NarrowlyAvoidingABan

Okay well no-cap i was just kicked or banned so check the audit logs lmfao

Well my brother - you need to put the snowflake in when you search for me on discord first of all. Secondly i was absolutely banned / kicked and did not leave on my own accord as I reached out to head admins to make a complaint - VIA the discord. Ultimately received nothing back and block/ban. Keep the act up, it will work on some people for sure 100

I'm arguing back when people make their arguments? How is that unnecessary? I posted the thread, i want to defend my ideas. Why the fuck is this category titled "Debates and Discussions" If I'm not allowed to debate things? Ironic that you want to have go at my conduct when I've been fairly respectful and made it pretty clear I'm here to discuss this small issue and the bigger idea, and not to delve into mild personal attacks or anecdotes - like your staff. I now understand this forum, and your community is not the place to discuss ideas in a respectful manner so I'm very sorry indeed. Also, its common sense that someone is possessing a drug INSIDE their system? (to have and hold as property - to have as an attribute, knowledge, or skill. - or to seize and take control of) Also hilarious that you would slap me a Discord ban, for this post and subsequent complaints. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

You said I was bitching, while literally misstating the facts of the issue You said I was making a scene when im just trying to make a suggestion with reasonable feedback You called me 'laughable' 'uninformed' - you made out like I literally have no idea what im saying and inferring that im lying about things? You brought up privately shared, personal information about me that i gave to another administrator in private, in order to win an argument about fictional law. Thats pretty fucking hostile dude. You love stating my arguments for me "attempting to argue exact technical areas, claim knowledge of law or even RL law" - what an excellent summary, with no specifics or counters to my arguments at all? Just saying something is untrue doesn't make it so. At least i was able to point out your lack of supporting evidence other than "that's the way we've done it for years". And just saying 'everyone is aware' doesn't complete that argument, when people were just as confused as I was. You're an asshole, that can't hold any respectful dialogue, even over text - who then gaslights others like nothing happened when you cross the line. Peace.

Disappointing that you would be so completely hostile when I'm genuinely trying to argue about something that I saw was affecting people negatively, not just me. I think ill address your entire comment and then leave this thread to rot - as well as my paradise account lmao, sorry im not welcome :D "If the clown injected you, which you willingly agreed to, that is still drug possession" then write the law, wait the sentence, explaining that ingestion is still possession. "Why? Anyone can connect the dots. Anyone can see what the law means. Anyone knows "If I was eating food and it was laced with space drugs, I'd tell security" or "If I'm talking to a friend, and the clown shoots me with a syringe.. I'd tell security.". You are literally the only person within years to suddenly go "I'm going to willingly take drugs, and then bitch when I get arrested for it, because its not written down." First off- I never was jailed for taking drugs, I was the one arresting. I thought it was pretty unfair when it wasn't even written down, that's why I'm bitching - 2. not everyone knows and understand that that is how the laws been interpreted for 4+ years my dude. I clearly didn't, people in my screenshots didn't, new players won't and certainly new security players haven't got the faintest idea. "...an entire scene around one thing, because you got arrested for taking drugs, and wanted to bitch about schematics involving it" I suppose i have incorrectly assumed that making a forum post instead of bothering game admins was the right thing to do, didn't realise it was making a scene. And again, I was the arresting officer, not the person being arrested. You are taking a schematic, a design.. and going "This is all wrong, you should add X" when X.. is already defined, just not YOUR version of it. I am asking for the addition of a sentence to an existing law to close the loop, or a new law to make it a crime. I have no issues with any other part of the law otherwise. honestly be like taking 502, Murder is one person harming another - we're talking about one person taking drugs themselves and breaking department sops or someone else giving it to them willingly. Not really sure what this is supposed to point out. Very glad pms that i sent privately In-game were shared with multiple staff members - and now weaponised against me publicly :D (my '3 years' thing was also sent privately to avoid any chance of a dox so cheers) Maybe i do have no idea what I'm talking about - only 9 months of police academy and 3 years in Communications & Radio and then Prosecutions. And over here in 'Straya, we put belligerent drunks or addicts into the watchhouse overnight (holding cells) and serve them their charges in the morning, either that or let them walk off if they're not a danger or public nuisance, like most addicts aren't. Be curious to hear your life experience or legal / law enforcement credentials tho. Next time just get your head admin or whoever runs the wiki to just say 'nah', rather than me thinking i could discuss and improve my argument or suggestion here... Hope you have a better day bud.

