TullyBBurnalot
-
Posts
2,631 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
15
Posts posted by TullyBBurnalot
-
-
I will repeat myself for the millionth +1 time.
STANDARD Operating Procedure.
Not:
ALWAYS Operating Procedure.
I apologize for the crudeness, but this keeps coming up, and I keep having to repeat myself over and over to get the point across.
-
.
..
...
....
.....
......
.......
........
.........
Glorious.
-
Encapsulating the horror of WW1 in a commercially successful way for the masses is an endeavor most likely too difficult to properly undertake.
That said, I'm sure there's a market out there for an FPS that pulls no punches in the "Welcome to the trenches" department. Something like the game "Verdun", only with a bigger budget.
-
Verdun was a wonderful experience.
Well, terrifying, but still wonderful. Who said trench warfare was boring?
-
That falls under Assault/Murder already.
-
WW1 game without trench warfare?!
Fucking what.
-
Would not be too hard to add a "No weapons from gateway unless otherwise permitted by the Head of Security, Captain or Magistrate" thing.
-
Greetings. I shall not be deliberating on the result of this Complaint, as that decision is left to the Senior Staff, as indicated.
First of all, apologies for not giving your second appeal as much time as the first appeal was given. Let us take this point for point, then, so that discussion can happen.
The reason I was told to piss up a rope in the last appeal, is because of powergaming. Tully has explained to me:While Telecomms exploitation is indeed the crux of the issue, it was by no means the only thing that led to the Ban being applied.
Your early actions on Paradise, especially as an AI, Research Director and Scientist, were often on the wrong side of the powergaming line. While I cannot deny that they had decreased in intensity and frequency, by the time the Ban was applied, they were still there. You had to be reminded several times to not abuse or exploit Telecomms. Two times would count as enough, as we expect players to to take permanent lessons from single incidents.
In addition, I would like to note here that the way a player is seen by the Staff was, is, and always will be, dependent on past experiences and, in particular, the player's Notes. In your case, said Notes are not exactly positive.
You not only managed to accrue a Head of Security Jobban for severe lack of knowledge regarding Space Law, but were also involved in a situation where you deliberately broke a hacked law by informing the crew about it. Having been there for the incident, I can attest that your response to the entire situation was less than ideal, as you seemed to be more interested in attempting to loophole your way out of the hacked law than trying to follow it.
Now, admittedly, these were incidents from a few months ago. However, as I noted in my conversation with you, your general attitude towards the game tends to veer towards "What is fun for me?" rather than "What is fun for everyone?". Now, do not get me wrong, wanting to derive personal enjoyment from the game is just natural. It is, after all, a game. The problem arises when your fun begins to take precedence over the fun of everyone else.
This problem was already fixing itself before I got the hammer. My occurences of uploading annoying scripts have become very rare, and I was already starting to play other roles than science/ai. I've even started doing traitory stuff (even quite successfully!) without using telecomms scripts.So yeah, the problem in question was already starting to fix itself before I got banned.
And again, this may be true. In fact, this is very positive. However, before going on to the final point, I would like to note this:
I was present for the incident with the cyborg. You engaged in a prolonged discussion with Fethas, the Administrator handling the situation, where you attempted to make the case that what you did was justified because the cyborg was "breaking its laws" and therefore "could not be trusted".
Now, as you were explained at the time, your reasoning was notably flimsy. Your reasoning that the cyborg was breaking its laws relied on the fact that it using its RCD to block off the DJ station was, in some way, breaking:
Law 1: Minimize ExpensesNow, perhaps you could make the case for it. It would, however, be a particularly weak one, as you were told, and was the main reason why the Ban was applied in the first place.
In addition:
However, I *PERSONALLY* dragged it back to robotics for revival.As you were told during the incident, this in no way diminishes what you did. In fact, one of the reasons you gave for murdering the cyborg was the ease with which you could just replace the body. That is functionally identical to making a case for murdering someone because you can easily clone them.
In fact, during the entire incident, you insisted on arguing for your side, and did not quite seem to really comprehend what was being told to you, despite having had plenty of opportunities in the past to review the Server Rules.
But even then, if you had just given it some time before appealing, perhaps that appeal could've been accepted.
However, your first appeal, quoted:
The purpose of that rule is to prevent people from unfairly getting removed from the round. However, in this case, that did not happen at all. After killing the borg, I promptly dragged it back to robotics so that it could play the round. There is a person behind that borg, and that is why the rule exists - to keep people in the round. The situation at hand was that there was a borg invading my satellite, and I could not apply handcuffs to said borg. While I could have probably threatened it first, and that would have been better, the only difference with what I did and applying handcuffs is that the stat var was 2, and it spent a bit more time incapacitated.Demonstrates that you still did not understand what the actual message was, and appeared to believe that you were, in some way, justified.
You were not.
But even then, as I noted in your first appeal, had you simply given it a few months, gained more experience with the game, revised your playstyle, and then come back, you would've had a shot. A long one, but a shot nonetheless.
