Shadeykins

Space Law Feedback/Discussion

Recommended Posts

Generic thread for announcement, go!

To see the revised Space Law up for discussion, click here.

Edited by Shadeykins

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Aiding and Abetting: The original criminal's sentence, plus 5 minutes.

Why would the helper get a longer sentence than the one committing the crime?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Bxil said:

Why would the helper get a longer sentence than the one committing the crime?

To deter this sort of behaviour, and to also see that people who interfere with an arrest that does not lead to charges (say you're just bringing someone to brig for an authorized search or end up issuing a warning) will get brig time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The general idea is good, but let's say X kills Y with the weapon Z got. Why would Z get more time?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Bxil said:

The general idea is good, but let's say X kills Y with the weapon Z got. Why would Z get more time?

Simplification and reduction of caveats, mostly. Space Law was largely approached from a viewpoint of concision and reducing a lot of the confusing applications/language. "Original sentence + 5" is far easier to parse and remember than "Original sentence but if no sentence is charged still five minutes."

(also just to add further disincentive to Aiding and Abetting, which is a major complaint from security players)

Edited by Shadeykins

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Shadeykins said:

"Original sentence but if no sentence is charged still five minutes." 

I find this a lot more sensible... But I have not been arrested for ages, so I don't care that much. Just keep in mind that the current sounds very funny.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please rename aggrivated assault to Grevious Bodily Harm. Also, judging crit is a bit of a pain sometimes unless you have a health scanner or trust the person who was attacked isn't lying. It would be nice to be able to examine someone standing next to them and see "they look seriously injured!

Assault should include attacks with a weapon, regardless of how minor. Even one stab with a fork should be AA. Claws, fists, or tails would not.

Next, battery should only be briggable if the person wants to press charges.

Tresspass should include forcing the doors, even if you don't walk in. Messing with the panel is still just vandalism. Breaking glass windows doesn't count as tresspass.

Rioting should be renamed to "Failure to disperse" to reflect what the crime actually is. The description should reflect that it applies to any disruptive assembly who fails to disperse, and use rioting, blocking traffic, or disrupting jobs as examples.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, Anticept said:

Please rename aggrivated assault to Grevious Bodily Harm. Also, judging crit is a bit of a pain sometimes unless you have a health scanner or trust the person who was attacked isn't lying. It would be nice to be able to examine someone standing next to them and see "they look seriously injured!

Assault should include attacks with a weapon, regardless of how minor. Even one stab with a fork should be AA. Claws, fists, or tails would not.

Next, battery should only be briggable if the person wants to press charges.

Tresspass should include forcing the doors, even if you don't walk in. Messing with the panel is still just vandalism. Breaking glass windows doesn't count as tresspass.

Rioting should be renamed to "Failure to disperse" to reflect what the crime actually is. The description should reflect that it applies to any disruptive assembly who fails to disperse, and use rioting, blocking traffic, or disrupting jobs as examples.

The first would be something to PR for the examine mechanic. We presently have a similar system with the mild/moderate/severe damage level on examine (severe is presently set to 30 of a damage type).

As to the second, I'm not sure if we should be slapping 10 minute sentences to single hits with oxygen tanks (the MD who uses the wrong surgery tool would suddenly be guilty of assault, for instance).

Minor crimes can have a warning issued rather than a sentence. This kind of mechanic is already built into small crimes at the discretion of the officer. Allowing for dismissal will let people have an endless disarm fight in the brig lobby without security being able to legally intervene.

The issue with this would become crime stacking, as it would suddenly be both "Trespass" and "Damage to Station Assets," thereby turning a 0-5 minute charge into a 10 minute charge. Creating a specific exception would mean sacrificing the code-level restriction on crime-stacking as well. Major trespass would need to be modified, and the stacking would turn it into a 20 minute charge. Someone who hacks and bolts the door open to cargo as petty revenge would suddenly be guilty of trespass too, despite never intending to enter. If we do add the stacking restriction anyways, we've only ended up making an arbitrary distinction that still results in a 5 minute sentence.

