Jump to content

[Accepted] i204 - Abuse of Confiscated Equipment punishment revised


Recommended Posts

Regulation in question:

Abuse of confiscated equipment

To take and use equipment confiscated as evidence.

Security shouldn't be using evidence for anything but evidence. Taking "trophies" or using weapons and items seized from operatives counts as this.

10 minutes, re-confiscation of equipment;

Repeated offense: Suspension or demotion


So the regulation applies to security members that upon taking stuff from people carry it around and use it instead of properly storing it.

Items get confiscated because of two reasons:

1) They are illegal and their current holder should not have them (contraband)

2) Mundane items that have value to any investigation as evidence


What would be done to regular crewmembers found doing the same thing?

1) Posession and use of prohibited items falls under the Contraband regulation. 15 minutes and confiscation of said items - 20 minutes and demotion

2) Tampering with evidence is considered Sabotage. 15 minutes and/or demotion - 30 minutes, suspension and/or tracking implant


Two guys are doing the same thing but the one with an officer's id gets a lesser sentence. The regulation in question fails to follow the internal crime-consequence logic of regulations.

The discussion was held in security discord, no arguments were found to justify this.


So overall I think the internal logic should be fixed. Officers are not special, they as those who enforce regulations and should not be held to lower standards. Quiet on the contrary, in my opinion they should be held to a higher one. Why do they get a pass on this one i do not fully understand. Seems like a mistake.


So the suggestion is to change the punishment for Abuse of Confiscated Equipment regulation breach:

15 minutes, reconfiscation of equipment and/or suspension or demotion

Repeated offense: 20 minutes and suspension


On a sidenote it plays nicely into the whole "security conspiracy" storyline that was brought up recently so it could be implemented as a part of it as Nathan fixing the corrupt ways of security instead of just silently changing the regulation.

Link to comment

As a side note, is there a "proper" place to store confiscated items? I've always found it strange that there's not a "lost & found" box behind the security desk for crew to turn in stuff; it seems there should also be a dedicated place to put confiscated things other than randomly having to choose if you give it to the CSI, or put it in one of the brig lockers, or keep it behind the desk, or lock it up in the armory, or the squad room...

Link to comment

As a side note, is there a "proper" place to store confiscated items? I've always found it strange that there's not a "lost & found" box behind the security desk for crew to turn in stuff; it seems there should also be a dedicated place to put confiscated things other than randomly having to choose if you give it to the CSI, or put it in one of the brig lockers, or keep it behind the desk, or lock it up in the armory, or the squad room...

 

The place is called "evidence storage". A fairly big room behind the equipment room filled with lockers to store evidence and contraband

Link to comment

I've been asked to give my thoughts and so I shall. Don't take this personal.

Let's start from the top. I mainly have no problems with this proposal, I like and don't like this at the same time. It's a weird feeling.


 

So the suggestion is to change the punishment for Abuse of Confiscated Equipment regulation breach:

15 minutes, reconfiscation of equipment and/or suspension or demotion

Repeated offense: 20 minutes and suspension

It is a possible change although it brings me one concerns. Will the Head of Security/Captain make an effort to authorize an arrest on a security member using an illegal equipment such as guns? I'd say no. Some security members treats each other as if they're "brothers in arms" and their words to be more credible than any others. I've seen Head of Security using intruder's illegal weapons against intruders because it either: 1. Saves them money and time from cargo ordering a crate of weapons for security to use. 2. Heat of the moment to save their own precious life or to valid. 3. It's better than what NanoTrasen have and gives us more firepower. Guess what? They're IC reasons and very often excused or overlooked by many head of staffs because it is very convenient when it will eventually go your way.

 

Officers are not special, they as those who enforce regulations and should not be held to lower standards. Quiet on the contrary, in my opinion they should be held to a higher one. Why do they get a pass on this one i do not fully understand. Seems like a mistake.

So, you say officers are not special but you argue that they should be held to a higher standards and we should have more expectations for officers? Wouldn't that make officers special since they have more responsibilities while enforcing the corporate regulations and receive higher punishment? If I what I am interpreting is wrong here, please correct me and clarify this for all of us. Seems like a mistake? Perhaps it seems like a mistake or it wasn't a mistake in first place so that Head of Staff may decide how they will proceed with this in mind? Some policies gap are open intentionally for head of staffs or crew member to step in and interpret with how they way the department should run.


With these in mind, I'll you ask you intricate questions and I expect straight answers.

 

  • Why should we put in our efforts to alter this policy and not leave it the same?
  • How do you plan to deal with officers misusing equipment?
  • Theoretically, if this gets implemented... Do you think security behavior will change? If so, how do you think the security's behavior will change?
  • Additional to my question above, do you think security will start enforcing this regulation or still overlook?

