SgtSammac Posted April 16, 2015 Posted April 16, 2015 "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. Which is why I 100% support the changing of Regulation 109 to be Harrassment instead of "Insulting an officer"
Guest Posted April 16, 2015 Posted April 16, 2015 I might seem a tad bit biased in this, but I think a note should be added not to shit-talk heads of staff. You don't shit-talk authority because it degrades the chain of command. So, a little suggested edit to Jemini's rule: i109 - Harassment Description: To repeatedly (at least three instances minimum,[b] one when directed to a head of staff[/b]) 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 Kinda needs to be discussed, but last thing anyone wants is an annoyed boss.
Vanagandr Posted April 16, 2015 Posted April 16, 2015 'Harassment' pretty much implies it's a consistent issue, anyway.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). Breach of the Peace?
Jamini Posted April 16, 2015 Author Posted April 16, 2015 I might seem a tad bit biased in this, but I think a note should be added not to shit-talk heads of staff. You don't shit-talk authority because it degrades the chain of command. So, a little suggested edit to Jemini's rule: I don't see the need, as a head can simply give an order to cease or file an injunction. They have got plenty of tools to stop people from being dicks to them.
Guest Posted April 16, 2015 Posted April 16, 2015 I might seem a tad bit biased in this, but I think a note should be added not to shit-talk heads of staff. You don't shit-talk authority because it degrades the chain of command. So, a little suggested edit to Jemini's rule: I don't see the need, as a head can simply give an order to cease or file an injunction. They have got plenty of tools to stop people from being dicks to them. Good point.
EvilBrage Posted April 19, 2015 Posted April 19, 2015 I don't see the need, as a head can simply give an order to cease or file an injunction. They have got plenty of tools to stop people from being dicks to them. Not to mention, in addition to harassment you'd also be guilty of failing to follow an order (if an individual wanted to interpret it as such) - so there is indeed a bit of an extra risk for voicing your innermost thoughts about Captain Douchebag.
Recommended Posts