Wiki Updates and Additions.

Discussions and suggestions regarding the Wiki.
User avatar
TopHatPenguin
Community Contributor
Community Contributor
Posts: 2327
Joined: 14 Dec 2014, 18:06
Location: Forever Editing The Wiki.
Byond: TopHatPenguin
Contact:

Re: Wiki Updates and Additions.

Post by TopHatPenguin » 10 Jun 2017, 09:19

DrPng wrote:Ok, I created an account and edited the runners, carrier and crusher page myself. It now accurately represents the new information. I'll try to find a few more outdated pieces of information.
Much obliged, chief.

User avatar
TopHatPenguin
Community Contributor
Community Contributor
Posts: 2327
Joined: 14 Dec 2014, 18:06
Location: Forever Editing The Wiki.
Byond: TopHatPenguin
Contact:

Re: Wiki Updates and Additions.

Post by TopHatPenguin » 10 Jun 2017, 09:24

General wiki announcement:

There is now a #wiki-work channel on the Cm discord, so it's a lot easier to co-ordinate edits as well as post any pages which you think need updating.

User avatar
TopHatPenguin
Community Contributor
Community Contributor
Posts: 2327
Joined: 14 Dec 2014, 18:06
Location: Forever Editing The Wiki.
Byond: TopHatPenguin
Contact:

Re: Wiki Updates and Additions.

Post by TopHatPenguin » 23 Jun 2017, 08:07

General wiki announcement:

There is now a @Wiki Contributor role on the Cm discord, this role is to make it easier for others to ping players who update the wiki frequently and hopefully it'll allow for faster responses.

If you're interested in having this role just ask in #permissions-requests on the cm discord.

User avatar
Molly Mirrions
Registered user
Posts: 6
Joined: 14 Jun 2017, 13:31
Byond: Boon Yoon

Re: Wiki Updates and Additions.

Post by Molly Mirrions » 26 Jun 2017, 19:11

A small thing, but the last paragraph of "The Universe Today" in the lore section has an error: "Though taken lightly at first, the skinning and beheading of two Colonial Marshals by a crowd waving a SC banner have led the USCM to elevate their threat level to BRAVO."

SC should be FC, so it should read "...by a crowd waving an FC banner..."

User avatar
TopHatPenguin
Community Contributor
Community Contributor
Posts: 2327
Joined: 14 Dec 2014, 18:06
Location: Forever Editing The Wiki.
Byond: TopHatPenguin
Contact:

Re: Wiki Updates and Additions.

Post by TopHatPenguin » 26 Jun 2017, 23:10

Molly Mirrions wrote:A small thing, but the last paragraph of "The Universe Today" in the lore section has an error: "Though taken lightly at first, the skinning and beheading of two Colonial Marshals by a crowd waving a SC banner have led the USCM to elevate their threat level to BRAVO."

SC should be FC, so it should read "...by a crowd waving an FC banner..."
Fixed.

User avatar
Thucydides
Registered user
Posts: 33
Joined: 04 Jun 2017, 12:39
Byond: Lokiusus

Re: Wiki Updates and Additions.

Post by Thucydides » 27 Jul 2017, 19:43

So this is a super small difference, that I'd bet 99.9% of the community doesn't give a shit about, but it's been bugging me enough to want to mention it. Every time a USCM Admiral or WY exec comes aboard, everyone runs around screaming that they have "diplomatic immunity" and are exempt from the law. This obviously comes from the Marine Law page, where it's said that WY has Diplomatic Immunity and High Command personnel have "emergency powers."

Well -- not really. Diplomatic immunity is given to diplomatic representatives from a foreign country, operating on behalf of that government. Example dictionary definition.

On the other hand, "corporate immunity" is probably a more fitting concept, which describes the personal immunity of corporate officials from laws when acting on behalf of the corporation. Example dictionary definition. WY may be a British/Japanese conglomerate, but it's agents represent the company rather than the nations themselves.

The USCM High Command personnel "emergency powers" is fine. But more accurate would be "sovereign immunity," where the officers of the High Command are protected from suit as the state has deemed them immune from all legal action. Example definition.