My concern with the last one is that it could be misread by officers who, at a glance, assume it means they can disperse anyone and arrest them if they don't leave.

Edited by Shadeykins

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Disarm fights in the lobby that are disrupting security would be covered under failure to disperse. You're right that an officer could abuse it, but honestly, we already have that problem as it is, shitcurity will be shitcurity one way or another. On the flip side, it sure would be nice to be able to eject people standing in the lobby who are screaming and annoying, flooding chat with spam because they know they can get away with it. Or make disturbing the peace a minor crime (though honestly, minor crimes are more of a dare than a deterrent... I still believe that crimes on paradise are too lenient).

We already look at intent as well when someone gets bashed accidentally. Regardless of what is said in space law, EVERYTHING is officer's discretion. It takes a pretty serious act of negligence to get administrative intervention when someone is not arrested for a crime. Hell, when Ares was still playing, security at multiple points purposely just avoided him and let him have his way, even though in a sense, they weren't doing their job.

I've never seen someone hauled off for battery when they accidentally bash a patient with an o2 tank. Upgrading that to assault won't really change that, you might still have rare outlier cases. It can always be changed if it does become an issue.

As for tresspass: we already excluded certain crimes previously. Breaking and entering doesn't stack with vandalism of the door. Or at least, most people being charged that I had seen didn't have the two stacked.

The reason I call it tresspass if you just open the door, is you're intentionally bypassing access. While in real life this isn't tresspass unless you enter (it would.be something else but still more severe than just vandalism), I'm just trying to keep it simple without adding extra laws and use cases.

Itjust seems silly that someone would only get vandalism if they force a door to a secure area, often intent is enough for many crimes and breaking open a door is a pretty strong indicator of intent.

Going back to tresspass: it should be clarified in the decription that "access does not equal permission". If a door is ajar to a restricted area, or opens for you when it shouldn't, entering still makes you guilty.

Edited by Anticept

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Anticept said:

Disarm fights in the lobby that are disrupting security would be covered under failure to disperse. You're right that an officer could abuse it, but honestly, we already have that problem as it is, shitcurity will be shitcurity one way or another. On the flip side, it sure would be nice to be able to eject people standing in the lobby who are screaming and annoying, flooding chat with spam because they know they can get away with it. Or make disturbing the peace a minor crime (though honestly, minor crimes are more of a dare than a deterrent... I still believe that crimes on paradise are too lenient).

We already look at intent as well when someone gets bashed accidentally. Regardless of what is said in space law, EVERYTHING is officer's discretion. It takes a pretty serious act of negligence to get administrative intervention when someone is not arrested for a crime. Hell, when Ares was still playing, security at multiple points purposely just avoided him and let him have his way, even though in a sense, they weren't doing their job.

I've never seen someone hauled off for battery when they accidentally bash a patient with an o2 tank. Upgrading that to assault won't really change that, you might still have rare outlier cases. It can always be changed if it does become an issue.

As for tresspass: we already excluded certain crimes previously. Breaking and entering doesn't stack with vandalism of the door.

The reason I call it tresspass if you just open the door, is you're intentionally bypassing access. While in real life this isn't tresspass unless you enter, I'm just trying to keep it simple without adding extra laws and cases. It just seems silly that someone would only get vandalism if they force a door to a secure area...

Going back to tresspass: it should be clarified in the decription that "access does not equal permission". If a door is ajar to a restricted area, or opens for you when it shouldn't, entering still makes you guilty.

A disarm fight between two people isn't rioting though. This is a good example of why "Failure to Disperse" would be levied to just get people to leave, it's intended against people rioting not against people doing other things in a place. A lot of what the revamp does is to make it user friendly--most shitcurity is shitcurity on accident, not deliberately (think brigging people for crayons when IRL vandalism pretty much just means grafitti in most places).

I'm still not sold that a hit with an oxygen tank should be a medium crime. It seems far too severe for what would otherwise be battery.

