Regulation i113 Animal Cruelty Update

[Tomiix]

Hello.

Due to a recently closed IC IR report done by myself here:

https://forums.aurorastation.org/viewtopic.php?f=90&t=9495&p=87329#p87329

I would like to request that Regulation i113 be updated to be in line with the CCIAA's stance on the regulation. Which is that PEST species (in this example it is a mouse, but I assume this would include spiders, lizards, and bats) do NOT fall under the protections of i113, even if said pests are domesticated, friendly, or seemingly owned by someone and even if the perpetrator of said cruelty is doing it as maliciously as a mustached man tying someone to the railroad tracks.

Or, if CCIAA does not feel that is accurate to how they want i113 to be interpreted, that they discuss and rewrite it so that it is enforced as intended. (For station pests and experimental animals.)

I hold no stake on whether or not people feel that it is okay to kill mice or not or when it is okay and when it isn't, I just care about regs and it's enforcement being consistent.

[Azande]

Mice have never been protected under Animal Abuse regulations, we have janitor's stocked with mouse traps and give mousetraps to the Chef for a reason. They have always and will always be pests, and CCIA have said this at least three times (maybe it needs to be a CCIA notice at this point smh) don't touch fucking disgusting rats with diseases eating wires in maint. This is common sense, and also applies to spiders and lizards and other bugs that occasionally spawn.

Animal abuse essentially only covers station pets, which can only be designated as such by Station Command staff, apart from the already existing pets like Ian. The regulation does not need to be changed, it is a common-sense read.

[Superiorform]

I113, Animal Abuse, is defined as: "To inflict unnecessary suffering or harm upon animals with malicious intent." Where is the malicious intent in killing a pest? How is it unnecessary to kill a pest? The regulation does not need to be rewritten.

[Synnono]

My interpretation of i113 is as follows, and I believe [mention]whiterabit[/mention] will mostly agree. Please post your own thoughts somewhere below if you don't, so that we're clear.

The regulation is intended to apply to department mascots, as well as animals being reasonably used in recognized job functions (science monkeys, kitchen/hydroponics chickens, etc.). If anything, that point can be clarified on the wiki page and should be simple enough to interpret in the future.

An explicit exclusionary clause for 'pests,' or conversely, including someone's personal pets in the definition of the regulation, both feel weird and irrelevant to a workplace to me. Frankly, these should both be the result of common sense and decency, IC and OOC. If security misinterprets the regulations as they are printed, then security can discipline its own, much like they did in the case that prompted this discussion.

(End CCIA interpretation, begin slightly unrelated mini-rant)

Changing or clarifying a regulation here will not solve the issue of player behavior when it comes to mice. I'm not a modmin and don't usually have to interpret our rules, but most of the time this kind of thing seems to be happening because:

1. A player wanting to befriend a mouse is flaunting it in front of players who favor more realistic vermin behavior (which I feel stretches believable roleplay on the first player's part).

2. The second player goes well out of their way to push that realism on the first player, by making sure they kill the mouse in spite of them (which I feel stretches the 'don't be a dick' rule on the second player's part).

A regulations change to include or exclude pests or personal pets is not going to change this behavior. It is the result of two fundamentally different perceptions of how seriously we should treat the game world, which is already very inconsistent in almost every way. Ultimately, I think a change will mostly just give one side the ability to point at regulations and claim that their side of things is 'more right' than the other.

Try to live and let live, please, and don't provoke or force negative interactions on other players if you can help it.

Edited November 6, 2017 by Guest

[keinto]

I think there are still cases where an exception can be made. What if someone is found out to be torturing the mice without killing them for their own sick amusement? While I think it'd be extremely rare during a normal round, it's something that a cultist could be seen doing to praise the geometer and there should be repercussions.

[Superiorform]

I think there are still cases where an exception can be made. What if someone is found out to be torturing the mice without killing them for their own sick amusement? While I think it'd be extremely rare during a normal round, it's something that a cultist could be seen doing to praise the geometer and there should be repercussions.

 

That is unnecessary harm to the animal, with malicious intent. It can be punished. Killing a mouse humanely, on the other hand, cannot be punished.

[whiterabit]

Basically in agreement with Synnono. I don't see much of a purpose in directly naming mice in the regulation.

If you take on a mouse as a pet, you should acknowledge its status as a pest and that they are going to be treated as such. Just to start we have chefs and janitors who are issued mouse traps at the start of a shift to try efficiently eliminate some of them. I fail to see how stomping a mouse or lasering it is any more excessively cruel than a mouse trap.

