Shadeykins

Space Law Feedback/Discussion

Recommended Posts

5 hours 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 was already done. It applies on the third charge, and on the fifth it results in permabrig. This is a reduction from "on the third charge and on the seventh time."

Petty Theft (x1) - 5 minutes, Petty Theft (x2) - 5 minutes (10 total), Petty Theft (x3) - 10 minutes (5+modifier, 20 total), Petty Theft (x4) - 15 minutes (5+modifier, 35 total), Petty Theft (x5) - Permabrig.

I'm not sure we should be permabrigging people for anything less than the accrued amount of 35 here. (Reducing it further would mean that someone could only accrue 20 minutes on the same minor charge before being perma'd).

5 hours 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.

Already covered, see "Escape from Brig" under modifiers. Not sure about the +10 minutes. If you're escaping from the brig, it's because security processed you wrong. If you've managed to sneak in contraband, that's another 10 minute charge anyhow.

5 hours ago, TwoCam said:

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.

This was an intentional change to Space Law when Executions were changed. We don't want officers permabrigging people without authorization (you hold them in a normal cell indefinitely).

5 hours ago, TwoCam said:

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.

Changed.

5 hours ago, TwoCam said:

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

Only minimum sentence is for Aiding and Abetting, and it is that way for a reason. This is a behaviour we do not want to leave unchecked.

If there's some overarching station threat, that's covered by the "Immediate Threat to Prisoner" charge.

Unless you're referring to sentencing outlines in general, in which case I would direct you to read the Additional Clarifications section in Space Law.

The greater good of the station should be considered when sentencing. If someone breaks into the AI Core to destroy a malfunctioning AI, there is no need to charge them. The intent of Space Law is to protect the station and the crew, not to hinder them.
5 hours 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.

Prisoners are incapable of committing crimes while imprisoned if you process them correctly. There is legitimately no way out of a cell if they've been processed correctly. Self-harm is not a crime. Adding even more modifiers/clauses to Space Law is the opposite of what this revamp is trying to achieve.

5 hours ago, TwoCam said:

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.

If a prisoner kills another prisoner in permabrig, they're already eligible for execution. There's very few circumstances where a permabrig murder is legit and not ahelpable. Adding even more caveats/modifiers to Space Law is, again, the opposite of what the revamp is trying to achieve.

2 hours ago, TwoCam said:

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.

Abuse of Comms was an old law. It did not work and it was abused to an obscene degree.

If someone's calling for violence that's already covered by "Inciting a Riot."

9 hours ago, Anticept said:

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.

There's very few things you can do as a civilian that aren't already chargeable. If you're obstructing hallways by building barricades, that's sabotage. If they're disarming constantly, it's battery. If they're screaming at you constantly and banging on the windows, it's rioting.

The solution to these players is a mechanical and administrative one as-is. They either need more things to do (mechanically) or a discussion needs to occur with them if it's that bad.

Edited by Shadeykins

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

remove the edgy needlessly inhumane and inefficient execution methods from space law. the chair and lethal injection are sufficient. if both methods are somehoe unavailable, allow firingsquad.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Coldflame said:

remove the edgy needlessly inhumane and inefficient execution methods from space law. the chair and lethal injection are sufficient. if both methods are somehoe unavailable, allow firingsquad.

This would require mapping changes, otherwise we have an execution chamber with features that people can't use.

It's a good suggestion though, it's just contingent on the map.

Edited by Shadeykins
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not a fan of the Aiding and Abetting change, deterrence is one thing but serving an equal sentence is already said deterrent.

For Self Defense, not sure on the wording "Persons intentionally getting involved in fights which occur in a department that isn't theirs is an act of vigilantism, not self-defense." That means if I see someone in the bar being beaten with a stool and I intervene and accidentally or otherwise injure the attacker, I'm suddenly charged with assault for saving another crew member who wasn't in my department?

Also why is a chameleon projector consider a 'Dangerous Contraband Item' , it's not capable of inflicting harm.

Edited by davidchan

Share this post


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

Not a fan of the Aiding and Abetting change, deterrence is one thing but serving an equal sentence is already said deterrent.

For Self Defense, not sure on the wording "Persons intentionally getting involved in fights which occur in a department that isn't theirs is an act of vigilantism, not self-defense." That means if I see someone in the bar being beaten with a stool and I intervene and accidentally or otherwise injure the attacker, I'm suddenly charged with assault for saving another crew member who wasn't in my department?

Also why is a chameleon projector consider a 'Dangerous Contraband Item' , it's not capable of inflicting harm.

