Space Law Parole Change

[Kyet]

From: https://www.paradisestation.org/wiki/index.php/Legal_Standard_Operating_Procedure#Parole

Current requirements to get parole:

• If someone is an EOC, OR has committed a capital crime, then parole is only allowed if authorized by the Magistrate or Captain. They should not authorize this unless it is a serious emergency and the parolee is expected to help deal with the emergency. For example, a non-violent syndicate engineer may be paroled to help fight a blob.
• For all other prisoners, Magi/Captain/HoS/Warden may authorize parole at their discretion. They are advised to consider how severe the prisoner's crimes are, how co-operative they have been with security, and whether or not they are expected to commit any further crimes.

Proposed new requirements to get parole:

• Prisoners guilty of capital(5xx) crimes are only eligible for parole in a serious emergency, with the authorization of the Magistrate or Captain, and the expectation they'll help deal with the emergency. For example, a murderer may be paroled to help fight a blob.
• All other prisoners, including EOCs not guilty of a capital crime, can be paroled at the discretion of the Magistrate/Captain/HoS/Warden. When considering whether to grant parole, consider how co-operative the prisoner has been with security, and whether they're expected to commit any further crimes.
• In parole decisions, the Magistrate can overrule the Captain/HoS/Warden, the Captain can overrule the HoS/Warden, and the HoS can overrule the Warden.

What this changes:

• EOCs who have committed no capital crime are now easier to parole. The idea is that if someone is brought in for trespass and found to have an emag, they can now be paroled, have their PDA/emag confiscated, and get a second shot rather than being guaranteed to spend the rest of the shift in perma. This relies on them being able to convince the Captain/Magi they won't re-offend. Basically it allows traitors/etc to be depowered (stripped of contraband, uplink, etc) but remain somewhat free, rather than always going to perma for the rest of the shift. This isn't automatic - it relies on them being able to convince Magi/Cap/HoS/Warden they deserve parole.
• The idea is that this reduces the incentive for EOCs to go full lethal against sec, and vice versa, as being caught by sec is no longer a guaranteed round-ender for the antag.

 

[Esenno]

Can we maybe instead make it "EoCs that turn themselves in"? Because if you think of it showing mercy to some one who very well may have been planning to do their objectives and just got caught sounds kinda like a potential mine field.

[Spacemanspark]

I don't want to further encourage 'friendly antags' that just turn themselves in for little to no reason.

[SkyPing]

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

[Kyet]

6 minutes ago, Spacemanspark said:

I don't want to further encourage 'friendly antags' that just turn themselves in for little to no reason.

Options for discouraging that include:

• ICly, specifically say that the EOC must have been caught to be eligible. EOCs that turn themselves in unprompted are not eligible for parole.
• OOCly, add an advanced rule that says EOCs who turn themselves in at shift start get antag-banned, since if they don't want to be an antag they should be ahelping to get the status removed, not turning themselves in roundstart and giving away the game mode instantly.
• Either way, it seems like a solvable problem.

[Rebel0]

4 minutes ago, Esenno said:

Can we maybe instead make it "EoCs that turn themselves in"? Because if you think of it showing mercy to some one who very well may have been planning to do their objectives and just got caught sounds kinda like a potential mine field.

I don't think supporting strict 'turn yourself in or else' is exactly the best option, personally. But offering an incentive while someone is in perma such as giving Security holsters, showing exemplary behavior in some helpful way or some 'moral standing' in terms of roleplay, aiding in an investigation - ex giving the antag an 'out' if he turns in his friend and there's evidence on him. He then secures his own parole via his cooperation.


And, sadly, you will always have the meta-friend issue with or without the change really.

[Spacemanspark]

Ah, sorry, should have clarified that my post was a response to Esenno's, not yours. But those wouldn't be bad things to include either @Kyet

[Rurik]

Fully support this. Offering more leeway for generous magistrates to parole deserving prisoners that will be of little threat without TC and with a tracking implant is always a plus.

[Esenno]

2 minutes ago, Kyet said:

Options for discouraging that include:

• ICly, specifically say that the EOC must have been caught to be eligible. EOCs that turn themselves in unprompted are not eligible for parole.
• OOCly, add an advanced rule that says EOCs who turn themselves in at shift start get antag-banned, since if they don't want to be an antag they should be ahelping to get the status removed, not turning themselves in roundstart and giving away the game mode instantly.
• Either way, it seems like a solvable problem.

Honestly prefer this really. Because it's better than my idea.

[Ansari]

I'm for this. Had a vox arrested yesterday who offered to turn King's evidence. 

But legally speaking no matter what leverage they offered me, it is perma or execution. 

I prefer more flexibility for parole and just warn / punish anyone who abuses the system for metafriending. It should be up to security's reasonable discretion whether to parole someone - even if they're caught instead of turning themselves in.

