Change i109, Insulting an Officer on duty

[Jamini]

i109 Insulting an Officer on Duty To directly insult a Head of Staff or member of Security with no valid complaints. This is most likely to happen when someone is being fired, or when being arrested. This is really for when they're being extremely annoying and vocal. Being continually rude to your superiors also counts, if they complain. 5 minutes. Up to 15 minutes. Demotion. 250 credits

 

Quite frankly, this regulation does not work. It is the most-abused rule in the book, and gives security way more power to needlessly arrest/throw around their weight more than they need. It does nothing to stop abusive officer characters from insulting others in an attempt to bait out an arrest. I cannot think of many/any people that support keeping it in its current form in our corporate regs.

I suggest we replace i109 with the following

 

i109 - Harassment
Description: To repeatedly (at least three instances minimum) insult, berate, or excessively rude to other member of staff who is on-duty or approved visitors to the facility.
Notes: This is most commonly applied during arrests or demotions, but it also applies to harassing other staff for doing their duties in other civilian departments. At least three recorded or public instances must be identified for this charge to be legitimate. Increasing the time on this should be primarily reserved for harassment of command staff, as a rule.
Penalty: 5 minutes.
Additional Penalty: Up to 15 minutes.
Fine: 250 credits

Edited April 15, 2015 by Guest

[Susan]

Don't think we do fines here, but totally okay with this change.

[TishinaStalker]

I just have one tiny issue with the wording. It makes it totally fine and okay to harass the hell out of your coworker if they're not doing their job; which is not okay from a workplace POV.

[Jamini]

As far as I know we don't have our own separate corporate regs yet. (We really should have our own set) The bay wiki states fines that can be used in place of brig time. I simply kept the existing fine.

Demotion was removed because demoting someone over a few mean words is ... kind of ridiculous. If someone is really excessive about harassment, you can find other ways to get them demoted. Neglect of Duty comes to mind, or Violation of Injunction.

 

I just have one tiny issue with the wording. It makes it totally fine and okay to harass the hell out of your coworker if they're not doing their job; which is not okay from a workplace POV.

 

Changed it to "On Duty", which should encompass the entire shift. Works?

[TishinaStalker]

I think people on the station would be better. That way, you can't harass a visitor, but if they're an antag I think Security could let it slide up until you start getting really disruptive during something like negotiations (such as the times that Vittorio told nuke ops that he would do terrible things to their collective mothers).

[Jamini]

I think people on the station would be better. That way, you can't harass a visitor, but if they're an antag I think Security could let it slide up until you start getting really disruptive during something like negotiations (such as the times that Vittorio told nuke ops that he would do terrible things to their collective mothers).

 

I am leery of making corp regs apply to hostiles at all. It may be better to have a set of regulations regarding outsiders/visitors/hostiles that is entirely different than corp regs. Iunno. Most people seem to feel that corporate regulations don't apply when we are looking at non-staff.

The main goal of this regulation is to prevent folks from insulting/harassing their co-workers. Visitors can be covered by injunctions, orders, and other regulations on a round-by-round basis. Imo.

[Susan]

Sol Law is what we're looking for here.

[TishinaStalker]

How about no harassing on-duty personnel and Central Command approved visitors? I don't think we should wait for Jade Rathel to call a VIP something horribly rude before applying an injunction.

[Guest]

Don't think we do fines here, but totally okay with this change.

 

We do have fines ^.^ the paperwork for issuing them is on the forumside guide to paperwork, and as such is technicallu SOP

[Jamini]

Sol Law is what we're looking for here.

 

That thing that people several parsecs away made, who basically have no real physical presence and is kind of ignored by half the station? Hokay. I can live with that.

Updated to include Authorized Visitors.

You can still call a hostile wizard names.

[Frances]

We 100% need this.

It doesn't make sense that security should be the only department immune to people being dicks, and making the regulation a general one solves two problems: security thinking they can brig people for "insulting the LAW", and people thinking security is literally Hitler.

Good stuff.

[Valkrae]

While I was wary of the context of this, I'm sort of for it.

Let's not take it overboard, though.

