Improved uniform procedure wording

[Nantei]

I am making this partially in response to the recent ruling, but also because the wording of Security uniform regulations has bothered me for awhile, and this has spurred me into suggesting an actual change.

Okay so to explain why the uniform notice is awful I have to explain why it legalistically doesn't work at all. The point of things like this is generally to remove ambiguity, and have Judges decide if something broke the spirit of the law or not. So the regulations should probably reflect that in my opinion. In this case, the Warden or HoS are our 'Judges' that decide if the spirit of the regulation was broken, and thusly if it should be punished. The Officer can also make a judgement call on-scene to decide if the spirit of the rule was broken, which is one thing our regulations do well at least, they do state that intent matters, although maybe it should be more clear and consistent. Spirit of the rule matters way more than how it is actually written, so the spirit of the rule needs to be easy to consistently interpret. Relying on this also allows ambiguity without enforcing really silly things because you are reading it literally. If we read things literally, the trespassing regulation is broken pretty much constantly every day.

Now let's look at the way the rule is written.

Quote

Uniformed security employees are to wear only standard equipment provided by NanoTrasen. Security uniforms do not include personal clothing, or items that would significantly impact the crew's ability to immediately identify security personnel. Minor alterations to uniform equipment are permitted in order to accommodate non-human species. Investigative personnel are permitted to sport business wear of their choice. Personnel failing to meet these requirements are in violation of failing to execute an order, and are to be processed for such.

Reading this as written, no personal modification of any kind is allowed unless it is necessary for your species' to wear it, like toeless jackboots. Okay, that's kinda restrictive, but whatever, it's clear at least. But let's try and read the intent of it, which is how we're supposed to be handling laws anyways.

Quote

Security uniforms do not include personal clothing, or items that would significantly impact the crew's ability to immediately identify security personnel.

This sentence is horrid. It's already obvious what is and is not 'security uniform', there's absolutely zero reason to clarify this... unless the intent is different from the wording. If the intent is to allow slight personal modifications so long as they do not impact the ability to immediately identify you as security, then this makes a lot of sense. Now here's the problem. The first sentence is written as an absolute, and this is not written like an exception. This should be reworded to make it more clear what the intent is.

So here is how it should be worded:

Quote

Uniformed security employees are to wear only standard equipment provided by NanoTrasen. Personal items or adjustments may be allowed on a case-by-case basis, provided the officer in question is clearly identifiable as a member of Security. Heads of Staff are the arbitrator as to what is and is not a reasonable modification. Minor alterations to uniform equipment are permitted in order to accommodate non-human species. Investigative personnel are permitted to sport business wear of their choice.

Personnel failing to meet these requirements are in violation of failing to execute an order, and are to be processed for such.

This makes the intent much more obvious. You are supposed to wear just your uniform without any alterations, but a head may decide it's acceptable for you to modify it so long as you are clearly identifiable as a security member. I think this is how the majority of people have been playing the regulation, and it makes a lot of sense to reword it so that's clearer. If this is for some reason not the intent, that sentence can be removed entirely to make the intent clearer.

Edited October 28, 2019 by Nantei

[Carver]

Clear and concise, I like it.

[Brutishcrab51]

We have talked about this at length on discord. The conversation has included dozens of players. I made my opinion known then, I have no problem doing it now.

 

Just, add this. Replace the current SOP text and add this. It's a lot better.

[The lancer]

I will be voting for dismissal. The current wording already conveys intent and clarity, describing that security uniforms should not include personal clothing, but only what is provided in your officer wardrobe.

[Nantei]

On 02/12/2019 at 11:21, The lancer said:

I will be voting for dismissal. The current wording already conveys intent and clarity, describing that security uniforms should not include personal clothing, but only what is provided in your officer wardrobe.

Then you should remove the sentence I pointed out. All it does is muddy the waters by adding confusion, since it's a needless clarification. What is a security uniform is already obvious, clarifying just draws questions as to why it was clarified. It should be concisely written, and this is the opposite of concise. Sentences like that are usually to clarify exceptions, and if they aren't to clarify exceptions they should be strictly listed as a definition. If we insist on keeping it, then it should change to this:

Quote

A security uniform is defined as any standard issue equipment. It does not include any personal items, or items that would significantly impair the crew's ability to identify the individual.

Edited December 4, 2019 by Nantei

[Arrow768]

Seconding the vote for dismissal, as this part of the sentence you want to remove is not covered by the first part of the regulation:

Quote

 or items that would significantly impair the crew's ability to identify the individual.

Such items would now be permitted if this clarification is removed, as long as they are supplied by NT. (However that is not wanted)