unmovedmover

I submit draft 2 for feedback. This is intended to be added at the end of Space Law. Civil Disputes Civil disputes are conflicts between crew members in which no crime has been committed. Any crew member may raise a civil dispute against any other crew member for any reason. If a judge determines that a tort has been committed, the offender may be required to compensate the complainant and/or be subject to other restrictions. The magistrate is responsible for acting as judge in civil disputes. If there is no magistrate present, or if the magistrate themself is involved in a dispute, then the captain or head of security may adjudicate. Internal affairs involvement is advised but not required. The judge should consider whether any wrongful harm (physical or non-physical) has been committed against the complainant. Wrongful harm can be either deliberate or negligent. An incident of wrongful harm that is substantial constitutes a tort. Examples of a tort can include, but are not limited to, defacement of a crewmember's workplace, harassment, accidental injury, medical malpractice, and so forth. If it is determined that a tort has been committed, the judge may issue one or more of the following court orders against the offender to resolve the dispute, at their discretion: Transfer Payment - A payment of credits from the offender to the complainant. The number of credits to be transferred should be proportionate to the amount of harm caused. If the offender refuses to comply, the funds may be removed from their account by security. Restraining Order - Prohibits the offender from approaching the complainant. A physical copy of this order should be kept on the complainant's person at all times. If the offender deliberately violates this order, they are guilty of trespass. Letter of Appeasement - Requires the offender to make a written apology to the complainant. This letter must be signed and approved by the judge. If a letter is not submitted in a timely manner, the offender may be detained until they write the letter. Court orders must be written in a formal style, signed, and stamped by the judge. All court orders should include the name of the offender and the reason why it was issued. Security is not authorized to enforce a court order until a document with these features is produced. Remember that court orders may only be issued to resolve a civil dispute. Issuing court orders without a tort is akin to issuing a brig sentence without a crime. Doing so is grounds for demotion and should be reported to Central Command. A section on civil disputes would need to be added to Legal SOP, too. Civil Disputes 1. A civil dispute may be raised by any crewmember against any other crewmember for any reason; 2. The complainant should bring their dispute before the Magistrate, who will act as judge; 3. If there is no magistrate present, or if the magistrate themself is involved in the dispute, then the captain or head of security may adjudicate; 4. The judge is to investigate the dispute, employing the help of Internal Affairs if necessary; 5. The judge is to determine whether a tort has been committed, as defined by Space Law; 6. If a tort has been committed, the judge may issue one or more court orders against the offender to resolve the dispute, as defined by Space Law; 7. Court orders are to be written according to the specifications described in Space Law; 8. Security is only to enforce court orders written to said specifications. Spoken word does not constitute a court order. Finally, the following amendments would need to be made to the existing Legal SOP so that it becomes compatible with the civil disputes system. My edits are in bold. [...]Internal Affairs [...] 6. Internal affairs are to investigate civil disputes and provide accurate information to the judge; [...] Magistrate 1. Magistrates are to ensure that Space Law is applied correctly. If it is not, they are to make it so. In addition, magistrates are responsible for settling civil disputes between crewmembers; [...]

I am brainstorming "civil disputes." -- Civil Disputes Civil disputes are conflicts between crew members in which no crime has been committed. Any crew member may raise a civil dispute against any other crew member for any reason. If a judge determines that a tort has been committed, the offender may be required to compensate the complainant and/or be subject to other restrictions. The magistrate is responsible for acting as judge in civil disputes. If there is no magistrate present, or if the magistrate himself is involved in the dispute, then the captain or head of security may adjudicate. Internal affairs involvement is advised but not required. The judge should consider whether any wrongful harm (physical or non-physical) has been committed against the complainant. If it is determined that a tort has been committed, the judge may issue one or more of the following court orders against the offender, at their discretion: Transfer Payment - A payment of credits from the offender to the complainant. The amount of credits to be transferred should be proportionate with the amount of harm caused. If the offender refuses to comply, the funds may be removed from their account by security. Restraining Order - Prohibits the offender from approaching the complainant. A physical copy of this order should be kept on the complainant's person at all times. If the offender deliberately violates this order, they are guilty of trespass. Letter of Appeasement - Requires the offender to make a written apology to the complainant. This letter must be approved by the judge. If a letter is not submitted in a timely manner, the offender may be detained until they write the letter. -- The three court orders listed would solve a wide array of disputes. Each is most appropriate for a different kind of dispute. For example, restraining orders are best at preventing harassment, like the clown excessively slipping one individual, over and over. A dispute about racism might prompt a letter of appeasement. Excessive grafitti could elicit transfer payments, based on the amount of property defaced. Given that disputes require a complainant, it would be difficult for one to target court orders against a particular individual, or to otherwise abuse the system.

Some interest has been expressed in making credits more relevant to the game. One way to do this would be to allow credits to be exchanged for supply points. This would ground the value of credits in a wide array of physical goods. Credits could be placed on the cargo shuttle to be shipped to Central Command, a la minerals. The exact rate at which credits should be exchanged for supply points will have to be contemplated to ensure balanced gameplay.

Remember that injunctions by the head of security would be overseen by the captain and magistrate. Injunctions by the captain would be overseen by the magistrate and other heads of staff who can demote him. The magistrate is checked by the fact that he has a 45 karma requirement and that his injunctions have no power without the assent of security.

