New regulation: Verbal Harassment of Officer

[driecg36]

I know this could be technically counted under hooliganism, but hooliganism is such a vague charge that its hard to pin anyone with it.

The law would go like this:

 

i120

Verbal Harassment of Officer

 

To continually and aggressively verbally harass an officer, after being warned to stop.

 

A single "Fuck you" is not enough for this charge to be applied. A continuous string of insults, such as "Go fuck yourself you fucking fuckface" after an officer has specifically told the individual to stop, is when this charge can be applied. Usually for prisoners upset about being detained, but can be applied to those who are not being arrested/detained as well.

 

Traditional sentence: 3 Minutes

Repeat Offense: 10 minutes and or demotion.

Fine: 300 credits

 

I don't think having people constantly berate officers with a massive amount of needless insults with no tangible consequence (except scorn from the officers) is very HRP. A clear, appropriately named charge like this would work wonders for shutting up these shitter without having to rely on some stretch of hooliganism. IRL, doing something like this would net you a misdemeanor charge, which the regs dont have (hooliganism is similar, but with it being bundled with indecent exposure it's not used very often).

[Skull132]

Regulations in this vain have been discussed before. They're usually invalidated by two points, which I will present to you now:

• I there no general regulation which covers this conduct?
• If the latter is true, why must this be implemented as a special exception to the general rule?

 

The primary reason for asking these two questions is to cut down on special exceptions and rule/regulation bloat. In my eyes, if a general rule exists, then exceptions should not be extracted from them unless there is an absoloute necessity. Instead, the general rule should simply be enforced more sternly to those exceptions.

[Skull132]

Also, because regulations are not dev thing, lemme ping people responsible for maintaining them:

[mention]ForgottenTraveller[/mention][mention]Shadow[/mention][mention]Garnascus[/mention]

[Garnascus]

I feel like theres plenty of reasons you could arrest someone being excessively vitriolic already. Especially if its over the radio.

[ShameOnTurtles]

Regulations for insults, not just regarding officers, are already in place.

In person insults/harassment:

 

Slander:

To spread false rumours in order to damage someone's reputation.

 

 

Slandering a Head of Staff:

To directly insult a Head of Staff with no valid complaints.

 

 

Over the radio insults/harassment:

 

Misuse of Public Radio Channels:

To continually broadcast unimportant, untrue, or insignificant messages on the public radio frequency.

 

While this regulation does concern public radio channels only, heads of staff can (and usually will) order people to do anything within reason. This includes telling them to shut up about insulting anyone or anything. If they continue past that point, then another regulation can be used (Failure to Execute an Order).

If personnel are being vitriolic toward any member of staff, appeal to one of the heads of department (ideally their own or the Captain) to get them demoted. Not acting professionally in the workplace is a perfectly valid reason for demotion (although with that said, it would be silly to go around demoting anyone who got annoyed with someone else).

In cases where you don't have a head of staff to restrict this behaviour, the regulations above cover pretty much all scenarios of insults. Someone insulting officers on the way to the brig can technically be charged with slander, or hooliganism if they're shouting while being dragged through the halls, but I wouldn't suggest doing so unless they are a consistent problem and do not stop even when warned.

Hell, as a last resort, you can always gag them.

[Scheveningen]

The previous rendition of "Insulting an Officer" was removed from regulations due to the amount of abuse in many situations, officers would slap hooliganism, some other charges and insulting an officer just to add more brig time to a character. Officers are supposed to have thick skin emotionally and practically speaking; vague regulations are vague on purpose so they are flexible enough to cover situations that would otherwise be edge cases.

But we otherwise don't need it. Putting a person into the brig for 10 minutes longer is not going to really help in correcting the behavior in the future.

[driecg36]

Alright, I'm a criminal justice major going into law, and I know this is corporate law in a 2d spessmen game but still: LAWS MUST NEVER EVER be vague.

