Wiki Updates and Additions.

[TopHatPenguin]

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 I'll try to find a few more outdated pieces of information.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.

[TopHatPenguin]

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.

[TopHatPenguin]

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.

[Molly Mirrions]

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..."

[TopHatPenguin]

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.

[Thucydides]

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.

[TopHatPenguin]

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.

[taketheshot56]

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

[TopHatPenguin]

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.

[Tylaaaaar]

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.

[Bobalobdob]

The Xeno Autopsy section pretty please

[TopHatPenguin]

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.

[Hulkamania]

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

[TopHatPenguin]

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.

[quarantinetimer]

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.

[TheDonkified]

These look cool but from a quick glance, using intoxication and insanity as means for not being criminally responsible wouldn't be considered valid.

[quarantinetimer]

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.

[TheDonkified]

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.

[quarantinetimer]

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.

[TopHatPenguin]

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

[apophis775]

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.

[quarantinetimer]

[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.

[apophis775]

I think all this complicates marine law a bit more than people are willing to care about.

I don't think we need to try and have "criminal responsibility". This is the Military, not standard justice. The goal is for them to deal with the situation as quickly as possible by securing whoever caused the problem and if it's an extended sentence, letting people at base deal with it.

[Loco52]

Minor change to marine law:

"Using offensive names, disobeying orders, or being directly disrespectful to someone of a higher rank or position. Each offense stacks. Punishment time is per offense." Disrespect to a Superior law has to be modified to look something like this.

"Using offensive names, disobeying orders, or being directly disrespectful to someone of a higher rank or position."

Or this

"Using offensive names, disobeying orders, or being directly disrespectful to someone of a higher rank or position. Offenses don't stack, stick to maximum time."

Why? You might ask. Well, I play MP a lot more than I should, and i've noticed that specific short phrase paves the way for MPs to abuse their powers and brig marines FOREVER, I mean really, the marine is in for insub and neglect of duty and he tells you to fuck off two times so you add 20 more minutes. Really???? These players are human beings too who want to enjoy their rounds, we can't use this loophole to justify permabrigging a marine who went in brig for not wearing a helmet and ended up in there forever for calling you a cunt.

Doing this also contradicts this other paragraph: "It is reccomended to make the severity of the punishment meet the crime AND TO MINIMIZE EXCESSIVE PUNISHMENTS"

Yesterday I was arguing ICly with an MP who gave almost 60 minutes of brig to a marine who had 15 minutes left to be released because he insulted her like three times while imprisoned, and perma'd another for going over the 60 minutes brig time solely on disrespect.
While I was stating my point of view about the issue I got PMed by a mod who told me that "marines have to follow marine law as is" implying she is totally right, and that it's perfectly fine to perma a marine or add endless more minutes because he swore at you, so I told myself... something has to be done about this.

IF YOU CAN'T TAKE AN INSULT FROM MARINES, DON'T PLAY MP. Really, just don't, you are ruining their fun by abusing disrespect's wiki description meaning.

Edit: this baby is also at gitlab https://gitlab.com/cmdevs/ColonialMarines/issues/3060

[awan]

Meh, imo going on when you have been punished for it already you can expect to be brigged longer. If you keep insulting you know what will happen to you.
It is the same for when the (c)mp warns/tells you something is illegal they are the ultimate authority on marine law they are the law to a certain extent and should be listened to if you disagree ahelp or fax the provost icly .

Here are the changes I would make.
Word changes
These should in theory not make a major in how things are handled and in my opinion make marine law more clear on stuff that should be 100% clear.
The first note below marine law.
1. Change Diplomatic immune to absolute immune or something similar and add the provost marshal to it. Imo both should be immune if you are diplomaticly immune you technicly still have to cooperate with law enforcement to a certain extent.
2. Remove the for emergency matters from it as you do not want the argument ever is the situation was an emergency imo they should always be excempt from marine law as it is admin intervention.'
3. In the brig procedures on step 2 change the mp armory to the evidence room. Both should be secure and the cmp cannot open the armory so it is quite a hassle to put weapons in the armory. And the evidence room is fine imo.
4. On the prisoner rights access to radio change the their headset into a headset. Because brig procedure says you have to give them a standard headset this is a conflict as you here state they get their specific headset. One of them has to be true.
5. In the appeals section change the .... concludes that the suspect is not guilty of a law violation. To .... concludes that the suspect is not guilty of all law violations. One of the 5 charges not being true does not mean you should be released obviously.
6. At the Command requested arrests change it into If the marine is proven innocent of all crimes in the end, the requesting officer may be held liable for a False Arrest charge. If I get an order to arrest you because you did 5 things and you only did 4 that officer still made the right call.

Actual law changes
These are changes to the laws themselves. These might be more opinionated but I still feel as if some of them are quite obvious changes.
1. Change the unsecure equipment. Mention it has to be confiscated and the owner warned. But make sure to describe what confiscation entails.
2. Change the theft description. Currently it is: To retain possession of items belonging to another marine. I would change the item intoBecause it can still be theft if it is not an item. (Jonesy, corpses and powerloaders can be stolen aswell.) And I would change the marine part as well civilians or the usmc can also be stolen from. That would make the law something along the lines of. To retain possession of possession belonging to another entity.
3. Drug use. Add everything listed under drug distribution/combat stimulants. Specificly those under drug distribution as drug distribution does not pertain to using those and combat stimulants could be applied to use them.
4. Make it clear that not following proper procedure is neglect of duty. (If it is not covered by another law already.) This is something people always seem to disagree with but not following proper procedure for your job is neglect of duty.
5. I would combine manslaughter and murder. The only difference is malicious intent and this is almost not possible to prove or dissaprove.

Procedural changes
These might be way more opinionated and perhaps a bit because of what I have seen as mp.
1. Add a procedure for confiscation. I will give an example below.
2. To make appeals more viable I would suggest adding making step one of the brig procedure: Inform the prisoner of the charge and the punishment/time given per charge and set the timer. Once the timer has been said you cannot increase the time without adding new charges.

3. I would also add a step 9 here. If a prisoner has been ssd since their arrest until the end of their sentence redress them and cryo them with their items.
4. Just a bit of flavor but on the actual appeals section at the prisoner rights the right to appeal in a timely manner I would add. If the cmp was the arresting officer the acting commander can/should try to be present for the appeal. Just to make the appeal appear to be more fair if you have to appeal against the arresting officer.
5. In the actual appeal section I would add If they are not guilty of a charge it should be retracted from their timer. This seems obvious but still people /forget/ it.
6. In the mutinies section I would prefer it if you would add. Lethal force against a mutiny can only be used with permission from the commander and/or the cmp. Mp's should prefer non lethals and not give the other side an excuse to use lethals. They have the strongest non lethals and should not be doing that imo.
7. Improper uniforms lists that mp's should not be wearing riot armor except for riot situations. I have always assumed aliens boarding is ok aswell. But that is technicly not a riot. I would clarrify that.

Confiscation procedure
1. Secure the item
(1.1 If it is a gun activate the safety.)
2. If the original owner of the item is known inform them of the confiscation.
3. Take the item to the evidence room as soon as possible.
4. Process the item.
5. If reasonable and not contraband return the item upon request.
6. Confiscated items should not be used or returned to anyone but the original owner without the cmp/commander's permission this includes by mp's.
(If you confiscate a flamer an mp should not be using it nor should it be handed to anyone but the squad leader who owns it.)