The issue is that without creating another charge, interfering with an arrest that doesn't lead to charges (perhaps it's for a search, or a warning is issued) is unbriggable. Aiding and abetting has already been shifted to a five minute minimum, not an addition.

Self-defense has always had that. If there's a better way of framing it, I'm all ears.

Chameleon Projector has always been S-Level Contraband. It's a fairly potent item in its own right.

Edited by Shadeykins

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would like to see the modifiers listed as shortly as possible in the great looking quick reference section as the last reference. Only the sections "situation" and "modifier" should be in the quick reference. Quick links from the reference by clicking a situation label would make them more common for security players to use.

The quick reference could also use a link to the contraband section in the bottom of the page. So a link to "https://nanotrasen.se/wiki/index.php/User:Shadeykins#Contraband" from the reference as shortly written as possible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Heroo2012 said:

I would like to see the modifiers listed as shortly as possible in the great looking quick reference section as the last reference. Only the sections "situation" and "modifier" should be in the quick reference. Quick links from the reference by clicking a situation label would make them more common for security players to use.

The quick reference could also use a link to the contraband section in the bottom of the page. So a link to "https://nanotrasen.se/wiki/index.php/User:Shadeykins#Contraband" from the reference as shortly written as possible.

Contraband is already navigable to via the TOC and through the law itself (which is linked in the crime code reference).

A table has been added in to quickly reference modifiers and what they do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, necaladun said:

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

I thought the point of this was to cut down on Security rules bloat and increase clarity to decrease the learning curve and fix long-standing issues. If the point of this is to stop the greytide from being greytide, we might need a bigger boat. I can't think of anything to include that would help Security handle people who are messing with them; either the person messing with them doesn't know the rules and almost certainly gets arrested for something (vandalism, battery, ect.), or they do know the rules and they'll stop just shy of getting arrested. The only way I can think of is to give Sec carte blanche to arrest people for 'impeding Security', which would be a disaster. Hopefully the rework in general will help the overall healthiness of Security and cut down on the problem at the source.

 

20 hours ago, TwoCam said:

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.

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

Probably the reason why approval is needed is because people in perma are easier to ignore. Out of sight, out of mind. You don't want a rookie officer permabrigging some guy for what is basically a hyped-up manslaughter or hazardous workplace charge. Guidelines for the situation should exist, though; it's entirely possible for the HoS, the Captain, and the Warden to all be unreachable at the moment you need them.

20 hours ago, TwoCam said:

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.

Most of these reasons boil down to 'we can't prove it was them or we can prove it wasn't them', and if they can't be proven to have done the crime, then they should not be brigged at all. Obviously, 'minimum brig time' means for people who have actually been proven to have committed the crimes in question, not for any bloke you point to and say 'they murdered someone in space, got to perma them'.

The first reason makes sense, though. I don't think removing minimum sentence times is a good idea, but rather, indicating somewhere that, in an emergency, waiving smaller crimes, longer processing times, and so on are okay. I wouldn't be surprised if that's in Space Law somewhere, anyway.

Edited by Renaultus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

should probably include damaging borgs in damaging station assets, and killing or emagging sabotage, or something like that. Right now damaging cyborgs is in an annoying grey area where some people call it assault (on an officer if its a secborg sometimes) and just vandalism, clarity would be niceInsert other media

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, I think damaging both a should continue to be assault. While your idea makes sense from an IC perspective, we've got to remember that these are players being hurt and that should be treated equally.

 

I also just realized how low the refusal to cooperate modifier is. In order to get the maximum of 15 minutes, you have to have an hour long sentence already, and by that time, you're probably headed to the permabrig! It should probably be harsher or have a minimum time (for example, officer gets to choose between 25% of your sentence or five minutes.)

Edited by TwoCam

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is because borgs aren't subject to space law, not being crew. They can't actually break the law or be brigged - as well as not being at risk of things like broken bones or infection.

I'd be ok with it being a somewhat higher charge for it, but with how robust sec borgs are, I don't think it's much of a problem, and rarely one I've ever had to deal with as an admin. I'd appreciate more feedback from sec borg players though!

It should also scale with how much damage is done, because hitting a borg once with a crowbar and disabling it entirely seem to be the same atm?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sec borgs may be robust, but not all borgs are sec borgs. Space law has to cover the poor janiborgs, service borgs, etc as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, pinatacolada said:

should probably include damaging borgs in damaging station assets, and killing or emagging sabotage, or something like that. Right now damaging cyborgs is in an annoying grey area where some people call it assault (on an officer if its a secborg sometimes) and just vandalism, clarity would be niceInsert other media

Already clarified. Destroying borgs is covered under Sabotage.

