Discussion in 'General' started by IMVader, Mar 1, 2015.
Don't make this personal guys.
Well, considering everything I don't mind it. If you are going to kill the station pets it's nice to have some sort of risk. You could also add the narcotics law if you want that RP atmosphere.
I don't feel like the "anything can be abused" really applies here. The whole "I will brig you for what you say" is highly police-state kind of mindset, if we have to watch what we say ICly to that extent you might as well not use public radio at all in fear of getting on some officer's bad side. It enforces a level of fear-RP where you have to adjust your behavior or get abused, and I don't think thats really fun for anyone. I also feel it would cause more riots against security.
I don't like the metagame-y reel in for the animal thing either. Its like permabrigging someone for wearing the captains jumpsuit, some people just like blue / some people just want to heartlessly kick a dog to death. Also mind you some people just like to steal animals so they can have a pet instead of a busy head who pays no mind to them / kills them round start anyways.
I'm ambivalent about the comms thing. In general I wouldn't want it to be a charge, and would be totally opposed to it if we had exclusively mature and responsible players, however I would love to have it specifically to deal with major league dipshits like Bobby De Bruin. I do find the suggestion that a minor charge would deter people from using comms to be completely laughable given that this is LLA we are talking about.
The charges relating to prisoner abuse seem redundant to me in light of general assault, manslaughter and murder charges. The kidnapping and forcible confinement charges I have proposed would also apply to unlawful arrests and briggings by security.
As for charges relating to murdering Ian and stealing jumpsuits, I am of the opinion that any high risk traitor theft objective item should be a grand theft item. Either rework the grand theft item list or rework what items are targets. Theft objectives are already quite easy for a reasonably experienced player. There is no tension or excitement whatsoever in stealing something that there aren't serious IC consequences for stealing.
I kinda want this to happen sometime.
ANYWAYS, the changes in OP sound good enough to me.
EDIT: I also don't really like any comms usage restrictions. I like to incite my fake revolutions now and then.
Keep the topic on the topic at hand, no need to start flaming players regardless of who they are, you make some points in your thread, i ask that you don't start making forum posts into ghetto peanut gallery. I would hate to hate to remove the entire post because one little jab at another player.
There is quite a few talking points in this thread but i only wanna address a few
I'm not sure any of this is trying to accomplish to be honest.
-More officers following this to the T out of fear of being BANNED? (OOC standpoint)
-More chains and shackles on what officer can and cant do out of fear of being fired/rioted on (IC standpoint)
in regard to the OOC standpoint, space law isnt "how you play security or banned". Space law and Security Policy are almost similar but seperate entities
1 being what is expected from you ICly and the other what is expected from you in the rules.
-I'm not gonna ban someone for breaking into EVA to smash a alien and pull a dying engineer from the claws
-I'm not gonna ban someone for spacing a confirmed traitor because it was a confirmed traitor
-I'm not gonna ban someone for assuming their role as acting HOS when there isn't one and permabriging someone who was ment to be permabrigged.
The written rule regarding this is
Rule 10.) Security officers are not allowed to harm criminals (barring dangerous circumstances and lawful executions) or steal items (This does not include the confiscation of contraband or items used in a crime) from criminals while processing them. Security Officers, AI, and Head of Staff roles are important to the progress of the station, and as such, abusing these roles in any way may result in a jobban until we believe you are capable to act responsibly when playing as them.
You are an important role, you have responsibilities, you are not to harm or steal items (baring the special circumstances) and abusing these roles can result in job bans, doesn't need to be a 12 page policy on when you can make an arrest or who you can shoot or how you process a prisoner. I have to give it to wellington and cannibalcrow, this rule pretty much covers all the basic points of the cans and do as security.
Making space law the security policy is backwards and has resulted in many disagreements because its long, has a lot of points and is open to various interpretations compared to the 2 sentences above. That being said space law exists as a IC mechanic of what you can and can't do in terms of how the crew/command/sec will treat you, you cant go around stealing peoples jumpsuits because sec will arrest you, it also covers when it is ok to use lethal force and gives you some appropriate times for crimes. I don't believe the changes you posted above are needed at all other then to create more disagreement when a officer forgets to hold you over a locker and instead held out outside the locker and moved your stuff into the locker or forgot to start the timer before he did the search.
I am highly against all of these, i recall reading over bay law a couple months back and laughing at how ridiculous some charges are, most of those crimes are highly abusable (which does break rule 10) as for abusing the radio we have Inciting a riot which i often use on anyone who gets brigged and shouts "HELP, GET ME OUT OF BRIG, SOMEONE SAVE ME, SHITCURITY, KILL THEM PLEASE".
as for being insulted over radio.... I'd really not like having laws that imply that officers have thinskin, its insults it does nothing and honestly id rather have someone insulting me then actually trying to fight me.
You know... that is not a bad idea, i mean it is covered in assault but additional time for kidnapping would add enough points for the labor requirements which kidnapping is a must for that kind of stuff. yeah we should work torwards getting those in.
Flat covered this, taking the spare doesnt auotmatically net you head role responsibilitys, its not a automatic rule. Making yourself acting captain/hos/warden does.