This is probably the most autist thing ever posted, but if I watch marines start screaming about "diplomatic immunity" again my nose is going to start bleeding.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Elijah 'Shrimp' Hunt

User avatar
TopHatPenguin
Community Contributor
Community Contributor
Posts: 2327
Joined: 14 Dec 2014, 18:06
Location: Forever Editing The Wiki.
Byond: TopHatPenguin
Contact:

Re: Wiki Updates and Additions.

Post by TopHatPenguin » 29 Jul 2017, 12:56

Thucydides wrote:So this is a super small difference, that I'd bet 99.9% of the community doesn't give a shit about, but it's been bugging me enough to want to mention it. Every time a USCM Admiral or WY exec comes aboard, everyone runs around screaming that they have "diplomatic immunity" and are exempt from the law. This obviously comes from the Marine Law page, where it's said that WY has Diplomatic Immunity and High Command personnel have "emergency powers."

Well -- not really. Diplomatic immunity is given to diplomatic representatives from a foreign country, operating on behalf of that government. Example dictionary definition.

On the other hand, "corporate immunity" is probably a more fitting concept, which describes the personal immunity of corporate officials from laws when acting on behalf of the corporation. Example dictionary definition. WY may be a British/Japanese conglomerate, but it's agents represent the company rather than the nations themselves.

The USCM High Command personnel "emergency powers" is fine. But more accurate would be "sovereign immunity," where the officers of the High Command are protected from suit as the state has deemed them immune from all legal action. Example definition.

This is probably the most autist thing ever posted, but if I watch marines start screaming about "diplomatic immunity" again my nose is going to start bleeding.
Thanks for letting us know, I believe the higher ups are looking into this now.

User avatar
taketheshot56
Registered user
Posts: 253
Joined: 04 Apr 2017, 01:33
Location: Safe in the CIC
Byond: taketheshot56

Re: Wiki Updates and Additions.

Post by taketheshot56 » 02 Aug 2017, 00:46

Add a charge where MPs committing a crime be given double time, just like officers.
Image Image

User avatar
TopHatPenguin
Community Contributor
Community Contributor
Posts: 2327
Joined: 14 Dec 2014, 18:06
Location: Forever Editing The Wiki.
Byond: TopHatPenguin
Contact:

Re: Wiki Updates and Additions.

Post by TopHatPenguin » 02 Aug 2017, 03:48

taketheshot56 wrote:Add a charge where MPs committing a crime be given double time, just like officers.
Marine Law and it's procedures can only be edited/changed by Apop/Rahl so that may or may not happen.

User avatar
Tylaaaaar
Registered user
Posts: 130
Joined: 15 Apr 2017, 08:08
Location: The chavy streets of the UK

Re: Wiki Updates and Additions.

Post by Tylaaaaar » 05 Aug 2017, 12:52

taketheshot56 wrote:Add a charge where MPs committing a crime be given double time, just like officers.
If I'm correct MP's are classed as officers so I think this rule is already applied.
That guy who plays as Roberto Conrad.

Image

I am R O B U S T
Image

User avatar
Bobalobdob
Registered user
Posts: 26
Joined: 06 Sep 2017, 02:49
Location: Somewhere in Washington
Byond: bobalobdob
Steam: Bobalobdob
Contact:

Re: Wiki Updates and Additions.

Post by Bobalobdob » 29 Sep 2017, 14:14

The Xeno Autopsy section pretty please
"Stay together, stay alive!" -Edmund 'Jerry' Faust

"Marbo makes the mark again, hehheh!" -Hungry 'Munch' Marbo

User avatar
TopHatPenguin
Community Contributor
Community Contributor
Posts: 2327
Joined: 14 Dec 2014, 18:06
Location: Forever Editing The Wiki.
Byond: TopHatPenguin
Contact:

Re: Wiki Updates and Additions.

Post by TopHatPenguin » 01 Oct 2017, 03:45

Bobalobdob wrote:
29 Sep 2017, 14:14
The Xeno Autopsy section pretty please

You can't perform a xeno autopsy currently without a "Weyland Brand Automatic Autopsy System" of which as far as I'm aware wasn't re-added to the game, so in short you can't currently.

If it gets re-added, sure.

If you're wanting just a normal autopsy guide though, that can be found here.

User avatar
Hulkamania
Registered user
Posts: 103
Joined: 22 Jul 2017, 01:12
Location: Sol
Byond: Hulkamania

Re: Wiki Updates and Additions.