Think Miranda Vs. Arizona. The wording of how suspects were meant to be informed of their arrest was "vague." You'd think that would be a non issue, but it was almost enough to get Ernesto Miranda out of kidnap and rape. Laws have to be VERY specific IRL, and I think making them very specific as well IC is important too, to ensure consistency while playing sec, and less "reg bending."

The problem with the general charge of "hooliganism" is that its tied in with "indecent exposure," something which I don't understand at all. It makes hooliganism as a charge hold much less weight and be MUCH harder to apply.

And to all the things Shameonturtles listed: Slander doesn't apply because its not false information, just insults.

Slandering a head of staff doesn't apply to officers.

Misuse of common radio doesn't apply if its in processing.

None of these charges can be applied honestly to someone spewing insults as they are being processed. The only way to prevent this is by gagging them, which is ridiculous and could be construed as abuse of prisoners.

I also concur with delta. A" "insulting officers" reg would be abused. However, this is different; this is a HARASSMENT reg. That means you can't just slap it on if they say something mean. They have to be spewing insults even after being WARNED. And for the issue of over-applying, this should work : "Hooliganism cannot be applied for verbal harassment of officers on top of this charge. Doing so will result in illegal arrest charges being leveled against the officer over-charging."

[driecg36]

Adding this reg isn't the only way to fix this problem either. Dividing Indecent exposure(Maybe even including it in sexual harassment?) and Hooliganism into two different charges, with hooliganism being more fleshed out than it currently is.

Expanding upon hooliganism, and rewording it's description to this:

"Intentionally disrupting the peace, by harassing other coworkers, yelling obscenities, and generally being a nuisance."

"Examples of this is repetitively insulting coworkers, being publicly drunk, general belligerency, and provocative behavior."

I would also like Hooliganism to be renamed to Disorderly Conduct, as I think the latter is clearer and has more impact.

[Guest Marlon Phoenix]

While I and others appreciate the devotion you are putting into your law degree, please remember that our regulations exist for a roleplaying game and we look for the impact on IC and OOC playstyles rather than if we could defend it in a court of law IRL.

The regulation specifically covering officers was removed - I believe at my pestering. What the posts from admins above all hit the same points I'd reinforce.

The regulation ONLY served to reward petty behavior from officers. It allowed officers to arrest people for being sassy, or snarky, or whenever they wanted. It was handed out very liberally, and lead to much injustice. 10 minutes for insulting an officer is excessive.

Officers are protected by the regulations covering slander and radio abuse already. If someone calls an officer a dimwit then that person should not be arrested.

[driecg36]

Again, I think people are misreading this.

This isn't "insult of an officer." This is "repetitive, continuous harassment of an officer." Calling someone a dimwit once is fine. Constantly telling them what you would do to their mother for 5 minutes in a row isn't. It's lrp (would you really do that to an officer arresting you IRL with no consequence), its annoying, and adds nothing to the game by letting it happen.

I can see the problems arising from a law that makes insults in general not OK. I specifically went over in my post that the insulting needed to be continuous, and the charge could not be levied until the officer warned the perpetrator.

However, officers have their hands completely tied whenever someone spews insults at them. Either this is made into a law, or hooliganism/disorderly conduct is rightfully separated from indecent exposure.

And again, as I said for slander, it only applies to spreading misinformation, unlike slander against a head, that covers insults, and misuse of radio only applies to well, radio.

So there's a lot of backlash against this specific idea, though I'm sure a lot of people who play sec would very much like to have an option to shut up people who constantly insult them, which is irksome to say the least. How would people feel about putting indecent exposure in sexual harassment, expanding upon hooliganism to add verbal harassment of personnel as an example?

[ForgottenTraveller]

[mention]driecg36[/mention] Why should this only apply to officers, and not all employees? Secondly instead of arguing if it could be hooliganism, or making something brand new, who not modify the old that actually has it in the title.

i112 | Sexual Harassment

To making unwanted sexual advances or obscene remarks towards another employee.

This is for VERY MINOR things the other person finds offensive that are sexually related. For anything more serious see "Sexual Assault".

