Goonhub
06-13-2025, 05:12 AM
Second part of the previous thread here, in regards to the association of cops and sec in game being bannable.
Again, have not been bwoinked nor involved in game in any admin-related incidents on the topic.
While I can see how taking tension of sec players is why this was put in, and the "mall cops" direction being a factor here I am very very concerned about the broader implications of this: namely jobs being a group classifying as bigotry under rule 4.
Regardless of the mall cop direction that sec is intended to go towards, there's still many MANY items in sec which take direct inspiration from actual police items (also a direct police uniform...) as well as literally having names in common with actual police positions (officer and detective), with security assistant and HoS being more corporate security names. If the inspiration for a job in cannot be referenced due to this ruling it opens a very very very big floodgate.
Is grumping at the geneticist for modifying cloning with a annoying gene going to get me bwoinked due to relations to unethical cloning experiments? Is threatening a engineer from a position of power bad due to whistleblowing incidents? nuclear examples yes, but I think these get the theme across, completely separating inspirations and their product is going to cause issues as something is based off another thing and one of those is bannable (not a admin but it sounds like it'd make things alot harder there too in regards to amounts of ahelps). I can see how sec and cop is the most dominant one to argue for this, but it seems like quite the line to cross.
Job based conflicts is one of the biggest parts of ss13, if antagonising a job can't be done and those conflicts aren't a thing the station would come across alot more sterile. I understand that's not what's directly being enforced currently, but with no additions/clarifications to rule 4 and the enforcement of it in one direction at least at the moment it comes across, at least from what I can see the full potential to do what I've mentioned. I really think it'd be best for clarification in rule 4 or to be made a separate rule entirely.
Again, have not been bwoinked nor involved in game in any admin-related incidents on the topic.
While I can see how taking tension of sec players is why this was put in, and the "mall cops" direction being a factor here I am very very concerned about the broader implications of this: namely jobs being a group classifying as bigotry under rule 4.
Regardless of the mall cop direction that sec is intended to go towards, there's still many MANY items in sec which take direct inspiration from actual police items (also a direct police uniform...) as well as literally having names in common with actual police positions (officer and detective), with security assistant and HoS being more corporate security names. If the inspiration for a job in cannot be referenced due to this ruling it opens a very very very big floodgate.
Is grumping at the geneticist for modifying cloning with a annoying gene going to get me bwoinked due to relations to unethical cloning experiments? Is threatening a engineer from a position of power bad due to whistleblowing incidents? nuclear examples yes, but I think these get the theme across, completely separating inspirations and their product is going to cause issues as something is based off another thing and one of those is bannable (not a admin but it sounds like it'd make things alot harder there too in regards to amounts of ahelps). I can see how sec and cop is the most dominant one to argue for this, but it seems like quite the line to cross.
Job based conflicts is one of the biggest parts of ss13, if antagonising a job can't be done and those conflicts aren't a thing the station would come across alot more sterile. I understand that's not what's directly being enforced currently, but with no additions/clarifications to rule 4 and the enforcement of it in one direction at least at the moment it comes across, at least from what I can see the full potential to do what I've mentioned. I really think it'd be best for clarification in rule 4 or to be made a separate rule entirely.