The only time a mouse should ever be covered under animal cruelty is in a situation of actual, excessive violence. Same as a lab monkey, they are expected to be killed, however, torturing them or needlessly causing them to suffer while dying is how you can still get an i113 charge.

[Tomiix]

So although they are pests, torture of pests is still arrestable?

How much torture is 'too much torture'.

[UnknownMurder]

How much torture is 'too much torture'.

 

 

 

Basically, bringing slow pain to an animal to death for your sick amusement as [mention]keinto[/mention] stated, for instance...

1. Burning the animal slowly to death

2. Slowly gassing the animal to death.

3. Stabbing slowly / Draining blood slowly

4. Performing human centipede experiment or any other pain experiments on animals.

5. To electrocute slowly.

6. To remove an animal's eye or other body parts.

How about it?

[DrHobo]

How much torture is 'too much torture'.

Basically, bringing slow pain to an animal to death for your sick amusement as @keinto stated, for instance...

1. Burning the animal slowly to death

2. Slowly gassing the animal to death.

3. Stabbing slowly / Draining blood slowly

4. Performing human centipede experiment or any other pain experiments on animals.

5. To electrocute slowly.

6. To remove an animal's eye or other body parts.

 

Now you're basically describing science but if that were anywhere other than science (or even in science without any application of the scientific method) and not carried out with a professional attitude with no explanation or reasoning then yeah, it is totally animal abuse. I'd expect a health analyzer and some of the data to be collected or extrapolated upon to at least prove it wasn't all done in the name of sadism. Hell even eye-ball overall health loss with a hud if you don't want to pester medical for an analyzer! The difference between science and fucking about is writing down some data!

Data pays the bills, otherwise they're just wasting company resources.

[Tomiix]

How much torture is 'too much torture'.

 

 

 

Basically, bringing slow pain to an animal to death for your sick amusement as @keinto stated, for instance...

1. Burning the animal slowly to death

2. Slowly gassing the animal to death.

3. Stabbing slowly / Draining blood slowly

4. Performing human centipede experiment or any other pain experiments on animals.

5. To electrocute slowly.

6. To remove an animal's eye or other body parts.

How about it?

 

+1 for the ocelot

and uh, I guess this is fine. 'You can kill pests but don't be a dick about it'

and in the Jawdat case while he was being a dick to the person he was being swift with the animal.

[Arrow768]

Come on. Do we really need a policy discussion about how to deal with mice in terms of the animal abuse regulation.

Just use common sense when applying that regulation.

[Tomiix]

I mean common sense told me that being deceitful to a crewman by pretending to have good intentions with their mouse and then crushing it before their eyes seemed like common sense cruelty to me.

However the CCIAA ruled otherwise, and if we didn't agree to void OOC would of been cause for a security officer to be demoted.

So I guess it isn't so much common sense is it?

[Sebbe]

This thread is funny because yesterday i played a round where spiderlings spawned in my workplace (botany) and my character, a Dionaea, asked for crew to not hurt them because "eight legs not... do anything wrong." or something close to that. the crew responded with "your funeral" and forgot about the spiders.

soooo system is fucked

[ben10083]

This thread is funny because yesterday i played a round where spiderlings spawned in my workplace (botany) and my character, a Dionaea, asked for crew to not hurt them because "eight legs not... do anything wrong." or something close to that. the crew responded with "your funeral" and forgot about the spiders.

soooo system is fucked

 

That is one example, and a rare one at that. I was in one round were a spiderling got into research sub-level and make like 50 more spiders before we found them. That was also the moment when antags started attacking, and it was only 3 officers..... Although I do admit me and the others doing a "final stand" against a army of spiders was fun, it just shows why some pests should be killed on sight.

[Sebbe]

That is one example, and a rare one at that. I was in one round were a spiderling got into research sub-level and make like 50 more spiders before we found them. That was also the moment when antags started attacking, and it was only 3 officers..... Although I do admit me and the others doing a "final stand" against a army of spiders was fun, it just shows why some pests should be killed on sight.

 

Honestly it seems that as a Dionaea people listen to us more than what i would say is necessary, BUT i honestly think that is good as well. A Dionae is intelligent and it learns from everything that happens around it in a 360 degree view, so you never know if it is sharing some of it knowledge with you, or if it simply does not know the consequences of its actions.

I think this regulation is more based on the characters upholding it during the rounds, I think whatever the choice is, if it fits in an RP scenario, its up to security to apprehend people breaking the regulation and the other crew to do what they think fits in the situation.

[ben10083]

Please move this to policy suggestions

[Arrow768]

This has been answered by Synno already and is stone old.

Moving to the archive