But then your second appeal contained the following:
The law-breaking was just a shitty excuse, the real reason is I was salty about the way that he visited me.This indicates a few things:
1) You deliberately lied to Fethas during the incident regarding your actions and your intentions;
2) You have not yet developed a respect for the Server Rules that would be expected out of someone that has been on the receiving end of an Adminhelp so many times;
3) Your attitude, that you claim to be improving, is still vulnerable to bouts of anger, despite the fact that you very well should know better
Anything other than a declined appeal would be unacceptable. Not only did you invalidate everything you said before, you invalidate it in the absolutely worst way possible.
Not only did you further dig the hole you were already in, you compounded more dirt on top of you. There is sincerely nothing else I could say to your second appeal apart from:
"So you admit to lying, and to having broken the Rules even more severely than you initially let on?"
Killing people because you are annoyed at them is absolutely unacceptable. You have been on Paradise for well over half a year.
You have been talked to several times.
You were on the receiving end of Jobbans due to your behaviour.
You were on the receiving end of a Permanent Ban for exploiting game systems after having been already warned (multiple times) to stop doing it.
And now, you murdered someone because you were "salty".
This is absolutely unacceptable behavior, warranting nothing less than a long-lasting Permanent Ban.
If you wished for an appraisal of your second appeal, this is it. You may discuss it as required.
-
Small thing here, on the "What to do" Section, a bit saying something like this
4.5 Get a list of all witnesses both defense and prosecution want to call upon in the trial and inform them (the witnesses) of their need in the trial
could be added so you don't have to stop mid trial to track down that one greytider who saw it all in maintenance but has since run off.
Sorta covered by point 3, to be honest.
-
If the trial is not supposed to be a public spectacle, for reasons of security and expediency, holding one in the holodeck is probably one of the least favorable options.
Really hoping this PR goes through:
https://github.com/ParadiseSS13/Paradise/pull/4843
This would give Security a dedicated courtroom, and negate the need for the Holodeck.
Respectfully, I think that is your opinion of the purpose of the role and it needlessly restricts RP here. I participate in processing much like staff defense counsel at an arraignment (see "Night Court"). It does not restrict resources, in fact my presence to participate in that role often has me ensuring that things are done more efficiently. Your opinion should not be forced upon the rest of the server. If I would like to act as a lawyer in that way, and it does not impact balance, I don't see why I should be prohibited from it. I'm not asking for a specific right for an IAA to be lawyers for the accused as some will obstruct the process, I'm only asking that this RP opportunity not be specifically excluded from the role. IAA is already mostly useless and it is a 100% RP role.Please do not restrict this opportunity to RP as a "lawyer" for accused criminals.
Again, I am not saying I do not want IAAs involved in the Brigging process. Quite the contrary, in fact. Most of Guideline 1 can be summed up as "Make sure Security does not screw up brigging".
Perhaps it's a question of grammar. By "legal representation" I mean the whole shebang associated with trials, what with defense procedures, witness statements, verdicts, yada yada.
It is my belief that when it comes to Non-Capital crimes, expediency should take precedence, for the sake of everyone involved in the process.
-
I have a problem with this. Let's face it. Trials never happen. I wish they would. But powergamers will silence the RPers every time, and the accused antags (guilty or not) will hang. So basically this says an IAA never gets to provide legal representation unless hell freezes over. As IAA, I like to hang out in processing and act as a legal advisor/counsel/advocate to whoever gets dragged in. Not be obstructive, but ensure justice is swift and fair. This line as I read it might strip me of that.
Trials do not happen unless it's a Capital Sentence. That alone imposes a large obstacle.
You seem to believe that trials not happening seems to be a result of powergamers. I would hazard you are wrong. Trials don't happen because, in 99,99% of the time, they are not necessary. We should not be having trials every other shift, especially considering most Antagonists leave a fuckass huge trail of evidence that points in one direction.
By "legal representation", read "lawyer". Acting as an impromptu defense councillor for non-Capital crimes more often than not ends up tying up resources for little result, and is really not the job of the IAA. Nothing stops you from still ensuring that Space Law gets applied properly. In fact, that's the entire purpose of the rest of Guideline 1.
They should, however, ensure that their timed sentence is applied correctly, and alert Security if it is not. In addition, Internal Affairs Agents are permitted to provide legal advice for Security and prisoners, as well as investigating whether or not arrests were done properly;NEXT!
"Impede" may mean different things to different people. For a comdom HoS or Warden, it may be "impeding" to simply be in the processing area observing. It's happened to me more than once. But, as I say above, I like to participate without being a bad influence on the process. I think it is fair to permit IA participation at processing in at least understanding the nature of any charges brought and having access to the accused in an unobstructive way during processing so that they can properly challenge improper things expediently through appropriate means.Amended to:
Internal Affairs Agents are not to deliberately halt or slow down prisoner processing or ongoing investigations. If Security is acting in a demonstrably incompetent manner, contacting the Head of Security or the Captain is highly recommended. If more information about the crime in question is needed, Agents should wait until the person in question was briggedChanges in bold.
-
Godspeed, you magnificent bastard.
Hope to see you well eventually!
-
Needs more Superalloy Darkshine.
-
*whimper*
-
Following discussion with the Staff, the following section has been added:
Sentencing
Sentences will now work in intervals, rather than set timers. This means than the duration of the sentence for each crime may fall anywhere in the given interval. The duration of the sentence will be left to the discretion of Security and, in particular, the person who conducted the arrest. Where the sentence falls on the interval should be decided based on the circumstances of the crime itself. For instance, factors such as:
- Cooperation with Security;
- Damage done;
Among others.
