Rule rewrite draft - Need community input

[Rahlzel]

I am not sure if this is the right place, but is the marine law getting updates anytime soon?

It wasn't planned to. Do you think it should?

Also the fixing the SM thing is sort of a grey area cuz I had a mod yesterday tell me it was powergaming while I was a CO and he said only MT's/engineers can do it (more fore trialmods tbh) pls I don't want a ban from CO for fixing the SM :P

This is an example where gameplay trumps realism. The SM is so important to the marine team that it needs to be set up. However, a CO shouldn't be doing any dirty work. If there are MTs and/or a CE, they should be setting it up. If there aren't any, it falls on the Acting CO/XO. I'll make this tweak to the rules.

[Surrealistik]

Because doctors IRL use much more dangerous chemicals, and medics SHOUKD be trained to not use QC more tgen once.

Doctors do not routinely use anything remotely as dangerous as VX in the standard practice of medicine.

And combat medics certainly don't.

[Rahlzel]

Alright. I've made some aesthetic changes to the Xeno and Predator section - just separating the rules individually and cleaning up the wording a bit.

We seem to be coming to a close on this. Is there anything else you guys can think of that should be added/removed/changed?

[Aeleto]

It wasn't planned to. Do you think it should?

Yeah, right now Marine Law can be abused by both officers and prisoners to either imprison someone permanently, or in case of the troublemakers, keep causing shenanigans without warranting permabrig or executions. It is also disorienting when MPs fight over sentences because they end up being subjective instead of objective.

Admins/mods also seem to interpret the current laws differently, and it might lead to bwoinks or in worst cases bans, even if the MP is trying to do his job of maintaining peace aboard the ship.

[Rahlzel]

If we wanted to copy/paste an entire Uniform Code of Military Justice that might help with subjectivity, but that's a bit unrealistic.

How would you remedy it?

[Aeleto]

If we wanted to copy/paste an entire Uniform Code of Military Justice that might help with subjectivity, but that's a bit unrealistic.

How would you remedy it?

Would adding a Head of Military Police to keep the MPs in check help? Not sure if its actually realistic, but it would take some of the weight from their shoulders when everyone reaches a stalemate regarding sentences, and the XO/CO wouldn't need to lose precious time solving every brig issue that arises while they could've been manning the Bridge.

Oh, and maybe add protocols regarding dangerous people that cannot be exactly brigged as they did not break laws or already served their time, but still pose a danger to the ship.

[Youbar]

The different colours of red, orange, and yellow remind me of a rainbow. As a homophobe, I kindly request you remove them, along with the other small amounts of colour filled in every now and then.

Additionally, the rules are a bit long winded. They should be condensed and reformatted. Let's take "No ERP" as an example.

No ERP - ZERO TOLERANCE POLICY - ERP, or Erotic Roleplay, is defined as roleplay that has a strong erotic element intended to elicit a sexual response from the receiver(s). It may involve two or more people or be done in front of spectators. This includes reading stories about ERP but not participating directly (WGW). Both consensual and nonconsensual ERP will be met with a PERMABAN. This is not to be confused with distasteful but acceptable marine bravado such as "/me scratches his crotch" or "/me pinches [player]'s nipple." However, these actions can be handled IC as Neglect of Duty or Sexual Assault per Marine Law. Bottom line: If you're not sure if it's ERP or not, or you don't want to be permabanned, just don't do it.

Why not...

No erotic roleplay - erotic roleplay, otherwise known by the abbreviation "ERP", is defined as roleplay that has a strong erotic element intended to elicit a sexual response in one or both parties. Participating in acts of erotic roleplay, be it consensual or nonconsensual will result in a permanent ban from the server. This must not be confused, however, with distasteful but otherwise acceptable roleplay, such as scratching your crotch, or pinching another player's nipple.

Aside from the fact that it gives out far too much information than is necessary, it also frequently uses slang and phrasing that only experienced Space Station 13 players would understand.

[Rahlzel]

The different colours of red, orange, and yellow remind me of a rainbow. As a homophobe, I kindly request you remove them, along with the other small amounts of colour filled in every now and then.

Sure, I'll edit the formatting just as soon as I figure out this weird BBcode machine

Would adding a Head of Military Police to keep the MPs in check help? Not sure if its actually realistic, but it would take some of the weight from their shoulders when everyone reaches a stalemate regarding sentences, and the XO/CO wouldn't need to lose precious time solving every brig issue that arises while they could've been manning the Bridge.

This might help. We may be in need of an "HOS", as it were. It probably won't happen overnight, but I can't think of a reason not to have one.