You could go steal the spare, walts into the armory take a egun, go setup the engine and still be assistant, the difference is you would be a armed assistant.
Did you read the post? If so, what chains were added?
If you meant the labor and permabrig procedures, they work in the same way of the already existing brig procedure of providing the safest way to incarcerate a criminal without being too abusive. I never saw brig procedures as shackles, but rather as useful information for my benefit as security. It also helps newbies not to get disarmed, stunned and looted by prisoners through improper handling.
Also, if you have a more efficient procedure feel free to share it.
I am unaware of how this is relevant to the thread. I'm proposing changes to space law, mainly to procedures, not that you ban people for doing something within space law (first example fits Self Defense situation modifier), not applying space law to free-game roles (confirmed traitors have no rights) or properly following the chain of command (assuming acting HoS role and acting legitimately). I'm quite confused on what made you think I was.
Again you are implying some form of heavy restriction on security behavior by proposed space law changes. Please quote or clarify that, because I really fail to see it.
You make several points here, some quite confusing.
1) Who proposed to change security policy, or to make space law replace it? Where did that came from?
2) You say space law is both longer and more open to interpretation than rule 10. Do I really need to explain why the former is true and the latter is not?
3) Brig procedures already exist. Do they "create more disagreement when a officer forgets to hold you over a locker and instead held out outside the locker and moved your stuff into the locker or forgot to start the timer before he did the search"? Are you proposing to remove them?
I see you skimmed the conversation and missed some posts. For reference:
Shackling security to spacelaw (especially through OOC enforcement) only hinders them. Space Law is just the guidebook to not be shitcurity; As a longtime security (and quasi-security) player, my most persistent back-of-my-mind fear is that I'm going to be doing my job, unknowingly violate spacelaw, and suddenly I'm getting adminPM'd. Maybe I gave some jackass a six minute timer for "Assault and being an assblast", maybe I want to pepperspam some dickbutt who's a persistent thorn in my side. Let me.
The only situations where Admins should be directly interfering in security/spacelaw matters are cases of grief, round-removal, or other things that everyone is on the hook for.
Completely disagree with this, as security is a role of power and responsibility, afforded premium access to equipment and a position of trust on the station. What constitutes outright grief is rather subjective and while the crew should be permitted a huge degree of freedom and leeway without being bothered by admins, there should be another tier of enforcement for security roles.
I am also a regular security and command player and I dare say it is *very* rare for me to violate Space Law or receive an admin PM in the role. As a security player, I can handle the crew being chucklefucks, but not other officers. One of the things that I found particularly attractive on LLA when I first settled here was the relatively high quality of security players, which stood in extreme contrast to the idiocy I witnessed from sec on TG and New Eden (where I would have to spend every security round at war with the rest of my own team, trying to arrest them all). This is only possible through the admins ensuring they are kept in line. If you violate Space Law and get told to rectify your mistake, learn from it and get over it. If this happens constantly, you are a bad officer and I don't want the admins off your back.
Security should be constrained. Space Law is "just a guideline" in the respect that it dictates the *maximum* responses allowed by security. Frankly as a security player I even like this as it adds a role-playing element. When I'm not in the mood to be restricted by it, I just play as an assistant and act as a bounty hunter. If you don't want to be subject to the restrictions of security, you should do something similar.
If there is an issue with Space Law, Space Law should be edited, not judged to be irrelevant.
I'm on the band wagon where the only restriction to security is rule 10
Which... covers pretty much all abuse but doesn't restrict the officer from leniency or breaking any of the laws for the greater good and what i mean by this is breaking into EVA to kill the xeno eating the CE. Sure the rule basically covers what space law covers so i guess in a way, following space law as officer is a way to avoid breaking this rule... But i'd rather the rule be short and sweet and cover abuse rather then the entirety of space law as it just makes things over complicated.
Well, the examples Psyentific provided of things he'd like to be allowed to do were charging people with fake crimes and torturing prisoners using security equipment, so I'm going to have to stand by my firm "hell no" there.
I have no idea how your post is relevant, Cactus, because "breaking the law for the greater good" clearly wasn't what Psyentific was referring to.
I think Space Law is fine as is. Space Law isn't a set of iron hard shackles that enslaves every Officer who ever Officer'd. The only reason I don't have dozens of more notes about being an overly aggressive player is because Space Law educated me in being calmer and cooled down my temper by showing me what is and isn't okay to do in a professional setting. It educated me on how to properly brig people and taught me how to kindly and quickly process people. It provided me with a set of morals to incorporate into my play. I have never once felt like I've been terribly restricted by Space Law, and that Space Law has prevented me from doing something I would have otherwise been able to do.
Although Space Law does provide a nice set of rules that Officers should stick to in order to keep the peace, nobody is going to follow them to the dot when it comes to an extreme situation such as the one Flavo has given to us. No Officer in their right mind is going to think "Oh no! A Xeno is eating the CE in EVA. I had better run this through the HoS and see if he will excuse me for breaking into EVA so I can save this man from a critical threat to the station! What if an assistant sees me and reports this terrible crime to the Captain and I get demoted? Dear me!" No officer is going to ask for permission to break into Atmos and steal the Atmos hardsuit to save the crew from a Malf AI who's flooding the entire station with plasma.