The intervals are as follows:
Minor crimes: Warning Given --- 5 minutes;
Medium Crimes: 5 minutes --- 10 minutes;
Major Crimes: 15 minutes --- 15 minutes
-
When this is finished, I'll probably go through the existing list and patch any obvious loopholes like that.
-
So, it is never legit to demand a trial for:
- holy water use
- implants use
Not if they are fully justified, not really.
NEXT!
Perhaps add: 5) Decide the length of the trial in advance. While some overrun is normal, having a time limit encourages all sides to get to the point and avoid wasting time. It also makes it easier to convince busy people to attend/participate - if they know it won't drag on all shift.Actually a good point. The following has been added to Trials:
5) Decide on a schedule. Even though Trials, by definition, take time, they should not take too much time. Before the Trial begins, it's always a good idea to predetermine how long the Trial should go on for, to avoid diverting needed resources and manpower for too long
NEXT!
So, yelling it occasionally is OK?Poke the bear at your own risk.
NEXT!
CC has a bad record when it comes to responding to faxes. Perhaps present this fax to HoS/Captain and invite them to judge it first. If they think it should go to CC, send it to CC, but IMHO sending it to CC will probably just delay the process.Hmm...
If all else fails, and a trial simply isn’t possible, consider sending a fax to the Captain and letting them deliberate. Include every bit of evidence related to the case, along with any necessary considerations, and wait for a response. If that fails, contacting Central Command is advised.Changes in bold.
NEXT!
Again with this 1st v 2nd degree. Call them something the average person understands, please.E.g: Murder v manslaughter.
Following my fuses blowing, all instances of "First Degree Murder" and "Second Degree Murder" have been changed to "Murder" and "Manslaughter", respectively.
NEXT!
I'd suggest adding a few examples of things IAA should never do, e.g:- Physically release prisoners against the wishes of security
- Give away their IAA sec-access headsets or keys
- Distracting security by continually screaming 'my client is innocent!' with zero evidence
Interesting...
As such, actions such as the following should be avoided if you are an Internal Affairs Agent:- Attempting to release a prisoner, or removing them from their cell for an interview, without contact Security and receiving their approval;
- Distracting Security with cries of innocence, or attempting to use Central Command faxes as a threat/leverage;
Keep in mind that this list is, by no means, a full representation of all the things you should not be doing as an Internal Affairs Agent. It is, however, a good example of the kind of actions you should be avoiding.
Has been added to Internal Affairs Range of Action.
NEXT!
Perhaps including something about tracking/chem implants in parole might be wise.Especially as there is a PR currently up which changes them.
That's already in Space Law, this is just to clarify how Parole should be handed out.
NEXT!
Updating all references from "loyalty" to mindshield (once the relevant PR goes through) would be good.I cannot find any instance of Loyalty in the proposed Legal SOP, is it anywhere?
NEXT!
So would ensuring that procedures for loyalty/mindshield implantation are covered somewhere.Also a good idea. The following section has been added:
Mindshield Implants
Mindshield Implants are specialized, NanoTrasen-brand implants that protect whoever they are installed into from brainwashing techniques commonly associated with both the Syndicate and the Cult of Nar-Sie. For this reason, all members of Security, in addition to the Captain, NanoTrasen Representative and Blueshield, are issued Mindshield Implants by default, as a security measure.
While procedures for a Revolution are already detailed in General Standard Operating Procedure, it is important to note other situations in which Mindshield Implantation may be used:
Firstly, all new hires to the Security Department, or the positions of Captain, Blueshield or NanoTrasen Representative, are to receive a Mindshield Implant, as per NanoTrasen policy.
Similarly, all personnel that are successfully deconverted from the Cult of Nar-Sie's influence may be given a Mindshield Implant, at the discretion of the Head of Security. This is not advised if the deconverted person does not wish to receive the implant.
Lastly, personnel that have been Mindslaved should be offered a Mindshield Implant in order to prevent further brainwashing.
NEXT!
This is not grounds to impede security. This is grounds to clal in the HoS/Captain/CC.Impeding them won't change their behavior.
Very true. Changed to:
Internal Affairs Agents are not to impede ongoing investigations and prisoner processing. If Security is acting in a demonstrably incompetent manner, contacting the Head of Security or the Captain is highly recommended. If more information about the crime in question is needed, Agents should wait until the person in question was brigged;Changes in bold.
NEXT!
I thought this was the NT Rep's job?Also the IAA's.
NEXT!
This made me laugh. Leave it in, though.Perhaps add: "if a magistrate attempts to do this, contact CC".
Added.
NEXT!
Perhaps add "In such communication, the magistrate should clearly outline:
- The fact their decision was ignored
- What the decision was
- What security did instead
- The fact that the magistrate has already told them that they outrank them when it comes to sentencing, and sec ignored this"
Such a concise summary would help CC decide if intervening was necessary.
I'll do you one better and add this:
Please see this guide for more information on how to write a good fax.NEXT!
We should keep the sections on brigging.I would also suggest bolding the lines that explain what each category of prisoner is allowed to have.
