robveelben

The issue which I have here is they are in essence required to help security by their sop and if the chaplain is a antag then they would have conflict of intrest keep in mind the chaplain is a neutral member of the station. I do not like when the sop is requiring them to help security it would make sense for the chaplain to maint their chapel. I think futher then that to aid security in the usage of the crematorium is not something that should be in sop. That said I do agree they should also not impede security from their duties.

The issue I have here with this sop it is now not directed to the chaplain but to security due to the line the chaplain should be made aware of. If you want something like this you could better write it like this 6. On code red when there is a 'unkillable' threat the Chaplain should make sure the crematorium is in working condition and must inform security of when it is not while also not to interrupt security in the usage of the crematorium. This way you will make it clear what the goal of the sop is and what is expected on how the chaplain should act from passive to helpful. It would be hard to take this out of context aswell. As sop and space law does connect and often time breaking it is a workplace hazard a magistrate or captain is free to play with this more and take the context of the situation from workplace hazard to execution on their own discretion. Ofcourse this still need to be rewritten as I suck at writing but I think this is a general better idea on how to approach it in a sop sense.

Allright sop point 1-4 is just so the chaplain is not a dick and can be demoted on those grounds or have their null rod removed if it is abused. I like the chance to sop 5 as it gives them more options on how to conduct a funeral. I really do not like your suggestion of adding point 6 due to the nature of space law and why it should not be added is due these factors. 1. If we just look at how aiding and abetting law is written and how it works you see that in the case they are activily resisting to help security in burning a cling then it is very possible for them to be giving this sentance while aiding and abetting a cling just means execution for those who aid them due to the nature of clings and the nature of exection law as the same sentance must be applied. This is going against space law in this sense which in general sop doesn't do it set an example what is part of which law but it doesn't give a lower verdict in general. 2. Security can also use other means of removing a cling like gibbing the cling crematorium isn't the only way to remove and cling which is why in general if the chaplain is passive nothing will happen to them due to the nature of how normal aiding and abetting works. This implies if the chaplain is not helping they should be charged and send to perma breaking space law aswell. In my eyes this is just horrible for those who play chaplain in cling rounds which happen pretty often as they have to worry on what security does. 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. In general I think this is a horrible addition to the chaplain sop as it takes away their freedom to much and it doesn't comply with space law due to the nature of it. It either gives the chaplain some protection to just be an dickhead to security or it gives security the right to arrest the chaplain for being passive which both is not good.

six mentors teaching a greytider how to blow up the sm

Considering that there is crime for stealing credits and to check it if this is truly the case if it has happend is up to the hop or captain to check or the crew show their own records I think it would be a great idea to have IAA have an extra job to make sure the station cash flow is legal. For this they should have their own console like the one in command to check finacial matters on the station and make sure that no illegal cash flow happens if so they then need to report it to security with a report of the suspected illegal cash flow. This gives them something to do while not much is going on the sop side and be a more productive member of the station on a legal side.

I would agree to this only if it is a made as a optional setting not as a mandotary chance as it really doesn't play well on laptop screen.

Four grays in a pool.

Reserved - How to annoy the legal team

Even thought the idea of doing is interesting I do not see why it would make sense lore wise as constructs are very different from machines and suchs so it would need a extra step to be able to do so to make it lore wise sense and we do not redcon the world by accident.

I like Nerf idea as well as it would not cause my worry of possible abuse like what I said before.

It is stil not a great solution because what if people order those items when they are not destroyed. This would make the objectives way to easy. and just making it really expensive wouldn't work aswel as then either the head has to waste all their depertment money or they see no need to buy it as it is an mayor emergancy. Only the CE stuff would make sense as they get dusted on the decent pace. The more I think of this the less I like this idea so for me from a balance issue it is a no.

We may go a bit of topic to where my original intent is what I was suggesting is making an more clear way in how we should deal with hijackers. Like * Is it okay to always kill an hijacker * When should we kill an hijacker * How should the crew react to an hijacker * When and which laws should apply when it comes to dnr an hijacker These kind of questions is mostly context based and having hijack added to an specific law would be one way of solving most of it. Otherwise having specific emergency sop in regard to it can work aswel.

By definitation all crimes are actions which in response to the outcome of those actions are considered crimes. In many law books in real life hijacking is an crime for many logical reasons and this suggestion is about placing that in a more defined way as it can be considered open to interpertation where you would put the action of hijacking in law of paradise. Right now after debating it on discord I agree with that manner but I think it is still not very clear as this is just an suggestion it is not like it has to be applied.

So I had an debate over hijackers and the general crime of it in help chat on discord and also noticed there was no specific sop or space law in regard to it. Some considered it as grand theft, grand sabotage or mutiny while marm stated it should be seen as grand theft in their opinion I still think it is for the best in the future to have some more direct statement on the matter in the forms to which it should considered as so in the future we will not have this matter brought up again.

8 security officers trying to replace an light bulb