[Accepted] Clarify Slandering a Head of Staff.

[DronzTheWolf]

As of right now, Slandering a Head of Staff is a bit inaccurate. As it covers insults, not slander, as the name implies.

The definition of Slander is: The action or crime of making a false spoken statement damaging to a person's reputation.

This is the case for normal slander, However for Slander of a Head of Staff it is: To directly insult a Head of Staff with no valid complaints.

I propose we change it to "Insulting a Head of Staff" or alternatively change the crime itself to: "The action of making a false statement damaging to a Head of Staff's reputation."

[MoondancerPony]

I think the opposite change would be warranted. Change "slander of a head of staff" to be defined as slander, but against a Head of Staff, similar Assault of a Head of Staff.

Otherwise, it could easily be abused by Heads of Staff. That said, I think a clarification is definitely needed.

[ben10083]

As of right now, Slandering a Head of Staff is a bit inaccurate. As it covers insults, not slander, as the name implies.

 

I looked into the regulation, and although it DOES say that the crime is about insulting a head of staff, under it's notes it says this:

The charge is only applicable when the statements are slanderous and untrue.

This limits the regulation to only be applicable to slanderous insults, and while it may be needed to clarify it in the main description, Heads of Staff cannot use this as a tool to arrest anyone insulting them (as long as it isnt slanderous that is.)

[DronzTheWolf]

This limits the regulation to only be applicable to slanderous insults, and while it may be needed to clarify it in the main description, Heads of Staff cannot use this as a tool to arrest anyone insulting them (as long as it isnt slanderous that is.)

 

However, that hasn't stopped them from doing it. The reason I made this suggestion is because I saw that very thing happening, and the extended regulation thing isn't in the in-game book iirc.

[Conspiir]

Correct, this minute detail did get a fine applied to my Skrell who, in speaking to a friend, called the HoP "snide" due to an earlier incident where the HoP commented on my Skrell's wages when he bought a cow (… long story). The incident was... rather dumb. It was a private conversation the HoP eavesdropped on, not shouted over the radio with additional profanity. Yet, because of the wording in the in-game book, the HoP could press it.

This should be corrected because, even though the incident is an IC one, things should be clear if something like this happens again.

[Scheveningen]

Slander by itself needs to be more clarified as it actually being disparaging the character of X person wherein whatever is being said is not being constructive in the slightest, and is only aimed for the purposes of an insult.

[VTCobaltblood]

Counter-example, [mention]Conspiir[/mention]: in one round, my scientist character repeatedly called his director an "incompetent dipshit", even so far as to threaten him with filing a complaint for neglect of duty on his part for not listening to his irrationally paranoid suggestions to turn the AI off because it has ignored some of his orders, and also ignored a director's order, although without serious consequences. If i109 didn't cover insults, he would only receive a fine or a very short brig time for ignoring an order - when demotion, which he got for breaking two regulations with such a punishment simultaneously, is much more appropriate.

[Conspiir]

Counter-example, [mention]Conspiir[/mention] : in one round, my scientist character repeatedly called his director an "incompetent dipshit", even so far as to threaten him with filing a complaint for neglect of duty on his part for not listening to his irrationally paranoid suggestions to turn the AI off because it has ignored some of his orders, and also ignored a director's order, although without serious consequences. If i109 didn't cover insults, he would only receive a fine or a very short brig time for ignoring an order - when demotion, which he got for breaking two regulations with such a punishment simultaneously, is much more appropriate.

 

This is a correct use of i109. More importantly, it falls in line fairly well with slander. Calling the Director incompetent (I assume to their face) is a huge blow and an insult, as the current definition provides. The Director's whole embodiment is "competent." BUT, if you do believe the Director IS incompetent, you have the right to think that without it being slander.

In one of my classes, we get together when the professor isn't around and talk shit about the professor. It makes us feel better. She doesn't know any better. She really is bad at her job and we have proof. But is that slander? No. It becomes slander when its baseless. And that, I think, is where the current i109 definition is trying to explain, but isn't quite there.