E.g:
- Tempbrig prisoners may keep their uniform, headset, ID, PDA and shoes.
- Permabrig prisoners must wear orange prison uniforms. They may keep their (demoted) ID card and headset. Headset can be confiscated if they abuse it.
- Vox are allowed to retain their internals in either case. Plasmamen may retain their suit and internals in either case.
It was never my intention to remove the sections on Brigging (especially since I wrote them as a complementary to Sec SOP anyway), so no worries there. Will see about the bolding.
-
The following section has been added:
Parole
As stated in Space Law, individuals may be Paroled for their crimes. This section will provide some insight as to how this process works.
Parole is defined as a situation where a prisoner is released from the Brig before their given sentence is up. This happens under the assumption that said prisoner will no longer commit any crimes.
Parole is, of course, a continuous process. Paroled personnel must be kept under surveillance at all times, and watched closely for signs of recidivism. If the Paroled person commits a crime while on Parole, they are deemed to have Broken Parole, and must then be brigged for the crime they committed, and the original crime from which they were Paroled. In addition, they are then fully disqualified for future Parole.
Enemies of the Corporation, however, have specific circumstances, which are detailed in Space Law.
The question is, of course, when to Parole someone. When paroling Non-Capital personnel, the severity of their actions and the chance of recidivism should be considered. Namely, how much damage the person in question caused, and how likely they are to repeat the stunt. Similarly, the person's cooperation (or lack thereof) with Security should be taken into consideration.
Long story short, Parole should be offered for crimes of a lesser nature and/or to personnel that are unlikely to commit crimes again.
When it comes to Capital Crimes, Parole is not advised unless the station is in an active crisis and the person in question can help solve this crisis, such as a Traitor being permitted to fight a massive Blob Organism.
-
Does parole only allow EotC to be paroled out of all the capital crimes, or does it mean if you're paroling a capital crime, refer to EotC's parole conditions?
The latter.
NEXT!
More on Parole should probs be in LSOP, just to clarify how it should be done and handled.Will do so.
-
If possible, statements should be used in favor of live witnesses. It's hard enough to get security to work together for a trial, getting random crewmembers to sit around the brig so they can give a quick statement isn't viable. Before the trial, any witnesses involved should be investigated by the IAA/Magistrate/Detective/HoS, without any bias towards prosecution or defense.
Good point. The following has been added to Courtroom Proceedings, Point 4:
A written statement, such as a Recorder Transcript, may also serve this purpose instead of a live witnessNEXT!
NTR should be included in the list for possible judge.Actually forgot about those. Added.
NEXT!
One of the HoP's lesser roles is to act as a defense for people brigged by security. They could be an option for someone's defense.Considering the fact that the HoP really has no real responsibilities and tends to be staffed by people of equal competence, I'd rather just let the defendant pick who they want if there are no IAAs.
NEXT!
While IA shouldn't provide legal representation for timed sentences, they are permitted to give legal advice. Investigating an arrest and giving advice to prisoners is within their power.Very true. IAA SOP Guideline 1 changed to:
Internal Affairs Agents are not to provide legal representation for any prisoner not being handed a Capital Sentence. They should, however, ensure that their timed sentence is applied correctly, and alert Security if it is not. In addition, Internal Affairs Agents are permitted to provide legal advice for Security and prisoners, as well as investigating whether or not arrests were done properlyRelevant parts in bold.
NEXT!
If the Head ignores a valid IA report, the Captain should be notified. If the Captain ignores the report as well, then CC and NTR should be notified.Also a good point. IAA SOP Guideline 5 changed to:
Internal Affairs Agents are to attempt to resolve all Standard Operating Procedure issues locally before contacting Central Command. This should be done in tandem with Command and, if possible, personnel in the relevant Department. If a valid report is ignored by the relevant Head of Staff, the Captain is to be contacted. If the Captain ignores the report, then Central Command and/or the NanoTrasen Representative must be contactedRelevant parts in bold.
NEXT!
The double negative here is really throwing me off. Could we change it to: "Internal Affairs Agents are only to provide legal representation for prisoners facing sentencing for a Capital crime. They may, however, ensure that timed sentences are applied correctly according to the presented evidence, and alert security if it is not;"Grammar, my eternal enemy. Changed as per your suggestion:
NEXT!
As has been said by others in the past SOP should focus more on what people performing their job should do and less on what they shouldn't do. Certainly there's some exceptions, though. Maybe this could be reworded to something like: "Internal Affairs Agents should only represent people whom they have first obtained permission to provide counseling. Consultations may be done upon request by prisoners or at the Agent's discretion."Also a good point. Changed to:
Internal Affairs Agents must request permission from any potential client before serving as their legal representative, as said client may choose to either represent themselves, or request someone elseNEXT
Just suggesting we strike the "only" as seen in the quoted text. It seems out of place and unnecessary.Stricken.
NEXT!
Again with the "do not" stuff. Maybe reword it to: "Magistrates have the final say whether or not trials happen. The Magistrate should ensure that trials only happen for prisoners facing sentencing for a Capital crime."Details, details, details. Changed to:
Magistrates have the final say on whether or not Trials take place, and should ensure they should only occur for Capital Sentences. Similarly, Magistrates are to ensure that Trials do not happen for Defendants that are self-evidently guiltyNEXT!