 

Your thoughts on this concern, [mention]MO_oNyMan[/mention]? It's a rather an alright change with a minor alterations to how the way security behave. From what I can tell, they'll still behave the same way.

Link to comment

I'm not really MO_oNy per se but I play HOS pretty frequently so I'll say my reply counts for something.

 

Will the Head of Security/Captain make an effort to authorize an arrest on a security member using an illegal equipment such as guns?

 

Whether it's updated or not I'll enforce this all the same. The obvious concern is to whether or not a security officer is allowed to pick up a gun during a firefight from a mercenary or pirate and use it against them, which I personally think is fine. I also think it's fine to take a gun from a fallen hostile and keep it on your person for self-defense if you do not already have a weapon for yourself. It's a complete another thing for a security officer to pick up a revolver from a murder scene and with-hold turning it in, because that cause is far less excusable than keeping a hostile's weapon to help defend yourself + crew + station. The regulation more or less is clear on this distinction anyway.

 

So, you say officers are not special but you argue that they should be held to a higher standards and we should have more expectations for officers?

 

I believe he meant, "Officers are not literally above the regulations" in terms of "officers are not special". But a specific way in which they are special and thus are deserving of different treatment in regards to their own regulation breaching is due to the fact that they each command a fair deal of authority and represent the company's ability to enforce the same regulations they are supposed to uphold. If they deliberately break them to a serious degree, it is particularly telling of how unable they are to do their job.


Blue code is absolutely a thing, UM, I totally agree that it is a problem during certain rounds, but this pretty much applies to virtually any department. Each department will stick up for their own unless sticking up for one another leads to a collective sinking ship type of situation. It's still an IC issue that has to be dealt with in the round, though.

 

I've seen Head of Security using intruder's illegal weapons against intruders because it either: 1. Saves them money and time from cargo ordering a crate of weapons for security to use. 2. Heat of the moment to save their own precious life or to valid. 3. It's better than what NanoTrasen have and gives us more firepower. Guess what? They're IC reasons and very often excused or overlooked by many head of staffs because it is very convenient when it will eventually go your way.

 

I covered this earlier, but effectively: There are often very good reasons for the HOS or the security officers to be repurposing those weapons. The armory now only starts with 4 potential lethal weapons and some lethal ammo for the .45 pistols that are otherwise not very good against heavy armor due to how little damage they deal. The .45 pistols, despite becoming significantly more lethal with the .45 jacketed rounds, still plink as much as C-20rs or as the detective's revolver does. They're not very strong compared to what guns might be dropped by a weakened pirate/mercenary/other antagonist. What can happen after the fact can lead to unfortunate results, but I don't think this regulation update suggestion is intended to cover the justified cases where you pick up a gun that you didn't have earlier to defend yourself + others.


It's easy to strawman that the reason people play security is to valid antagonists but that's not my goal and I don't think it's the goal of many others either. It's a very narrow-minded way of thinking because it puts blame only on people who play security and removes any sort of accountability that antagonists themselves hold in being responsible for how others react to them. Antags can't win all the time. Only revs are the antagonists considered to be the heroic underdog. The antagonists are the villains, they're not the victims, they exist to create them.

 

Why should we put in our efforts to alter this policy and not leave it the same?

 

Because it would imply that CCIA don't think it reflects as much on an individual's record for abusing contraband supposed to be in lock up if they're a security officer, compared to how much of a serious charge it is to be caught with said contraband in the first place. And I'm certain you all don't think that way.

 

How do you plan to deal with officers misusing equipment?

 

Minimum a brig sentence leading up to a possible demotion, whichever the HOS/captain/ranking head of staff in that order thinks is best. Short of the captain ordering the HOS to demote the rulebreaker, obviously.

 

Theoretically, if this gets implemented... Do you think security behavior will change? If so, how do you think the security's behavior will change?

 

There are zero guarantees in regards to whether or not security is willing to change. If this is implemented, corrupt sec characters will need to better adapt to the regulation update. Ergo, they must change or they get slapped with charges. Non-negotiable terms there.

 

Additional to my question above, do you think security will start enforcing this regulation or still overlook?

 

Without direct oversight from their head of security or captain, there's a lot security officers can get away with in terms of stepping over certain lines that they shouldn't. It's difficult to put an officer underneath a lens of scrutiny if there's nobody appropriate to be accountable for them. This is something that just has to be accepted as an IC issue, because everyone else operates on this similar principle. No evidence and no testimony means there's no case.


tl;dr: Officers should be held to a higher standard, they're the enforcers of the law and if they violate it, they should be punished as befitting to the crime, but moreso closer to the maximum possible because there's a serious consequence to committing a crime as a crimestopper role.

