SkyPing

As per @robveelben Point 1: Valid, though I want to reiterate that the main reason FOR introducing this into SoP is NOT to override or conflict with any existing space law, but INSTEAD to inform any new chaplains of the possibility of it happening. Point 2: In regards to ‘This implies if the chaplain is not helping they should be charged and send to perma breaking space law aswell.’, I can 1000% see the case of someone misinterpreting the wording and using the law to abuse power. That all being said, I am still in favor of having SOMETHING about cremator use in Standard Operating Procedure. “Which in fairness is not their concern and they shouldn't be alert of when security use their crematorium and it might cause them to even be liable to the usage of it if security made a mistake.” I believe that Chaplains unaware of space law nuance SHOULD have some awareness about changeling cremation procedure due to the fact that it is common during changeling shifts (even though canonically these shifts do not happen often, it happens often enough to have to be mentioned.) AI’s can activate cremation and aid in changeling work outside of the Chaplains help, but even then, Chaplains should be in the loop. Therefore I will be changing the wording from: 6. The Chaplain should be ready to aid and assist security with removing dangerous and revivable/immortal hostile entities (IE: Changelings) via cremation in the crematorium. Chaplains actively resisting/getting in the way of security as they attempt to use the Crematorium makes you eligible for 'Aiding an EoC', with perma being the maximum possible charge. To 6. The Chaplain should be made aware that security may require access to the station crematorium for removal of ‘unkillable’ threats. Any attempts to actively prevent security from the cremator may result in the relevant space law charges.

Hello! Back in 2016, TullyBBurnalot started a project to centralize and codify SoP, making it so that everything is standardized and listed on a wiki page, instead of bits and pieces of SoP being isolated on individual job pages. I was one of the primary editors and contributors during that time, and while although that doesn't give me any special privileges or powers, I just so happen to really really like SoP and the ideas/contexts behind it. I will be suggesting a few SoP changes that I feel should be included within certain jobs for the betterment of on station gameplay, and to address fringe but 'common' cases in every day job functionality. I'm starting with Chaplain because I played a bunch of chaplain and it is cool. It should be noted that not EVERY SINGLE piece of SoP needs to be interpreted and attacked, and everything should be up to scrutiny long after this thread becomes inactive: nothing about this is official and heads have final say. Suggestion 1: 5. The Chaplain may, however, freely conduct funerals for non-cloneable/revivable personnel. All funerals must be concluded with the use of the Mass Driver or Crematorium. to 5. The Chaplain may freely conduct funerals for non-cloneable/revivable personnel. All funerals may be concluded with the use of the Mass Driver or Crematorium, otherwise funerals are to end with delivery to the station Coroner to be placed in the Morgue. The Coroner should be made aware of funerals, should morguing be intended. Why make these changes?: Expands on funeral policy and offers alternatives to how a funeral should take place. Funerals are uncommon due to lack of engagement, but this should enable a chaplain to have ideas sparked about how a funeral could take place. Sometimes these funerals will happen for dogs or pets or non-crew. Sometimes the funeral will only be attended by the chaplain and one active participant. This is fine: two player roleplay is still roleplay. Suggestion 2: 6. The Chaplain should be made aware that security may require access to the station crematorium for removal of ‘unkillable’ threats. Any attempts to actively prevent security from the cremator may result in the relevant space law charges. Why make these changes?: Loose wording should likely be examined and attacked. However, I do believe that due to how common changelings are during an average spurt of gameplay, and considering that NT knows OF the existence of changelings (even if IC, they are very very very rare), it would be beneficial for the chaplain to have some amount of instruction on what a procedure looks like. An average chaplain with no knowledge of changelings would find a full sec team raiding the chapel for body cremation 'confusing', and often the average sec officer answer of 'changeling' does not do much to answer questions. This main document is up for edits and changes upon replies, and will likely be sitting around for a week until I consider any propositions to any headmins. Questions: - Are SoP points 1-4 still relevant? Should they be reworded due to coding things? Reordered based off of importance? - Should a SoP point be made about holy water distribution? Edit history: Edit 1 (Discord Edit - CodeLyoko): Removed any wording related to 'decapping' changelings as an alternative option to cremation. This is because you can't decap changelings to stop them for reviving. Edit 2 (Forum Edit - Robveelben): Changed the wording of SoP point 6; less harsh and less 'authoritarian', more 'informative'.