We have excluded crimes previously. The ideal is not to do so whatsoever--this simplifies stacking by no small amount and uncomplicates Space Law for new players. We suffer tremendously from a lack of security players, and a lot of that has to do with how complicated the material for the role is. It should be straightforward, intuitive, but also useful. Even veterans were consistently guilty of stacking, the setup as it is (with code levels) makes it really simple to understand what can't stack.

My main contention with trespass for opening the door is that we already have a similar charge for forcible entry, Breaking & Entering, and that forcing doors to areas you don't have access to is still Damage to Station Assets. I imagine your concern is secure areas, here. There's really no neat fix to this without creating a specific law for hacking secure doors.

To be in an area which a person does not have access to. This counts for general areas of the station.

changed to

To be in an area which a person lacks authorized ID access for. This counts for general areas of the station. 

 

Edited by Shadeykins
comma splice

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Bxil said:

I find this a lot more sensible... But I have not been arrested for ages, so I don't care that much. Just keep in mind that the current sounds very funny.

After some discussion, the clause now reads like so:

image.png.8de5c9a670ff7cf9a42e64796eb51b5e.png

 

Edited by Shadeykins
  • stunbaton 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're right, it's not rioting, but it's not meant to be interpreted as rioting. It can be one of those things that would fall under this law though.

I'm suggesting changing the intent of the law completely to not just cover rioting, but also to those exploiting holes in spacelaw to be shitters. You'll have people standing in the brig lobby, screaming and spamming actions to flood chat with messages to make it hard to communicate. There is currently NO recourse for this in some cases. An IAA trying to talk with a prisoner for example... you're not going to just let them out and walk them away from the disruption, and PDA servers aren't always operating.

I've also had mobs of them where clearly they are waiting for sec to walk away before they break out their buddy, or waiting for someone to open the door to jump them. Had plenty of these happen to me.

This law is very reasonable, because it's failure to disperse. They need to be told to leave. It's not just "run up and arrest". If someone is abusing it, it's not hard to tell.

Alternatively, give security the ability to eject people from the brig lobby if they are being disruptive, arrest and brigged if they don't comply. If you try to do that as space law currently stands, you'll get the loudest autistic screech. It still doesn't really help if people are being shitters in sec hallway, but it's a start.

 

Quote

I'm still not sold that a hit with an oxygen tank should be a medium crime. It seems far too severe for what would otherwise be battery.

 

A big point that I've made is intent. Again, nobody's going to brig someone over a single accidental hit with an o2 tank. There's already a ton of opportunities to brig people But, if they are currently resisting arrest and they manage to smack an officer with an o2 tank, there's very clearly intent. If they are running after someone in the hall and hit em with an o2 tank, that's also pretty obvious of intent. A punch doesn't hurt much. An O2 tank hurts a lot, and I think a big one can knock you down.

In the fork example, they can aim for your eyes, which requires a trip to medbay to fix.

Fact is, many many things are quite dangerous to be hit by even though they seem benign. Listing these items out would be too much.

 

As for your aiding and abetting: Here's a suggestion for the last sentence: "Regardless if the aided suspect is charged or not, interfering with security and due process is still a crime, and carries a minimum sentence of 5 minutes."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Anticept said:

You're right, it's not rioting, but it's not meant to be interpreted as rioting. It can be one of those things that would fall under this law though.

I'm suggesting changing the intent of the law completely to not just cover rioting, but also to those exploiting holes in spacelaw to be shitters. You'll have people standing in the brig lobby, screaming and spamming actions to flood chat with messages to make it hard to communicate. There is currently NO recourse for this in some cases. An IAA trying to talk with a prisoner for example... you're not going to just let them out and walk them away from the disruption, and PDA servers aren't always operating.

-snip-

As for your aiding and abetting: Here's a suggestion for the last sentence: "Regardless if the aided suspect is charged or not, interfering with security and due process is still a crime, and carries a minimum sentence of 5 minutes."

To partake in an unauthorized and disruptive assembly of crewmen.

Rioting already covers your example.

As for the latter, see the post above--it's been changed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

To partake in an unauthorized and disruptive assembly of crewmen.