Post by Hulkamania » 02 Oct 2017, 17:28

I think there's placeholders already, but information on the new order abilities would be great!
I play Mack Lewis!
Image

User avatar
TopHatPenguin
Community Contributor
Community Contributor
Posts: 2327
Joined: 14 Dec 2014, 18:06
Location: Forever Editing The Wiki.
Byond: TopHatPenguin
Contact:

Re: Wiki Updates and Additions.

Post by TopHatPenguin » 03 Oct 2017, 07:29

Hulkamania wrote:
02 Oct 2017, 17:28
I think there's placeholders already, but information on the new order abilities would be great!
If you're meaning the "orders" ability, that'll hopefully be done by later today/tomorrow.

User avatar
quarantinetimer
Registered user
Posts: 28
Joined: 08 Nov 2015, 04:23
Byond: Quarantinetimer

Re: Wiki Updates and Additions.

Post by quarantinetimer » 18 Feb 2018, 09:44

Some recommendations regarding additions to marine law:
The section below could provide additional guidance to MPs who may find it frustrating when dealing with those who seem to deserve punishment but do not fit the description in the wiki completely.

I. Establishing Criminal Responsibility:

A person shall be responsible for committing a crime and liable for punishment IF

a. a person commits a crime
b. a person commands, solicits, or induces the commission of a crime, AND that said crime is committed OR an attempt to commit it is made
c. a person aids or abets in the commission of a crime; acting with actual knowledge that the crime in question will be or is being committed
d. a person attempts to commit a crime; this being that the person has taken substantial steps intended to result in the commission of a crime, but the crime does not occur due to circumstances beyond said person's control
(i) IF the crime does not occur due to said person abandoning the effort of committing the crime or preventing the crime from occurring in any other manner, said person shall not be criminally responsible, providing that he intended to cease his efforts to commit the crime voluntarily).

II. Exclusion of Criminal Responsibility

Other than the grounds provided in the above section, a person shall not be criminally responsible IF

a. The person acts reasonably to defend either himself or another person, against an imminent use of unlawful force, PROVIDED that said person's conduct is proportional to the unlawful force used against the entities he was defending. (Server escalation and lethal force rules take precedence over this rule)

b. at the time of the commission of the crime, the person has mental illness that renders him incapable of evaluating the lawfulness or unlawfulness of his actions; OR renders him incapable of exercising voluntary control over said actions in order to comply with the law. (insanity)

c. the person is in a state of intoxication which renders him incapable of evaluating the lawfulness or unlawfulness of his actions; OR renders him incapable of exercising voluntary control over said actions in order to comply with the law; UNLESS said person had become intoxicated voluntarily and does so while willfully disregarding the risk that he would commit a crime in such a state of intoxication.

d. (i) the person is under duress due to the threat of imminent serious bodily harm either to him or another person, and that the person reasonably commits acts (which constitute crimes) which are necessary to avoid the threat: PROVIDED that the person does not intend to commit acts which would lead to greater harm than the threat from which the person sought to avoid.
(ii) A person may not be exempted from criminal responsibility utilizing section II(d)(i) if his conduct forms the basis for the following crimes:
1. Murder
2. Mutiny
3. Terrorist Collaboration
4. Sexual Assault (I picked these 4 crimes because they carry the highest punishment, which presumably means that these acts are already the most harmful. These could be changed, however.)

(iii) For all other crimes not listed in section II(d)(ii), the enforcing officer must use his best discretion in determining whether the person's acts would lead to greater harm than the threat from which the person sough to avoid.
Last edited by quarantinetimer on 18 Feb 2018, 19:12, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
TheDonkified
Registered user
Posts: 362
Joined: 11 Dec 2016, 19:02
Byond: TheDonkified

Re: Wiki Updates and Additions.

Post by TheDonkified » 18 Feb 2018, 12:54

These look cool but from a quick glance, using intoxication and insanity as means for not being criminally responsible wouldn't be considered valid.
Lother Jones >:) :^) XD :3 :P :) :V :c :< :> :O :T :B :D :F :I :U :S :x

User avatar
quarantinetimer
Registered user
Posts: 28
Joined: 08 Nov 2015, 04:23
Byond: Quarantinetimer

Re: Wiki Updates and Additions.