I think there's a typo here? See quoted text for my recommended fix.Was actually a typo. Stricken.
NEXT!
This throws the door open for shitters to start trials for anyone ever accused of a 400-level crime, even on Code Red / Gamma.Because idiocy is eternal, the following has been added to the Trials' Foreword section:
However, keep in mind that Security can and should refuse legal representation to a person, even if the Magistrate orders a trial, in any of the following circumstances:
- The Defendant is obviously guilty/innocent given the evidence provided;
- The station is currently in an active crisis requiring the entirety of Security. In this case, the Defendant should still be given a trial if the crisis is resolved
-
Obligatory "Please remain civil" thingymabobber.
-
A quick foreword: I would like to express my utmost gratitude for everyone who participated in this project. All of you, the yaysayers, the naysayers, those who agreed, those who disagreed, every last bit of information that helped mold this legalese into what it is now. Ignored as it may frequently be, this SOP stands as a testament to your work, far more than mine. So, for all your help, thank you. Time to close the show with purest legalese.
Trials
Foreword:
Before you think about putting on a grand trial for the client of the day, here are a couple of things to take into consideration:
1) Trials do not happen for timed sentences. As dictated in Space Law, only Permanent/Capital sentences can legally be brought to trial. Regardless of how much someone asks, you cannot legally represent someone unless they’re either headed for Permanent Imprisonment, the Electric/Injection Chair, the Firing Squad, or the Roboticist’s surgical table;
2) Trials take time. While a trial may be a great opportunity for roleplay and may in fact help uphold proper justice when the evidence is murky, most Security personnel will prefer an expedient application of Space Law rather than go through a (probably lengthy) trial process. You will most likely be ignored most of the time when requesting a trial, and will probably need to contact a higher authority, such as a Captain, a Magistrate or Central Command;
3) Trials are not a TV Show. Trials in-game are nothing like the ones commonly portrayed in Media, and most certainly are not trials by jury. You have the Prosecution and the Defense, and it is their job to ensure that the defendant is declared guilty or innocent, respectively. This decision will fall on the presiding Judge, who will most likely come with baggage themselves. Bottom line: this is Defense VS Prosecution where only tangible evidence matters, and nothing else.
In addition, please remember that Security is not obliged to provide legal representation. Even if the evidence is murky, at best, Security can deny your chance for a trial.
Only the Magistrate, Captain or Head of Security may convene a trial. The Magistrate can overrule the Captain and Head of Security, while the Captain can only overrule the Head of Security.
However, keep in mind that Security can and should refuse legal representation to a person, even if the Magistrate orders a trial, in any of the following circumstances:
- The Defendant is obviously guilty/innocent given the evidence provided;
- The station is currently in an active crisis requiring the entirety of Security. In this case, the Defendant should still be given a trial if the crisis is resolved
DO: Hold a trial for someone accused of Murder, but lacking forensic evidence, with the defendant claiming exaggerated charges from Security and/or the victim;
DON’T: Hold a trial for someone the AI caught shooting the CMO in the face after emagging into their office. Or any non-Capital sentence.
What To Do:
Let us assume that we now have someone who can legally stand to trial, and the Head of Security/Magistrate/Captain has opted to allow this trial to go through. Here’s what you’ll need to do before a trial:
1) Find a Judge. This will be the person in charge of issuing the final sentence. In most cases, it’ll either be the Head of Security or the Captain but, if possible, try to get a Magistrate to handle the position, if there even is one;
2) Decide who Prosecution and Defense are. If there are two Internal Affairs Agents/Lawyers/Public Defenders aboard the station, this becomes simple. However, if there is only one available, someone needs to take up the mantle of the Prosecution. The Prosecution’s job will be to look at the evidence and attempt to convince the Judge that the defendant is guilty. The Defense’s job is to convince the Judge of the exact opposite;
3) Get a statement. Speak with your client and get their side of the story. A Universal Recorder works wonders, as it allows you to have a handy, ready-to-copy transcript of everything the person said. In addition, getting a statement from the arresting officer and everyone involved is a necessity in order to get all the sides of a story;
DO: Stick to the facts and ask questions that lead straight to the point, such as “Where were you?”, “What happened?” or “Who was nearby?”;
DON’T: Let the Defendant ramble on in a self-incriminating fashion, or ask questions like “Are you innocent?” or “Who did it?”;
4) Find a location. Normally, this ends up being the Holodeck, but any place can serve as an impromptu courtroom, provided both the Defense and Prosecution can be present;
5) Decide on a schedule. Even though Trials, by definition, take time, they should not take too much time. Before the Trial begins, it's always a good idea to predetermine how long the Trial should go on for, to avoid diverting needed resources and manpower for too long
The Trial:
The preferred setup setup for a courtroom is as follows:
1) Magistrate/Captain/Head of Security/NanoTrasen Representative as the Judge, in a decreasing order of preference;
2) Internal Affairs Agents as the Defense. If no Internal Affairs Agents are available, the Defendant may choose to either represent themselves, or choose someone from the crew to represent them. Security personnel should be picked to form the Prosecution if possible;
3) The only people present at the trial should be the Defendant, relevant witnesses and perhaps the Heads of Staff. Remember, Trials Take Time, and should not be public spectacles. Expediency is key.
