[1 Dismissal ] New Regulations

[Butterrobber202]

So this happened: https://forums.aurorastation.org/viewtopic.php?p=108511#p108511

Not complaining, but I’d rather get this clarified right away in the Regulations.

i120 - Intoxication on Duty

“Being in a state of intoxication caused by drugs or alcohol while performing assigned Station Duties.”

5-10Minute Brig Time/450 Credit Fine

———

i224 - Intoxication while Performing Sensitive Operations

“To be in a state of Intoxication while preforming a duty that has critical impact, such as Surgery, Working as an Officer, or Station Repair.”

————

Not disliking the change, but I’m gonna feel a lot better about it if Sec has these set in stone to handle.

Open to Suggestions and Amendments.

[Synnono]

The CCIA team is mulling over this at the moment, but my initial stance (and the reason why something was not drummed up prior to this change) is this:

We already have several regulations that can apply to someone who is abusing a legal drug (such as alcohol) that abuse of space drugs and psilocybin could now also fall under:

- Hooliganism for being a doof under the influence, while not having any other real responsibility.

- Neglect of Duty if you're impaired to the point where you cannot do your job to a satisfactory standard.

- Failure to Execute an Order if your superior tells you to stop (or to not start in the first place), and you use anyway. Sec trying to buy booze under an insistent HoS's nose comes to mind.

- Violation of Injunction, for people who have them drawn up against them for irresponsible usage.

- Gross Negligence if your impairment causes serious harm or creates the imminent, obvious threat of harm

Several of us want to avoid further regulation bloat where possible. I haven't dug through the wordings yet, but any specific references to alcohol intoxication can be clarified to include all legal substances, if they exist. Do you see a good case where these two proposed regulations might catch instances of violation that the others don't?

[Guest Marlon Phoenix]

The CCIA team is mulling over this at the moment, but my initial stance (and the reason why something was not drummed up prior to this change) is this:

We already have several regulations that can apply to someone who is abusing a legal drug (such as alcohol) that abuse of space drugs and psilocybin could now also fall under:

- Hooliganism for being a doof under the influence, while not having any other real responsibility.

- Neglect of Duty if you're impaired to the point where you cannot do your job to a satisfactory standard.

- Failure to Execute an Order if your superior tells you to stop (or to not start in the first place), and you use anyway. Sec trying to buy booze under an insistent HoS's nose comes to mind.

- Violation of Injunction, for people who have them drawn up against them for irresponsible usage.

- Gross Negligence if your impairment causes serious harm or creates the imminent, obvious threat of harm

Several of us want to avoid further regulation bloat where possible. I haven't dug through the wordings yet, but any specific references to alcohol intoxication can be clarified to include all legal substances, if they exist. Do you see a good case where these two proposed regulations might catch instances of violation that the others don't?

 

Simply tweaking references to alcohol to also encompass all intoxicants including drugs would be something I find good.

[Asheram]

Should point out that Nanotrasen are the lovable ba***rds who would love to produce and sell a product, while completely banning them in the workplace.

Just because they're "legal", doesn't mean they're allowed on the station.

[Snakebittenn]

Them being allowed on the station is the point tho.

[DaTimeSmog]

I dont see why it is a good point however? I can understand alcohol to a certain extend but stuff like space drugs and deus? Kinda stretching it there.

[Synnono]

Making the decision to legalize these items was [mention]Zundy[/mention]'s call. I'll let him explain what his vision for the in-game application of this lore is, if he cares to.

In the meantime, the regs that were suggested by the OP should remain the focus of the discussion here.

[BurgerBB]

I'm reworking Space Drugs to reflect these changes as well. Basically if you consume a little bit of space drugs, you'll be relatively fine. If you consume a lot, you'll obviously be impaired.

It's being reworked like alcohol currently is where the more you consume it, the stronger the effect. This should reflect the justification of it's legalization because if you consider the mechanics of space drugs, it shouldn't be legal.

[Zundy]

I dont see why it is a good point however? I can understand alcohol to a certain extend but stuff like space drugs and deus? Kinda stretching it there.

 

From a lore stand point it ties into election arcs and the "I want to sell you products laced with addictive substances" attitude of monolithic mega corporations which is a staple of space fantasy and real life what with the chemicals, salts and sugers pumped into literally everything these days. That's the lore justifcation for the mechanics so to speak.

The real reason is that we believe it'll stimulate potential roleplay in the form of trading the goods, making the goods, taking the goods and getting dunked on for taking the goods depending on player character traits and their interactions with other player characters. We did weight up the pros (poignant addiction and corporate dystopia/neutropia roleplay) and the cons (DUDE WEED, do_surgery_high.jpg) and we trust that though some minority players will make stupid characters, the majority will make well rounded and interesting character concepts as well as excellent observable roleplay. We're prepared to not only deal with trouble makers off the back of this but also canonically retract the in lore bill if it doesn't mesh or ushers in a wave of low roleplay characters and players. I believe it will be a great roleplay tool and so does the staff, but if not then not. Remember to adminhelp any idiots spoiling the fun and feel free to DM me, CCIA or staff with any issues you might find that you don't consider adminhelpable at the time.

Other then that this is a topic on the proposed regulation change so if you feel what I've said doesn't quite alleviate your misgivings and want to discuss it further feel free to DM me or start a forum post if you want absolute transparency/don't fancy DMing me.

[ben10083]

I feel that current regulations adequately cover the new substances, and all I recommend is rewording some regulations to better reflect this. [mention]Butterrobber202[/mention] What is your reasoning why current regulations are insufficient?

[Synnono]

It's been most of a week and the OP hasn't responded yet.

Right now I don't think a convincing argument for new regulations has been made yet, so I'm adding a vote for dismissal.

[ben10083]

It's been more than a week, @Butterrobber202 do you still abide by this suggestion? Currently, I have seen no incidents showing me a need for any change to regulations.

[Butterrobber202]

Nah it’s fine, at most the rewording sounds best if something does come up.

[Mofo1995]

I've been asked to add input during Elliot's leave of absence.

This may be double dipping though, since I have to completely echo what a past CCIA head already said in this thread while they were still CCIA head, which is, I think its unnecessary. Our current directives are robust enough to cover these situations. In the intervening months since, as Ben said and OP BR202 agrees, it hasn't proven to be a problem in the past few months.

[Arrow768]

I concur with what has been said.
Moving the Topic to the Archive.