Another solution would be the return of injunctions. -- Injunctions In special cases, the Magistrate, Captain, or Head of Security may issue an official injunction authorizing punishment for a crime not expressly listed in Space Law. Such punishment can range from a simple warning to 15 minutes in the brig, at the discretion of whoever issued the injunction. More stringent punishment may be issued only if it is authorized by Central Command. The Magistrate can overrule injunctions made by the Captain or Head of Security. The Captain can overrule injunctions made by the Head of Security. Central Command can overrule all injunctions. Security is under no obligation to enforce injunctions that violate Space Law, Standard Operating Procedure, or common sense. Misusing injunctions will result in a swift demotion. -- The main advantage of this system is that injunctions can only be issued by high-ranking crewmembers, who tend to be more experienced players.

I elaborate on my "delinquency" idea in another post on the wiki development forum. This suggestion would handle graffiti as well as other minor offenses which are not expressed in Space Law. I reproduce that post below. The crew do not scatter their debris across the station with the intent of defacement. Messes caused by the crew are accidental or negligent, whereas graffiti is deliberate. I only propose that deliberate defacement, such as the kind displayed in the image below, should be intervenable.

Security often has their hands tied when dealing with minor disputes, as this recent post illustrates. Adding a section on delinquency would fill in some of the gaps in present Space Law. -- Deliquency Security officers have the authority to intervene in disruptive behavior. Examples of disruptive behavior include: making graffiti, loitering, refusing to leave a queue when asked, flooding the radio channels with obscenities, harassment, disrupting a civil gathering, etc. Officers are permitted to stop the disruptive behavior, however, delinquents should not be punished unless they have committed a crime. Depending on the situation, intervening can range from talking with the delinquent to escorting them to a different location. Officers should be forbearing in their treatment of delinquents. If a delinquent refuses to cooperate, officers are permitted to arrest and take them to the brig. Delinquents may be held in the brig for up to one minute. Standard brig procedures apply during this time. --

Another, more comprehensive, suggestion would be to add a new subset of crimes to Space Law titled "delinquency." This would cover minor infractions such as graffiti, misuse of radio channels, hooliganism, harassment, etc. These crimes would not carry any sentence in themselves. Instead, Space Law would give officers the power to intervene and stop the delinquent behavior, but not to punish the offenders. Offenders would only be arrested if they refuse to cease their delinquent behavior. Thus, a delinquent could avoid punishment by cooperating with security.

The concern has been raised that it would be dickish for security to arrest people for graffiti. My goal with this suggestion is to allow security to solve IC-disputes regarding graffiti. I do not intend to give security a mechanism for abuse. Here are some possible amendments to my suggestion that would address this concern while maintaining the spirit of the law: Make graffiti a separate crime with a 1-minute sentence. Make arrest only warranted for graffiti if the suspect does not cease when asked or is a repeat offender. Create a "three-strikes" system, whereby warnings are issued for the first two incidents of graffiti and an arrest is only warranted on the third incident. Require crewmembers to pay a fine for graffiti based on the amount of property defaced. This fine is paid to the Janitor. If the suspect cannot pay the fine, then an arrest is warranted. This sounds hilarious, but I think that giving officers the power to humiliate crewmembers through this system would provide too much of an incentive for security abuse.

It is an offense to the eyes. Certainly, Nanotrasen would consider graffiti a violation of station property. To an IC observer, it is dickish for someone to coat the station with graffiti. One should not have to put up with someone defacing their department. They should be able to call security and have them stopped. To be sure, it would be dickish for security to abuse the law and hand out harsh punishments for graffiti, but that is not what I'm advocating here. It is a minor crime and should be treated as such. Preferably, security would give multiple warnings before arresting someone for defacement.

The important thing is that security is able to stop vandals from vandalising, not that they are brigged. Perhaps adding to the security SOP the proviso that an arrest is only warranted for graffiti if the suspect does not cease, or if they are a repeat offender, would solve the concern of security abuse.

Space Law currently defines vandalism: "To deliberately damage the station or station property without malicious intent." ¹ This formulation of vandalism as "damage" is too narrow. For, the definition only includes as "damage" the destruction of station property, not its defacement. Indeed, the present definition allows graffiti, which is the act most associated with vandalism in real-life. How absurd is it that the Clown can write, "F*** Security" in the lobby of the brig, and face no legal repercussions whatsoever? Or that scientists can be allowed to perform "renovations," (which often involve blanketing a large area with carpet) without permission from the respective department head? The suggestion that crewmembers should be allowed to indiscriminately deface and make ugly their station would not be tolerated by Nanotrasen. The allowances in the present definition are deficiencies in the Law. They are unbefitting of a medium-RP server. Therefore, I propose that we reinstate the old definition: "To deliberately damage or deface the station without malicious intent." ² This change would once again make graffiti a crime. Notes ¹ http://nanotrasen.se/wiki/index.php?title=Space_law ² http://nanotrasen.se/wiki/index.php?title=Space_law&oldid=3671

I want to come out against forced CMD, for, while it would answer some of my concern pertaining to the limiting of antagonist strategies, it places onerous expectations on both the players and admins. Players would be expected to divorce their personal knowledge of antagonists from their in-character knowledge. Anyone who is familiar with the temptation to use information obtained while "screen-looking" in a split-screen console game will understand how challenging this expectation will be to uphold. When players inevitably succumb to using illicit information, admins will have to spend their time cleaning up the mess. In a medium-RP environment, this does not seem feasible. I would prefer to influence player behavior by altering the game mechanics so that certain incentives, disincentives are created.

I suppose that cloning per se is only a representative for what I'm really getting at in this proposal, which is the claim that resurrection in general ought to be removed. We mentioned cyborgification and brain transplants already, which I oppose for players who have died. I would also oppose the use of strange reagent to revive dead players. I made an exception for CPR and defibrillation because of their limited usage and for the sake of realism, however I would support a nerf for defibrillation.

This would be handled, I think, by the solution I proposed to Macofish's cyborgification/IPCs concerns, i.e. to distinguish between "active" brains and "lifeless" brains: