Jump to content

[2 Dismissals] Animal Negligence [Binned: 05/05/2018]


Recommended Posts

I noticed time and time again that heads of staff usually leave their animals in their cage/office, and neglect them until they die of hunger (if it gets that far in round, those animals take a small eternity to die). I doubt that Biesel allows people to simply ignore their animals to starvation and let them get away with it, so why can NanoTrasen staff do so?


My suggestion is to add the following regulation to corporate regulations (not final edition obviously, just how I think the regulation should be);


i[iNSERT NUMBER HERE] Animal Negligence

Description: To inflict unnecessary suffering or harm upon animals without malicious intent.

Notes: Owners ignoring the basic necessaries of life for the animal falls under this. The person who bought the animal or has assigned the animal is classified as the 'owner'. The Owner can transfer ownership of the animal with a 'equipment requisition' form. Animals who are used for food is a grey area, as long as they are not overtly caused pain in the process. Monkeys appropriately used for experiments or well-being (e.g Genetics, Virology, etc.) don't count.

First Offense: 3 minutes and/or paying for the treatment/replacement of the animal in question

Second Offense: up to 7 minutes and/or treatment/replacement of the animal in question, all animals under care of individual will be turned over to cargo for selling.

Fine: 200 credits


This regulation will allow people to be punished for ignoring animals they purchased/assigned to care for. Heads of staff should not be allowed to simply ignore the pets they are assigned to care for.

Link to comment

I don't see a reason why Animal Cruelty wouldn't apply to this. Knowingly not feeding a departmental pet to the point of starvation implies a degree of malicious intent.


Also, animals being able to horf down like ten deep-fried steaks and be hungry 40 minutes later is a bit of a meme. Do we really want to regulate for this?

Link to comment

First off, sorry if this double posts or something, bad internet connection.


So, this is a terrible idea in my opinion. It adds nothing to the game except a pointless task that will only annoy Heads. There is literally no good reason to add this. Why not just remove animal hunger instead? It's not realistic for an animal to become starving in five minutes, and then eat twice as much food as a human. If you kill the dog by intentionally ignoring it, animal cruelty works fine.

Link to comment

God just no. Feeding Ian is nearly impossible, and some animals get hungry fast as well. Feeding them does not do anything besides healing and changing the examine text, they do not die or anything. I do not think this should be a thing, unless animal hunger is changed.

Link to comment

God just no. Feeding Ian is nearly impossible, and some animals get hungry fast as well. Feeding them does not do anything besides healing and changing the examine text, they do not die or anything. I do not think this should be a thing, unless animal hunger is changed.


Voting for dismissal.

 

I agree with this sentiment, but I edited the thread title back since basically it's me, Nursie and Garn/Abo/Skull who can dismiss reg suggestions per the subforum rules. I'm not going to vote for a while to see if other discussion is generated.

Link to comment
Guest Marlon Phoenix

i once made the mistake of trying to bring Ian past the kitchen to bring him to cargo. The kitchen counter was overflowing with food.


And then it wasn't.


And then Ian was hungry again.

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...