Damaging them has always been Vandalism (now Damage to Station Assets), the charge has been changed to:

Departmental Pets, Cyborgs, Xenobio golems, and personal pets are station property. Graffiti is not considered Damage to Station Assets, but destruction of personal belongings or property is. For serious damage to station property, see Sabotage.

Borgs are station property, and it seems that this misnomer is largely because the Cyborg wiki page said killing them was treated like murder. The borg wiki page has been updated with the following to clarify this issue:

All cyborgs are considered to be station property. Though sentient, cyborgs lack full sapience and are incapable of experiencing the full range of emotions that organics can.

In the context of lore, the AI has always been a full, sapient intelligence. Borgs have never been, this is why the prospect of being borged is terrifying--it is irreparably muting and slaving a person --and why slaving AIs to lawsets has always been an ethical point of contention in the game universe (mechanical slavery).

10 hours ago, TwoCam said:

No, I think damaging both a should continue to be assault. While your idea makes sense from an IC perspective, we've got to remember that these are players being hurt and that should be treated equally.

Borgs are station property, they always have been and they always will be. While the person playing may be a player, they are playing as a non-character. Is it the equivalent of choosing to play as a slightly more useful monkey; you're sentient--not sapient--and as a result you're station property (as is the AI).

We're not going to start charging people who destroy the equivalent of a talking wrench on wheels with murder. It makes even less sense to think of it this way if you consider that destroying the AI (who is far more useful/intelligent than a cyborg) is Grand Sabotage, and not murder.

If people are destroying borgs for no good reason, that's covered by the server rules--not Space Law.

Edited by Shadeykins

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

upping destruction of borgs (without reason, of course) to grand sabotage might be worth considering? it's equal to murder oocly and reasonable icly, seeing as it's destroying an expensive piece of equipment useful to station function.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/12/2018 at 12:01 AM, Shadeykins said:

 


The greater good of the station should be considered when sentencing. If someone breaks into the AI Core to destroy a malfunctioning AI, there is no need to charge them. The intent of Space Law is to protect the station and the crew, not to hinder them.

Prisoners are incapable of committing crimes while imprisoned if you process them correctly. There is legitimately no way out of a cell if they've been processed correctly. Self-harm is not a crime. Adding even more modifiers/clauses to Space Law is the opposite of what this revamp is trying to achieve.

 

These two statements are a bit wrong, I think. Unless it got changed, prisoners can get out of their cell by banging their shoes / PDA on a light, then using that to break out. When I made a PR to correct this, I was told it was knee-jerk hugbox, despite it being the ire of security players, and that having ways to break out even when correctly processed is intentional. This theme comes up on nearly all security remap PRs as well. So that's conflicting views from administration. Which is it, prisoners should be able to break out or not?

 

The quote, I think, will never be interpreted in that manner. Even while sentencing as a magistrate people lawyer the hell out of everything. Unless there is an explicit clause saying sentencing can be taken to the extreme in edge cases, it will probably never be seen as a legitimate thing. Something like the admin Rule 0 would be nice, security can dramatically alter sentencing but anyone can / security must appeal it to CC. Give the magistrate fax a little more meaning, especially since the fax for execution was removed.

 

Mechanically, there are some errors with the quick reference charts. Robbery is 207 on the charts but 209 on the main list, and 209 is blank on the charts. There might be more, so it should be looked at more closely.

 

I also thing there should be some clarification regarding robbery and theft. Since they now seem to share the same code (at least in the quick reference), does robbery apply to stealing a weapon from an officer and theft to stealing from say, the armory? There was a case once where an officer tried to charge someone with both robbery AND theft for stealing their tazer, and so some clarification there is perhaps needed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, Vivalas said:

These two statements are a bit wrong, I think. Unless it got changed, prisoners can get out of their cell by banging their shoes / PDA on a light, then using that to break out. When I made a PR to correct this, I was told it was knee-jerk hugbox, despite it being the ire of security players, and that having ways to break out even when correctly processed is intentional. This theme comes up on nearly all security remap PRs as well. So that's conflicting views from administration. Which is it, prisoners should be able to break out or not?

If people are banging at the lights with shoes/PDA, confiscate them. You can also remove the lights from cells pre-emptively. There is no way out of a cell by your own without electrocuting yourself to death, as is (you can get into the hallway, which still requires breaking electrified grilles to try and get out).