The things that ARE and ARE NOT okay for Officers to do are extremely common sense. Of course you shouldn't use the traitors C4 to blow a hole in the armory wall for an egun. Of course you shouldn't kidnap the HoS and steal his ID so you can have the dermal armor patch. Of course it isn't okay to steal a prisoners ID and backpack because you want access to Science. If any officer has some irrational fear that they are SOMEHOW breaking Space Law and are going to get PM'd for it by an admin then maybe they should take an unbiased look at their own actions and play style and try to fix what they're doing that's so borderline rule breaking that they constantly second guess what they're doing or about to do.
Sorry to plug my own thread again, but this has become relevant and may be helpful to officers not just in determining sentencing of prisoners, but also in deciding under what circumstances to violate Space Law themselves: http://llagaming.net/forums/threads/crime-enforcement-and-the-necessity-defence.2766/
I don't want to be restricted to Spesslaw when I feel like my better judgement is a far better tool. Rule 10 easily covers the intent of restricting us to spacelaw, without the futz and klutz that comes with it.
You said it yourself here; Sometimes you don't want to be restricted by spacelaw, so you dont play security. Security, as a job, as a department, exists as a way to validate that playstyle - That is, playing the game to fight spacemen. Every single assistant that acts as a bounty hunter, every single Quartermaster that forms the "Peoples Militia of Glorious Cargonia", every Engineer that patrols maint with a stunprod in one hand and a cablecoil in his pocket, every single one of those ought to be funneled into Security. Not because they're robust, not because they're natural-born goodcurity or whatever, but because that is the department that most matches that playstyle.
Using the administration as a tool to keep Security 100% by the books is a terrible policy, especially when absolutely no other department is held to that standard. I might be completely out to lunch here, but I don't think anyone in Engineering gets jobbanned for not setting up the engine, I don't think anyone in Medbay gets jobbanned for not setting up Cryogenics. The only thing that makes security any different from that is a gimped taser and some half-useful body armor.
My above examples perfectly illustrate what I mean; People are completely free to be a dick to me, but if I give them a hard time (even in the most trivial way), suddenly I'm worse than Hitler. Assault is two minutes. Assault, plus yelling "SHITCURITY", plus spamming move in case someone messes with my Pull, plus repeat offenses, plus whatever other dickery I can think of, is also two minutes. I cannot react to peoples dickery in ways that are not "Space Law" or "Stiff upper lip". If I give him five minutes for "Assault, but also being a dick", I'm on a one-way ticket to Banville. If I go to the effort to fabricate charges against said dickery or plant evidence, I'm on a one-way ticket to Banville. Thus, if I'm restricted to Spacelaw, I'm effectively defanged when dealing with non-illegal dickery.
If I can play 'security' just fine without ever stepping foot in the brig, why are we restricting the ones who step forward to do it officially? I'll admit that I haven't played on LLA much, but that seems like something that would directly contribute to a manpower shortage. If I get the admins hovering over my shoulder and the playerbase just waiting for me to take a piss on an overgrown library book and all I get for it is a lousy taser, I'm not going to play Security. That's not for any reason other than "It's not worth the hassle".
If you aren't competent enough to play security without acting like an unprofessional, immature thug who can't handle being insulted by the crew, then you can't claim to have "better judgement" then Space Law allows for. And it's ironic that you are arguing that the status quo here is "restrictive" when your argument for loosening security's trigger finger is that if people want to be combat oriented they should be restricted to doing so as security (even if not restricted in an admin-enforced sense).
The regulation of security here is what made me make LLA a home. I've never been part of the same caliber of goodcurity teams on any other server. If you want to act like a dingus as a sec officer, you have plenty of options elsewhere. But I like having at least one server where I can play security without having to spend more time arresting other security officers than antagonists and shitlers.
The huge distinction between those examples and the ones you wished you could get away with an officer is that those are cases of players *not doing something* rather than *actively doing something bad.* You will *not* get in trouble with admins for taking a security officer slot and being completely useless. You *will* get in trouble for being actively harmful to the crew. Similarly to how an engineer would get in trouble for actively walling people into areas they can't escape from, or a chemist would get in trouble for shooting random people full of lexorin.
The difference between security and the other departments that you missed was what their explicit function is; enforcing the behavior of other crew members. That means that their actions will inherently have more effect on other players than other departments, unless players in other departments go out of their way to grief, which is dealt with in its own right.
By the sounds of it, nothing of value would be lost.
I wish you would quit assuming that I'm some kind of jumped-up beat-happy shitcurity. It really makes it hard for me to argue with you when half of what you're doing is patronizing me.
Not really an assumption:
With that said, I actually was a miner and you were my departmental sec officer the other day. A friend and I commented to one another that you were a new face and seemed good. So I'm open to the possibility that you have certain less than noble desires but have enough restraint not to act upon them. But I was surprised to see that post.
Separate names with a comma.