Semantics* are important when you want everyone to follow rules and enforce them. Sorry for sounding frustrated, but right now your laws read incorrectly, and an extra sentence would fix my gripe - and the gripe that's been popping up once a day for a while. It is most definitely not a moot point - your basis to argue from is not written in any rule, law, document or wiki page; but the lack of is causing a problem. "You can't say: "Yes, I had drugs, but I took them, so its fine, its not against the law." -- If i carry no drugs - and never did (clown injects me, willingly - pretty much identical to what happened above), and there isn't a single law, or mention of intoxication under the law, then its not against the law... Just add a sentence and it would be. I'm not arguing this because I'm a reddit warrior law veteran picking apart your system for fun with semantics and gotcha arguments; I think its important because gaps in the rules always get exploited, from both sides (good and bad), because currently the ruling that is unwritten causes about 10 minutes worth of arguments on sec side when people go looking through the law properly, and because for a player trying to follow the rules, they might spend A LOT OF time in the brig arguing and fighting this for what would otherwise be 5 minutes. I can also argue, with supreme confidence in this area, that cops very much do release people for being intoxicated in public, especially when they carry nothing on them lmao - either that or a public intoxication charge / public disturbance charge - Easier to release a harmless druggy back to his hole than spend an hour on paperwork charging him with nothing...

Notice right, how the charge reads 'poses' and 'distribute' on space law right - and in real life it reads 'take drugs' 'ingest drugs'.... You just said 'there's the law about having or 'taking' - when the only thing close to a mention of 'taking', even in your own screenshot, is 'recreation' in relation to a stated reason for exemption by staff for holding the substance... Arguing that 'it HAS to be written down' is kinda the dang point when you want people to follow a list of rules - and you also want people to enforce them?? Also you can't arrest someone just because they have the capability to do something, even if the evidence suggests there might be more going on... If I had the capability to make a shotgun, and you found me with a shotgun injury - im still not guilty of weapon possession even if the evidence is spelling that out crystal clear.. It also seems like the entire administration team has now said, - correctly, that; "getting ahold of drugs in anyway, be it from yourself, or from another.. even holding onto them" counts as possession. Yes it does? Casually adding "or using them" on the end of that list, when its not written ANYWHERE (apart from in relation to a stated reason for physical exemption) might clarify the stance you all seem to take on the issue, that's fine. Even if command staff rules that way during rounds, its fine. But if that is the stance administration, (CC), takes, and if that is how you want security and command to enforce it... Can ya add the sentence clarifying that? :3

Also if this was truely the case, why wouldn't there be a single solitary mention of ingesting or using the substance, when not in relation to departments having the physical item for work? Most other contingents about drugs are met in further explanation - how come NT didn't bother to provide law on something as prevalent as substance abuse? My answer is because its intended not to be as its pretty impossible to police - and unfair... Like i said before the entirity of Space Law seems to be fairly libertarian - suicide, extreme body modifications, etc are all totally fine, but substance ingestion with no other sop or law breaking isn't? The law seems to reflect real drug laws in western countries that target the illegal distribution and trading/transfer of items between persons rather than personal use - even specifically allowing chemists to have them, etc. Again if it was intended to be a crime or tacit issue by itself, then i should be able to CTRL-F and find something, anything, anywhere. But...

This is a much better argument than just 'what if they're doing something bad' - And its also 1000% true, if you were using drugs at work, you'd be fired in a heartbeat. But would you get thrown into a cell by the security contractors at the place of employment? Demotion and a search would seem to make more sense to me in that case? (and if drugs are then found, then a nice brig charge). I can also completely respect that assistants running around taking meth is a flavor of RP thats a net-negative for the server, and obviously id be a moron for arguing in favor of. Methheads and Junkies only ever seem to end up with on result (in real life too). But what about a House M.D style doctor addicted to morphine?, the gruzzled old vet in the bar addicted to ethanol?, the clown who cant stop injecting fliptonium? -- there would seem to be some cases where a player taking substances, even in your department could make for interesting and fun rp - provided they aren't doing anything else wrong or are just charged and thrown into a cell for 5 minutes rather than demoted and stuff. If theyre only breaking sops that should be what happens anyway, not a brigging... In truth there are a lot of different chems, so we aren't strictly speaking about a meth head assistant each time, nor should we probably assume that they'd break any rules inherently. But at the same time, its also probably naive to assume that a player intentionally taking drugs isn't also planning other shenanigans - but i thought that was the point of the detective or crew making a report, and officers responding :c - right now people being charged with possession for intox seems very cops and robbers to me. If the goal is for players to handle everything like this IC, then we need all the tools to do so. An extra sentence to clarify the default station position towards intoxication would again, fix all of this, as by definition to make the possession charge stick at the moment, you are interpreting the chemical in their bloodstream as them physically having it .-. (which from a players perspective, comes off as a really scummy choice made out of convenience in the moment)