[Jamini]

While I was wary of the context of this, I'm sort of for it.

Let's not take it overboard, though.

 

I explicitly added a number of incidents that need to be reached before an arrest is actually legal to help curb people going overboard. Such as a few certain doctors that have a uh... tendency to go overboard with insults. Not pointing fingers

[Guest]

'Harassment' pretty much implies it's a consistent issue, anyway.

I'm all for this, though I think a thread needs to be made about making our own Corp Regs.

[Frances]

'Harassment' pretty much implies it's a consistent issue, anyway.

I'm all for this, though I think a thread needs to be made about making our own Corp Regs.

The Baystation corporate regs are good enough for what they do, I don't think we need to go through the trouble of rewriting all of them (and risk omitting something important along the way).

The only two I see that are missing is this one (a rule for general harassment and minor dickery), as well as one for maintaining a peaceful and calm working environment (people constantly crack jokes about people they don't even know being killed horribly, and you can't exactly take them in for death threats though you should be able to take them in for something more minor).

[Valkrae]

While I was wary of the context of this, I'm sort of for it.

Let's not take it overboard, though.

 

I explicitly added a number of incidents that need to be reached before an arrest is actually legal to help curb people going overboard. Such as a few certain doctors that have a uh... tendency to go overboard with insults. Not pointing fingers

And a few officers

[Jamini]

'Harassment' pretty much implies it's a consistent issue, anyway.

I'm all for this, though I think a thread needs to be made about making our own Corp Regs.

The Baystation corporate regs are good enough for what they do, I don't think we need to go through the trouble of rewriting all of them (and risk omitting something important along the way).

The only two I see that are missing is this one (a rule for general harassment and minor dickery), as well as one for maintaining a peaceful and calm working environment (people constantly crack jokes about people they don't even know being killed horribly, and you can't exactly take them in for death threats though you should be able to take them in for something more minor).

 

Copying and editing the regs into Aurora wiki, and changing the links in the spesslaw books to that page, probably would suffice. That way we can change what we need to change.

[Chaznoodles]

Just slot this into workplace harassment. It's ridiculous how much this crime is used to add time onto people the officer doesn't like.

Also, see the current complaint against Sue.

[Guest]

Let's not bring that up here. It might hold some relevance, but it's not the place for it.

Still, Jam's idea might work.

[Guest Menown]

I like the harassment law. I've wanted this for a while, (because we don't have one, meaning officers are the only ones "safe" under the law from it.)

[Johnny Mnemonic]

while we're talking about changing corp regs, can someone please elaborate a bit more on "i106-Suspicious Conduct". because it's far worse in my opinion, and a HoS can use it as an excuse to detain people on really insignificant matters. or at least remove the fine/brig time because the people in question don't necessarily even have to commit a legitimate crime.

[SgtSammac]

Um guys. If you read it, the officer,on duty law actually covers heads of staff too, if anything it should be changed to insubordination, BUT that's a bit militaristic.

"To directly insult a Head of Staff or member of Security with no valid complaints."

So,can we stop this "hurr durr it only protects security" bullshit.

However, I would be more than happy to see the addition of a normal "harrassment" regulation in its place.

[Frances]

"To directly insult a Head of Staff or member of Security with no valid complaints."

So,can we stop this "hurr durr it only protects security" bullshit.

It only protects security and heads for now, though. I don't really see why it wouldn't be okay to be a douche to a sec member, but okay to do the same thing to another employee.

[Guest]

while we're talking about changing corp regs, can someone please elaborate a bit more on "i106-Suspicious Conduct". because it's far worse in my opinion, and a HoS can use it as an excuse to detain people on really insignificant matters. or at least remove the fine/brig time because the people in question don't necessarily even have to commit a legitimate crime.

 

That charge is hardly ever used. It's an excuse to track a suspicious individual.

[Vittorio Giurifiglio]

I think people on the station would be better. That way, you can't harass a visitor, but if they're an antag I think Security could let it slide up until you start getting really disruptive during something like negotiations (such as the times that Vittorio told nuke ops that he would do terrible things to their collective mothers).

Fuckers deserved it.