[Westhybrid]

The different colours of red, orange, and yellow remind me of a rainbow. As a homophobe, I kindly request you remove them, along with the other small amounts of colour filled in every now and then.

Lol, nah.

[TeknoKot]

You people need a good discussion about lethal force. People still get banned even if it was escalated properly.

[slc97]

We spent a very long time discussing the lethal force rule in our meeting. We made minor definition changes within, but determined that the rule still stands as is.

The major definition change we made was changing melee weapons to non-lethal force and including some melee weapons as lethal force.

If I'm in a fight with someone, and we're punching, and he pulls out a crowbar and starts beating me with it once or twice, this is proper escalation as he's gone to a non-lethal weapon. If he crits me with the crowbar, that's improper.

If I'm in a fight with a guy and we're punching and he pulls a bayonet on me and starts stabbing me, that is improper as he's gone from punches to a lethal weapon even though it is also a melee weapon.

For the intents and purposes of this rule, we define a lethal weapon as a weapon created for the purpose of lethality. Knives, sharp objects, guns, etc. This also includes strangling as it has lethal intent.

[Rahlzel]

If I'm in a fight with a guy and we're punching and he pulls a bayonet on me and starts stabbing me, that is improper as he's gone from punches to a lethal weapon even though it is also a melee weapon.

Er.. That's certainly a lethal weapon IRL, but in SS13 terms, even a rubber chicken can be lethal if it's used enough. There's no distinction in the new rules about blunt objects vs sharp objects, only melee vs lethal melee. So, in your example, both instances are proper escalation since they're both melee weapons, and when they put someone into crit or kill is when they're lethal.

Should I reword that to be more clear somehow?

[coroneljones]

Er.. That's certainly a lethal weapon IRL, but in SS13 terms, even a rubber chicken can be lethal if it's used enough. There's no distinction in the new rules about blunt objects vs sharp objects, only melee vs lethal melee. So, in your example, both instances are proper escalation since they're both melee weapons, and when they put someone into crit or kill is when they're lethal.

Should I reword that to be more clear somehow?

Maybe a distinction between Blunt "Less lethal" vs Sharp "Lethal"

The difference between using a wrench or a cane vs a combat knife or a circular saw
Or a small example list of what can be considered each

[Rahlzel]

I think we should simplify it even more. If the item being used as a weapon puts the target into crit or beyond, it's lethal.

The new escalation is this: Argument -> Physical (punching/pushing) -> Non-lethal (melee weapons) -> Lethal (guns, killing with melee weapons)

So an attacker with a machete is still using non-lethal against a target because the person isn't it crit yet, but if the attacker then starts beating their target with a pack of cigarettes and it puts them into crit, those cigarettes are being used lethally.

Thoughts?

EDIT: Better yet, we just throw out that rule and say, "Do not attack someone without a legitimate, explainable roleplay reason." and let the MPs work it out. Done.

[forwardslashN]

EDIT: Better yet, we just throw out that rule and say, "Do not attack someone without a legitimate, explainable roleplay reason." and let the MPs work it out. Done.

So long as the machete isn't considered a non-lethal weapon.

[Feweh]

I think we should simplify it even more. If the item being used as a weapon puts the target into crit or beyond, it's lethal.

The new escalation is this: Argument -> Physical (punching/pushing) -> Non-lethal (melee weapons) -> Lethal (guns, killing with melee weapons)

So an attacker with a machete is still using non-lethal against a target because the person isn't it crit yet, but if the attacker then starts beating their target with a pack of cigarettes and it puts them into crit, those cigarettes are being used lethally.

Thoughts?


EDIT: Better yet, we just throw out that rule and say, "Do not attack someone without a legitimate, explainable roleplay reason." and let the MPs work it out. Done.

Agreed, that also covers disarming as well. Simply because disarming can be seen as a hostile harming intent.

[Rahlzel]

So long as the machete isn't considered a non-lethal weapon.

My point is that all weapons and items can be lethal, so we should judge that rule based on how it's being used as opposed to what is being used.

Agreed, that also covers disarming as well. Simply because disarming can be seen as a hostile harming intent.

You agree with the edit or everything else?

[Neray]

EDIT: Better yet, we just throw out that rule and say, "Do not attack someone without a legitimate, explainable roleplay reason." and let the MPs work it out. Done.

Yes, God, please, yes.

[slc97]

I disagree with the edit. The lethal force rule is there to enforce military RP like Apop wants. By making it "Do not attack someone without a legitimate, explainable roleplay reason." and making improper escalation covered by MPs, you open up the floor to a fistfight becoming a gunfight with no staff intervention.