Heya Eric! You and I both know that you are pretty fair and unbais - so i hope you will trust me when i say this isn't a shit-stir post or just me complaining and that im genuinely interested in this discussion. That being said i also have some issues with the arguments you just made. I'll say for the third time that i understand that the law is massive, burdens and a barrier for players - i also understand that its not updated a lot - if it ain't broke right? But we aren't talking about overhauling the entire system - we're talking about an extra sentence on one existing law to clarify wether intoxication is inherently a crime - this would be a useful tool, even for other situations not relating to this. Second, if the brigging someone for breaching the professional environment is truely the standard, then a new sentence in the existing; or whole new law on Intoxication should be standard too?? There simply is not a single solitary sentence in Space Law for security players or antags to use to their advantage - instead whatever the consensus of security and command staff is; goes. That may be fine for most things, but in this case i became frustrated and cryod along with 2 others due to the situation, as we disagreed (not the first time). Surely the professional environment IC stuff is more for the HoP to deal with using demotions not a brigging? Lastly, i'm really not trying to argue on the 'technicality' of 'no meth technically on persons' - im saying statuses should not be set until the person has committed an actual crime (as intox isn't listed as a crime) - nor should the entire security force act as if its a crime when its not even listed. "once they were found being a disturbance and a bad example" - this is the entire point; I have no issues with security arresting someone for their bad actions while on the drugs - but looking at the written document, the intoxication itself isn't written as a crime, but somehow seems to be understood as one; so for the IC players to interpret the law differently between shifts seems a little rough, when a new sentence could straighten it out.

Hey there; i appreciate the response but i actually have an issue with some of the things you said. First, we're a little muddy on the actual important details here; i'm not talking about someone being on a substance and 'committing other crimes', like at all - we're talking about the charge of Drug Possession being used on someone who is ONLY under the influence, not doing anything else. Its a bit of a non-argument to pretend that everyone who takes drugs in the game for RP or other reasons is going to be a nuisance (thats why specific laws exist for different actions?). In the round in question, i believe there was multiple people brigged for DP - however the screenshots only show the one instance of a single individual being set to arrest for being intox, they weren't doing anything else at the time. I have seen this happen before - with completely different shifts. I understand that this may have been the inherent understanding for the past 4 years - but if thats the case, why not just add it to the charge fix any and all future issues and discussions around this?? I know for a definite fact i am speaking for a few people here around this issue. Again i understand space law is a guideline, malleable, etc - IC the company & security reasons make complete sense; but im really trying to analyse this issue from an OOC perspective. One of the players who was brigged reached out to me and explained he consensually ingested drugs when they were offered, and was arrested afterwards for twitching and stuff, wasting up to about 15 minutes of his time for something that could and would be argued for much longer (if the magi or iaa felt differently). "Given how much of an absolute pain meth is to deal with IC" -- it seems like everyone is tacitly aware of this, so perhaps another statement in the same law, giving everyone the tool to arrest/ignore the behaviour would be a good thing? Its a little hard not to become frustrated at "we can't add every law', 'its a game'- when we're not exactly talking about a new page on the wiki so much as a new sentence on the already existing page clarifying wether intox is a crime or not as defacto. Thx tho <3

Also not to be completely pedantic (but people getting charged often are) - but I can just as easily ask the bad chemist for a injection of meth without ever doing it myself, carrying or even touching any narcotics or item. How are you gonna get me with possession then? Aside from people re-writing laws to cover up their own over-policing, this is what I mean about a slight hole in the written laws and the wiki leaving the potential for bigger issues. Some clarity whether intoxication, on any level, is meant to be policed would also be really good. Personally based on the lack of any mention on the wiki or law (aside from departments being charged if the reason for having the drug is recreational), i don't think it is meant to be.

I totally agree that if a security officer has seen someone ingest, hold or pickup any drug related item (or got a report), they shouldn't 'ignore the fact you had it' if you are intoxicated. However basing the start of an entire arrest around someone being intoxicated on an unknown substance, without anything else happening, (SEE Screenshots) is legally empty in regards to space law (Intoxication isn't a crime) - and so is a search or brigging. If there's no evidence (witness testimony or physical) of the described crime ~ Possessing a Narcotic - then it makes no sense to set to arrest (or even brig) for being intoxicated. If you want to argue the physical evidence is the intoxication sure? - but then what happens when they brig/search them and there's no drugs to complete the charge of Possession of Drugs? (re the description of that charge) ~ Which is exactly what happened after the initial arrest and what caused the law to then be interpreted as under the influence could equal a possession of drugs charge (out of convenience during code red) and not to just justify a search and release (pulled over by cops). I get that the law is malleable and all the stuff you said about NT - but from a pure ooc perspective, how is that justified for a player at all?- its not a crime to be on drugs to begin with... Another law added such as public intoxication would stop all of this from happening straight up - 'like there's John Doe, hes intox, lets search/charge'.