Post by quarantinetimer » 18 Feb 2018, 19:07

TheDonkified wrote:
18 Feb 2018, 12:54
These look cool but from a quick glance, using intoxication and insanity as means for not being criminally responsible wouldn't be considered valid.
Insanity
This COULD be RPed out with medical staff and what not, but upon further review, it seems that you are correct. It wouldn't really work with CM's gameflow, considering how it would seriously disrupt medical operations and give the aliens an advantage (eg. more chances for a chestburst that is not corrected in time due to need of medical personnel to deal with the insane person, and slower treatment for wounded marines). Until the proper systems are in place, (I doubt they ever will, considering the increased staff workload dealing with grievers using this one would mean) I amend my proposal to exclude section II(b).

Intoxication
Notice that I specifically mentioned 'UNLESS said person had become intoxicated voluntarily and does so while willfully disregarding the risk that he would commit a crime in such a state of intoxication'. This means that this provision only applies to those who get intoxicated involuntarily (eg. Getting force-fed(drank?) alcohol by someone else and then proceeding to commit a crime.

User avatar
TheDonkified
Registered user
Posts: 362
Joined: 11 Dec 2016, 19:02
Byond: TheDonkified

Re: Wiki Updates and Additions.

Post by TheDonkified » 18 Feb 2018, 21:03

quarantinetimer wrote:
18 Feb 2018, 19:07
snip
Even though they were force fed alcohol, you still have complete control over your character's actions other than speech issues and trouble moving. This might be OOC, but people can't just commit crimes because they were drunk. They need to seek medical attention to purge their bodies of alcohol so they can go back to functioning as normal. I understand the type of RP you're going for, where they do these illegal things do to conditions "out of their control," but marine law is meant to deal with shitlery and powergaming from an IC level, and using being forced to be drunk as an excuse to be exempt from punishment would not fit in with these functions of marine law.
Lother Jones >:) :^) XD :3 :P :) :V :c :< :> :O :T :B :D :F :I :U :S :x

User avatar
quarantinetimer
Registered user
Posts: 28
Joined: 08 Nov 2015, 04:23
Byond: Quarantinetimer

Re: Wiki Updates and Additions.

Post by quarantinetimer » 18 Feb 2018, 22:40

TheDonkified wrote:
18 Feb 2018, 21:03
Even though they were force fed alcohol, you still have complete control over your character's actions other than speech issues and trouble moving. This might be OOC, but people can't just commit crimes because they were drunk. They need to seek medical attention to purge their bodies of alcohol so they can go back to functioning as normal. I understand the type of RP you're going for, where they do these illegal things do to conditions "out of their control," but marine law is meant to deal with shitlery and powergaming from an IC level, and using being forced to be drunk as an excuse to be exempt from punishment would not fit in with these functions of marine law.
It seems that my direct port of baystation 12 provisions are not going to work particularly well, considering the unique function marine law serves here. Right. This one will have to be rewritten in more detail to address those specific issues.

We would add section II(c)(i):
Enforcement agents are to use their best discretion in determining whether the intoxicated person was in fact able to retain appreciation for the lawfulness or unlawfulness of their actions OR exercise concrete control over them. The following factors are to be used:
1. Nature of Intoxicating Substance Consumed (involuntarily);
2. Nature of the person's conduct which formed the basis for a crime, and whether the intoxicating substance is likely to induce such conduct;
3. The presence or non-presence of intent and/or knowledge displayed by the intoxicated person at the time of the commission of the crime;

NOTES: Hopefully this ensures that powergamers and griefers are still dealt with, and that ridiculous convictions don't happen because the actual game mechanics caused a crime to happen (eg. The aforementioned forced drunk marine, along the way to medical for treatment, issues a vocalization that a superior mistakes as an insult due to the speech problems caused by game mechanics, and who is subsequently arrested for disrespect of a superior).

If this is still unsatisfactory for your concerns, we could still nuke this section entirely. There's still substantial content in the original proposal if we have to resort to this.

User avatar
TopHatPenguin
Community Contributor
Community Contributor
Posts: 2327
Joined: 14 Dec 2014, 18:06
Location: Forever Editing The Wiki.
Byond: TopHatPenguin
Contact:

Re: Wiki Updates and Additions.