Courtroom Proceedings:
1) The Prosecution presents its case. This involves presenting all the evidence Security has on the defendant, explaining why it’s relevant, and why it means said Defendant should be declared guilty;
DO: Get right to the point in presenting your evidence right away;
DON’T: Spend 10 minutes trying to convince the Judge you’re right without presenting evidence to back you up;
2) The Defense presents its case. The opposite of what the Prosecution does, the Defense’s job is to present either a viable alternative as to why the evidence presents itself as it is, or cast enough doubt onto the entire process that the Defendant cannot reasonably be named as the sole possible suspect;
DO: Cast reasonable doubt and present alternate scenarios;
DON’T: Accuse Security of anything, nor continuously scream “MY CLIENT IS INNOCENT!!111!!”, "MY CLIENT WAS FRAMED!!!!!11!!!", or any variation thereof;
3) The Defendant is examined. Firstly by the Prosecution, then by the Defense. In this phase, both sides get to ask questions to the defendant regarding the case, the evidence and their involvement thereof. Take care not to abuse your authority, as the Judge has full power to tell you to quit harassing the Defendant if need be;
DO: Asks questions like “Where were you at the time of the crime?” or “What were you doing at the time of your arrest?”;
DON’T: Ask questions like “You killed them in cold blood, didn’t you?” (for the Prosecution) or “Security was shitcurity in arresting you, weren’t they?” (for the Defense);
4) Any relevant witnesses are examined. Much like in real life, question the witnesses about what they saw, only. It is not your job to spin a story, it is your job to gather the facts, period. A written statement, such as a Recorder Transcript, may also serve this purpose instead of a live witness;
5) Closing statements. Once again, Prosecution followed by the Defense. Here, both sides give out their final conclusions, and it serves as a last effort to convince the Judge that your side is the one that is right;
DO: Wrap your arguments in a couple of minutes and deliver your conclusion to the Judge;
DON’T: Spend 10+ minutes desperately pleading for mercy;
6) Verdict. Simple as the name implies. The Judge issues a final verdict, which should be considered the defendant’s final sentence
No Lawyers Present?
In the event that there are no Internal Affairs Agents/Public Defenders/Lawyers available for the Defense, you have a few choices:
- The defendant themselves, if they so desire;
- The Magistrate/NanoTrasen Representative;
Any volunteer that shows they are well versed in Space Law and Legal Standard Operating ProcedureIf all else fails, and a trial simply isn’t possible, consider sending a fax to the Captain and letting them deliberate. Include every bit of evidence related to the case, along with any necessary considerations, and wait for a response. If that fails, contacting Central Command is advised.
How To Present An Argument:
An Internal Affairs Agent/Public Defender/Lawyer’s entire job revolves around their capability to use their oratory skills. In layman’s terms, this means you’re supposed to be eloquent, and should be capable of producing convincing arguments at the drop of a hat. Your tongue is your tool, as is your brain. As such, we can’t really tell you how to properly present an argument, but we can provide some pointers:
1) Be concise. Do not spend half the trial’s time on a rambling speech that leads nowhere. In most cases, less is more. Get to the point, and stay there, as most of the time, that’s all that’s needed, and people will be much more willing to listen to you;
DO: Say things such as “At X time, my client was in Y” or “During the time of the crime, my client was doing Z”;
DON’T: Say things such as “My client could not possibly have done this, as he is X and Y and Z and loves puppies and Shitcurity has it out for them”;
2) Be realistic. While it’s understandable that you want to exercise your profession, some cases aren’t worth it. When there’s such a mountain of evidence stacked against someone that the result is a foregone conclusion, it’s best to let Space Law take over directly;
DO: Take that case of the murderer who claims he was framed and actually lacks any substantial, non-circumstantial evidence in their case;
DON’T: Listen to the person who murdered three others via chainsaw;
3) Have evidence supporting your case. This of course is self-evident. Witness reports and forensics are what you’ll be dealing with mostly. Keep them on backup at all times. In triplicate;
4) Consider special circumstances. There’s an entire section in Space Law for “Special Modifiers” that allow one’s sentence to be altered, reduced or even nullified. Pay close attention to the context of whatever happened and play these cards whenever possible. In some cases, it’s not about whether you can stop the sentence, it’s about whether you can do something to make it more bearable;
DO: Point out your client cooperated with Security during the proceedings;
DON’T: Demand a reduction of the sentence over reasons not listed in the Special Modifiers table, such as “My client is a clown, and therefore does not know better”
Advice For The Judge:
So, you’ve been chosen as the Judge, and it is now your job to sit and listen to the Prosecution and Defense make their cases and decide on a verdict. Here are a few pointers on how to proceed:
1) Be ethical. If you have a conflict of interest in the case (such as being friends with the Defendant, or having any sort of strong feelings and/or associations with them), it’s best to let someone else take up the mantle;
2) Be fair. You are not here to be a hanging judge. You have been chosen precisely because people believe you are capable of producing a fair judgement when provided with all the evidence. This does not mean, however, you should go light on the defendant either. You must be able to sift through all the non-important material and focus on what matters, and apply Space Law only to the point where it should be applied, no more, no less. A Judge should not be out to satisfy their personal vendettas, or appease a bloodthirsty crew. A Judge is out to make sure Justice is served;
DO: Reduce Murder to Manslaughter if the evidence points towards it being unintentional and/or a crime of passion;
DON’T: Upgrade Assault to Murder/Manslaughter if the victim later died due to medical malpractice;
3) Listen. Both sides most likely have convincing and valid arguments to put out. As a Judge, it’s your job to carefully listen to both the Prosecution and the Defense, then make a decision based on what they said and presented. Remember, your personal opinions are irrelevant. Only the facts matter in trials. However, it should be noted that personal interpretation of the facts goes a long way. There is a vast difference between premeditated murder and a crime of passion. There is a huge gulf between calculated sabotage, and accidental Toxins release. Listen to what both sides have to say, and make sure you are aware of the context that birthed the circumstances of the crime. Nothing happens in a vacuum, even aboard a space station. Context is King, and Evidence is Queen;
4) Know your limits. In some cases, you simply can’t decide. Either the evidence is too murky, or both sides present such a compelling argument that you can’t settle on a verdict. In such cases, it is perfectly acceptable for you to consult with other members of Command and get their input on the situation
Internal Affairs Range of Action
NanoTrasen provides job openings for Internal Affairs Agents precisely to ensure that the crew can be given legal representation in cases where Capital Sentences may not be fully justified. These openings are also there to allow for said Agents to ensure that Standard Operating Procedure and Space Law are being followed correctly, and to attempt to amend infringements on the field.