Hello all, Regardless of what any of you think of me / any experiences you've had with me in the past - I wanted to bring up a pretty serious 'gap' in Space Law that I've arguably seen abused in multiple ways on multiple occasions. The attached screenshots are from the most recent time; which was the most annoying. The most important thing is always the charge itself - and the description of charge 103 only specifies 'The possession of: (list of drugs), by unauthorized personnel' ~ and only goes onto specify that Botanists and MedSci staff are exempt so long as they are not distributing or using them for profit or recreation. Its related, higher-tier charge, Narcotics Distribution, also only describes 'distributing narcotics and other controlled substances' ~ and even specifies that It is not illegal for them to be grown. Nowhere in either of these two laws does it mention that being under the influence of or ingesting any substance is apart of the charge - or even its own crime; only that recreational use is not a valid reason for staff to posses drugs for departmental work. This is important, because (in my opinion), if ingestion or intoxication was intended to be enforced and punished by security or command, the equipment, laws and correct terminology would already be written, as it is with specifics on growing drugs and using them for jobs. I think its also pretty safe to assume when other charges of similar severity like Battery have ultra specific context, down to the number of times a person has shoved someone else -- that something as frequent as drugs and alcohol intoxication would have that same ultra specific context too, but it doesn't. Beyond nit picking space law in a pixel video game; why does this matter? Because on multiple occasions crew members have been arrested and charged with either Possession of Drugs - Or Distribution, when they have only been under the influence of said drug. As a security player, I don't arrest people for being under the influence - I search them. If they have the physical contraband on them, then they get charged, but being under the influence itself doesn't appear to be a crime - otherwise you would have to arrest the entire bar, chem, RND & botany department every couple of shifts. When people do arrest and brig others for 'possession' with no physical evidence, just intoxication - I think its just straight up a false charge. The lack of any physical drugs to charge someone with - especially if there's no evidence of distribution either, means they should walk free - regardless if you can scan them and check for reagents in their blood. At most the detective should look into it; but even that seems like a waste. Also assuming someone is chargeable with possession because 'they would've had to have willingly come into contact and possessed it' or someone 'possessing' in their bloodstream', is just ridiculous. What if they were unwillingly injected?, Food was spiked?, off-hand Ingestion from a chemical reaction? Ling made them hallucinate? You could argue that this could be explained to whomever was arresting, but in the heat of a red alert, most people are just happy to brig the clown running with no ID on meth and call it a day - specifics in law (and space law) exist to handle these types of trickier issues of which there are a lot. They also exist so that the brigging and charging process is black and white - and you don't have to worry about a persons story or trying to assume what they were thinking/doing; if they broke a rule, its written down for you or not. And that is exactly the point. Its not written down. There is no law punishing or enforcing intoxication - at any level, only for the items of contraband itself. Space Law is also written in quite a libertarian fashion - meaning that so long as your behaviour doesn't impact others, there will be no CC interreference. Things like revolver-suicide, extreme body modification (genes, robotics) and drinking yourself into coma at the bar are perfectly acceptable behaviours - as the right to self-autonomy is sort of a given, and not messed with (and in the case of brig suicide not even treated for). This is intentional by design, is it not? I see two options that will easily fix this: 1. Amend charges 103, 203 to reflect that intoxication on any substance is not meant to be enforced and is not a breach of the law. (however the behaviour while under the influence of that substance is still chargeable - e.g. fighting, breaking stuff) OR 2. Add a new SEPERATE charge to Space Law, that describes being intoxicated or having restricted substances in a persons body. (e.g 104 - Public Intoxication) -- this only works IF a person being under the influence is really a security matter or meant to be charged at all (even though its not mentioned once in space law) As for the specific round in the screenshots; i have no serious complaints so to speak, as the captain, HoS, IAA and Magistrate all agreed with the ruling that it counted as possession, and i guess that's the ruling for that shift; An AHelp seems to confirm this is a IC issue (?) - However, again, you shouldn't start making assumptions on 'willingness' or 'mindset' when charging someone - and even though people CAN just be warned for it by a warden, in this case they weren't and 10 minutes of processing and brig time went past. My aggressive words in arguing against this IC are a result of frustration - given that to me, this seems very open and shut with no specific text or law talking about it anywhere on the wiki or Space Law. If this is a case-by-case or In-character only type of thing, then we need the right tools to argue effectively with the ultimate backing of admins if needed - to ultimately avoid fights and annoyances like these in otherwise normal rounds. Thanks for reading tho... TL:DR -- People are being charged for drug possession when they are only intoxicated and have no items on them - with ruling on this changing between shifts. For a 'crime' not written into law, someone could be searched, arrested and/or brigged, (even arguably on green as intoxication is very obvious) without a single specific mention of intoxication or ingestion of drugs in Space Law. "No, you don't posses shit without evidence!"