5 minutes. | Up to 15 minutes and/or Demotion. | N/A

And I present to you the new i112 with 2 minutes of slap dash copy paste abuse.

i112 | Harassment

To continually and aggressively verbally harass an employee, after being warned to stop by a member of ISD or command. Or to make unwanted sexual advances or obscene remarks towards another employee.

A single "Fuck you" is not enough for this charge to be applied. A continuous string of insults, such as "Go fuck yourself you fucking fuckface" after an officer or HoD has specifically told the individual to stop, is when this charge can be applied. Or VERY MINOR things the other person finds offensive that are sexually related. For anything more serious see "Sexual Assault".

5 minutes. | Up to 15 minutes and/or Demotion. | N/A

And this would be applicable when slander and abuse of radio isn't

Even then Jackboot's point on removal stands, it only does seem to reward petty officers especially if it is officer centric.

[ForgottenTraveller]

And in addition. These are corporate regulations not laws. Most would not go to court apart from those that would also break Besielian law. It is reflection of what the corporation deems significant to cover to maintain a working site within it's own structure. And NT may well value having employees catharticly swearing at its ISDs over shooting up the place. Or places like the Odin

[driecg36]

I very much like forgottenTraveller's idea. It's a nice middle ground, it fixes the problem I have without introducing the problem that the others in this thread have with the suggestion.

I support it completely.

[ForgottenTraveller]

Still remains is the question. Do we need it? And why? There remains slander and the like. And outside of regulations commonly and excessively hostile employees could be handled via command injunctions (eg. an injunction against their behavior, if in which they break the regulation around we have a reg for that), the IAA in round, or an incident report for the CCIA. Why do none of these suffice for this issue?

[mention]driecg36[/mention]

[driecg36]

The problem with all the things you've listed above is that they are not always reliable. IAA's are quite frankly a pretty rare sight, so you can't depend on them. Injunctions depend on a captain/HOS, who is either not present or much too busy dealing with Cults and Mercs. Incident reports are always available, but are quite frankly a major hassle and not worth making over issues that would result in a minor sentence.

The thing about this idea is that it's always available. It doesn't depend on a head of staff, it isn't something you need to do OOCly, and it's much simpler and more straightforward than all of the above. It gives officers a response to the lrp "fuck you you fucking fucktard" that is clear, concise, and effective.

For the why, I've already explained: It's very lrp in my opinion for someone to spew insults at coworkers and security officers with almost always no consequence, just because their isn't a concrete, solid charge for it.

I do agree that my original suggestion could lead to abuse by some seedier sec officers (even if I tried to avoid that through careful wording), and I think that wouldn't be fun for the server. However, [mention]ForgottenTraveller[/mention] 's idea for i112 seems like it would easily rectify my issue, as well as generally improve the RP of the server, with absolutely no downside, or at least none that I can see.

[DatBerry]

snip

 

I actually do see an issue with this, with minor crimes, officers usually care less about evidence and witnesses, and I've already seen once instance where a cargo tech got another arrested for sexual harassment with no proof, basically her word against his.

with slander and misuse of comms, they will obviously have witnesses, to slander someone and spread lies, you need to tell these lies to someone other than the victim, for comms abuse, that's pretty obvious.

Harassment charges with officers would work because there's OOC expectations that sec will not be shit, but covering the crew, and the manchildren portion too would start a lot of issues.

take this example:

Nurse McTits PDAs her friend officer who she knew for many shifts that Baldose McSurgeon has been harassing her all shift in medical, there's no way to prove this without another witness or a recording. but since it's a low pop round, or other officers are busy with something, Officer McFriend might even ignore the need for a warrant and attempts an arrest.

IMO: this will enable bigger issues than it will solve, I'd rather deal with some bald saying i fuck the furniture than deal with two drama queens claiming the other is harassing them.

[driecg36]

I honestly don't think it would create massive problems, since Nurse McTits could always bug her HoS friend or Cappy friend to make an injunction, which would result in the same thing. An officer can always dismiss the case if they find it a waste of time or has no tangible proof.

