Jump to content

TullyBBurnalot

Retired Admins
  • Posts

    2,631
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    15

Everything posted by TullyBBurnalot

  1. As much as I enjoy pointless busy work, I am not taking a Forensics degree for a reason, and would love not to have to do actual forensics labwork because someone stole a knife.
  2. Is this the one that we had before, that generated a separate portfolio entry for EVERY SINGLE THING scanned and could not have its buffer deleted
  3. 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.
  4. Sorta covered by point 3, to be honest.
  5. 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. 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.
  6. 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. NEXT! Amended to: Changes in bold.
  7. Needs more Superalloy Darkshine.
  8. Not if they are fully justified, not really. NEXT! Actually a good point. The following has been added to Trials: NEXT! Poke the bear at your own risk. NEXT! Hmm... Changes in bold. NEXT! Following my fuses blowing, all instances of "First Degree Murder" and "Second Degree Murder" have been changed to "Murder" and "Manslaughter", respectively. NEXT! Interesting... Has been added to Internal Affairs Range of Action. NEXT! That's already in Space Law, this is just to clarify how Parole should be handed out. NEXT! I cannot find any instance of Loyalty in the proposed Legal SOP, is it anywhere? NEXT! Also a good idea. The following section has been added: NEXT! Very true. Changed to: Changes in bold. NEXT! Also the IAA's. NEXT! Added. NEXT! I'll do you one better and add this: NEXT! 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.
  9. Good point. The following has been added to Courtroom Proceedings, Point 4: NEXT! Actually forgot about those. Added. NEXT! 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! Very true. IAA SOP Guideline 1 changed to: Relevant parts in bold. NEXT! Also a good point. IAA SOP Guideline 5 changed to: Relevant parts in bold. NEXT! Grammar, my eternal enemy. Changed as per your suggestion: NEXT! Also a good point. Changed to: NEXT Stricken. NEXT! Details, details, details. Changed to: NEXT! Was actually a typo. Stricken. NEXT! Because idiocy is eternal, the following has been added to the Trials' Foreword section:
  10. 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 individual that the defendant specifically chooses to be their Defence Attorney; Any volunteer that shows they are well versed in Space Law and Legal Standard Operating Procedure 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. 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; Providing prisoners with any items except simple foodstuffs; Deliberately omitting facts when handling cases in order to "win" the case 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; As per 211 - "Abuse of Confiscated Equipment", stored evidence is not to be used; As an exception, all stored Contraband that does not directly relate to a crime may be used by Security, at the discretion of the Head of Security 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 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 brigged; 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 can overrule anyone in all matters concerning Space Law. This does not extend to Emergency Response Teams, Central Command Officials or direct Central Command communications; 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.
  11. 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.
  12. All this tells me is if we can't even get people to go along with some basic IC guidelines, the odds of them properly following IC-impacting OOC guidelines is even lower.
  13. Well, we are kinda changing SOP. And "lynch lists" can die in a fire. Anyway giving people that much level of shit can get slapped by a fax to the face.
  14. Actually a good point. "Suspicious personnel" redacted from Code Red SOP. Edit: Wait, nitpicks in installations? OH YAS. Realistically speaking, there is no reason NOT to have them maxed out. Even if it's Extended, you're still working aboard a space station with multiple potential workplace hazards. Safety first. NEXT! Well, considering I removed the whole thing about forcing people into Departments, and the fuckass huge "Durrr obvious" value of this, striking those things as well. NEXT! Anyone who tries weaseling out of being convicted because they're on the Charon can adequately be shut up without repercussions. Besides, the Charon is a boarding shuttle, not really a station or a major ship like the Cyberiad or Icarus, respectively. NEXT! Good taste. Changed. NEXT! I did notice that PR. Tesla Containment Failure Situational SOP changed to: NEXT! True. Guidelines changed to a single:
  15. This should work only for removing cuffs. If you get buckled, you still need to get out of that first, the long way.
  16. Image for reference: Basically, a 1 TC Traitor Item: a non-breakable, re-usable bobby pin that, so long as it is in one of your pockets, lets you break out of handcuffs in 15-20 seconds! Has no effect on zipties or cable cuffs, though, for obvious reasons. Courtesy of Tigercat2000 for the idea!
  17. The following has been added to said relevant areas:
  18. I would not be averse to the idea of a "RnD Checkup" for the more stealthy items. In fact, I can see it being a great idea, actually. 1) Security is allowed to retain their knowledge of existence, but lack the capacity to identify. This would mean no more "Hey, this pen has liquid in it" just by looking at it. Which even I think is cheesy; 2) It would probably lead to more cooperation between RnD and Security, and give RnD a fun little thing to do. Officer McHambatan shows up with a bag of possible contraband, RnD analyses it and tells Mister McHambatan what the contraband is after an analysis of the objects, and now we have evidence (or not) of it; 3) It would allow for the current level of knowledge, overall, to be retained, while instating some degree of complexity beyond "AI, come here".
  19. I absolutely agree. I have always been an advocate for semi-frequent listing precisely because I wish to avoid stagnation. Hell, that's why I, Free and Neca worked on the whole Space Law rewrite, and why I dedicate myself to writing pointless legalese documentation no one ever reads. /selfdeprecation The issue is, I am not convinced this is the correct turn to take. As Earth mentioned, this would be regressing to a state of affairs that was already attempted, and failed. And this was back when Paradise was still a little babby, not nearly the grand beast it is now. It feels like a backwards "Let's try this again" step, rather than a step forward.
  20. One of the issues here is that limited knowledge of this kind cannot be adequately confined to Security. If Security are to have limited knowledge of Antagonist items, then the rest of the crew would also have to have limited knowledge, either on part with Security, or even less. In practice, this would mean telling everyone playing on the server "you don't know what X is now". And I don't feel like this is feasible, much less favorable. Limiting available antagonist knowledge is something that was... never really done, so far as I am aware, since I have been playing here (about 2 years?). It's something that people have gotten accustomed to. It's something that's part of the current atmosphere of the server. It's one of the things that, for better or worse, defines Paradise and separates her from, say, Baystation. Considering our average server population, and the influx of new players even while unlisted, I do not think it would healthy for the community to implement such a drastic change. Do not get me wrong. I do not intend to speak for the community, but I cannot help but feel that, considering how things have been operating, so far, suddenly imposing such clear restrictions on available IC knowledge, especially for Security players, would lead to very much what Earth was saying; people trying to work around it. Security, and the crew in general, have been operating under the "we know what this all is" rule for a long time. I do not believe that such a change is even feasible at this point. Not only would it require every current player to suddenly play along nicely, but it would also require new players to get accustomed to it. And frankly, I believe it is something that is, at this point, alien to Paradise. I fear what that would mean for new potential players. Basically what Deanthelis said, as well. Limiting antagonist knowledge, artificially, at this point in Paradise's history, would be like suddenly turning 90 degrees on a straight road. Could it work? Maybe. Do I think it would work and would lead to a better, funner experience for everyone on the server? Not really.
  21. For the sake of testing, the following had been added to Code Red/Gamma General Crew SOP:
  22. Considering the lack of responses, moving this as finished in... 3 days.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. Terms of Use