Minor SoP Chaplain edits

[SkyPing]

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'.

Edited June 6, 2023 by SkyPing

[robveelben]

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.

[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.

 

[robveelben]

18 hours ago, SkyPing said:

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.

 

 

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.

[Sonador]

My suggestion, as someone who's actually certified in how regulatory codes are written, and addressing the concerns of the thread:

"6. It is the duty of the Chaplain to ensure that the crematorium is operational and accessible should an emergency require its use. If it is not, the Chaplain shall request the assistance of the appropriate station maintenance personnel;

7. Should the Chaplain be duly and diligently informed by station Security of the presence of a threat that may require the use of the the Chapel cremator to safely dispatch, the Chaplain shall provide access to this facility as required and shall not interfere with or impede Security in the course and scope of their duties."

I might actually apply my knowledge to SOP et al at some point and codify it into something that clearly delineates what is a suggestion  under SOP and what is a requirement under SOP that should be considered grounds for demotion upon violating (should/shall.)

Edited June 7, 2023 by Sonador

[robveelben]

2 hours ago, Sonador said:

7. Should the Chaplain be duly and diligently informed by station Security of the presence of a threat that may require the use of the the Chapel cremator to safely dispatch, the Chaplain shall provide access to this facility as required and shall not interfere with or impede Security in the course and scope of their duties."

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.

[Sonador]

48 minutes ago, robveelben said:

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.

That's why I specifically outline that they're required to provide cremator access and otherwise not interfere, not "aid security." I'm outlining something that would be part of their job: ensuring the cremator is available in an emergency and it can be gotten to, thus in their SOP. We don't need SOP to require the chaplain to not be an antag, that's what the entire body of Space Law is for. This is specific enough that it both outlines what exactly must be done, and it is worded so that the chaplain also is not given wiggle room to become a validhunter.