In an idealized world I could imagine a SoP line containing the following: Detectives: Allowed to wear whatever 'drip' they choose to and allowed to be as undercover or non undercover as they'd like, which should be fine since 1. It's only one person going full undercover, 2. It's limited off to a single person doing it during regular gameplay, 3. Detectives tend to be a step down during actual arrest protocols on a good day. Security Officers: Drip is cool, we like drip, but one piece of 'sec gear' should be visible on their sprite. By default, any outfit should work as long as the iconic sechud glasses are visible. If you're wearing a mask, maybe enforce wearing a helmet or red jumpsuit or anything else easily identifiable by a visual look at the sprite and not *JUST* a shift+click. Going any further undercover should be fine with express HoS or Captain permission. Warden and HoS: Keep them easily identifiable. They're command, they're supposed to be easily reachable. No need to ever really go full undercover boss when you can ask IAA's to undercover boss for you. Responses to others comments and points below Carthusia: "As for undercover officers: Its a legitimate tactic", I agree, I think it's a legitimate tactic, and that there SHOULD be some leeway and there SHOULD be incidents where it comes up. That being said, more than one officer at the same time makes antag players more paranoid, and honestly antags and sec should be easily identifiable towards each other on a usual gameplay level. Antags have to account for a lot of things. They shouldn't have to account for more than one undercover officer since that would be mentally draining. I think that trying to trick each other in terms of 'who's an officer, who isn't' might be adding too much of an extra level of thought, especially for our more casual antag players. Landerlow: "I see no reason why this should be prohibited through SOP. If properly RP'd/played, it can add to the round. ", I believe that adding things into SoP enables RP and play, since SoP is usually kept to be an IC, roleplay thing in general. SoP aids roleplay. Other than that, the rest of the response is sort of catered around Landerlows suggestions with a couple compromises. I believe every other response above me in the thread is taken into consideration?

Contractor is a fucking blessing.

Uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh three :{

As it turns out, the correct answer was not to be. Whoever saw that coming.

I've never heard of Paradise, or in fact any ss13 server, be referred to as 'competitive' before. This is the first time I've heard of that. In fact, with arguments on removing the idea of greentext (which I myself am split on), the idea of ss13 being a competitive game is exactly the type of mentality that we want to avoid. Competitive games are generally toxic. Regardless and more to the point, this isn't a change to the server; EoC's were paroleable before SoP was updated to disclude them specifically back in July 25th of this year. This simply changes it back to that standard.

An Us vs Them mentality makes sense from an IC perspective. The problem is that it turns OOC. Way too often. People hold grudges, people salt about shitcurity in deadchat. An Us vs Them mentality between our actual players is shit, we are a community. Being able to RP in between these situations lessens the emotional impact of the round and reminds us that we're all here to have fun, instead of here to ruin peoples day.

Maybe you're right. An alterative would be Magistrate plus either Captain or HoS approval. That way the HoS can still be overruled, or the Captain if he or she is out of touch with security ongoings.

It's not a viable system because parolling EoCs should truly be a once in a blue moon type of thing. While some HoS's have a play 2 win mentality, there's also the valid reason that they will get blamed and called shitcurity if parolling the Eoc was the wrong call. The fact they are completely evaded in the parole discussion is quite frankly ludicrous to me. These voices matter. A rare opportunity of an EoC parole will come up one day, and it'll be reasonable enough that every single member of command will agree to it. Having only the Magistrate approve encourages more and more paroles, which is a step too far. What I want is the option to parole an EoC, instead of the current system which provides no option.

After a long discussion hidden within the admin design chat, I propose that EoCs may only be paroleable if the Magistrate, HoS, and Captain, UNANIMOUSLY agree to the parole of a prisoner. The system has a chance to be abused in terms of EoCs, and this change is to fix most of those issues (unless all of command happens to be bald or insane at the time, which should never happen).

The IC version doesn't make logical sense to me, but the OOC option I'd be down for. As long as the antags are doing something antaggy then it's fine and acting in character (even just the attempt), but otherwise you're literally just taking up a slot. Fortunately this isn't behavior I see often anymore. Parroting Ansari, more flexibility is good.

Before the parole change there was the possibility for EoCs with little to no criminal activity to be placed on parole, mostly for EoCs that turned themselves in. I believe the reasoning was that it encouraged antags to go against their objectives, but I'm sensing a shifting attitude to wanting more sec/antag interaction on the RP level, which is always good. I would want EoCs to only be parole-able on crimes Major and below but exceptional crimes are also paroleable anyways. Overall a +1. I know the argument for metafriending abuse is prevalent but it also goes all the way down the chain: a sec officer that would parole a friend would also most likely choose to just, not arrest the friend committing the crime in the first place

Without going to deep into it or thinking of any consequences, I like the idea. It's simple, useful, and doesn't require too much effort or thought. There have been security members that applied for medical bodyguard access, and dedicated janitors make sense for a department that gets blood everywhere. +1.

We did it boys, let's go home.