While I'm all for less staff intervention, if we run that edit, we will lose a good portion of that military RP we are trying to preserve. No marine in the history of ever would be in a fistfight with another marine and pull a gun and start shooting. I agree with simplifying the lethal force rule, but it needs to stand as some basis to preserve military RP.

[Rahlzel]

I wasn't clear. I meant half-but-not-really joking that we should just toss out the entire Lethal Force rule and replace it with that edit (EDIT: Better yet, we just throw out that rule and say, "Do not attack someone without a legitimate, explainable roleplay reason." and let the MPs work it out. Done.)

No escalation. No 6-page report for players to read on how they need to play the game. Give MPs the tools to control the situation and let Admins handle extremes and knucklehead MPs. That's it. That's what I'd like to do.

We could add "altercations between Marines must be roleplayed" or something if we want to counteract the loss in RP, but we'd gain the freedom for players to RP it how they want instead of being forced into training wheels to go from Argument -> Pushing/Shoving, etc.

[Karmac]

No escalation. No 6-page report for players to read on how they need to play the game. Give MPs the tools to control the situation and let Admins handle extremes and knucklehead MPs. That's it. That's what I'd like to do.

This would be great, but the people that play MP's and Marines just don't mesh very well usually, this will quickly lead to more angry people than needs be, and probably more work for admunisters.

Edit: I'm a retard that didn't read your message correctly, you already stated that admins would be solving problem people. I just hope people don't ruin this by mucking about when admins AREN'T on.

[Rahlzel]

Update:

We're having a 2nd staff meeting this weekend to more seriously consider the Lethal Force rule. We'll have a decision Saturday night or Sunday and I'll update this topic with it.

tl;dr: The proposal is to completely remove the Lethal Force rule along with "escalation" and replace it with something MUCH simpler. Something along the lines of "Do not physically attack any other human without a legitimate, explainable, roleplay reason that could happen in a real-life scenario."

Argument:

• It covers the entire rule in a single sentence.
• It includes "any other human", because I think it should apply to Survivors and neutral Emergency Response Teams. They shouldn't be getting shot at immediately when boarding because they might be there to help. A Death Squad would come with an automatic Kill-On-Sight most likely and it would make sense IRL.
• It frees staff from needing to dig through lines and lines of logs to see how a situation was escalated.
• It has the disadvantage of possibly causing more chaos, but that chaos can and should be handled IC as much as possible - MPs should be arresting people that fight and shoot each other. In the event of no MPs, the section below might help.
• Another disadvantage might be that it's more up-to-interpretation of the Staff member since it requires more common sense than a set of rules for every situation, but I don't think that will be a problem since the players should be responsible for themselves for the most part. We won't need to interpret that much because the players will be handling themselves. "He looked at me funny so I shot him" is obviously not a good reason, but most everything else can be handled IC with Marine Law.
• Including the above, perhaps we can combine this into the No Griefing rule? I love how short our rules are getting.
• We might want to revisit Marine Law. We could increase brig times for Assault perhaps, and make MPs more capable, such as including a more powerful Beepsky-type of bot that can help with lawbreakers. Perhaps several of them could patrol the ship. When an MP or commanding officer sets a person to "Arrest", they move fast, are very tough to kill, and aren't easily swayed in their pursuit of justice. Might even be able to code in a response to an assault if they see a marine being attacked by another marine.

Example scenarios:

• Marine A shoots marine B for no reason. BAD. Obviously.
• Marine A pushes marine B for no reason. BAD. Emphasis is on roleplay, so no matter how small the altercation, no roleplay means an account note and eventually a ban.
• Marine A shoots marine B because marine B made fun of his mother. This is where I'm 50/50. On one hand, marine B is technically doing the shooting for a roleplay reason. On the other hand, it's ridiculously excessive to the point of being unrealistic. Does it depend on how many times marine B shoots marine A? If it's just one shot that does minimal damage, should they just be arrested instead without any Admin intervention? Or should they be handled by the No Griefing rule? At what point does it switch from being acceptable to griefing? How many shots or how much damage? This needs to be very simple to interpret, so either this should be 100% allowed or 100% against the rules which is why I added the "that could happen in a real-life scenario" to the end of the proposed rule at the top. I'm leaning towards this being bad.

[Casany]

Another problem I could see is when someone's is FFed and they fire back at the person. Technically it would be reasonable to fire back , but it was an accident. It would cause some issues

[slc97]

We will probably constitute that as griefing.

[Karmac]

Beepsky's? Several of them? Don't even include MP as a role, the robots will do it better everytime.