but a real duck that was actually lame- maybe from stepping on a land mine or something.
Protests should be based on examiners' misinterpretation of the Patrol Guide, not the misapplication of logic by the examined. This question was a particularly easy one. Yet posters waste time on such when there are other questions to legitimately campaign against; it's a sequence of histrionics employed to mask inadequacy. Stop it. Be real Americans.
-- Edited by Spasms_Of_Competence on Thursday 1st of December 2011 12:44:47 AM
No, treating the officers differently for a minor violation in said scenario is the mark of an inept supervisor (That's like The Mark of Mephistopheles, but it tends to result in EEO's as opposed to the undoing of all Creation).
It's astounding to see that so many protest the most uncomplicated judgement questions rather than re-evaluating their own defective logic.
I know for some of you people it hurts discovering you are wrong like the way your tongue must hurt after you accidentally staple it to the wall, but if you happen to be so incapable of subsequent introspection, perhaps chevrons suit you better.
As a cop I could roll out of bed and be in my command, in 5 years on patrol I was late to maybe 2 roll calls. Some people can't help but be late, others like myself need to be everywhere 20 minutes early, it's a habit. With that said, there is no shot in hell that I would be cool with, nor would I expect, to be treated the same as the guy who would be late to his own funeral. If u treat ur cops this way, I guarantee ur looked at as not fair but as a common sense -less douchebag.
As a cop I could roll out of bed and be in my command, in 5 years on patrol I was late to maybe 2 roll calls. Some people can't help but be late, others like myself need to be everywhere 20 minutes early, it's a habit. With that said, there is no shot in hell that I would be cool with, nor would I expect, to be treated the same as the guy who would be late to his own funeral. If u treat ur cops this way, I guarantee ur looked at as not fair but as a common sense -less douchebag.
Thus, you failed to decipher the question, employ proper reasoning, and you got this question wrong.Your uninteresting anecdote is irrelevant to the question, and does not constitute grounds for protest.
I would also deduce by your employment of adolescent chatspeak (in place of you and youre) that you likely failed the grammar questions too.
I protested this question as well. I cited 212-01 which states you must reprimand in private as well as PG 206, violations subject to command discipline (i.e. late for roll call). It is perfectly reasonable for us as managers to warn and admonish a first time offender and give a CD for someone whose has shown a pattern of violating the rules. They DO NOT have to be treated equally. You just ca't treat them differently for personal reasons.
Oh, and spasms of competence: this reply was not for you so save your imperious comments for someone who is impressed by them. Enjoy the rest of the night in mom's basement with your bag of doritos and a thesaurus trying to make people feel unintelligent.
I protested this question as well. I cited 212-01 which states you must reprimand in private as well as PG 206, violations subject to command discipline (i.e. late for roll call). It is perfectly reasonable for us as managers to warn and admonish a first time offender and give a CD for someone whose has shown a pattern of violating the rules. They DO NOT have to be treated equally. You just ca't treat them differently for personal reasons.
Oh, and spasms of competence: this reply was not for you so save your imperious comments for someone who is impressed by them. Enjoy the rest of the night in mom's basement with your bag of doritos and a thesaurus trying to make people feel unintelligent.
I protested this question as well. I cited 212-01 which states you must reprimand in private as well as PG 206, violations subject to command discipline (i.e. late for roll call). It is perfectly reasonable for us as managers to warn and admonish a first time offender and give a CD for someone whose has shown a pattern of violating the rules. They DO NOT have to be treated equally. You just ca't treat them differently for personal reasons.
Oh, and spasms of competence: this reply was not for you so save your imperious comments for someone who is impressed by them. Enjoy the rest of the night in mom's basement with your bag of doritos and a thesaurus trying to make people feel unintelligent.
You got him good.
Top line here should read "spasms of competence wrote:"
Can't decide on a user name, Steve?
I protested this question as well. I cited 212-01 which states you must reprimand in private as well as PG 206, violations subject to command discipline (i.e. late for roll call). It is perfectly reasonable for us as managers to warn and admonish a first time offender and give a CD for someone whose has shown a pattern of violating the rules. They DO NOT have to be treated equally. You just ca't treat them differently for personal reasons.
Oh, and spasms of competence: this reply was not for you so save your imperious comments for someone who is impressed by them. Enjoy the rest of the night in mom's basement with your bag of doritos and a thesaurus trying to make people feel unintelligent.
