Add camera cutting and removal to Space Law

[EmilyFontaine]

Going with my general theme of clarification to prevent speculation, I'm suggesting adding a couple of very small additions to Space Law.

Firstly, adding the act of cutting cameras to code 100, "Damage to Station Assets".
I've included a screenshot of the law below. I experienced a round where Security were debating whether cutting cameras would be a code 100 (DtSA) or 300 (Sabotage), and discovered that neither mention cameras. Obviously, cameras are station assets, and I personally believe that screw-driving a camera and snipping some wires isn't really worth throwing someone in the brig for 15 minutes for, as it's easily done and easily fixed. Adding a small line of text in the notes to Code 100, something as simple as "cutting cameras" would help.

Secondly, adding camera removal to code 300, "Sabotage."
Screenshot of the law below. Removing cameras is more time consuming and damaging, as it takes a while to fully replace it. You have to take the time to get a camera assembly, take it to the location, and set it up to the network. Like above, adding a line of text to the notes of the law, like "fully removing cameras", would help clarify and it cuts down time spent in processing. Helpful to Security and crew alike, as less time is spent speculating on the how-to's.

Lastly, while camera removal might be more appropriate for a medium level crime, like code 200 (Workplace Hazard), it doesn't fit the theme of the crime, as it concerns itself with lesser acts of sabotage that are physically harmful to crew, like accidental plasma leaks or shocked doors. Sabotage is more fitting. Alternatively, we could add both camera cutting and removal to code 100, though I personally think removing the camera entirely is worthy of a higher sentence, due to the effort required to repair it. 

Edited September 17, 2020 by EmilyFontaine
Spelling

[Mitchs98]

As far as I'm aware the examples in Space Law are just that, examples, to let you realize what actions that are similar would fall under that law and are not hardset 'This is what breaks this law and nothing else.' in most cases. Such as DTA. Cutting wires and destroying a camera is very much DTA. Now if they were breaking numerous cameras and thus sabotaging the camera network, it could be easily viewed as Sabotage as it's similar enough to 'disabling power for a small area of the station'.

Overall, singular camera destruction and cutting/damaging the camera is in-fact DTA already. Space Law, in my opinion, isn't meant to have a laundry list of clarifications nor does it need clarifications every time an argument comes up over what counts as what unless it's truly not clear and that much of a grey area.

[EmilyFontaine]

50 minutes ago, Mitchs98 said:

Space Law, in my opinion, isn't meant to have a laundry list of clarifications nor does it need clarifications every time an argument comes up over what counts as what unless it's truly not clear and that much of a grey area.

I agree to a certain extent. I think the less doubt there is, the better everyone involved can enjoy their rounds without getting their time wasted. The issue I've run into is that people get brigged for 15 minutes for snipping a couple of wires on a camera. You and I know this is DtSA, but the new and aspiring sec officer might not. There might be experienced people around to correct it, but then they ctrl + f in space law for "cameras" and find nothing. I'd argue that camera cutting happens often enough that I don't see a reason not to include it in space law. I don't think that every single possible scenario should be considered when it comes to space law, but I'd argue that this is something that happens often enough to at least get a mention.

 

[Kozack]

1 hour ago, EmilyFontaine said:

I agree to a certain extent. I think the less doubt there is, the better everyone involved can enjoy their rounds without getting their time wasted. The issue I've run into is that people get brigged for 15 minutes for snipping a couple of wires on a camera. You and I know this is DtSA, but the new and aspiring sec officer might not. There might be experienced people around to correct it, but then they ctrl + f in space law for "cameras" and find nothing. I'd argue that camera cutting happens often enough that I don't see a reason not to include it in space law. I don't think that every single possible scenario should be considered when it comes to space law, but I'd argue that this is something that happens often enough to at least get a mention.

 

I agree, for the sake of newer people in security, or on the station, the more specific the laws are, the better.

[Eler00]

On the other hand, the more specific the laws, the longer they are. Longer laws means more people going TLDR, skimming or just forgetting parts.

[Pokebro2000]

2 hours ago, Eler00 said:

On the other hand, the more specific the laws, the longer they are. Longer laws means more people going TLDR, skimming or just forgetting parts.

Which means those who care will actually listen, and those who dont would have skimmed over anyway

[MattTheFicus]

out of curiosity, we have an "Advanced Rules" for the server rules, why can there not be one for Space Law? While the quick-and-dirty square of TLDR is what most OFFICERS use, why cant Magi/HoS/Warden be expected to know some "case law" that would be admin-backed precedents to the much "simpler" Space Law page.

 

edit: this would be more for the nitpicky arguments of "but its not DIRECTLY said in Space Law that I see get used in the Brig occasionally, so while it would be still up for some interpretation, there would be a historical "fallback" per se.

Edited September 21, 2020 by MattTheFicus

[robveelben]

I always thought this is why you have a magistrate and IAA to fall back they are supposed to know a lot more about case laws and reasonable interpetion of said laws in my opinion this is why you have a legal depertment newer players should never be afraid of asking IAA for help in these kind of matters as they are supposed to look more indepth into these cases.