Post by TopHatPenguin » 20 Feb 2018, 04:56

I'll point these recommendations to Apop as he handles the Marine Law edits.

User avatar
apophis775
Host
Host
Posts: 6728
Joined: 22 Aug 2014, 18:05
Location: Ice Colony
Byond: Apophis775
Contact:

Re: Wiki Updates and Additions.

Post by apophis775 » 20 Feb 2018, 17:10

I'd say, format it a bit better here and reword to be a little easier to understand. Most MPs/CMPs don't wanna read something that looks like legalese. Simplify it, and I'll see about adding it.
ImageImage
flamecow wrote: "unga dunga me want the attachment" - average marine

User avatar
quarantinetimer
Registered user
Posts: 28
Joined: 08 Nov 2015, 04:23
Byond: Quarantinetimer

Re: Wiki Updates and Additions.

Post by quarantinetimer » 22 Feb 2018, 10:34

[Version after all proposed amendments to original proposal > Removed section on mental illness being grounds for exclusion of responsibility & added guidelines to intoxication + Simplified + commentary removed \\\\ Please provide advice if more improvements are required.]
-------------------------------------------------------


Establishing Criminal Responsibility

It is crucial that persons can only be punished if they are criminally responsible and thus liable for the corresponding punishment. The Provost Marshall has developed a set of criteria for this very purpose. A person is criminally responsible if one or more of the following is met. Furthermore, examples will be provided to aid comprehension. It is to be noted that these hypothetical examples are non-comprehensive and that every scenario must be independently analyzed by the enforcing agent.


a. A person commits a crime (eg. A marine kills someone with his rifle)

b. A person orders another person to commit a crime, AND that said crime is committed OR an attempt to commit it is made (eg. Someone tells a marine to kill someone else with a rifle, and said marine either does so or attempts to do so)

c. A person helps someone else to commit a crime; knowing that the help will be or is being used to commit a crime(eg. Someone gives a marine a rifle, and this person has knowledge that the marine will use the rifle to kill someone else)

d. A person attempts to commit a crime; this being that the person has performed acts intended to result in a crime but it does not happen because of circumstances out of control by the person( eg. A marine shoots someone with a rifle, intending to kill them but only succeeds in wounding them. >>> Said marine would be criminally responsible for assault with a deadly weapon by criterion 'a' and likewise for murder using criterion 'd')

If the crime does not occur because the person stopped trying to commit it or otherwise prevented it from occurring, and that the person does so intentionally, the person is NOT criminally responsible.
-------------------------------------------------------
Exclusion of Criminal Responsibility

Conversely, there are circumstances where a person, despite fulfilling one or more of the above criteria, may not be criminally responsible for a crime. An additional set of criteria is to be evaluated, the fulfillment of which would lead to the exclusion of criminal responsibility for the person concerned.



a. The person acts in self defense, using a reasonable and proportionate amount of force in the process.

b. The person is in a state of intoxication which makes it impossible for him to know whether his actions are in compliance with the law; or makes it impossible for him to control his action so that he complies with the law.

This is NOT valid if the person becomes intoxicated voluntarily.

Enforcement agents are to use their best discretion in determining whether the intoxicated person was in fact able to retain appreciation for the lawfulness or unlawfulness of their actions OR exercise concrete control over them. The following factors are to be used:
1. Nature of Intoxicating Substance Consumed (involuntarily);
2. Nature of the person's conduct which formed the basis for a crime, and whether the intoxicating substance is likely to induce such conduct;
3. The presence or non-presence of intent and/or knowledge displayed by the intoxicated person at the time of the commission of the crime;

c. The person is under duress due to the threat of imminent serious bodily harm either to him or another person, and that the person performs acts that are necessary to avoid this threat.

This is only valid if the person does NOT intend to commit acts which would lead to greater harm than the threat from which the person sought to avoid.

In addition, a person may NOT be exempted from criminal responsibility using criterion 'c' if his conduct forms the basis for the following crimes:
1. Murder
2. Mutiny
3. Terrorist Collaboration
4. Sexual Assault

For all other crimes, the enforcing officer must use his best discretion in determining whether the person's acts would lead to greater harm than the threat from which he sought to avoid.

Post Reply