"With no valid complaints."

Too vague. Make it outright say "when the statement is slanderous or untrue."

And more than that, what if the Head decides it IS untrue, but it objectively is not? Who has the authority there to hear out the situation?

[VTCobaltblood]

Counter-example, @Conspiir : in one round, my scientist character repeatedly called his director an "incompetent dipshit", even so far as to threaten him with filing a complaint for neglect of duty on his part for not listening to his irrationally paranoid suggestions to turn the AI off because it has ignored some of his orders, and also ignored a director's order, although without serious consequences. If i109 didn't cover insults, he would only receive a fine or a very short brig time for ignoring an order - when demotion, which he got for breaking two regulations with such a punishment simultaneously, is much more appropriate.

This is a correct use of i109. More importantly, it falls in line fairly well with slander. Calling the Director incompetent (I assume to their face) is a huge blow and an insult, as the current definition provides. The Director's whole embodiment is "competent." BUT, if you do believe the Director IS incompetent, you have the right to think that without it being slander.

But he did believe that the director was incompetent - he even wanted to place a complaint for neglect of duty. As such, it technically isn't slander, but it's being extremely insulting and toxic to your direct supervisor.

[Guest Marlon Phoenix]

Counter-example, @Conspiir : in one round, my scientist character repeatedly called his director an "incompetent dipshit", even so far as to threaten him with filing a complaint for neglect of duty on his part for not listening to his irrationally paranoid suggestions to turn the AI off because it has ignored some of his orders, and also ignored a director's order, although without serious consequences. If i109 didn't cover insults, he would only receive a fine or a very short brig time for ignoring an order - when demotion, which he got for breaking two regulations with such a punishment simultaneously, is much more appropriate.

This is a correct use of i109. More importantly, it falls in line fairly well with slander. Calling the Director incompetent (I assume to their face) is a huge blow and an insult, as the current definition provides. The Director's whole embodiment is "competent." BUT, if you do believe the Director IS incompetent, you have the right to think that without it being slander.

But he did believe that the director was incompetent - he even wanted to place a complaint for neglect of duty. As such, it technically isn't slander, but it's being extremely insulting and toxic to your direct supervisor.

 

You dont need to have them arrested for this behavior. You can demote them or suspend them. Security does not need to be involved in every argument unless they violently resist a resulting demotion.

I dont think we need a security regulation to babysit the other departments to resolve arguments. The people that behave this way tend to get arrested when they refuse to turn in their ID while they hide in maint. Or they agree and get demoted and its resolved quick and easy.

[VTCobaltblood]

This is a correct use of i109. More importantly, it falls in line fairly well with slander. Calling the Director incompetent (I assume to their face) is a huge blow and an insult, as the current definition provides. The Director's whole embodiment is "competent." BUT, if you do believe the Director IS incompetent, you have the right to think that without it being slander.

But he did believe that the director was incompetent - he even wanted to place a complaint for neglect of duty. As such, it technically isn't slander, but it's being extremely insulting and toxic to your direct supervisor.

 

You dont need to have them arrested for this behavior. You can demote them or suspend them. Security does not need to be involved in every argument unless they violently resist a resulting demotion.

I dont think we need a security regulation to babysit the other departments to resolve arguments. The people that behave this way tend to get arrested when they refuse to turn in their ID while they hide in maint. Or they agree and get demoted and its resolved quick and easy.

Corporate regs and security regs are a bit different. Corporate regs aren't only what you can be arrested for - they're also a list of things you can be fined or demoted for.

[Synnono]

This is getting a smidgen off-topic.

Per the OP: yes, what is enforced by the reg is not the proper definition of the reg. The name of that reg can probably be changed, as it just requires a minor wiki tweak and a minor dev tweak to be reflected in game.

Going to move this to "Accepted" for now, though CCIA may discuss further internally prior to implementation if they think the scope of the reg should change at all.

Edited December 7, 2018 by Synnono
Typos