That said, however, the access given to Internal Affairs Agents is a privilege, not a right. An Internal Affairs Agent may be, and should be, ejected from the Brig if they are actively impeding Security from doing their job in an effective and expedient manner. Remember, Internal Affairs Agents do not have any authority to demand anything. If they are acting against the best interests of the station and its safety, they may be ignored.
As such, actions such as the following should be avoided if you are an Internal Affairs Agent:
- Attempting to release a prisoner, or removing them from their cell for an interview, without contact Security and receiving their approval;
- Distracting Security with cries of innocence, or attempting to use Central Command faxes as a threat/leverage;
Keep in mind that this list is, by no means, a full representation of all the things you should not be doing as an Internal Affairs Agent. It is, however, a good example of the kind of actions you should be avoiding.
Parole
As stated in Space Law, individuals may be Paroled for their crimes. This section will provide some insight as to how this process works.
Parole is defined as a situation where a prisoner is released from the Brig before their given sentence is up. This happens under the assumption that said prisoner will no longer commit any crimes.
Parole is, of course, a continuous process. Paroled personnel must be kept under surveillance at all times, and watched closely for signs of recidivism. If the Paroled person commits a crime while on Parole, they are deemed to have Broken Parole, and must then be brigged for the crime they committed, and the original crime from which they were Paroled. In addition, they are then fully disqualified for future Parole.
Enemies of the Corporation, however, have specific circumstances, which are detailed in Space Law.
The question is, of course, when to Parole someone. When paroling Non-Capital personnel, the severity of their actions and the chance of recidivism should be considered. Namely, how much damage the person in question caused, and how likely they are to repeat the stunt. Similarly, the person's cooperation (or lack thereof) with Security should be taken into consideration.
Long story short, Parole should be offered for crimes of a lesser nature and/or to personnel that are unlikely to commit crimes again.
When it comes to Capital Crimes, Parole is not advised unless the station is in an active crisis and the person in question can help solve this crisis, such as a Traitor being permitted to fight a massive Blob Organism.
Evidence Storage Procedures
Physical evidence is defined as any object that can be used to prove that a particular person has committed a crime, or any object that is related to the crime itself, such as tools utilized for hacking a door.
- All evidence confiscated from arrested personnel is to be properly analyzed, then stored in Evidence Storage, either in the lockers in the Forensics Lab, or in the Evidence Storage Room in the Prison Wing;
- Stored evidence is not be removed from Evidence Storage unless it is required for a trial;
Mindshield Implants
Mindshield Implants are specialized, NanoTrasen-brand implants that protect whoever they are installed into from brainwashing techniques commonly associated with both the Syndicate and the Cult of Nar-Sie. For this reason, all members of Security, in addition to the Captain, NanoTrasen Representative and Blueshield, are issued Mindshield Implants by default, as a security measure.
While procedures for a Revolution are already detailed in General Standard Operating Procedure, it is important to note other situations in which Mindshield Implantation may be used:
Firstly, all new hires to the Security Department, or the positions of Captain, Blueshield or NanoTrasen Representative, are to receive a Mindshield Implant, as per NanoTrasen policy.
Similarly, all personnel that are successfully deconverted from the Cult of Nar-Sie's influence may be given a Mindshield Implant, at the discretion of the Head of Security. This is not advised if the deconverted person does not wish to receive the implant.
Lastly, personnel that have been Mindslaved should be offered a Mindshield Implant in order to prevent further brainwashing.