 

However, this is read within context of the crime named "rioting". So it's not exactly covered. If I told three people in the brig lobby who are being obnoxious to disperse or I'll charge them with rioting, the ahelps will fly. Nobody interprets it this way. Which goes back to why I said, it would be better to just call the crime "Failure to disperse". It could be stressed that it's mainly for dealing with riots, but could be applied to disruptive activities and give the brig example that I gave.

 

Anyways, I did see your edit and you mentioning it reads weird, that's why I offered the wording I provided. It fits the page writing style a little bit better. The second column could also see this written as so: "To knowingly assist a criminal, or to obstruct justice". In some jurisdictions, obstruction of justice is technically the crime that you'll get slapped with if you aid and abet, others make a distinction where aiding is you assisting in the actual crime, while obstruction is interfering with the course of justice (hiding, helping evade arrest, or otherwise not reporting information about a known criminal).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think 'Rioting' fits the actual crime better than 'Failure to Disperse', since, like Shadykins said, a newby Security player could easily apply the 'you're rioting' excuse to any group of people who are being obnoxious and not doing their jobs, and then tell them to fuck off, then they don't, and down comes the baton. Rioting is a better explianation of the intent of the law. The 'if they fail to disperse' bit basically just means you should warn them they'll get arrested if they don't stop before arresting them, which, while a bit inconsistent, makes sense considering the crime.

Also, I really like the rework in general; it cleans up a lot of confusing bits about playing Security, and should make the job a lot healthier for non-regulars.

Edited by Renaultus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The way you put it makes me understand what shadey was trying to say now, though it's quite a stretch to apply it to someone who isn't doing their job.

Still, really would be nice to be able to deal with people being obnoxious. It's infuriating to be harassed by players, akin to the "I'm not touching you!" game played by children.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Anticept said:

The way you put it makes me understand what shadey was trying to say now, though it's quite a stretch to apply it to someone who isn't doing their job.

Still, really would be nice to be able to deal with people being obnoxious. It's infuriating to be harassed by players, akin to the "I'm not touching you!" game played by children.

Honestly, that's a god-given right to the Civilian. They thrive on testing their luck. Also, I'm pretty sure just about anything they can do to actually impede you can be considered Battery, except maybe peel-throwing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And people wonder why people hate playing security. A little bit of harassment is funny I agree, and that's not the problem that I have. It's when people dedicate an entire shift to being a total shithead. That's just being a dick and it would be nice to have some sort of recourse when they are constantly harassing. Ultimately, it's still the civie pushing their luck, but there SHOULD be consequences for being the kind of person that constantly fucks with other players.

A year and a half ago, it was REALLY BAD. It was so bad, that it resulted some admin policy changes, and eventually a code change that implemented the civilian to security ratio. The greytide was intolerable and driving people away.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Renaultus said:

Honestly, that's a god-given right to the Civilian

This is exactly the kind of thing we're trying to cut down on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like a lot of what I see, but I think that we need some improvements, many of which are aimed at being harsher on typical graytide behavior.

Cut the repeat offender modifier down to start the second time someone is arrested and make it +10 minutes. This will give it some teeth, and almost nobody gets arrested for the same thing three times, because by that late in the round, security is too busy to do anything but respond to calls that get people put in the brig for a long amount of time.

Make successful prison breaks their own crime, distinct from resisting arrest, so that there's no doubt that anyone who intentionally escapes their cell/causes it to no longer imprison them gets +10 minutes in addition to the timer reset.

The list of people that can permabrig may seem like a good idea at first, but that's actually a list of people who are mostly either not present or very busy. The person on that list who will reliably the there is the warden and if he's gone, I guess you just can't perma people? We need guidelines for this situation. Do we hold them in normal cells indefinitely? Do we ahelp? Do we just ignore space law and do it anyway? I guarantee you, this situation will come up more than you think, especially once people start screaming that they've been held in processing for too long.

Refusal to cooperate needs some rewording. I'd replace  "This modifier almost entirely refers to repeated attempts to unbuckle or escape from cuffs." with something like  "Any attempt to physically resist processing or imprisonment, including fleeing, is refusal to cooperate." This will unambiguously nail down all of the most common graytide behaviors that take up insane amounts of time in processing. I'd also say that it should stack with every attempt to escape. I know that there will be a brief period where admins get angry ahelps about this from a small group of players, but they're the ones this new policy is targeting.