Abusing evidence is bad because it contaminates the forensic sanctity of the item they're abusing that may be really important to an ongoing investigation, and it's also very unprofessional of them to do.

Picking up a gun as a security officer/HOS that wasn't administered in the armory to fight off boarders is not problematic and they aren't the SS for staying in-character and doing their best to protect the station and its personnel to the best of their ability. Not all security players play security just to valid. You'd be hardpressed to find someone who actually does, the NT-ISD discord/other players just jokes about it to poke fun at people who legitimately think security is out to get them because of OOC insecurities.

There's no guarantee that anything will change in regards to the culture of security if anything is pushed through. People adapt based on how development goes or over time.

Link to comment

Will the Head of Security/Captain make an effort to authorize an arrest on a security member using an illegal equipment such as guns? I'd say no.

It's not about "will they?" as much as it is about "should they?". Security is supposed to enforce the regulations. The regulation is there. Enforce it. If you won't - that's effectively neglect of duty which is an offense of its own.


 

Some security members treats each other as if they're "brothers in arms" and their words to be more credible than any others.

It's not about whether you trust this dude or not, it's about whether you have evidence. If you do and you still get foiled by other officers/warden/HoS - file an IR. Will CCIA not support an officer with concrete evidence of other officer's guilt in such an IR?


 

I've seen Head of Security using intruder's illegal weapons against intruders because it either: 1. Saves them money and time from cargo ordering a crate of weapons for security to use. 2. Heat of the moment to save their own precious life or to valid. 3. It's better than what NanoTrasen have and gives us more firepower. Guess what? They're IC reasons and very often excused or overlooked by many head of staffs because it is very convenient when it will eventually go your way.

Emergency is an exception to every situation. Your own survival in the moment is inherently more important than workplace guidlines. You won't charge someone who broke into restricted area to escape a station breach with infiltration. You won't charge an officer who picked up a lying on the floor gun to fight off a violent attacker. On the other hand using heisters' weapons for the sole reason of it saving money is what is called "abuse" and it is covered by the regulation.


 

So, you say officers are not special but you argue that they should be held to a higher standards and we should have more expectations for officers? Wouldn't that make officers special since they have more responsibilities while enforcing the corporate regulations and receive higher punishment?

The logic here is you commit a crime - you recieve a punishment. The worse a crime is the harsher the punishment should be. Crewmembers posessing contraband are guilty of illegaly owning a dangerous item. Officers that confiscated said item and kept it for himself is guilty of the same thing and abusing their authority in order to do it on top of that, so their crime is slightly worse which is reflected in suggested sentence increase. Their rank shouldn't be taken in consideration when determining punishment, only their crimes. That's what i meant when i said "officers are not special".


 

Perhaps it seems like a mistake or it wasn't a mistake in first place so that Head of Staff may decide how they will proceed with this in mind? Some policies gap are open intentionally for head of staffs or crew member to step in and interpret with how they way the department should run.

Correct. However again, internal logic of flexible punishments is the worse the crime - the harsher the punishment. The punishment for 204 both minimal and maximal is leagues below punishments 212 and 213. For what exact reason? I have no idea.


 

Why should we put in our efforts to alter this policy and not leave it the same?

In order to fix the logical inconsistency and discourage security players from abusing their authority


 

How do you plan to deal with officers misusing equipment?

15 minutes, re-confiscation of items and/or suspension or demotion request on first offense. Up to 20 minutes and suspension on repeated offense. If other officers or HoS will for no apparent reason decide to drop the charges - gather all the relevant evidence and file an IR.


 

Theoretically, if this gets implemented... Do you think security behavior will change? If so, how do you think the security's behavior will change?

The idea behind increased punishment is that it is supposed to discourage something. In this case abuse of equipment. Will it give immediate drastic results in overall security behaviour? Unlikely. Will it discourage some officers from taking a cool lightsaber to cut walls with it just in case in perspective? Definitely


 

Additional to my question above, do you think security will start enforcing this regulation or still overlook?

Not sure what "start enforcing" means here. Some officers already do. I do. Some people don't. However the increased punishment does not encourage you to charge someone. It discourages people charged from commiting a crime.


 

It's a rather an alright change with a minor alterations to how the way security behave. From what I can tell, they'll still behave the same way.

When someone does something bad you slap them. When they do it again you slap them harder. To a point where taking an undesirable course of behaviour is associated with the punishment, The harsher the punishment is the more efficient will it be in preventing the action. Increasing the punishment to fit the system on equal grounds with every other crewmember and applying it will most definitely discourage corruption in security and the "officers are above the regulations" mentality. Paired with at least a couple of people not afraid to charge and IR fellow officers it will give results.

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...