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:

It does seem that robotics would need to be tweaked to be consonant with this proposal. The issues you raised with reference to IPCs and cyborgification could be resolved by having brains (both posibrains and human brains) become lifeless after death. Brains which are extracted via surgery while the patient is still alive would be eligible for cyborgification, while brains removed from corpses/debris-piles would be dead and lifeless. I do think that removing cloning would incentivize players to act with a greater concern for self-preservation because the cost of death would be increased from a temporary removal from the round to a permanent removal from the round. Increasing the cost of the cloning procedure might provide a slight incentive for self-preservation since the chance of one being cloned would be diminished, but I feel that is ultimately an inferior solution to simply removing cloning entirely.

I want to preface this by saying that I doubt very much that this suggestion will be well received since I am asking to remove a core mechanic of SS13. Nevertheless, I submit it because I think it would push the game in the right direction: one which would play to SS13's strengths as a role-playing game and improve the overall experience. I am writing to petition for the removal of cloning from Paradise. This would entail a map update, removing the cloning scanner, cloning pod, and scanning console from Medbay. The respective machine boards for each of those devices would have to be removed as well. I am not arguing for the removal of resuscitation via CPR or defibrillator as I feel those features genuinely add to the game. The most salient benefit of cloning, and I speculate the primary reason for its inclusion, is the effect it has on the meta-game. Namely, that players who are killed during a round are given an opportunity to re-join the game before the next round. In a game like SS13, in which rounds can take two or more hours to complete, this feature is seen as indispensable. However, I argue that the unintended consequences of cloning, viz. its degenerative effect on roleplaying and gameplay possibilities, far outweigh this benefit, to the point that its removal would vastly improve the game. As GoonStation's famous youtube video observes, death in SS13 is hardly a problem because cloning ensures a second life in a matter of minutes. A direct consequence of this fact is that reckless decision-making is encouraged. All risks are discounted by the player because the cost of death is minimal. The geneticist has little incentive not to test their structural enzymes on themselves. The scientist has few reasons to consider proper safety protocols before testing their bombs. And the medical staff occasionally find themselves more willing to perform the insane act of killing their own patient so that he can be cloned, rather than have him undergo a complex surgical procedure. These absurdities are damaging to the integrity of good role-playing, which is a cornerstone of the SS13 experience. Yet, worse than these absurdities is the limiting effect that cloning has on the possibility frontier for antagonists. An abundance of strategies are infeasible as a direct result of cloning. For instance, hostage-taking and death threats are totally inconsequential because the victim can simply be cloned after his death. The dominant strategy for a victim who encounters an antagonist is to immediately shout over his radio headset, which is rather dull. Cooperation and bargaining with antagonists are discouraged. My imagination runs wild with the strategic possibilities and complex role-playing interactions that would be opened up if cloning were removed. I will admit that such a significant removal would have disruptive effects on the game's balance. The work of antagonists would become much easier as their victims would no longer be able to persecute them after their death. However, these imbalances would be ironed out over time, and I think that the temporary disruption would be worth the immense expansion of gameplay and roleplaying possibilities that I have outlined here. Thanks for taking the time to read my suggestion. I am keen to hear your thoughts on this radical proposal.

Pull request here: https://github.com/ParadiseSS13/Paradise/pull/4005 Looks like it's been implemented. Cheers :-)

Bump. What are the chances of this suggestion being added? If the response to this thread is any indication, I think most players would appreciate this tweak. Also, I can't imagine it would require much work to implement. Then again, I'm not a coder. I should also mention that I'm not particularly attached to the numbers I mentioned earlier. I.e. They were my first pass at more reasonable thresholds. Someone with a deeper understanding of the systems involved should make the final decision.

This system would give players a lot more control over when they can be an antag, which I like. However, it would do so at the expense of people who don't play as much. Less frequent players would not accumulate as many "tickets" as frequent ones, and thus be at a disadvantage in the lottery.

Bear in mind that there are other drinks in the game which have a higher alcohol content per unit volume, e.g. vodka. So, while it might not be possible to reach the highest threshold with Space Beer, it would be possible with other drinks. Also, the rate at which blood alcohol concentration depletes relative to the rate that liquid stored in the body depletes is worth considering. If BAC depletes at a slower rate than liquid stored (I'm speculating here), it would be possible to reach the highest threshold, even with Space Beer. It would simply require more beers drunk over a longer period of time.

Here is what seems reasonable to me: 0-2 drinks - No effects 3-4 drinks - Slurred Speech 5-6 drinks - Vomit 7+ drinks - Blackout These thresholds assume all of the drinks are consumed at the same time, of course. By "drink," I mean the alcoholic equivalent of one glass (50 units) of Space Beer.

Oh, didn't know that. I've seen Sax around so often, I just assumed he was the detective's pet.

I think we have enough pets as it is. The additions of Detective Sax and Sergeant Araneus were already superfluous in my opinion. The gimmick of having a pet is cheapened by the fact that they are becoming replete across the station. That being said, if we do give the QM a pet, I agree a hamster would suit them nicely.

Could we modify the drunkenness thresholds to more realistic levels? It's ridiculous to be puking and even pass out after a single drink. Socializing over drinks is made nigh on impossible with the current thresholds. Not to mention the bar and surrounding areas often become covered in vomit.