Since the law specifies a warning is necessary, only shitcurity would arrest without warning/warrant, and if they're shitcurity they're bound to fuck something up at some point, whether this reg exists or not.

[DatBerry]

I honestly don't think it would create massive problems, since Nurse McTits could always bug her HoS friend or Cappy friend to make an injunction, which would result in the same thing. An officer can always dismiss the case if they find it a waste of time or has no tangible proof.

Since the law specifies a warning is necessary, only shitcurity would arrest without warning/warrant, and if they're shitcurity they're bound to fuck something up at some point, whether this reg exists or not.

 

that was only one example, it will also shoot down any conflict RP before it gets anywhere.

here's another example:

local guwan is shit at his job, ligger and other crewmembers call him a lazy asshole and bully him over department/common radio. guwan talks to security and get's immunity to any discriminating harassment he could receive whether it be over radio, PDA or in public. and in some jobs, becomes immune to any discrimination at all.

this new regulation would open an awful can of worms that can be avoided by picking up duct tape from primary storage and just taping the mouth of the prisoner shut.

[driecg36]

Well, for the duct tape thing, that would definitely be abuse of prisoners and not OK whatsoever.

And for the example you listed: Do you really think a workplace would allow it's employees to harass another employee, even if that employee is ass? This suggestion isn't about making this a rule, it's about making this a reg. If you want to be an asshole to someone, you won't get banned for it, just don't get caught doing it by sec.

I think it's perfectly reasonable in the example above for the people harassing him to be charged, as well as the guwan himself to be charged for Neglect of Duty. The appropriate course of action, instead of pestering the Guwan, would be to report him to a head, IAA, or CCIA.

[DatBerry]

Well, for the duct tape thing, that would definitely be abuse of prisoners and not OK whatsoever.

And for the example you listed: Do you really think a workplace would allow it's employees to harass another employee, even if that employee is ass? This suggestion isn't about making this a rule, it's about making this a reg. If you want to be an asshole to someone, you won't get banned for it, just don't get caught doing it by sec.

I think it's perfectly reasonable in the example above for the people harassing him to be charged, as well as the guwan himself to be charged for Neglect of Duty. The appropriate course of action, instead of pestering the Guwan, would be to report him to a head, IAA, or CCIA.

 

There's a difference between being able to stop discrimination and being able to persecute people over it. NT isn't a safe space workplace and xenos aren't catered to. it took them ages to stop people calling them racial slurs over public comms, and haven't exactly banned it from doing it in person.

the regulation you're suggesting will only punish the person, not stop them. he will just continue till he lands a HUT, and continue anyway.

adding a gag to the brig for the extreme cases of vocal abuse is a better solution than adding a new regulation that effects so much more than just the case you brought up.

[driecg36]

I wasn't so much talking about discrimination, just harassment.

I think it would be reasonable to have employees punished, or at least warned, for harassing another.

However satisfying duct taping a prisoner's mouth is, which I do on med-rp servers all the time, I think it's not very good RP, and just punishing the person seems like a much more logical, believable solution.

[ForgottenTraveller]

NT isn't a safe space workplace.

That is a very accurate statement, just look at newmap mining.

Without the regs, there do exists other methods for restitution. Any time consuming and slow is not really a great excuse, if you are aggrieved enough by the issue it can be handled, even in round. e.g. See IAA or command staff, get an injunction in place against the harasser, if they do it again, the go to the brig, and any other stipulations in the injunction also apply.

So I can't say I am convinced. Admins can say otherwise and I'll change it up, but I just can't see the real need. Especially as while you have had a few give reasons against. I have not seen another person put up a reason for this proposal.

[driecg36]

That's fair.

Asking this to be locked/denied.

[ForgottenTraveller]

Thanks for understanding, it was at least good to get this back out in the open, and re-cover old ground on why we got rid of the old version, and if the current methods cannot hold up.

[LordFowl]

Denied by memer's request.