[Continuing discussion on Smart repair #9250]

Honestly, it all strikes me as a bit unintuitive right now. To put it this way, when you use a welder on someone,

1. If they have a robotic limb and are on help intent, you fix it or do nothing.

2. If they have a robotic limb and are on harm intent, you damage them.

But, if they have a fleshy limb, 1 and 2 are exactly the same; you always harm them regardless of stance.

This creates this weird inconsistency, where stance only matters if you THEORETICALLY could do multiple things to something with your item, even if you can't ACTUALLY do multiple things to something with an item.

The new airlocks thing is definitely consistent with how help/harm has usually worked; I'm personally not sure why it worked that way in the first place, though. Why can you bash people with a fire extinguisher on help intent?

Is it just because it's funny? Because it IS kind of hilarious.

[Space Law Feedback/Discussion]

22 hours ago, necaladun said:

This is exactly the kind of thing we're trying to cut down on.

I thought the point of this was to cut down on Security rules bloat and increase clarity to decrease the learning curve and fix long-standing issues. If the point of this is to stop the greytide from being greytide, we might need a bigger boat. I can't think of anything to include that would help Security handle people who are messing with them; either the person messing with them doesn't know the rules and almost certainly gets arrested for something (vandalism, battery, ect.), or they do know the rules and they'll stop just shy of getting arrested. The only way I can think of is to give Sec carte blanche to arrest people for 'impeding Security', which would be a disaster. Hopefully the rework in general will help the overall healthiness of Security and cut down on the problem at the source.

 

20 hours ago, TwoCam said:

The list of people that can permabrig may seem like a good idea at first, but that's actually a list of people who are mostly either not present or very busy. The person on that list who will reliably the there is the warden and if he's gone, I guess you just can't perma people? We need guidelines for this situation. Do we hold them in normal cells indefinitely? Do we ahelp? Do we just ignore space law and do it anyway? I guarantee you, this situation will come up more than you think, especially once people start screaming that they've been held in processing for too long.

Don't include any minimum sentences that officers must follow.

Probably the reason why approval is needed is because people in perma are easier to ignore. Out of sight, out of mind. You don't want a rookie officer permabrigging some guy for what is basically a hyped-up manslaughter or hazardous workplace charge. Guidelines for the situation should exist, though; it's entirely possible for the HoS, the Captain, and the Warden to all be unreachable at the moment you need them.

20 hours ago, TwoCam said:

Because there are are a few problems here.

The first is that something more pressing could be going on and it might just not be worth it to go through the entire process of brigging someone when the HOS is screaming "Help Slings Eng maint" on the radio over and over.

Another possibility is that the actual contribution to the crime can be so minor as to be negligible, or I may not even be sure if it happened at all, but I don't want an unusually rules obessed IAA or Magistrate (you know the type) breathing down my neck because I didn't sentence a guy to his five minutes (this can also apply to the situation above.)

The last one is that I, the officer, can be wrong. I could have misread the situation, I could have the wrong guy, his friend could have though I was mindslaved, or a million other things could happen, and in those cases, I should have the freedom to let the abettor go, rather than being forced to give him five minutes brig time. At the very absolute least, let us parole the time. The current wording makes it seem like that's not an option.

Most of these reasons boil down to 'we can't prove it was them or we can prove it wasn't them', and if they can't be proven to have done the crime, then they should not be brigged at all. Obviously, 'minimum brig time' means for people who have actually been proven to have committed the crimes in question, not for any bloke you point to and say 'they murdered someone in space, got to perma them'.

The first reason makes sense, though. I don't think removing minimum sentence times is a good idea, but rather, indicating somewhere that, in an emergency, waiving smaller crimes, longer processing times, and so on are okay. I wouldn't be surprised if that's in Space Law somewhere, anyway.

[Space Law Feedback/Discussion]

2 minutes ago, Anticept said:

The way you put it makes me understand what shadey was trying to say now, though it's quite a stretch to apply it to someone who isn't doing their job.

Still, really would be nice to be able to deal with people being obnoxious. It's infuriating to be harassed by players, akin to the "I'm not touching you!" game played by children.

Honestly, that's a god-given right to the Civilian. They thrive on testing their luck. Also, I'm pretty sure just about anything they can do to actually impede you can be considered Battery, except maybe peel-throwing.

[Space Law Feedback/Discussion]

I think 'Rioting' fits the actual crime better than 'Failure to Disperse', since, like Shadykins said, a newby Security player could easily apply the 'you're rioting' excuse to any group of people who are being obnoxious and not doing their jobs, and then tell them to fuck off, then they don't, and down comes the baton. Rioting is a better explianation of the intent of the law. The 'if they fail to disperse' bit basically just means you should warn them they'll get arrested if they don't stop before arresting them, which, while a bit inconsistent, makes sense considering the crime.

Also, I really like the rework in general; it cleans up a lot of confusing bits about playing Security, and should make the job a lot healthier for non-regulars.

[Shadowling Rebalancing / Rework]

I love the shadowlings as separate individuals; who are you most likely to find in maints during a sling round? Thralls. Half the guys you try to convert are gonna be another guy's thralls. Hilarity ensues.

However, I think the best solution would be to make thralling permanent. This would, I think, have two main effects:

 

1. Thralls can be killed with impunity, sidestepping the cumbersome, difficult, time-consuming process of dethralling. The difference between security catching you, dragging you to a surgery table, obtaining tools, obtaining a professional, and guarding the process; and security catching you and harmbatoning you into a paste, is huge.

In other words, disallowing dethralling actually nerfs shadowlings significantly; to them, the difference between a dethralling and a dead thrall is nonexistent. If anything, dethralling is worse, since that's another crewman to fight.

 

2. It would hopefully make playing a thrall a bit less appealing, since once you die, you're out of the round. That means less self-antaggers... again, hopefully. At the very least, it adds an edge of danger and salt to being a thrall that isn't just clowning around making Security look bad as they repeatedly try to subdue you; being actually damaged by lethals sucks.

[OOC Disabling Post-Test Feedback Vote & Discussion]

I tend to want to read everything on my screen impulsively, which makes me a decent Captain or other Command since I rarely miss what's going on, but the less messages on my screen, the less likely I am to die from trying to listen to everything as Captain or something. OOC off, the moments where it's interesting or funny are outweighed by the irritating bits.