EDIT: 
- Making this specific to antags that are caught solves the issue of people turning themselves in prematurely

Edited September 9, 2020 by Ansari

[SkyPing]

1 minute ago, Kyet said:

Options for discouraging that include:

• ICly, specifically say that the EOC must have been caught to be eligible. EOCs that turn themselves in unprompted are not eligible for parole.
• OOCly, add an advanced rule that says EOCs who turn themselves in at shift start get antag-banned, since if they don't want to be an antag they should be ahelping to get the status removed, not turning themselves in roundstart and giving away the game mode instantly.
• Either way, it seems like a solvable problem.

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.

[necaladun]

I think this whole idea makes some assumptions that just don't hold.

For a start, there are plenty of people who want to go down guns blazing when caught by sec. This means sec will still be afraid when confronting an antag that they'll be turned on and killed, thus handle them as such. I don't think we'll see more talking because of this change at all before the stun and cuff. If it's not guaranteed that they'll get parole, then giving themselves up to sec is a huge risk.

Secondly, it assumes that the RP of parole is the kind we want. And there's a few issues with it, being that the players, OOCly, know the person they're paroling is an antag with objectives. ICly, they're a known member of a terrorist organisation. Granting them parole because they didn't manage their objectives makes NT look incredibly naive at best, or willingly complicit at the least. If a member of Al-Queada is found with bomb making equipment, they don't sieze the equipment and let them go.

The fact they have to convince the magistrate - who, if they have two brain cells, will know they're a syndicate agent with objectives and all - that they won't reoffend is ripe for abuse too. It puts magistrates/captains in the position to choose whether or not an antag gets a second chance based purely on something subjective. The potential for metafriendship to come into play here is huge. Even if every magistrate is 100% above board and acts without bias, I would be shocked if we didn't get multiple accusations of magistrate bias.

Finally, there's asking whether we want to give antags a second shot. Lessening the risk generally makes for less exciting gameplay. Generally speaking, being caught out as an antag should be game over - which is quite fair, considering you're more than willing to end someone else's round by playing an antag. Having someones round ended isn't something we should be implicitly trying to avoid -  it adds risk and danger and excitement to the players.

[BryanR]

Sorta siding with Neca on this one.

Parole isn't going to tackle the Us vs Them mentality of antagonists and Security. The root of this issue goes a bit deeper and wider.

An example, as a Magistrate with two brain cells and the fact that we don't restrict knowledge of antagonists I'm fully aware of the Syndicate and that some items are only obtainable via being a member of the syndicate. That leans heavily against the antagonist getting parole, especially if they don't turn themselves in or they've already committed a crime. There's simply no valid incentive ICly that wouldn't break suspension of disbelief completely for me to do so. So changing when I can hand out parole isn't really going to change how I hand it out based upon the factors of how my character would conduct themselves as a Magistrate and what they would feel would be in the best interest of the station and the actual law abiding crew.

Another example is the display of the objectives at the end round. There's a sense of glory that's been praised among players to get green text and accomplish those objectives which drives antagonists not to complete them in interesting ways but to complete them as efficiently as possible. Sure there are players who will sometimes do interesting things with objectives or ask for something different from us but that's an outlier instead of the status quo. This is less incentive to increase role play and more incentive to min/max power game if anything. For the glory of having your name in the end credits with all that lovely green.

These are just some things off the top of my head that actively works against what you're trying to encourage here and if not adjusted/outright changed will, I feel, render the parole change a moot point.

[SkyPing]

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).

[Kyet]

I don't think Magi+HoS+Captain=>Parole is a viable system. Its hard enough to convince even ONE of those people to grant parole, let alone ALL of them.

The reason for parole going off the Magi alone is that Magi is supposed to be the final authority on space law on station... and unlike the HOS, the magi is there to ensure justic/fairness for all, including prisoners. The HOS should in theory do this, but in practice they often fall into the "play 2 win" mentality whereby they'd just never grant parole to anyone ever.

[SkyPing]

Just now, Kyet said:

I don't think Magi+HoS+Captain=>Parole is a viable system. Its hard enough to convince even ONE of those people to grant parole, let alone ALL of them.

The reason for parole going off the Magi alone is that Magi is supposed to be the final authority on space law on station... and unlike the HOS, the magi is there to ensure justic/fairness for all, including prisoners. The HOS should in theory do this, but in practice they often fall into the "play 2 win" mentality whereby they'd just never grant parole to anyone ever.

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.

[Rebel0]

34 minutes ago, BryanR said:

Parole isn't going to tackle the Us vs Them mentality of antagonists and Security.

There is no real way to solve us v them mentality the moment you assign security to counter antags unless you are going to either curtail it or enforce some sort of 'strict' roleplay standards. HRP servers fall into that issue every time as well as any server. I do, however, see this as an aid in encouraging an actual value to both of them though. This is completely personal experience from a mix of servers.

As sec when you offer a 'reward' you tend to get further. This can be the 'reward' instead of busting into perma to a person breaking everything for the 10th time because he knows he'll never get out and will be in there the rest of the round so his only means of even possibly getting out is trashing the place. The other experience was that I personally noticed a mild change in attitude with the us vs them mentality when parole was added to another server; albeit being an HRP server.