Don't include any minimum sentences that officers must follow.

To decrease the number of officers needed to keep the brig staffed, sane, and functional, you might also want to increase the penalties for any crimes committed while imprisoned. Something like a flat +25%-+50% might work. This will also mean that the Brig Phys and IAA's will be able to do their jobs much more often since people will have an additional incentive to not just rush them.

Finally, make aggravated assault, manslaughter, and attempted murder (but not assault of an officer) a capital crime if someone is already permabrigged. This will allow security to remove troublesome prisoners from the round while allowing more peaceful prisoners to continue playing. I know that there's solitary and three lockdown cells, but in practice, security often needs to use at least one of the lockdowns for dead drops when prisoners aren't cooperative, and solitary is pretty much a dedicated Vox lockdown cell.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, TwoCam said:

Cut the repeat offender modifier down to start the second time someone is arrested and make it +10 minutes. This will give it some teeth, and almost nobody gets arrested for the same thing three times, because by that late in the round, security is too busy to do anything but respond to calls that get people put in the brig for a long amount of time.

This! I barely ever, ever, see it used.

6 minutes ago, TwoCam said:

Make successful prison breaks their own crime, distinct from resisting arrest, so that there's no doubt that anyone who intentionally escapes their cell/causes it to no longer imprison them gets +10 minutes in addition to the timer reset.

Absolutely - and attempting I think should be more than a time reset. It makes it worth it to try to break out in the first few minutes of your sentence.

6 minutes ago, TwoCam said:

, I guess you just can't perma people?

No, but you can give them a very, very long sentence until whoever can perma is available 😉

6 minutes ago, TwoCam said:

Refusal to cooperate needs some rewording

Very much so, this can be debated over.

6 minutes ago, TwoCam said:

Don't include any minimum sentences that officers must follow.

Why's that?

6 minutes ago, TwoCam said:

To decrease the number of officers needed to keep the brig staffed, sane, and functional, you might also want to increase the penalties for any crimes committed while imprisoned. Something like a flat +25%-+50% might work. This will also mean that the Brig Phys and IAA's will be able to do their jobs much more often since people will have an additional incentive to not just rush them.

Finally, make aggravated assault, manslaughter, and attempted murder (but not assault of an officer) a capital crime if someone is already permabrigged. This will allow security to remove troublesome prisoners from the round while allowing more peaceful prisoners to continue playing. I know that there's solitary and three lockdown cells, but in practice, security often needs to use at least one of the lockdowns for dead drops when prisoners aren't cooperative, and solitary is pretty much a dedicated Vox lockdown cell.

Huh, that's kinda genius. Not sure on the specific times/crimes/etc, but some kind of way to stop people rushing officers/etc because "why not" is a damn good idea.

 

Thanks for the feedback, this is super helpful!

Edited by necaladun

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, necaladun said:

Why's that?

Because there are are a few problems here.

The first is that something more pressing could be going on and it might just not be worth it to go through the entire process of brigging someone when the HOS is screaming "Help Slings Eng maint" on the radio over and over.

Another possibility is that the actual contribution to the crime can be so minor as to be negligible, or I may not even be sure if it happened at all, but I don't want an unusually rules obessed IAA or Magistrate (you know the type) breathing down my neck because I didn't sentence a guy to his five minutes (this can also apply to the situation above.)

The last one is that I, the officer, can be wrong. I could have misread the situation, I could have the wrong guy, his friend could have though I was mindslaved, or a million other things could happen, and in those cases, I should have the freedom to let the abettor go, rather than being forced to give him five minutes brig time. At the very absolute least, let us parole the time. The current wording makes it seem like that's not an option.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah I getcha, I agree -but- I don't think this should apply for major+ crimes. Don't want sec officers able to let people out for murder, etc.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, I know this is technically under legal SOP, but let security take away any spammer's headset. It's annoying and demoralizing for both Security and the crew.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now