Quote

The quote, I think, will never be interpreted in that manner. Even while sentencing as a magistrate people lawyer the hell out of everything. Unless there is an explicit clause saying sentencing can be taken to the extreme in edge cases, it will probably never be seen as a legitimate thing. Something like the admin Rule 0 would be nice, security can dramatically alter sentencing but anyone can / security must appeal it to CC. Give the magistrate fax a little more meaning, especially since the fax for execution was removed.

I'll look at adding something to elaborate on that.

1 hour ago, Vivalas said:

Mechanically, there are some errors with the quick reference charts. Robbery is 207 on the charts but 209 on the main list, and 209 is blank on the charts. There might be more, so it should be looked at more closely.

Fixed.

Quote

I also thing there should be some clarification regarding robbery and theft. Since they now seem to share the same code (at least in the quick reference), does robbery apply to stealing a weapon from an officer and theft to stealing from say, the armory? There was a case once where an officer tried to charge someone with both robbery AND theft for stealing their tazer, and so some clarification there is perhaps needed.

Your example is correct. It is either Theft, or Robbery, not both. If you're stealing a gun (even from a person), it would be charged as Theft. I'll see if I can't clarify the definition a bit.

Share this post


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

-snip-

Robbery now makes it clear that Theft/Grand Theft are the applicable charge if items of higher value are stolen. Conversely, Theft/Grand Theft have been updated to include theft "from either an area or one's person."

Additional clarifications changed to:
 

The greater good of the station should be considered when sentencing. If someone breaks into the AI Core to destroy a malfunctioning AI, there is no need to charge them. Likewise, if the station is under attack by Nuclear Operatives you probably shouldn't be brigging people for trespassing. The intent of Space Law is to protect the station and the crew, not to hinder them.

 

Share this post


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

If people are banging at the lights with shoes/PDA, confiscate them. You can also remove the lights from cells pre-emptively. There is no way out of a cell by your own without electrocuting yourself to death, as is (you can get into the hallway, which still requires breaking electrified grilles to try and get out).

 

This isn't the same as correct processing though. It's active deterrent required by security, which was the argument of the original conversation involving this. You *can* get out of a cell on your own if you aren't watched / security is busy even when correctly processed.

Share this post


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

This isn't the same as correct processing though. It's active deterrent required by security, which was the argument of the original conversation involving this. You *can* get out of a cell on your own if you aren't watched / security is busy even when correctly processed.

This is true, I suppose I just don't see the value of in-house offenses carrying an extra charge. If someone breaks their cell, it's already a reset + whatever they committed (Vandalism).

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wait, that's new. My understanding was always that you had to at least break your cell open to earn a reset. Are we allowed to reset to cell vandalism now? If so, how much vandalism is necessary?

Share this post


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

Wait, that's new. My understanding was always that you had to at least break your cell open to earn a reset. Are we allowed to reset to cell vandalism now? If so, how much vandalism is necessary?

Escape from Brig has always read "To flee successfully or unsuccessfully from a lawful sentence."

If they're making an escape attempt and break their cell windows, reset the timer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You know what would help keeping wrong times being applied to a minimum?
Adding the time reference to the quick reference.

Pretty sure half the time people give 15 minutes for trespass is because they only check the quick reference guide and make some sort of estimate.
If it were to read 0-5, 5-10, 10-15, perma, executon, I guess the term of "quick reference" would be more suitable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Shadeykins said:

Escape from Brig has always read "To flee successfully or unsuccessfully from a lawful sentence."

If they're making an escape attempt and break their cell windows, reset the timer.

What constitutes an unsuccessful attempt and what is too minor to even be considered? Is hitting a cell window once an unsuccessful attempt?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, that's one of the thing we really need more guidance on. We should at least have some nice solid guidelines on when it should be tacked on.

Also, how do we deal with multiple escape attempts in the same sentence? Do we add extra time based on the original sentence, or based on the sentence with the first modifier already applied?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From Shadey on Discord:

Quote

If someone damages a cyborg under the current Space Law, it's Vandalism. If they destroy it, it's Sabotage. If they blow up all the borgs using the console, it's Grand Sabotage.

 

Now let's take a sentence about crime stacking from the wiki:

Quote

Even if someone steals every single multitool in the station, it is still only a single count of Petty Theft.

 

Following this logic, it should be "Even if someone destroys every single cyborg on the station, it is still only a single count of sabotage."

 

See it? Crime stacking is absurd. Besides, stealing all tools on the station would be far, far more destructive than blowing up the borgs.

Edited by JWaffles

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