 

18 minutes ago, Ping said:

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).

It sounds fair to give the Captain a say in it; though I don't know about the HoS. The whole reason the Magistrate is usually the one chosen to handle over-seeing sec is because he's 'removed' from security, thus expected to be un-biased and be able to combat any bias Sec has. Captain is the over-all administrator so it would make sense he'd get a say and be able to remain at least partially impartial. In fact I can only see many of them accepting it if it benefits them/the station in some way.

Currently parole can be given to a non-EoC exceptional criminal with only one approval. Depending how one interprets the regulations and the words 'should not' they already can with just one of them. Should just sounds.. passive and a 'suggestion' rather than a strong word like may only. Though the majority of people do play should not by the books.

Edited September 9, 2020 by Rebel0
Words are hard..

[SkyPing]

11 minutes ago, Rebel0 said:

It sounds fair to give the Captain a say in it; though I don't know about the HoS. The whole reason the Magistrate is usually the one chosen to handle over-seeing sec is because he's 'removed' from security, thus expected to be un-biased and be able to combat any bias Sec has. Captain is the over-all administrator so it would make sense he'd get a say and be able to remain at least partially impartial. In fact I can only see many of them accepting it if it benefits them/the station in some way.

Currently parole can be given to a non-EoC exceptional criminal with only one approval. Depending how one interprets the regulations and the words 'should not' they already can with just one of them. Should just sounds.. passive and a 'suggestion' rather than a strong word like may only. Though the majority of people do play should not by the books.

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.

[necaladun]

15 minutes ago, Rebel0 said:

There is no real way to solve us v them mentality the moment you assign security to counter antags unless you are going to either curtail it or enforce some sort of 'strict' roleplay standards.

This also assumes it's a bad thing. Imo, and Us vs Them mentality between the security for a corporation and a group of agents trying to destroy said corporation seems utterly appropriate to the setting and RP. I don't get why we'd want to remove this.

[Esenno]

16 minutes ago, Rebel0 said:

The whole reason the Magistrate is usually the one chosen to handle over-seeing sec is because he's 'removed' from security, thus expected to be un-biased and be able to combat any bias Sec has.

As we all here  probably know that's not the Magistrate's job. That's the HoS's job. And if this is something that's going on it'd be nice to be informed of it. Magistrate should only be ensuring proper sentencing under space law.

 

Quote

There is no real way to solve us v them mentality

 

That is the nature of protagonists (As I'm presently using to describe the crew due to literary reasons) and antagonists. One wins. The other doesn't. I have yet to read a good story where both sides win as the conflict between the two sides and the subsequent victory or defeat of either is what makes every story as compelling as it is.

Edited September 9, 2020 by Esenno
Added another quote to discuss.

[SkyPing]

1 minute ago, necaladun said:

This also assumes it's a bad thing. Imo, and Us vs Them mentality between the security for a corporation and a group of agents trying to destroy said corporation seems utterly appropriate to the setting and RP. I don't get why we'd want to remove this.

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.

Edited September 9, 2020 by Ping

[Rebel0]

Just now, Esenno said:

As we all here  probably know that's not the Magistrate's job. That's the HoS's job. And if this is something that's going on it'd be nice to be informed of it. Magistrate should only be ensuring proper sentencing under space law.

By overseeing I mean in the legal sense. He can overrule all of security's rulings with authority but cannot issue charges himself nor instruct them how to handle certain issue. He's the 'check' to securities' power. Not as in he instructs Security who to arrest, when and how to deal with situations. 

[necaladun]

If people can't play against each other in a competitive game without taking it personally, then fuck'm. We shouldn't change the server because some people can't handle getting killed in a video game.

 

[SkyPing]

7 hours ago, necaladun said:

If people can't play against each other in a competitive game without taking it personally, then fuck'm. We shouldn't change the server because some people can't handle getting killed in a video game.

 

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.

[Rurik]

I feel like people are thinking too deep on this one. I can't speak for others, but as a sec main myself, this has nothing to do with changing mentalities, promoting antags to "play nicer" or even promote rp. It is solely to give magistrates the option to parole in non-emergencies without breaking SOP. Which they deserve to have.

If we're worried it'll happen too often then make it Magi + Hos/Captain. Two out of three vote. It'll be a lot rarer then. However, if it has to be unanimously agreed by all three, parole will never happen. There's always someone who will screech about an antag or someone who had antag gear getting out, no matter how deserving they were.

There also seems to be a misunderstanding over the type who will be paroled. The idea isn't to "give antags another shot." Its to give flexibility on paroling those who security aren't entirely sure are antags to begin with, or those who quite clearly aren't a threat without their TC that has been confiscated. And it won't be given just for being "kind." It would be given for no attempts of escape, actively disregarding chances to walk out freely (for example with the brig virus opens all the airlocks and a perma prisoner stays), been complacent and helpful all shift, and typically when there's only twenty minutes left in the round anyway.

Edited September 9, 2020 by Rurik