Internal Affairs Agent SOP
- Internal Affairs Agents are only to provide legal representation for personnel facing a Capital Sentence. They should, however, ensure that their timed sentence is applied correctly, and alert Security if it is not. In addition, Internal Affairs Agents are permitted to provide legal advice for Security and prisoners, as well as investigating whether or not arrests were done properly;
- Internal Affairs Agents must request permission from any potential client before serving as their legal representative, as said client may choose to either represent themselves, or request someone else;
Internal Affairs Agents are to ensure that Standard Operating Procedure is being properly followed, when applicable, and to contact the relevant Head of Staff when it is not;
Internal Affairs Agents are to attempt to resolve all Standard Operating Procedure issues locally before contacting Central Command. This should be done in tandem with Command and, if possible, personnel in the relevant Department. If a valid report is ignored by the relevant Head of Staff, the Captain is to be contacted. If the Captain ignores the report, then Central Command and/or the NanoTrasen Representative must be contacted;Magistrate SOP
- Magistrates are to ensure that Space Law is applied correctly. If it is not, they are to make it so;
- Magistrates have the final say on whether or not Trials take place, and should ensure they should only occur for Capital Sentences. Similarly, Magistrates are to ensure that Trials do not happen for Defendants that are self-evidently guilty;
Magistrates are not above Space Law. Similarly, they cannot overrule Security on their own sentence. If a Magistrate attempts to do this, contact Central Command immediately;
Magistrates are not to concern themselves with matters of Standard Operating Procedure. However, they are to ensure that the Internal Affairs Agents under their command are handling such matters;
Magistrates may not impede the expedient functioning of Security for the sake of micromanaging every aspect it. They should only concern themselves with crimes that either have fuzzy evidence, or require careful deliberation of circumstances;
Magistrates are to contact Central Command immediately if their decisions are being ignored, provided said decision actually match up with Space Law and Standard Operating Procedure. Please see this guide for more information on how to write a good fax. -
Legal SOP: Complete!
Greetings, aspiring SOP writers. If you've clicked this thread, then you're either interested in contributing to Standard Operating Procedure, or are merely interested in seeing how it's going. Therefore, I shall begin by explaining what this (soon-to-be) megathread is all about:
Part 1: What is this?
Approximately 4 months ago, Necaladun approached me with a personal project of his: a complete overhaul of Standard Operating Procedure, meant to centralize SOP in such a way that allowed for more interaction with the Legal sub-Department, more actual guidelines on how to conduct one's performance, and generally formalize what was once only nebulous guidelines in an effort to get everyone on the same page.
This was the project that led to the current version of Security SOP. However, it was left half done, as Necaladun took his leave shortly after Sec SOP was added, and the project crumbled from lack of interest/time. However, I continued the project, but only recently picked it back up in full. The point of this megathread will be to, at the end of the line, have a single, well-defined, centralized Standard Operating Procedure that everyone can look at and fully comprehend, without any self-contradictory information. This, of course, will be changed in the Wiki, which is still the main source of information for the playerbase.
Part 2: How does it work?
Seeing as I actually have most of this stuff already written down, the process will be quite simple, and I'll break it down in stages:
Stage 1: Selection of which part of SOP to look at, out of provided options (because we have to start somewhere). This will be done via poll;
Stage 2: Proposal of new SOP. This will come from myself, again, because I have pretty much most of it already written down, so we have a solid base to go from;
Stage 3: General feedback from the community. This is the main part of the process, as it will be the one where everyone can pitch in, say which parts are right, which parts are wrong, what should be changed, etc;
Stage 4: Amendments made to SOP based on this feedback, and continued discussion, until a finalized version is produced;
Stage 5: SOP is posted on the Wiki;
Stage 6: Refer to Stage 1
Do keep in mind the following: everyone is permitted to pitch in. If you believe you have anything to add to the discussion, please do, but do try to keep this on track and problem-oriented, otherwise we'll never get off the drawing board.
Part 3: What does it entail?
The following are the proposed additions to this new, centralized SOP:
-
Security Job SOP; (added by Necaladun before he took his leave)
-
Engineering Job SOP; (finalized!)
Medical Job SOP; (finalized!)
Service Job SOP; (finalized!)
Supply Job SOP; (finalized!)
Science Job SOP (finalized!)
In addition to the basic SOP for each Department, I also propose:
-
Departmental SOP (as in, general guidelines for each Department that everyone should follow); (stricken to avoid bloat)
-
Command SOP; (finalized!)
Legal SOP (standardization of Legal procedures and the action of the Legal sub-Department);
A revised General SOP, for each Color Code. This will include Safety Regulations (finalized!)
As you can see, this is a rather big project and, as such, will be tackled in small stages. At each point, the completed section of SOP will be crossed out, and a notification written. At the end of the journey, a single, massive Standard Operating Procedure page will be added to the wiki, with all the above SOPs for everyone to look at. In addition, of course, to their own specific pages.
And now, you've reached the end of the page. It's time to start, ladies and gentlemen.
-
-
Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaand done.
How is relisting going?
in Public Archives
Posted
Well, I actually get to Administrate the server instead of sitting there getting a BWOINK an hour.
Seriously though, while the initial few days were a bit hectic, it's calmed down so far. Grief is not as much of a problem as it was, new players are joining the server and actually making things fresh again, and Ghost Paradise, Population: 15 is no longer a thing.
Are there bad apples with the bunch? Yes. But frankly, I much prefer the current activity than the borefest it was before being listed.