Ok so, for this to make any sense, ive gotta explain current mutiny rules, Basically, current rules are “You kick out aCO and next in line takes charge” but frankly this is very limited is usage.
So id like to suggest a new (codified) mutiny, im not sure exactly what itd be called but basically a citizens arrest. Marines, with the standard mutiny requirements met, can opt to mutiny to remove a specific member of command, for example, the SO that OBed front, leaveing the rest of CIC intact.
Honestly, I don’t find it very realistic to expect a rule change for this.
Command is a unified structure, and its chain of command is clear. You can’t single out a specific person and reassign them against the Commander’s will, the military doesn’t work like that. If a Commander decides to keep an officer in position despite the unrest, any act of mutiny should still be directed toward the Commander. No Commander would ever allow a group of Marines to storm the CIC and drag an SO out by force, it’s not realistic.
I have seen mutinies take place against aCOs who didnt even cause the actual issue. Namely FoB OBs, I’ve seen two mutinies take place against a aCO for obbing the fob when it was their SOs who did it.
I don’t know if this is policy or a genuine mistake on the admins part that a mutiny got accepted for the mistake of someone else, but I can see how it would be IC for it to happen. If I was a marine in the far reaches of space and I see my mothership suddenly open fire on us, I would be pretty mad and not trust command and revolt against them.
Anyho what I’m saying here is that we should alternatively allow mutinies to take place against the aCO if they don’t deal with the person causing trouble in whatever way. Ignoring troublesome officers would be a fault of an acting commander. Then use that threat of force against the newly replaced aCO to get the person who was causing trouble and wasn’t being dealt with by the previous command arrested.
Because you should demand blood from CO about this SO. If he just slaps him on the hand and does nothing, then it is CO’s fault. If CO actually orders execution / BEs them (or atleast immediate perma with no appeal) then the problem is solved, you don’t need mutiny. If CO refuses to do anything about that SO other than “demotion” that technically does nothing, SO still sits in CIC and does his job as he did before then mutiny against CO is valid, because CO knows what SO did and doesn’t think it was that big of a deal.
Mutiny against that CO isn’t a mutiny for someone else mistake. It is for his inaction.
What is actually worse that you have to follow the chain of command to make a new aCO. If CO and XO agreed on slapping SO on the wrist, then you are out of luck, bucko, nothing changes and there is no incentive for previous XO and now aCO to do anything about it, you have to start the mutiny process again. That could be an issue, but it probably doesn’t come that often.
We should be able to mutiny the MST for serving only spaghetti AGAIN
To your question Romayne, I believe mutiny against aCO for an underling’s actions are valid when aCO doesn’t do anything punitive to their officers, as Cabal said.
At least, thats how the pirates did it
First Mate Schmee is being an asshole, I tell Captain Hook and he doesn’t do anything so I get rid of Hook because he didn’t make Schmee go swab the deck. Town Ho’s tale in Moby Dick is essentially an explanation/validation of that kind of mutiny.
Problem is, how do marines know which one did the fuck up but the Commander themselves? Maybe instead of munity fax Provost for an investigation if you want the real culprit dealt with. But we all know munity is just a moment for the marines to vent their anger toward a figure, “finger pointing” if you will, and Commander has to be the scapegoat for whatever command did. Marines don’t even care if CO or XO is innocent just “kill them for what they did to our brothers!!!RAAAA!!!”